EU as joke (modified)

That was his point, mine was "Europe tend to respect UN
resolutions".


Ahhh, now we're getting specific. Europe respects resolutions. OK, can you name
the last time the US violated a UN resolution? If you believe some of the press
reports coming out of Iraq, it appears both France and Germany much more
recently than the US....

I think you are painting this all too black and white.

It's a black and white issue. You say Europe respects UN resolutions and the US
does not. I don't think facts will support your argument.

Again, diverting the subject. The subject is; Europe always
obeys the UN and the US doesn't.

That was your subject, not mine.

I'm sorry, I've got it clarified now. Europe respects UN resolutions and the US
does not. That's your point. I'll be waiting while you tell me the last UN
resolution the US violated.



The US hasn't had a live test in over 25 years.

That the US won't ratify CTBT seems to indicate they will.


Wrong. The fact the CTBT outlaws subcritical testing is why congress will never
ratify it. If we (the US) sign an international legal document, we obide by it
(despite what you and the rest of Europe falsely believe), the same cannot be
said of China, North Korea and Iran. Why should US nuclear stockpile
modernization be permenantly frozen while our enemies continue their work?

Well, do you have any comments on why the US vetos just about
any resolution dealing with the palestine issue, and other
nations do not?

I've already explained that, and by the way, this is a poor argument to support
your facts. The US, by exercising its *legal UN veto authority*, is not
"disrespecting the UN", quite the opposite, we are working within the UN's own
system. Exercising a veto is not a good example of how the US doesn't respect
UN resolutions.

To me it lookes like Sharon has shattered
most efforts made in the past decade to bring about some
hope of peace and stability to the region, and the US seems
determined to support that.

I'm no fan of Sharon either, but until the UN at least realizes that Isreal has
security issues, and begins addressing those with UN resolutions, you're right,
the US will continue to veto these resolutions. Quick question; was there a UN
resolution condeming Egypt for their attack on Isreal during the Yom Kippur War
in 1973? Was one even seriously debated in the security council?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Then you need to ask yourself -why- the US is targeted.


This one is relatively simple. Long term because of our 30+ year support for
the state of Isreal. Short term because of our physical presence in the Middle
East. bin Laden's biggest gripe about the US was our presence at Prince Sultan
Air Base.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

two of the most infamous and deadly terrorist attacks of the past 15
years or so have been organized by Libya *after* the El Dorado Canyon
operation.

the Lockerbie bombing was organized prior to the operation. It wasn't "turned
off" obviously, but its not known if this was even possible.

pretty much like the bombing by
French Super Etendard in 1983 against Lebanese factions after the Beirut
bombings (how did the US retaliate BTW?).

An ill concieved strike against Syrian targets in eastern Lebanon.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

I don't get your point. If, according to the intelligence reports you
highlight, the Lockerbie bombing was planned around 1985 but was not
cancelled after El Dorado Canyon in 1986 and did happen in 1988, how can one
say the Libyan support and practice of terrorism has decreased after the
Tripoli bombing?

According to *Libyan* sources, often operatives were dispatched and never
contacted again to avoid detection and/or connection with Libya. If this is the
case, it *may* have been impossible for Qaddafi to "turn off" the Lockerbie
bombing after it was put into motion *before* El Dorado Canyon.


In addition to destroying two planes and killing about 450 people in the
following years, Libya also continued to support rebel movement in North
Chad (the Aouzou strip) until 1994.

Terrible, but not a factor for US citizens.

There are also reports that it supported
the FLNC, a violent Corsican separatist group.

Terrible, but not a factor for US citizens.

I'm not sure that the average coverage of
one subject or the other by the US, British, German, French, or any other
Western mainstream TV channels is the most accurate tool of analysis of what
is really going on.

It is in this country. When Qaddafi was running his mouth and threatening to
sink US Navy ships south of the ; "Line of Death", he was on TV nightly. After
El Dorado Canyon, he was seen only in regards to the Lockerbie bombing (after
they figured out it was Libyans) and his support for Iraq in 1991.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"Gregg Germain" a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
Bjeid Beik Rassouli wrote:


: European countries tend to respect UN resolutions.

HAHAHHAA oh yes. That's why, in 1995, France decided to explode a
thermonuclear device in a test against all UN oppostion, votes,
resolutions etc.



Why are French tests worse than US, UK, Russian or Chinese Tests??? We
didn't go against any resolution or even UN position. All treaties
(Roratonga and the CNTB) came in 1996 after France, China the US and the UK
agreed to halt them). Please make your point clearer.
The only protest came from countries not belonging to the Security Council,
hence not possessing the A&H bombs; with Greenpeace pulling the strings
behind the stunt.....paid by British oil compagnies, but that's another
problem...
It's funny how Australians always protested against these tests held
thousands of miles away and on French territory, but never protested when
the UK held tests on Australian mainland. Double standards perhaps...

