Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / The Europian Dictatorship

Author
Message
Martyn Pittuck
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 6th Mar 2003 20:01
Link
I must warn you I am taking a neutral view over the Iraq debate, and this is a personal opinion. All The things I say are not meant to offend, and i cannot promise all the imformation is correct.

Well know thats over with....

How different is the French leadership from the Iraq one? Dictatorship means one person/party having extreme control over a country/countries. If the new resolution proposed by the UK and US is voted in by the council, France (And other counties) would have no right to vieto (Speeling?).

I am assuming a vieto would result in the vote being over-rulled and the resolution rejected. This is what i am basing this assumption on.

What use is the security council if it cannot come to a decision that must be upheald? By vietoing the resolution France would be undermining the ideas that resulted in the security council being formed, and would be no better than other dictators, even wose as it is dictating what other countires should do.

I am decided that war is not the correct way to go about dissarming sadam. But UK/US have thought about it, the goverments have discussed it and agree that a zero tollerance stance is needed. The job of the security council to to provide an agreement from the whole council, not just one or two minority countries.

Well this is just my view, what do you think?

PS - Please tell me if i am wrong on how vietoing works, i am not 100% sure.
The Outside is a evil place to be, too much light, too much noise and too many distractions....
I went outside once and my FPS rate dropped to 5.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Martyn Pittuck
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 6th Mar 2003 20:03
Link
I spellt spelling wrong

DOH!

The Outside is a evil place to be, too much light, too much noise and too many distractions....
I went outside once and my FPS rate dropped to 5.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Martyn Pittuck
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 6th Mar 2003 20:04
Link
Please excude the wrong use of language in paragraph 4.

I gotta stop listening to Eminem, it is very off putting

The Outside is a evil place to be, too much light, too much noise and too many distractions....
I went outside once and my FPS rate dropped to 5.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Digital Awakening
AGK Developer
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Sweden
Posted: 6th Mar 2003 20:18
Link
There are 5 countries in UN that have veto. France, Germany and Russia makes up 3 of those 5 giving them the right to stop UN going to war. The other 2 countries are UK and USA IIRC. These countries have veto cause their military forces are heavier then the other countries. In Sweden for example we count on other countries (like US) to defend us if we ever are attacked.

Yesterday I heard on the news that in UK the support for war is only 25%.

[b]Digital Awakening
Game in developement: 3D RPG - The Magic Land
Visit DigAw.com for more info and shots
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Martyn Pittuck
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 6th Mar 2003 20:34
Link
but international support for war is increasing.

As i said i am not debating whether it is right or not. I am debating the right for vietoing and its morral and ethical implications.

The main one being the authority the council will hold in the future.

The Outside is a evil place to be, too much light, too much noise and too many distractions....
I went outside once and my FPS rate dropped to 5.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Martyn Pittuck
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 6th Mar 2003 20:39
Link
Ok lets go in a bit deeper.

The security council was made to represent the views of the members of the United Nations. If France or any other country has the power to overrule their view then the role of the security council (and the UN) is non existant as it is contolled by the 5 countries that hold vieto's.

In this case France gets what France wants regardless of what the council say.

I am not for war as i said before, but the idea of vieto deminishes the right to democracy in the UN. I think that the Security Council should be a concil where each vote is even and after talking the majority vote should be taken, if there is no majority then more talking is needed.

The Outside is a evil place to be, too much light, too much noise and too many distractions....
I went outside once and my FPS rate dropped to 5.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
A_M
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Sweden
Posted: 6th Mar 2003 22:28
Link
I too have questioned the fairness of the existence of the veto. All I can say is that if abolishing the veto was suggested I can imagine the US (and UK and others) would be just as much against it (if not more) than France.

/ Andreas Mattsson
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
actarus
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2002
Location: 32 Light Years away
Posted: 6th Mar 2003 22:32
Link
Well when you it this way it's not democracy period.

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour!
Back to top
Profile PM
empty
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: 3 boats down from the candy
Posted: 6th Mar 2003 22:36
Link
The five countries that a hold a veto right are France, USA, UK, Russia and China.

Quote: "
I too have questioned the fairness of the existence of the veto. All I can say is that if abolishing the veto was suggested I can imagine the US (and UK and others) would be just as much against it (if not more) than France.
"

That's true. The last time an elimination of the Veto was discussed, the US and Russia were strictly against this idea.

Ogres have layers.
Back to top
Profile PM
Flashing Blade
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 6th Mar 2003 22:45
Link
Dead Glory Germany does not have veto

There are 5 permanent members of the security council:
USA BRITAIN FRANCE RUSSIA CHINA
and they all have veto power.

Why are they permanent members and why they got veto? `Cus they got big bastad nukes. Pakistan, India & Israel got nukes too but they didn't have when UN was formed.

USA can't complain about anyone using veto seeing as they have veto'd lots of resolutions aimed at making Israel withdraw from palestinian terrortories.

Anyway has anyone noticed how Tony Blair keeps dropping the subject of North Korea into discusions regarding the "War on Terror"?

You can gaurantee someone somewhere is gonna get nuked sometime in the next decade. CNN, SKY NEWS, & FOX NEWS gonna luv it.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
EdzUp
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posted: 6th Mar 2003 22:52
Link
Why should France/Russia/China not use thier veto to stop the Iraq second resolution, as has been said before the US did it for Isreal.

