Frogs succeed in ruining NATO [Archive]

Jon_in_london

11th February 2003, 12:21 AM

Well, folks. After years of trying its best. France may just have succeeded in doing the dirty to NATO.

Frances position is no suprise- we have always known they would try and do something like this. Belgium- no big suprise either. They refused to sell Britain bullets during the gulf war.
But Germany?

The Don

11th February 2003, 12:37 AM

Do not underestimate Tutonic racial memory. I have a feeling this may be payback for the Tenerife sunlounger incident of 1992.

Jon_in_london

11th February 2003, 12:59 AM

huh?

demon

11th February 2003, 01:07 AM

"Do not underestimate Tutonic racial memory. I have a feeling this may be payback for the Tenerife sunlounger incident of 1992."

Progress through technology eh?;)

Troll

11th February 2003, 01:10 AM

This is just screwed. You don't join an allegiance of nations that vow to protect one another and then say you won't because you don't like the ideas of another country. It's freaking elementary school tactics. If you're going to pick and choose who or when you do aid a country you have aligned yourself with, then you have not aligned yourself.

Next time they need help, I say the other NATO nations blow them off.

The Don

11th February 2003, 01:11 AM

Being in posession OF SECRET AND PREVIOUSLY UNRELASED DOCUMENTS!!!! I can offically reveal that the failure of Germany to back plans to enhance Turkey's defences HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH BEING UNWILLING TO SUPPORT MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ AND everything to do with the fact that in 1992 at a super-secret meeting arranged by the Rosicrucians, Illuminati, New World Order and New Order; involving members of NATO and seven foot tall lizards from planet Tharg, the Turkish delegation took the last three available sunbeds by the side of the pool.

The resulting diplomatic spat was covered up by a secret organisation compising The Pope, The King of Norway, Bill Gates and Vanilla Ice (which is why he disappered from public view) but has since been reanimated by tensions in the Middle East.

This vital information has been supressed by a cabal of industrialists, capitalists and Prenologists. The truth has jsut been revealed to be by the Thargians who I met last night at my local Buffy fan club meeting.

armageddonman

11th February 2003, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by Troll
This is just screwed. You don't join an allegiance of nations that vow to protect one another and then say you won't because you don't like the ideas of another country. It's freaking elementary school tactics. If you're going to pick and choose who or when you do aid a country you have aligned yourself with, then you have not aligned yourself.

Next time they need help, I say the other NATO nations blow them off.

France isn't a member of the NATO.

Somehow, a lot of people seem t have difficulties with the concept of democracy. The NATO has rules. If the US don't like the rules why are they a member? The same would apply for the US membership at the UN.

karl

11th February 2003, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by The Don
Being in posession OF SECRET AND PREVIOUSLY UNRELASED DOCUMENTS!!!! I can offically reveal that the failure of Germany to back plans to enhance Turkey's defences HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH BEING UNWILLING TO SUPPORT MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ AND everything to do with the fact that in 1992 at a super-secret meeting arranged by the Rosicrucians, Illuminati, New World Order and New Order; involving members of NATO and seven foot tall lizards from planet Tharg, the Turkish delegation took the last three available sunbeds by the side of the pool.

Pfft! That is so unrealistic. Everyone knows the Germans are always the first to grab all available sunbeds.

Troll

11th February 2003, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by armageddonman

France isn't a member of the NATO.

Somehow, a lot of people seem t have difficulties with the concept of democracy. The NATO has rules. If the US don't like the rules why are they a member? The same would apply for the US membership at the UN.

Got facts?

The 19 member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance:
Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark
France Germany Greece Hungary
Iceland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands
Norway Poland Portugal Spain
Turkey United Kingdom United States

comes from http://www.nato.int/#

iain

11th February 2003, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Troll
This is just screwed. You don't join an allegiance of nations that vow to protect one another and then say you won't because you don't like the ideas of another country. It's freaking elementary school tactics. If you're going to pick and choose who or when you do aid a country you have aligned yourself with, then you have not aligned yourself.

Next time they need help, I say the other NATO nations blow them off. Just so I understand this right.

You're saying that if any NATO member feels threatened by a non-NATO country, all NATO members should come to their aid regardless of their own analysis of the situation.