--
_________________________________________
Pierre-Henri BARAS

Co-webmaster de French Fleet Air Arm
http://www.ffaa.net
Encyclopédie de l'Aviation sur le web
http://www.aviation-fr.info

"BUFDRVR" a écrit dans le message de
...

According to *Libyan* sources, often operatives were dispatched and never
contacted again to avoid detection and/or connection with Libya. If this
is the
case, it *may* have been impossible for Qaddafi to "turn off" the
Lockerbie
bombing after it was put into motion *before* El Dorado Canyon.

I doubt that for such a big operation with possibly serious consequences
there was not some kind of last minute "go code". Or at least, if Qaddafi
really wanted to give up any terrorist activities I think he had enough
means and connections to cancel the whole operation anytime within a two
year time frame.

Terrible, but not a factor for US citizens.

Terrible, but not a factor for US citizens.

And I thought the war on terrorism was a worldwide one, in which everyone
was commited... I'm sure you don't mean that it matters only when American
interests are at stake, do you?

It is in this country. When Qaddafi was running his mouth and threatening
to
sink US Navy ships south of the ; "Line of Death", he was on TV nightly.
After
El Dorado Canyon, he was seen only in regards to the Lockerbie bombing
(after
they figured out it was Libyans) and his support for Iraq in 1991.


My point exactly. He disappeared from TV screens yet Libya continued its
subversive and killing actions. You cannot rely on mainstream, commercial
channels' 6 o'clock news (fortunately the printed press is more effective on
that matter) to reflect the world's reality as each one filters informations
according to its own interests, what the audience care about and what is
"hot" and appealing. It doesn't mean though that things do not happen.

ArVa

"BUFDRVR" a écrit dans le message de
...

pretty much like the bombing by
French Super Etendard in 1983 against Lebanese factions after the Beirut
bombings (how did the US retaliate BTW?).

An ill concieved strike against Syrian targets in eastern Lebanon.


What do you qualify as an "ill concieved strike"? The French bombing (you'd
be right in that case) or the US retaliation?

ArVa

(Quant) wrote in message om...
(Quant) wrote in message . com...
(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...
Can you explain how Presidential candidate Bush provoked Europe? Was
it his unappologetic "America first" theme?

I'm talking about the Iraqi buildup.


He was recieving bad European press before he took office, or even before his
election.

Why is this never
acceptable for the United States, but completely acceptable for
European nations to put themselves first?

We do?

Yes, European nations, like the US put themselves and their greater good first,
its to be expected. However, when the US does it its unacceptable, but when
France does it, its seen as normal international politics.

On the 20th of september the UN general assembly voted
overwhelmingly 133 to 4 to tell Israel to drop its threat to
harm or deport Yasser Arafat. The US voted no, along with Israel
and later the US vetoed it in the UN security council.

Because the resolution failed to admonish, in any way, the actions of Arfat's
governing authority who were failing to control terrorists originating from
their territory.


"Failing to control terrorists" is a very forgiving expression. Many
of the members of the biggest terror organization in the PA, "The
al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades" are getting paid by the PA itself.




I just read that the BBC (not exactly a pro-Israeli body) published
yesterday (Friday) that Arafat approved transfer of US$ 50,000 per
month to the Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades. The money is being transferred
exactly since the beginning of the intifada, on September 2000 and is
continuing to be transferred today.

This is a clear prove (another proves) that:
1. The initifada is a well organized and funded terror war opened by
the PA against Israel.
2. That European money is financing terror operations against
Israelis.
3. That Arafat is a terrorist and that the UN and the EU are terror
supporting organizations.

The BBC also revealed that Arafat is using the EU money and the tax
money of his people to send US$ 100,000 per month to his wife Suha in
Paris. Terrorism and corruption goes well together.



My mistake. The money transfer to Paris was exposed by CBS. You can
hear more about it on "60 minutes" tomorrow.




Source: (in Hebrew and referring to the BBC investigation):
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-2814280,00.html






Had that been a part of the resolution, the US would have
agreed.

It was
no less than the 26th US veto of a Mideast resolution in the council.

Prior to 1991, this was simply a case of the US supporting their only regional
ally that we saw as the only balancing act between the Soviet Union dominating
the region, and its oil. In hind sight, it appears we looked at things from a
very simplistic view that was probably not based in reality. Since 1991, all
we've asked is that any resolution admonishing Isreal also face the fact that
their actions are/were not being done in a vacuum, the UN has failed to do
this, ignoring many of the issues concerning Isreal's security. Additionally,
we find it more effective to deal with Isreal directly rather than through the
UN. Do you think Isreal didn't pop Arafat because the UN was upset or do you
think the US had a hand in calming them down?

European countries tend to respect UN resolutions.

Since when?

The United States
goes to war with any country seen as a perceived threat

Correct, as would any other nation. If you're trying to tell me Belgium or
France would bow to the UN even though it was going to negatively impact its
national security (dead Belgians or French) you're not in touch with reality.

misleads its allies

How? When?

ignores the international community

When its will is contrary to US national security, the same can be said for
every nation on earth.

and displays an
absolute disrespect for international agreements and coorperation.

