[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: And what countries has Israel threatened (or actually attacked) besides Palestine?

Lebanon in 82. Egypt & Syria (although I will admit they aren't examples of unwarranted Israeli aggression, but they are other countries that have been attacked by Israel). Iraq. I'll think of a couple more no doubt.

Something you seem to forget is that Israel IS being attacked on a daily basis. These other countries don't want nuclear weapons as a "safeguard" against the threat of Israel. They want them so they can use them against Israel. Israel has never threatened to attack or "wipe out" all the countries around them, but it is a well-known (and well documented) fact that all of the countries around Israel DO want to wipe them out. So it is a blantantly false and ridiculous claim for these countries to say they want nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the threat of Israel.

Very valid points. However it is perhaps only natural that when the casualties are so one-sided and the war of defence so preemptive in nature that some people would view Israel as an aggressive state.

And Israel was not invaded despite the EVIDENCE that it has a nuclear stockpile because - UNLIKE IRAQ - Israel HAS NOT USED those nuclear weapons against other countries despite being under constant attack by another country.

I also suspect that the close proximity of Israel's enemies in a geographical sense would make the firing of nuclear weapons somewhat hazardous for the Israeli citizens.

quote: Originally posted by Skunk: War is the LAST TOOL OF RESORT of the UN, Cerek, not the first. And the US does not provide the bulk of troops - INDIA PROVIDES THE MOST (and has done for the last TWENTY years), with Germany second and Britain third.

Really? That's news to me.[/QUOTE]Innacurate, but the general thrust is correct re. the small American contribution. As of April 2004, according to the UN summary of Civilian Police, Troops, and Military Observers the [total] numbers are (just a comparative selection)

United States = 562
India = 2,930

But we can compare with:

United Kingdom = 550
Zambia = 933
South Africa = 1,460
Senegal = 1,037
Nepal = 2,290
Mali = 298
Morocco = 858
Kenya = 1,826
Jordan = 1,804

The largest contributor is Pakistan with 7,680, closely followed by Bangladesh with 6,362.

Perhaps most suprising are countries like:
Ethiopia = 1,882
Kenya = 1,826
Ghana = 2,790
Nigeria = 3,398
Uruguay = 1,883

quote: Originally posted by Skunk: And the first tool of the UN is SANCTIONS - which does not need the US military to implement. And the US is blamed for the failure of those sanctions to be implemented because it casts it veto to prevent them.

And the SANCTIONS of the U.N. have proven to be largely ineffective.

As for blaming the US for the failure of those sanctions because of their veto, I can only reiterate that the US must carry an awful lot of weight in the U.N. for thier single veto to carry so much power. [/QB][/QUOTE]To respond jointly to this, and your earlier criticism about me blaming the US for UN failures:

It's not a question of 'weight', that's the whole point of the Veto. The US veto carries just as much weight as the UK veto or the French veto, just we don't use it often. It's far easier to block something (as the US does all the time) than it is to get things going (as you found over Iraq) but all you experienced there was the French doing what everybody else has to put up with all the time from America.

The US owns the UN, it carries immense weight, more than any other and naturally seeks to dominate it. An analysis of the UN without taking into account US behaviour is meaningless. It would be like teaching anatomy with half the organs missing. Therefore when the UN fails to act because of US veto, criticism of the UN by a mis-informed public is unjustified in my opinion.

Surely the American opinion can best express my point:

The very success or failure of the UN as an organization rests on its ability to fulfill American interests. After the UN blocked America's war on Saddam, we hear how the UN is "no longer relevent" and "product of a previous era" etc etc. The American's define the very success of the UN by its ability to implement US policy and this more than anything shows why an analysis of the UN (and subsequent complaints over inaction) have to include the US to be meaningful.

For the rest of the world, the UN did not falter in the face of US pressure and therefore is not seen to have failed. The inability of the UN to prevent America attacking Iraq is seen more as a function of unilateral behaviour by the superpower than a failure of the UN. When a country is seen as uncontrallable (the true definition of a rogue state?) then naturally nobody is particularly suprised when the UN cannot control it, and indeed, i doubt many expected it to be able to.

As a slight note, thanks for your earlier reply Cerek and also for keeping it civil. I've just re-read my last sentence (the 'desk' one) and it does sound a bit unecessarily 'acidic', so my apologies for that.

[ 06-10-2004, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]