Do you think the US would do this for any other NATO country, even if the US didn't think a threat was real?

armageddonman

11th February 2003, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by Troll
[B]

Got facts?

From the same website: "In 1966, France announces that it will no longer assign its forces to NATO and that it will withdraw from the integrated military structure with the consequence that Allied forces and military headquarters must leave the country. This should be completed by 1 April 1967."

11th February 2003, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Well, folks. After years of trying its best. France may just have succeeded in doing the dirty to NATO.

Who needs NATO?

This could be the start of an integrated European-Russian defence organisation without the Americans. I believe that would be in the interests of all the nations in Europe. Who needs NATO?

Troll

11th February 2003, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by iain
Just so I understand this right.

You're saying that if any NATO member feels threatened by a non-NATO country, all NATO members should come to their aid regardless of their own analysis of the situation.

Do you think the US would do this for any other NATO country, even if the US didn't think a threat was real?

No. That's just silly and an atrempt to find a weak spot to conquer.

But if you sign on to an allegiance, and one member of that allegiance is indeed attacked, not feels threatened, but actually attacked, then you abide by your allegiance or you have none. I'm not talking about the freaking paranoid people of the world here. If I'm your bud and a guy tries to mug you, I'm on your side. If the guy is 3 blocks away and you just think he may try to mug ya, I'll keep an open eye out for ya, but I'm not gonna jump his ass pre-emptively for ya.

Troll

11th February 2003, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by armageddonman

From the same website: "In 1966, France announces that it will no longer assign its forces to NATO and that it will withdraw from the integrated military structure with the consequence that Allied forces and military headquarters must leave the country. This should be completed by 1 April 1967."

Was it completed?

And just because they don't have their "cheese eating surrender monkeys" involved in NATO forces does not mean they are not a part of NATO. which further goes to prove their pathetic wussiness. "Oh hey, we're not involved if it comes to a real fight but hey man, we have to say no altogether to fighting, even if it means protecting an alleged friend."

Yeah. okay

Troll

11th February 2003, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by armageddonman

From the same website: "In 1966, France announces that it will no longer assign its forces to NATO and that it will withdraw from the integrated military structure with the consequence that Allied forces and military headquarters must leave the country. This should be completed by 1 April 1967."

You know what? That's the equivalent to saying, "help us when we need it but we won't help you"

We're a NATO member. You have to protect us. But we withdrawl our forces, because we're French and we hate getting hurt defending things we may or may not agree with

Jon_in_london

11th February 2003, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Who needs NATO?

This could be the start of an integrated European-Russian defence organisation without the Americans. I believe that would be in the interests of all the nations in Europe. Who needs NATO?

Do you have any idea about the quality of most europeans armies? they are mostly pathetic eg. Spanish troops would be more of a liability to have as allies, just as the Italians were a Liability for the Germans during WWII.

Most ex-soviet bloc countries have armies so sad and pathetic that the conscripts have to grow their own food.

So I'd rather my country wasnt involved in any euro-army thanks very much.

The Don

11th February 2003, 02:19 AM

At what stage did it become disloyal to dissent in any way ?

Oh yes, I remember, when the U.S. has a contrary opinion.:mad:

Reference back to the thread on why we sometimes find our transatlantic colleagues a trifle irksome

Jon_in_london

11th February 2003, 02:22 AM

Originally posted by Troll

You know what? That's the equivalent to saying, "help us when we need it but we won't help you"

We're a NATO member. You have to protect us. But we withdrawl our forces, because we're French and we hate getting hurt defending things we may or may not agree with

"You must hate each and every Frechman as you hate the Devil himslef!" - Horatio Nelson.

I like Nelson. He is my Hero.

Drooper

11th February 2003, 02:24 AM

Well, it is certainly a laugh. France were recently admitted back into NATO, presumably to stop them from pissing into the tent from the outside.

Jacques Chirac wallks into the tent and lets rip with his member anyway. :D

France want an end to NATO and a standing EU army (presumably under a French commander) in its place. This is part their Big Idea that the main purpose of the EU should be to construct a poltical and military entity to counter the US.

That is what all this is about.

