PDA

View Full Version : The future of France


BombsBurstingInAir
Feb 6th, 2003, 02:48 PM
What do ya'll say about the future of France in NATO, or NATO as a whole for that matter.

The floor is open for discussion.

Ronnie Raygun
Feb 10th, 2003, 11:49 AM
I don't see much of a change.

They have been insignificant for a while now and with all their power in the U.N. ...... .and with the U.N. obviously failing in it's responsibilities......I'd say it's probably only going to get weaker.

mburbank
Feb 10th, 2003, 11:52 AM
Everyone but America is irrelevant according to our foreign policy. Say, did you read Iran has it's own source of Uranium? Now we can demand control over what country does with it's own natural resources! You guys ready for a three front war? Sign up now! They're going to need all the warm bodies they can make cold!

BombsBurstingInAir
Feb 10th, 2003, 12:23 PM
NATO needs to be re-thought. Similar to ABM treaty.

mburbank
Feb 10th, 2003, 12:28 PM
Bombs, I already asked Naldo this and got the answer I expected. What about you, you volunteering for combat service?

BombsBurstingInAir
Feb 10th, 2003, 12:49 PM
Banks, I am too old to be considered now :(

DonkeyMolester
Feb 10th, 2003, 01:50 PM
Heh?, I don´t see how that makes you sad...you´re probably just too stupid to understand that you ACTUALLY COULD GET KILLED :eek while hopping along on some battlefield...moron.

El Blanco
Feb 10th, 2003, 02:06 PM
Or he could feel the desire to give back to the country that has given him so much. Or maybe to fight along the men and women who help keep the world free.

Anyway, the hell with France. What do they bring to the table? A haven for child rapists and murderers? Ya, that is helping civilization.

The UN is also useless. Between Iraq, Israel and a whole shit load of countries, have they accomplished anything since the Cold War? Other than offer refuge for tin pot dictators? They should grow some balls, enforce their resolutions, or disband.

sspadowsky
Feb 10th, 2003, 02:24 PM
Or maybe to fight along the men and women who help keep the world free.

No, the job of the military nowadays is to maintain the status quo and remind us that the US government can fuck with anyone, anytime it wants to.

Anyway, the hell with France. What do they bring to the table? A haven for child rapists and murderers? Ya, that is helping civilization.

An obviously well-informed opinion from someone who has been listening to Rush and Hannity a little too much. And let's quit acting like France is the only one in opposition to this. I offer a funny, yet poignant quite from the Onion: "Hey, Mr. President- when even the Germans don't want to fight, take the fucking hint."

The UN is also useless. Between Iraq, Israel and a whole shit load of countries, have they accomplished anything since the Cold War? Other than offer refuge for tin pot dictators? They should grow some balls, enforce their resolutions, or disband.

Hey, Blanco. If you really paid attention to history, you'd know that half of these "tin-pot dictators" were put into power by our government. Furthermore, if the UN were as fervent about enforcing their resolutions as you'd like them to be, WWIII would have started- against us- about 15-20 years ago.
________
Vaporite 6Th Element Reviews (http://vaporizers.net)

Systemz
Feb 10th, 2003, 04:06 PM
Another nice thing would be for the US to actually live up to its UN commitments - like the trillion dollars it owes in dues - and quit trying to shove a Morgentahlic realist paradigm on a liberal institution. The US plays Foreign Policy like Veronica Lodge - when Archie doesn't agree with her, she walks off in a huff and sleeps with Reggie. We all know what's gonna happen in the end, though - Archie and Betty are gonna get married and have perfect kids that'll run the universe while Lodge is gonna get cheated on and bitchslapped by a succession of bad boyfriends until she withers away into a barbituate coma. And Reggie'll steal her Ferrari. Which is why I always loved Reggie.

DonkeyMolester
Feb 10th, 2003, 05:12 PM
Or he could feel the desire to give back to the country that has given him so much. Or maybe to fight along the men and women who help keep the world free.

How touching.
Well, why don´t we just cut to the chase and hit the red button right away instead?

You americans (generalizing here) are so fucking narrowminded and selfgood it sickens me...

BombsBurstingInAir
Feb 10th, 2003, 05:32 PM
Well thank you very little DonkeyDick.

DonkeyMolester
Feb 11th, 2003, 02:05 AM
Anytime

Carnivore
Feb 11th, 2003, 04:20 AM
I will join Spadowsky in quoting The Onion.

"Oh, shit. I'm forced to side with France on something."

