Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
brgnorway

The Iraq Thread

Recommended Posts

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 24 2003,23:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Blair will wobble back and forth, afraid of offending anyone.  I may not agree with everything Chirac has to say, but at least he isnt wobbling around, unable to pick a clear course because his head is wedged up Bush's ass so far that he cant see, but is still afraid to be totally commited because of public opinion.<span id='postcolor'>

heh ... you haven't seen the Chirac government's policy for internal affairs ... tounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O.T. here, but how does one become a permanent member of the security council? If South America suddenly fused into a single country with a serious military and nuke, would they be given a seat? Just curious how that part of things work..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Feb. 25 2003,01:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">O.T. here, but how does one become a permanent member of the security council?  If South America suddenly fused into a single country with a serious military and nuke, would they be given a seat?  Just curious how that part of things work..<span id='postcolor'>

Well first you have to become a moderator... wink.gif

No, but you can't really become a permanent member. They were assigned when the UN charter was defined in 1946.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 24 2003,22:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Forum moderation, Bush style</span>

denoir: FSPilot, I give you one last chance to stop your subversive actions against the moderators. If you don't comply, I will ban you.

FSPilot: What are you talking about? I havn't done anything!

denoir: Ha! You are a known flamer. I've seen you flame people before and it is only a question of time before you turn against the moderators!

FSPilot: But I have nothing against the moderators! What do you want from me?

denoir: It isn't up to me to find up what you are up to. It is up to you to prove that you are not thinking of attacking the moderators! And my patience is running out. This is not a debate. Provide the proof or be banned.

FSPilot: I've given you complete access to my inbox and you have seen that I havn't posted anything offensive! And please, could you stop post restricting me - the other moderators never agreed to that.

denoir: You are a convicted flamer, you have no right to make any demands. Those post restrictions are to protect the other members from your flaming. And about your PM inbox: there are missing PMs! You are hiding something. You are lying and decieving.

FSPilot: My inbox can only hold a number of messages. It's not my fault.

denoir That's it. I don't want to hear any more excuses. Time is up. I'm going to ban you.

placebo: Err, denoir, are you not taking this a bit too far? We are all watching him now. If he does anything subversive at all, we'll ban him. For now lets just see what he is posting.

denoir: Bah! Typical response from the Old Moderator. If you won't help me, I'll just assign new moderators that will. Besides it is very well known that FSPilot is working with pirates and crackers.

FSPilot: WHAT???

denoir: Don't deny it. I've seen you posting in the same threads as convicted pirates. Coincidence? I don't think so. I don't even want to think about what would happen if a flamer like you joined the pirates. It would destroy the forums!

Warin: It's possible that you are right denoir, but most of the mods feel that there is no need to ban him outright. Let's wait until we read all his PMs and investigate it further.

denoir: FSPilot has been warned, time after time to provide proof. He has not done that. Instead he has been hiding things - lying and decieving. He is a flamer and has been post restricted before. He was not to be trusted then and he is not to be trusted now. If the other moderators won't ban him, I will. He is a threat to the moderators and a danger to the forum. This threat has and will be dealt with! To be on the safe side to get him, I am banning the entire IP-range of his ISP.

Warin: But wouldn't that ban a lot of innocent members that use the same ISP?

denoir: Unfortunately yes. An IP-ban is never as clean as we would want it to be. Collateral damage has to be accepted...

Now, before anybody starts rioting I'd like to say that I have no intention of implementing such principles nor do the other moderators. The users and moderators that were mentioned here have no connection to the real users on this board. I just used names that we all recognize for illustrative purposes.

<span id='postcolor'>

lol1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 24 2003,16:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Feb. 25 2003,01:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">O.T. here, but how does one become a permanent member of the security council?  If South America suddenly fused into a single country with a serious military and nuke, would they be given a seat?  Just curious how that part of things work..<span id='postcolor'>

Well first you have to become a moderator... wink.gif

No, but you can't really become a permanent member. They were assigned when the UN charter was defined in 1946.<span id='postcolor'>

Damnit! Well, might as well go and call off all the rebellions in South America.