Ask yourself. If France didn't agree with the pinciples of NATO then why did they join?

If France did not agree with the UNSC resolution 1441 why did they vote for it?

11th February 2003, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Do you have any idea about the quality of most europeans armies?

Yes. I am a software engineer and I work for the military simulation and training market. I work with european armies. It is my job to train them to do their jobs properly. I do not believe Europe needs America to defend it. Remember that Russia is currently siding with the Germans and French. If there were a European-Russian defence organisation, who would be our enemy?

Jon_in_london

11th February 2003, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by The Don
At what stage did it become disloyal to dissent in any way ?

Oh yes, I remember, when the U.S. has a contrary opinion.:mad:

Reference back to the thread on why we sometimes find our transatlantic colleagues a trifle irksome

This has nothing to do with invading Iraq. This is a purely defensive measure. 15 Nato countries (excluding the US) agree to providing missile defence for Turkey.

Drooper

11th February 2003, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Rememeber that Russia is currently siding with the Germans and French.

Russia also would like to see NATO abolished.

If there were a European-Russian defence organisation, who would be our enemy?

One could just as easily ask: If there were a Russian-European military organisation, whose enemy would it be? Oh right, Europe are by definition the guys in white.

Troll

11th February 2003, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

"You must hate each and every Frechman as you hate the Devil himslef!" - Horatio Nelson.

I like Nelson. He is my Hero.

Nah. the french are real so I hate those bastards much more:D

Jon_in_london

11th February 2003, 02:29 AM

Troll

11th February 2003, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by Drooper

Russia also would like to see NATO abolished.

supporting your comment, eve if the answer doesn't look like it.

Duh. Oh hey we got our asses kicked ad nobody even got a bloody nose? Everyone has pride. This is just one ofthose pride issues

iain

11th February 2003, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by Troll

No. That's just silly and an atrempt to find a weak spot to conquer.

But if you sign on to an allegiance, and one member of that allegiance is indeed attacked, not feels threatened, but actually attacked, then you abide by your allegiance or you have none. I'm not talking about the freaking paranoid people of the world here. If I'm your bud and a guy tries to mug you, I'm on your side. If the guy is 3 blocks away and you just think he may try to mug ya, I'll keep an open eye out for ya, but I'm not gonna jump his ass pre-emptively for ya. And of course if Iraq had actually attacked the US (or another NATO state) then your comments would be fair. But they haven't, have they?

Troll

11th February 2003, 02:34 AM

Drooper

11th February 2003, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by iain
And of course if Iraq had actually attacked the US (or another NATO state) then your comments would be fair. But they haven't, have they?

I don't think you understand Iain. NATO is a military cooperative. It shares military resouces for the protection of all.

Whether Iraq has attacked anyone or not yet is irrelevant. Turkey is, quite understandably, concerned about the possiblity of an Iraqi strike against them. They requested NATO assets to be moved in repsonse to that.

France vetoed Turkey's request.

11th February 2003, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

You are a software engineer and you train them to do what exactly? Doubt if you train them in fighting and field craft. I doubt anyone trains in fighting and fieldcraft!

My employer produces everything from military flight simulators to tank simulators, mobile observation post simulators, small arms trainers, target recognition trainers. I write the software which drives hi-tech equipment for training soldiers to fight effectively. I am currently involved in work for the army of the Netherlands.

I cannot tell you much more about what I do because it would be in breach of the Official Secrets act.

http://www.cae.com/en/military/land/products/artillery.shtml

richardm

11th February 2003, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by iain
Just so I understand this right.

You're saying that if any NATO member feels threatened by a non-NATO country, all NATO members should come to their aid regardless of their own analysis of the situation.

Yeah, but hang on - isn't that the whole point of NATO? "Attack one of us and you attack us all"?

If - as it appears - France, Germany and Belgium are blocking defensive measures for Turkey on the bizarre grounds that they disapprove of the USA wanting to attack Iraq, then that must be considered to be out-of-order.

11th February 2003, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by Troll

The European-Russian defence organisation. You sure you're working to help the military?

When I am at work I am just a software engineer. When I am talking about politics I am an unashamed European federalist. I see NATO as having outlived its usefullness anyway. This current debacle just brings about its demise a bit quicker.