The US doesn't violate international agreements anymore or less than France,
Germany, Russia, China or the UK.

It's not hard to find the reasons for the worlds oposition against
the americans, if one cares to look.

Because America is expected to act differently. I guess its our status as the
most powerful country on earth, but that's no excuse.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

That was his point, mine was "Europe tend to respect UN
resolutions".


Ahhh, now we're getting specific. Europe respects resolutions.
OK, can you name the last time the US violated a UN resolution?

I'm not talking about violations per se -- there is a
difference between voting "no, we don't agree" as opposed
to veto something, knowing well it will torpedo what other
nations has agreed on.

You took that statement out of context and you changed the
words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.
To me it isn't, I know fully well that the US has played
a vital role in UN history. WRT the Paliestine issue
it has failed so far.



As for US violation? Would you care to look a bit closer
on the Iraqi conflict? I won't pretend to be an expert,
I can only comment what I've seen brought up in the newsmedia,
but, for instance, it seems to me the US is violating UN
General Assembly resolution 377, which decleares that it
is to meet to resolve any possible threats to or breach of
the peace if the UNSC fails to maintain peace because of a
lack of unanimity.

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/852...5340060479d/55
c2b84da9e0052b05256554005726c6%21OpenDocument


Thus it also violates UN Article 1 and 2 (which the US partly
formed and signed in 1945) which require that:

"All Members shall settle their international disputes by
peaceful means in such a manner that international peace
and security, and justice, are not endangered".


It also violates Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter which
declears that no member state has the authority to enforce
any resolution with armed force on its own and also that the
UNSC -must- authorize the use of military force.

It violates Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter which
states that:

"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as
crimes under; international law: Planning, preparation,
initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war
in violation of international treaties, agreements
or assurances"


According to Article VI of the US Constitution both the UN
and Nuremberg Charters is part of "the supreme Law of the
Land", and therefor any violation of International Laws
agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
Constitution?


By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
convention?


If you believe some of the press reports coming out of Iraq, it
appears both France and Germany much more recently than the
US....

Well naturally, the US had no justified reason for going to war
on Iraq. France, Germany and others could see that.


Again, diverting the subject. The subject is; Europe always
obeys the UN and the US doesn't.

That was your subject, not mine.

I'm sorry, I've got it clarified now. Europe respects UN
resolutions and the US does not. That's your point. I'll be
waiting while you tell me the last UN resolution the US
violated.

I'm sure you realize the difference between "tend to" and
"always".


The US hasn't had a live test in over 25 years.

That the US won't ratify CTBT seems to indicate they will.


Wrong. The fact the CTBT outlaws subcritical testing is why
congress will never ratify it. If we (the US) sign an
international legal document, we obide by it (despite what you
and the rest of Europe falsely believe), the same cannot be said
of China, North Korea and Iran. Why should US nuclear stockpile
modernization be permenantly frozen while our enemies continue
their work?

Perhaps because the US has done all the tests they need on
the comparable technology. All in all I see no good reason
why the US wont ratify CTBT, IMO it certainly sends out the
wrong kind of signals to your "enemies".

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a nuclear deterrent, I fully
believe it's a vital reason why the west has been able to
stay out of large-scale conflicts for the past 50 years.


Well, do you have any comments on why the US vetos just about
any resolution dealing with the palestine issue, and other
nations do not?

I've already explained that, and by the way, this is a poor
argument to support your facts. The US, by exercising its *legal
UN veto authority*, is not "disrespecting the UN", quite the
opposite, we are working within the UN's own system. Exercising
a veto is not a good example of how the US doesn't respect UN
resolutions.

IOM it's also a good example of how the US feels it's in a
position to dominate the decitions and will of other nations.

In some issues it's seems quite difficult for the US to come
to realize that its national interests does not go before the
interests of the rest of the world. In particular the UN
wasn't created as a benefitial body for the US, but for
the entire international community. You might argue that it's
far from perfect, but what better choices are available?


To me it lookes like Sharon has shattered
most efforts made in the past decade to bring about some
hope of peace and stability to the region, and the US seems
determined to support that.

I'm no fan of Sharon either, but until the UN at least realizes
that Isreal has security issues, and begins addressing those
with UN resolutions, you're right, the US will continue to veto
these resolutions.

If Israel wanted to bring its security issues on the table
it wouldn't do everything in its powers to destroy the peace
process. IOM the Israelis need to stop the continious provoking
of the Palestinians and instead work with them to create a
livable society.

Of course that's easy for me to say, having grown up in the
most secure, wealthy and stable part of the world.


Quick question; was there a UN resolution
condeming Egypt for their attack on Isreal during the Yom Kippur
War in 1973? Was one even seriously debated in the security
council?

There wasn't a resolution to my knowledge. I don't think
there was a UN resolution condeming Israel in 1967, 1956
or 1947 either.


Regards...

Fortunately the world does not have to depend on the UN to settle problems.
Those that do wait for the UN usually die waiting, or die as part of the
"solution".



Jack