Seriously though, thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 25 2003,11:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The problem with permanent members is that they're permanent.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, wouldnt it be great to boot the US off wink.gif

Then we could wrap up this whole issue over Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it would be better, if periodically each permanent member loses its veto right for a certain time, e.g. half a year. This way, a single nation couldn't always block any resolution for 'personal' interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ Feb. 25 2003,17:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe it would be better, if periodically each permanent member loses its veto right for a certain time, e.g. half a year. This way, a single nation couldn't always block any resolution for 'personal' interests.<span id='postcolor'>

But imagine if Germany, France or Russia were sitting out unable to veto at this time. America could just waltz into iraq under any idiotic resolution they came up with. "Iraq is bad, very very bad, we are going to go and kill them all to give them freedom. Once we kill them they will be free from Suddam Hussien".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany can't veto, and as you said, there is still Russia and France against it. So if France currently wouldn't have veto right, there would still be Russia able to veto the resolution.

And the council consists of 15 members and a resolution has to get 9 votes w/o veto to pass.

But just think about the other way around, when Germany, France and Russia bring in their own Resolution, and USA would temporary have no veto right. Assuming that China wouldn't veto, it would be up to UK to take its position. And they are currently pretty quiet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Feb. 25 2003,10:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Taking a countries ability to veto would destroy all balance. I think it`s no good idea.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't see much balance in the current system either...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

France really started the anti-war movement in the UN according to me, so imagine if they had not had their veto power to wave around. Russia and Germany made have relented to American demands.

Persoanlly, I think the veto thing is flawed in that one nation has the power to say 'nope, I don't like that idea, so the rest of the world will just have to suffer''. I think there should have to be 51% of the security council vetoeing before it gets vetoed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Feb. 25 2003,10:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">France really started the anti-war movement in the UN according to me, so imagine if they had not had their veto power to wave around. Russia and Germany made have relented to American demands.

Persoanlly, I think the veto thing is flawed in that one nation has the power to say 'nope, I don't like that idea, so the rest of the world will just have to suffer''. I think there should have to be 51% of the security council vetoeing before it gets vetoed.<span id='postcolor'>

You wouldn't need a veto, if 51% of the council were against a resolution, because you need 60% (9/15) to pass it smile.gif

I don't know, whether France really started it. The german government took pretty early its opposing stand for electoral reasons, and the election was in September.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact the US are in the risk to be thrown out of the SC if they don´t pay there high debts to the UN.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Administration officials also said Saturday they were still negotiating the details of a $15 billion aid package to Turkey in exchange for American access to Turkey as a military base of operations that would serve as a northern front against Iraq.

Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, said that there were "continued good conversations with Turkey," but that "nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to."

<span id='postcolor'>

They have no problem to pay 15 billion dollars to turkey for the war but are unwilling to pay there debts to UN. You tell me what is right then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would definatly cause the USA to bail out of the UN and this would be the end of the UN.

It's bad, but I think the UN needs the USA.

The problem is , that the USA knows this fact. That's why they are trying to press the UN for their causes sad.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US should pay the UN? How much of the military forces enforcing UN resolutions are American?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But imagine if Germany, France or Russia were sitting out unable to veto at this time. America could just waltz into iraq under any idiotic resolution they came up with. "Iraq is bad, very very bad, we are going to go and kill them all to give them freedom. Once we kill them they will be free from Suddam Hussien".<span id='postcolor'>

Not really, the resolution still has to be passed by the UN. You can't just propose it and do it. It has to be voted on.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Persoanlly, I think the veto thing is flawed in that one nation has the power to say 'nope, I don't like that idea, so the rest of the world will just have to suffer''. I think there should have to be 51% of the security council vetoeing before it gets vetoed.<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly, especially when you have countrys like France out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 25 2003,15:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Persoanlly, I think the veto thing is flawed in that one nation has the power to say 'nope, I don't like that idea, so the rest of the world will just have to suffer''. I think there should have to be 51% of the security council vetoeing before it gets vetoed.<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly, especially when you have countrys like France out there.<span id='postcolor'>

But isn't the USA announcing exactly the same for a potential resolution of Germany, France and Russia? So the USA is not any better then countries like France...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This threat has and will be dealt with! To be on the safe side to get him,I am banning the entire IP-range of his ISP.