Troll

11th February 2003, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by iain
And of course if Iraq had actually attacked the US (or another NATO state) then your comments would be fair. But they haven't, have they?

They haven't? haha

Just messing with ya. You took the words out of context which is okay for someone, but it's not gonna fly with me..

France is part of NATO. Fact.

They don't want to fight and or support NATO. Recent fact.

so what? Iraq made a threat? To who?

Does it matter when it pertains to the Belgians, ot the French or the germans?

Does it?

No. An alliance is only as strong as it's weakest member. Just the same view as theamerican militay.

Okay, so France is the weakest. Big whoop. Their intent isn't for all of us. It's to save face. You know, that face that gets the ass rubbed into it in between classess at high school.

Drooper

11th February 2003, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I am currently involved in work for the army of the Netherlands.

Oh right then. The Dutch are archetypal of European armies. They strike fear into the hearts of evil doers everywhere.

Srebrenica (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/675945.stm)

Troll

11th February 2003, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

When I am at work I am just a software engineer. When I am talking about politics I am an unashamed European federalist. I see NATO as having outlived its usefullness anyway. This current debacle just brings about its demise a bit quicker.

I agree. so call the cheese fiends and tel them to get the hell out and or step aside

richardm

11th February 2003, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by Drooper

Oh right then. The Dutch are archetypal of European armies. They strike fear into the hearts of evil doers everywhere.

They're fiends on the ice rink, though. UCE - I hope your software takes account of armies on skates (http://www.angelfire.com/id/vancuren/skate.html) :D

(Edited to fix formatting, as usual)

iain

11th February 2003, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by Troll

No. An alliance is only as strong as it's weakest member. Just the same view as theamerican militay.

Okay, so France is the weakest. Big whoop. Their intent isn't for all of us. It's to save face. You know, that face that gets the ass rubbed into it in between classess at high school. Troll,

Are you serious when you say that "an alliance is only as strong as its weakest member"? That is a pretty silly thing to say by any standard. If that were true then it would never be in anyone's interests to enter any alliance. Claiming that France is the weakest NATO member is also pretty silly.

It wasn't clear at all from your post if you are still claiming that Iraq has attacked a NATO member (and so other members should defend that member) or whether you've backed down from that claim. Please explain.

11th February 2003, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by Troll

I agree. so call the cheese fiends and tel them to get the hell out and or step aside

The cheese fiends (and the picked cabbage fiends) know exactly what they are doing. The general public across Scandinavia and Britain is against this war. These are the same people who have resisted further European integration until now. But at this moment those people are currently looking at the French and Germans and cheering them on! I thought that moment when the Germans openly defied Rumsfeld and told him that they simply didn't believe there was any real evidence against Iraq was a very special moment in European history. Finally someone had the guts to stand up and say what they believed instead of just toeing the American line. And Rumsfeld could scarcely believe his ears - the whole reaction from the US is one of disbelief - how could the French and Germans defy us? Because they don't believe that this war has got anything to do with weapons of mass destruction or Al-Qaeda and they are not willing to openly LIE to their electorate.

Jon_in_london

11th February 2003, 03:12 AM

This isnt about starting a war with Iraq. This is about providing defence for a NATO member in the event of a war.

France doesnt like NATO because NATO's sole aim is not to benefit the French at the expense of everyone else. So, France will continue to work to replace NATO with a military organisation it CAN control, just like it will block any CAP reform (Germany alone spends £3billion a year on maintaining French Farmers).

Troll

11th February 2003, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

The cheese fiends (and the picked cabbage fiends) know exactly what they are doing. The general public across Scandinavia and Britain is against this war. These are the same people who have resisted further European integration until now. But at this moment those people are currently looking at the French and Germans and cheering them on! I thought that moment when the Germans openly defied Rumsfeld and told him that they simply didn't believe there was any real evidence against Iraq was a very special moment in European history. Finally someone had the guts to stand up and say what they believed instead of just toeing the American line. And Rumsfeld could scarcely believe his ears - the whole reaction from the US is one of disbelief - how could the French and Germans defy us? Because they don't believe that this war has got anything to do with weapons of mass destruction or Al-Qaeda and they are not willing to openly LIE to their electorate.