How could it come to this :tear

El Blanco
Feb 11th, 2003, 11:26 AM
No, the job of the military nowadays is to maintain the status quo and remind us that the US government can fuck with anyone, anytime it wants to.



An obviously well-informed opinion from someone who has been listening to Phil and Kuby a little too much.

And let's quit acting like France is the only one in opposition to this.

I'm not. I want to know why exactly do we care for their opinion. Since when are they some kind of beacon for morality?

I offer a funny, yet poignant quite from the Onion: "Hey, Mr. President- when even the Germans don't want to fight, take the fucking hint."


Ha ha. chuckle chuckle.

If you really paid attention to history

Does earning a BA in history count? Because I already did that.

you'd know that half of these "tin-pot dictators" were put into power by our government.

Only a few, without a peep from France or Germany. And besides, aren't we responsible for fixing our mistakes?

Furthermore, if the UN were as fervent about enforcing their resolutions as you'd like them to be, WWIII would have started- against us- about 15-20 years ago.

That would be the era known as the Cold War which I pointed out. And how would WW3 have started when the UN was created to specifically avoid that?

My point was that it has out lived its usefulness. It can't enforce its own resolutions and when it does (coughsomaliacough) it half asses them and handcuffs its own people to keep them from doing anygood (hackbosniahack).

El Blanco
Feb 11th, 2003, 11:29 AM
Another nice thing would be for the US to actually live up to its UN commitments - like the trillion dollars it owes in dues

the UN could pay the rent it owes on that prime manhattan real estate its sitting on. And the US does not owe trilions. Its $250 million at the most. Besides, why should we pay our dues to an ourdated concept?

and quit trying to shove a Morgentahlic realist paradigm on a liberal institution.

You mean stop trying to make them face reality?

[/quote]

Ronnie Raygun
Feb 11th, 2003, 12:53 PM
Look, NATO was started to stop the spread of Communism in Europe. Even though it was perhaps the most successful treaty in our history, it has become irrelevent.

We need to form a new alliance and a new treaty to help stop the spread of terrorism.

sspadowsky
Feb 11th, 2003, 01:44 PM
I don't know who Phil and Kuby are. I form my opinions on my own, based on many different things I see, hear, and read.

And France gets singled out because they're an easy target with a poor military history. If the media focuses on France being a bunch of capitulating pussies, it's another way to easily manipulate public opinion.

Apparently your collegiate efforts were somewhat wasted, since you're willing to ignore the fact that we had our middle finger extended at the UN all through the 80s, when they were condemning the holy shit out of us for our extracurricular activities in Central America. We put bad guys in positions of power over third-world countries, leave them to their own devices, and blow them to hell when we stand to gain economically. We've been doing it for decades. So spare me the self-righteous crap about fixing our own mistakes.

The US is not as good-hearted as our government would like us to believe. We're going into Iraq for oil. Saddam is what the military would refer to as a "target of opportunity." That's why we've put North Korea on the back burner, even though they're a much bigger military threat than Iraq could ever hope to be.

I wouldn't say the UN has outlived its usefulness. I'd say it's just not useful to the US right now. We ally ourselves with them when it suits us, and we ignore them when it suits us.
________
Lovely Wendie99 (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

El Blanco
Feb 11th, 2003, 02:38 PM
I don't know who Phil and Kuby are.

Couple of liberals who have airtime in NYC.

I form my opinions on my own, based on many different things I see, hear, and read.


And anyone who disagrees with you obviously doesn't.

And France gets singled out because they're an easy target with a poor military history. If the media focuses on France being a bunch of capitulating pussies, it's another way to easily manipulate public opinion.


Still doesn't answer my question.

you're willing to ignore the fact that we had our middle finger extended at the UN all through the 80s, when they were condemning the holy shit out of us for our extracurricular activities in Central America.

So they just stood by and watched us? Guess that means they were useless for even longer.

We put bad guys in positions of power over third-world countries, leave them to their own devices, and blow them to hell when we stand to gain economically. We've been doing it for decades.

And no one did anything to stop us. But, still, it is our responsibility to correct our mistakes. We are supposed to say "Oh, well, its all in the past."?

