[Yorick]

Good post Shamrock. Kudos and salutations. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: quote: 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.[/QUOTE]When was Iraq attacked by Israel? That's not what my facts have been. Dates please. What was the reason for the Lebanese "invasion". To my memory it was to restrict terror groups.

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.

Agreed.

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.

When have nukes been anything other than a deterrent.... oh yes WWII... I mean other than WWII?

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

Although again, we're forgetting the 27% funding demanded by the UN from America (in the billions) , and that New York houses the main building - and related costs. If you'll note it is "poorer" nations providing large amounts of troops, while America and Britain for example would be larger financial contributors.

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.

Well.. the US is responsible for the UN. And the pathetic "League of Nations" before that. Understandable given that don't you think?

[ 06-10-2004, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]