Oh. My bad. Here I was just thinking it hypocritical of the bastards for saying we're only acting in our own self interest and the frogs weren't just trying to protect their claim in Iraq via debt and oil. Yeah it's just the US that has an interest in oil, huh?:rolleyes:

The Don

11th February 2003, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by Troll

Oh. My bad. Here I was just thinking it hypocritical of the bastards for saying we're only acting in our own self interest and the frogs weren't just trying to protect their claim in Iraq via debt and oil. Yeah it's just the US that has an interest in oil, huh?:rolleyes:

I would insist that all countries work in their own self interest. It just annoys me that when this conflicts with the U.S. the countries in question are portrayed as disloyal.

Occasionally, a really loyal friend will prevent you from doing something particularly stupid

11th February 2003, 03:20 AM

Jon

This isnt about starting a war with Iraq. This is about providing defence for a NATO member in the event of a war.

How can this not be about the Iraq situation? :eek: :confused:

Of course it is about the Iraq situation. It is about wielding whatever power you have. The United States have already said they are going to walk all over the UN, including taking military action in explicit defiance of the wishes of the permanent members of the security council (France and Russia). So the French and Germans are using their power in NATO to cause as much problems for the Bush administration as they can. There are no rules here. The Americans certainly don't play by any rules - anything is acceptable provided they get what they want. So the French and Germans are just following suit, and good luck to them. I hope they continue to defy the Americans. I don't care if NATO collapses.

Geoff.

Drooper

11th February 2003, 03:20 AM

Originally posted by iain

It wasn't clear at all from your post if you are still claiming that Iraq has attacked a NATO member (and so other members should defend that member) or whether you've backed down from that claim. Please explain.

Iain:

Its [NATO] first task is to deter and defend against any threat of aggression against any of them.

NATO (http://www.nato.int)

note the phrase "deter and defend"

Drooper

11th February 2003, 03:26 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
how could the French and Germans defy us? Because they don't believe that this war has got anything to do with weapons of mass destruction or Al-Qaeda and they are not willing to openly LIE to their electorate.

Fact:
France voted in favour of UNSC resolution 1441.

Fact:
UNSC resolution 1441 states that Iraq MUST cooperate with UN weapons inspectors in assessing the extent of its WMDs and any disarmament.

Fact:
UNSC resolution 1441 states that if Iraq fails to comply with resolution 1441 it must face "serious consequences".

Fact:
The UN weapons inspectors have reported that Iraq is in contrevention of UNSC resolution 1441.

This more about France obscuring the facts for their own self serving purposes and Germany with a political leadership too lame to think for itself.

Drooper

11th February 2003, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
[B] The United States have already said they are going to walk all over the UN, including taking military action in explicit defiance of the wishes of the permanent members of the security council (France and Russia). [/b[

France is lobbying in direct opposition the the UNSC. Read UNSC resolution 1441. See what it says. France is trying to subvert this resolution, which is the will of the UN in black and white.

Troll

11th February 2003, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by The Don

I would insist that all countries work in their own self interest. It just annoys me that when this conflicts with the U.S. the countries in question are portrayed as disloyal.

Occasionally, a really loyal friend will prevent you from doing something particularly stupid

But see the fact is that it conflicts with the French moreso. They have a vested interest there and they are the ones trying to obstruct others.

The Don

11th February 2003, 03:32 AM

Sorry, finger trouble

Drooper

11th February 2003, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by The Don
I would insist that all countries work in their own self interest. It just annoys me that when this conflicts with the U.S. the countries in question are portrayed as disloyal.

Peak from the other side of the looking glass.

When the US take an approach that conflicts with Europe (read France) they are portrayed as neo-imperialist warmongers.

iain

11th February 2003, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Drooper

Iain:

NATO (http://www.nato.int)

note the phrase "deter and defend" Drooper,

True, but irrelevant to what Troll was claiming. NATO does not have an obligation to leap to military action every time the possibility of a threat against any member country exists. Each NATO member has the ability to make a judgement as to whether a member is threatened and the right to argue that case within the alliance.

I'm not aware that there is any current threat of invasion/attack against Turkey.