Warin: But wouldn't that ban a lot of innocent members that use the same ISP?

denoir: Unfortunately yes. An IP-ban is never as clean as we would want it to be. Collateral damage has to be accepted...<span id='postcolor'>

Fucking lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Feb. 24 2003,11:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">France really started the anti-war movement in the UN according to me, so imagine if they had not had their veto power to wave around. Russia and Germany made have relented to American demands.

Persoanlly, I think the veto thing is flawed in that one nation has the power to say 'nope, I don't like that idea, so the rest of the world will just have to suffer''. I think there should have to be 51% of the security council vetoeing before it gets vetoed.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, not only france is protesting against a war, a huge amount of people protest against a war. But i guess they don't really matter....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">US should pay the UN?  How much of the military forces enforcing UN resolutions are American?

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes the US should pay their debts as every other UN country has to. Even Nigeria or Malaysia pays to UN.

And you don´t seem to know much about military participance in UN missions. The country sending troops to UN missions gets money from the UN for it. Little countries send a lot of troops to UN missions to raise their income.

By now germany is number 2 after the US when it comes to current international military envolvement with UN mandate or under NATO order.

All that the US and Brits are after right now is to get money for the troops and material they already sent to the Iraq region. Bad luck they did it without common sense and UN decision. Don´t you feel a bit stupid when you hear that turkey gets 15 billion dollars only to allow US troops to use their soil. Don´t you think this money could be better spent elsewhere ? Or is it just an investment job for more money to come out when Iraq has fallen and oil rights are controlled by US. You tell me it´s not about money....

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Exactly, especially when you have countrys like France out there.

<span id='postcolor'>

I´m really happy there is a common sense between france, germany and russia. Otherwise your funny president would already be bombing a country that is already burnt down with Blair glimpsing out of his ass waving the "patriot fear flag"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 26 2003,00:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes the US should pay their debts as every other UN country has to. Even Nigeria or Malaysia pays to UN.

And you don´t seem to know much about military participance in UN missions. The country sending troops to UN missions gets money from the UN for it. Little countries send a lot of troops to UN missions to raise their income.

By now germany is number 2 after the US when it comes to current international military envolvement with UN mandate or under NATO order.

All that the US and Brits are after right now is to get money for the troops and material they already sent to the Iraq region. Bad luck they did it without common sense and UN decision. Don´t you feel a bit stupid when you hear that turkey gets 15 billion dollars only to allow US troops to use their soil. Don´t you think this money could be better spent elsewhere ? Or is it just an investment job for more money to come out when Iraq has fallen and oil rights are controlled by US. You tell me it´s not about money....<span id='postcolor'>

If we have billions of dollars to blow on ingrateful AID-stricken countries, why wouldn't we simply pay off our UN debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">why wouldn't we simply pay off our UN debt.

<span id='postcolor'>

Ask your president, not me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If we have billions of dollars to blow on ingrateful AID-stricken countries<span id='postcolor'>

Right now G.W only told to do so. There has no money been sent yet as far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UN needs the US.I think US is the only country to attack another country and give it back to the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 25 2003,20:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The UN needs the US.I think US is the only country to attack another country and give it back to the people.<span id='postcolor'>

The UN does indeed need the US. The UN loses much of its ability to function if the only existing superpower goes of rampaging on its own with complete disregard to international opinion. And yes, USA does make up a sort of a back bone for military intervention. This is however not an issue of military power, since the EU countries together have a larger military then the US, but it is more a question of political will and ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×