Anonymous
Feb 11th, 2003, 02:49 PM
We need to form a new alliance and a new treaty to help stop the spread of terrorism.
But we already have the Nintendo Fun Club :rolleyes

Systemz
Feb 11th, 2003, 03:14 PM
My question, Blanco, is which reality we're talking about - because apparently the United States seems to differ from other countries on their attempts to make the UN "see reality". The reality of the situation from where I'm standing seems to be an attempt by the Bush Government to begin a process of preemptive attacks. Last time I checked the UN and NATO were founded on the concept of collective security - that's why we're in this big ol' commonwealth together, why Iraq gets a seat in the General Assembly, and why the countries of the third world get any say at all these days.

So, if Iraq isn't jockeying for territory, supplying weapons to Al Queda or starting a Lord of the Dance revival, I say leave well enough alone. If the US can't stand it, send a few CIA agents into the North to stir up the Kurds.

Undoubtedly, Blanco, you've got a point about the UN being outdated. It's fundamental concepts are sound, I feel - and I think that you and I would agree that a world government is just about the last thing we need on this planet. But the UN is hamstrung by both its inability to pay for itself due to a lack of capital and by its reliance on major players (namely the G8) to pony up the dough to help them enforce and establish law. When a country like the states endorses and respects the legitimacy of the UN (as they did in the early 1990s) the system works pretty good. But when the US chooses to disregard their commitments and obligations to the UN they're playing the role of the spoiled child who picks up their ball and goes home. If the USA would commit itself to attempting changes to the UN system to make it "updated", that would be nice. What would be even better is if the USA realized that its big-stick attitude makes it a target for marginalized groups - and heaven help the USA if it marginalizes the rest of the planet.

ranxer
Feb 12th, 2003, 10:11 PM
"And anyone who disagrees with you obviously doesn't. "

hey blanco yer sounding like Ronnie now .. :/ yea im nitpicking but thats a stupid comment..

DonkeyM: You americans (generalizing here) are so fucking narrowminded and selfgood it sickens me...

so what country do you speak from?

and France? and nato? i dunno, but france has pissed me off because it said it was recycling its nuclear waste when it was really dumping it in the ocean >: and when its neighbors complained about waste washing up they just extended the underocean pipes to go further out.. kinda like what they did with coal plants smokestacks here in the U$.. "gee if i cant see it, it must not exist"

roonTing
Feb 13th, 2003, 01:17 AM
"Undoubtedly, Blanco, you've got a point about the UN being outdated. It's fundamental concepts are sound, I feel - and I think that you and I would agree that a world government is just about the last thing we need on this planet. But the UN is hamstrung by both its inability to pay for itself due to a lack of capital and by its reliance on major players (namely the G8) to pony up the dough to help them enforce and establish law. When a country like the states endorses and respects the legitimacy of the UN (as they did in the early 1990s) the system works pretty good. But when the US chooses to disregard their commitments and obligations to the UN they're playing the role of the spoiled child who picks up their ball and goes home. If the USA would commit itself to attempting changes to the UN system to make it "updated", that would be nice. What would be even better is if the USA realized that its big-stick attitude makes it a target for marginalized groups - and heaven help the USA if it marginalizes the rest of the planet."


Why shouldn't the US have the right to make up their own minds? They ARE the biggest contributors to NATO AND the UN. The whole point of NATO was to stop communism, and for smaller, weaker countries to have the protection of the United States. Like Portugal would come over, and make a difference if Red Dawn actually happened.

Governments are like people, they look out for number one, and try to get and stay ahead. Whatever benefits now is what we look out for.

Systemz
Feb 13th, 2003, 02:33 PM
If you think that states are always looking out for number one, then there's no point in forming these international organizations. Because we don't have an international government, we're floating around in this anarchic structure that makes realism so in vogue. As long as we continue to look at politics from a power-based standpoint we're looking at a situation where we're going to keep having the same problems popping up over and over again. Ever since the birth of modernity, we've been scrambling to get to the top and then acting all shocked when genocide and ethnic cleansing pops up. It happens all over the world. The fact is people like Hitler and Pol Pot and Saddam are the natural result of the realist argument - and we'll continue to get them as long as we keep trying to carve up the pieces of the pie to our instantaneous gratification. If men really are "an endless drive for power after power, ceasing only unto death" (there's a little Leviathan for you kids in the back row) then we don't stand a chance. If there's more to being human then that, I think we've got a real shot.

sadie
Feb 14th, 2003, 03:09 PM
it would be naive to think that each country is not looking out for "number one." however, if a country has made the choice to join an organization like the un, that country should work within the framework of that organization--or work to change it.

seriously. what kind of an example is the united states government setting for its citizens, much less the rest of the world? france may not be an icon of morality, but the u.s. has always set itself up as such.