Drooper

11th February 2003, 03:57 AM

Originally posted by iain
Drooper,

True, but irrelevant to what Troll was claiming. NATO does not have an obligation to leap to military action every time the possibility of a threat against any member country exists. Each NATO member has the ability to make a judgement as to whether a member is threatened and the right to argue that case within the alliance.

I'm not aware that there is any current threat of invasion/attack against Turkey.

Turkey thinks that there might be one in the near future. Military resources need to be moved well ahead of time.

And don't mince words here. France vetoed this move. They lobbied and obtained some support from Belgium and Germany, but it is the wish of France within the entire NATO membership that objected to this.

Argue the case within NATO is one thing. To try and impose your will as a minority of one is another. France is playing this same game at the UNSC and in NATO. We are not witnessing the will NATO, but the will of France thanks to a veto power.

Reginald

11th February 2003, 04:11 AM

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c4279.html

Having spoken with my friends in the US (Even those who are opposed to any war) it seems that there is a growing tide of anti French feeling.

But here is the irony people, when trade with the US and France starts to sour you can bet your sweet backsides that FRance will be Lobbying support from all us other EU members to respond in kind.

At which point I think that a soundly spoken "get stuffed" would be the correct diplomatic response.

Jon_in_london

11th February 2003, 04:15 AM

Lets invade france rather than Iraq. This way, the germans would be on board too! Also most of france belongs to England anyway.

The Don

11th February 2003, 04:16 AM

I can't believe I'm typing this, but here goes....

On this occasion (and I must make that quite clear, just this occasion), the French may (and I'm sure that it's just coincidental because of their own self interest) be correct in their current actions in providing a foil for the U.S./U.K. of G.B and N.I. point of view

Of course in retrospect they (the French) could be very wrong. I suspect that they'll prove to be both wrong and right depending on when the judgement is made.

for example you could argue that U.S. in Afghanistan right now - right : 10 years time possibly vrey wrong

Drooper

11th February 2003, 04:20 AM

Hang on a minute.

Isn't this all about trying to decide what the world wants to do about this? Haven't I been reading about how the US, or the UK or whoever, shouldn't be acting without the will or consent of a recognised international body or at least a broad global concnesus?

So how can anyone then argue that France alone should be able to determine what decisions should be made by the UN or NATO. Because by applying its veto powers in both these forums, that is what it is is doing.

iain

11th February 2003, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by Drooper

Turkey thinks that there might be one in the near future. Military resources need to be moved well ahead of time. And that's the thing. No one has been invaded or really even threatened. Turkey thinks it will be; because if the US + others attack Iraq, Iraq will attack Turkey. France is saying that if there is no attack on Iraq, there will be no attack on Turkey which seems reasonable.

The Don

11th February 2003, 04:35 AM

And the US has never used its power of veto..

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetogph2.htm

If this source (which I have not verified) is to be trusted

Drooper

11th February 2003, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by iain
And that's the thing. No one has been invaded or really even threatened. Turkey thinks it will be; because if the US + others attack Iraq, Iraq will attack Turkey. France is saying that if there is no attack on Iraq, there will be no attack on Turkey which seems reasonable.

Not for the Turks.

As a NATO decision this makes little sense.

As a move by France to bring pressure on the issue of UNSC 1441 it does.

I would think that Turkey has the right to be pretty pissed off at being used as a pawn in French global machiavellian schemes.

Drooper

11th February 2003, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by The Don
And the US has never used its power of veto..

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetogph2.htm

If this source (which I have not verified) is to be trusted

This is pretty meaningless without the context and substance of the resolutions concerned.

But if the US used a veto for similar self serving reasons to France at the moment, then they would be at fault also.

The Don

11th February 2003, 04:50 AM

Seems that almost all U.S. vetos since 1990 have related to Israel.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm

Is that self interest ? I think so

Drooper

11th February 2003, 04:55 AM

The Don

11th February 2003, 05:03 AM

Drooper,

Nothing, was just providing you with your context and attempting to demonstrate U.S. hypocrisy.

Was also trying to address:

"So how can anyone then argue that France alone should be able to determine what decisions should be made by the UN or NATO. Because by applying its veto powers in both these forums, that is what it is is doing."

