![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#31 | |
Jack Burton
![]() Join Date: May 15, 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 40
Posts: 5,888
|
Quote:
Perhaps we should check there first? [/QUOTE]And Pakistan Skunk. And India Skunk. And Russia Skunk. So quick to point the finger at Israel. And Skunk, what's your opinion on Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait? What's the commonality between them I wonder? [/QUOTE]And why not point the finger at Israel? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 | ||||
Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice
![]() Join Date: October 29, 2001
Location: North Carolina
Age: 62
Posts: 3,257
|
Quote:
Rubbish. It has everything to do with Israel. It is because of Israel's nuclear stockpile that every other country in the middle east is seeking weapons of mass destruction, or is expected to be seeking them.[/QUOTE]Rubbish Too. How many times has Israel actually used nuclear weapons against another country? And what countries has Israel threatened (or actually attacked) besides Palestine? 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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
[img]\"http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/cerek/cerektsrsig.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /><br />Cerek the Calmth |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
Ironworks Moderator
![]() Join Date: March 1, 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,788
|
Just to bring a bit of clarity to the issue of WMD's, you might like to take a gander here.
It would seem to be in terms of realpolitik it's really no problem for a state to possess WMD's (or the capability to produce them) just so long as it's not a rogue state. Now, would someone care to explain how the international community should define what exactly constitutes a rogue state?
__________________
Regards ![]() Mouse (Occasional crooner and all round friendly Scottish rodent) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
40th Level Warrior
![]() |
Probably countries that threaten their neighbours, or have shown acts of aggressiveness in the past, like Iraq and North Korea.
Remarkable in your link is that Ethiopia is one of the suspected holders of weapons of mass destruction. Now there's a country that has a shortage of just about anything, food, water, medical supplies, clothing, you name it.... but hey.... at least they have weapons of mass destruction. ![]() Now why in gods name would a broke ass country like Ethiopia need WoMD's ? What exactly was the government thinking when they purchased them ?
__________________
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#35 | |
Very Mad Bird
![]() Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 53
Posts: 9,246
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#36 | |
Very Mad Bird
![]() Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 53
Posts: 9,246
|
Quote:
And Skunk, what's your opinion on Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait? What's the commonality between them I wonder? [/QUOTE]And why not point the finger at Israel? [/QUOTE]Did you bother to read the post I was replying to? That would be four nations in the area with nuclear weapons, not the one Skunk was so quick to (as usual) try and isolatingly point out. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#37 | ||||
Very Mad Bird
![]() Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 53
Posts: 9,246
|
Quote:
Quote:
Again however, you show remarkable grasp on what the matters in the area actually are, compared to what's often presented. Quote:
Quote:
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]Cuba anyone? Those annoying Americans. Invading Cuba while the rest of the world argued for sanctions. And Iraq too. Those French Russian and Chinese were so addamant about not doing business with Iraq. And all the while the USA ignored what sanctions could do. Tsk tsk. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 | |
Very Mad Bird
![]() Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 53
Posts: 9,246
|
Quote:
Ooh Look. These people disagree with you. Have you heard of Pakistan? They have nuclear weapons. And, they were the largest UN peacekeer contributors in 2001 with over 4,000 personelle. However the United States appeared to FUND 27% of peacekeeping costs in 2003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...#Peace-keeping Manpower alone does not win a war. Tanks? Planes? Guns? All conveniently forgotten it seems. So too the US position on arrears. [ 06-10-2004, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ] |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#39 | |
40th Level Warrior
![]() Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#40 | |||||
Dracolich
![]() Join Date: January 24, 2004
Location: UK
Age: 42
Posts: 3,092
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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 ] |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Expert difficulty | Loudhy | Miscellaneous Games (RPG or not) | 9 | 03-09-2004 09:33 PM |
Military Lawyer Slams U.S. Terrorism Tribunals | Chewbacca | General Discussion | 1 | 01-22-2004 06:09 AM |
Expert on BG1 | Agent Smith | Baldurs Gate & Tales of the Sword Coast | 17 | 06-22-2003 05:05 PM |
What are Expert Skills? | Lunaticlord | Miscellaneous Games (RPG or not) | 5 | 05-01-2003 06:00 PM |
NOT A NEWBIE, NOT AN EXPERT | IntrospectiveIdeals | Baldurs Gate II Archives | 22 | 07-13-2001 06:37 PM |