By illustrating that those are the rules of the organisation, that all countries seem to be happy when the veto goes in their favour and that the same countries seem to want to throw their toys out of the pram when it doesn't.

If we wish to lose the power of veto within the U.N. security council then that's one thing, but to suggest that other countries should lose the power of veto is another

iain

11th February 2003, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by Drooper

Not for the Turks.

As a NATO decision this makes little sense.

As a move by France to bring pressure on the issue of UNSC 1441 it does.

I would think that Turkey has the right to be pretty pissed off at being used as a pawn in French global machiavellian schemes. We probably all have the right to be pissed off at other people. Whether the machiavellian schemes are French, American, British, Russian or someone else the smaller countries are always going to risk being caught in the middle.

France are opposed to war and are following what they feel is the best strategy to avoid war, using the means at their disposal. We can disagree with their opposition to war, or their reasons for that opposition, but to expect them to not pursue their policy is a bit unrealistic.

Similarly, the US is pro-war and are doing everything they can to promote war, including threatening to ignore interanational bodies such as the UN if they don't toe the US line.

Drooper

11th February 2003, 05:28 AM

Back to the thread:

France are opposed to NATO.

They wanted it abolished in 1965 and quit when that didn't happen.

In recent years, France has been arguing for an EU standing army as a key instrument of security in Europe AND as a vehicle to extend EU (read French) influence around the world.

France rejoined NATO recently and have now arranged a veto in direct contrevnetion of the central purpose of NATO, which only makes any sense when considered in the context of France's wider political ambitions.

Stop trying to claim that this is some normal disagreement between NATO partners.

Segnosaur

11th February 2003, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by The Don
Seems that almost all U.S. vetos since 1990 have related to Israel.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm

Is that self interest ? I think so
Depends. Is supporting a democracy (in an area run by corrupt dictatorships) self interest?

Another thing that should be noted:
- In the first few years of the U.N. the U.S. NEVER used its veto
- the U.S.S.R. has used its veto more than the U.S. ever did.

The Don

11th February 2003, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Another thing that should be noted:
- In the first few years of the U.N. the U.S. NEVER used its veto
- the U.S.S.R. has used its veto more than the U.S. ever did.

Absolutely !

....errrr so what ?

Segnosaur

11th February 2003, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Drooper
France rejoined NATO recently and have now arranged a veto in direct contrevnetion of the central purpose of NATO, which only makes any sense when considered in the context of France's wider political ambitions.

When did France rejoin NATO?

I knew they left, but I've been looking for information on when and why they asked for and were allowed back in. (I've tried searches, but haven't found a link that gives the history.)

Drooper

11th February 2003, 09:53 AM

France rejoined in 1993.

Segnosaur

11th February 2003, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by The Don

(On American vs. Russian use of Veto power)
Absolutely !

....errrr so what ?
Well, you brought up the U.S. use of its veto, I assume as a comparison to the French surrender-monkey use of a veto in Nato.

I was just pointing out that the U.S. use of the veto was not necessarily excessive given the circumstances.

rikzilla

11th February 2003, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Yes. I am a software engineer and I work for the military simulation and training market. I work with european armies. It is my job to train them to do their jobs properly. I do not believe Europe needs America to defend it. Remember that Russia is currently siding with the Germans and French. If there were a European-Russian defence organisation, who would be our enemy?

That's Rich!

With friends like that you wouldn't need an enemy! :D
The Russians are a joke. Do you know what the US Navy used to refer to the Russian navy as back in the 80's?

Well, it wasn't as an adversary....or an evil empire. It was as "A target rich enviroment". The French are slightly more competent. But only just so.

(Do I hear Nelson rolling around in his grave?? By George old boy, I think I do!)

The British Navy is so far above either of these potential "allies" that I doubt they'd work together very well...or even want to. So the British would trust the Russians more than the Americans??? I seriously doubt that!

I once met a former Soviet soldier....he admited to zero training. His entire job description was to guard one motorpool in Kamchatka....after half-starving and drinking perfume for the alcohol he defected and is now working at a Sears store in Tyson's Corner, VA.

You better hope the Russkies have come up a notch since then... :D

-z

(edited for comic effect)