One thing I can say to the US/UK governments 'what goes around comes around'.

-EdzUp
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Rob K
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 6th Mar 2003 22:55
Link
"One thing I can say to the US/UK governments"

I can think of something else that I would like to say to US/UK governments but under-18s visit these forums.

Current Project: Retro Compo. Entry.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
jomo
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 31st Oct 2002
Location: Ireland
Posted: 6th Mar 2003 23:05
Link
the only reason bush and blair know iraq has weapons of mass destruction is because they sold them to saddam in the first place. all they have to do to prove it is show the world the invoices.

also, blair has been trying the justify the need for war by appealing to our sense of morality by saying that hussain slaughters kurds and so forth....but if iraq were to cooperate fully, there would by no war and where would that leave the kurds

its all about oil, baby!!!
black gold!

jomo
Back to top
Profile PM
Easily Confused
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Oct 2002
Location: U.K. Earth. (turn right at Venus)
Posted: 7th Mar 2003 01:55
Link
It's time for Bush and co. to get their priorities in the right order, I think the North Korean situation is more of a problem than any other right now.

Programming anything is an art, and you can't rush art.
Unless your name is Bob Ross, then you can do it in thirty minutes.
Back to top
Profile PM
Shadow Robert
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 7th Mar 2003 02:14
Link
i remember that a Veito had to be seconded by another Veito capable party - else the the vote failed to carry.

just outta interest, but why doesn't the US/UK just Veito, Frances Veito? ... i mean you can abstinance anything with a Veito (or atleast you can in the legal sense)

personally couldn't care less about the situation, i think if Bush and Blair were actually willing to attack they would've - or rather if they were actually going to attack, i'm pretty sure they're willing.
Looks like a bullet bluff to me, and its being bought by Saddam ... not the right priority Easily is right, but still - if they don't show their cards it might actually do the job at a more reasonable speed

but somehow i doubt they'll disgovern the dictator

Tsu'va Oni Ni Jyuuko Fiori Sei Tau!
One block follows the suit ... the whole suit of blocks is the path ... what have you found?
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Flashing Blade
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 7th Mar 2003 02:35
Link
veto a veto sounds fun

France could Veto resolution, UK could Veto Frances Veto, Russia could Veto UK's Veto of Frances Veto, USA could Veto Russias Veto of UK's Veto of Frances Veto, China could..........
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Arrow
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Jan 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 7th Mar 2003 05:03
Link
Ah who cares about the whole area? I think it's a waste of time, the only reason Bush wants to start a war is a) cash and b)to win the election. People don't want a war, hell we don't need a war. Just drop a bomb on Saddam's face and end this anyoance.

Am I a butterfly dreaming I'm a man?
Or a bowling ball dreaming I'm a plate of samishi?
Never assume that what you see or feel is real.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
large_nostril
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 7th Mar 2003 05:04
Link
"but international support for war is increasing."
As US and UK support is decreasing.(UK: 23.2% in favour, US: 43.8% in favour)

I don't think that that is exactly how a veto works. I think that a veto is only used to overthrow a resolution. And I don't believe that Germany has veto power.

If you want fresh underwear in the morning, take it off the night before.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
large_nostril
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 7th Mar 2003 05:13
Link
"Just drop a bomb on Saddam's face and end this anyoance."
Which one, Saddam has 16 reported "look alikes". And I was correct, Germany does not have veto power. They have a vote in the security council but they will vote in favour of the war, even though they are opposed to it. Why? Because the US is a damn bully. Does anybody know about the vote in the security council at the Golf war (US vs Iraq:Bush senior as pres)? Yemen was the only country on the security council to vote against the war and they payed. I believe the quote was "that was the most expensive vote you'll ever make". Within a month, the US had cut off all financial aid (about $90 million a year) to yemen. If Bush Sr. (who was somewhat intelligent) would impose this upon Yemen, imagine what Bush Jr (who is not even remotely intelligent) would do to the opposing country.

If you want fresh underwear in the morning, take it off the night before.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Martyn Pittuck
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 7th Mar 2003 09:31
Link
OK

Now this has gone onto the subject of war...

Maybe we can just have comments on the existance of veto's...

The Outside is a evil place to be, too much light, too much noise and too many distractions....
I went outside once and my FPS rate dropped to 5.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Flashing Blade
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 7th Mar 2003 12:18
Link
Okay i was joking about vetoing a veto.

This is how UN works:

There are 15 members on the security council. 5 members (USA UK FRANCE RUSSIA CHINA) are permanent members and have power of veto. When a resolution is put forward all 15 members vote. For the resolution to carry it has to receive 9 YES votes. Members may vote YES NO or ABSTAIN. If any of the permanent 5 vote NO then the resolution is not adopted (even if all 14 other members vote YES)

The five permanent members are on the council ... permenantly. Every other country is on a rota which is changed periodicaly (monthly i think).
This month the other 10 are:
SPAIN, BULGERIA, MEXICO, CHILE, SIRREA, CAMEROON(i think), and 3 others that i can't remember.
Germany cannot vote on this resolution because it isn't on council this month (it was on it last month).

SIRREA will vote NO
US UK will vote yes
so will SPAIN and BULGERIA
90% of mexicos exports go to USA so i think USA can get a yes there
chile will follow mexico
there are 3 african countries on security council at moment and US can buy them easily.
FRANCE CHINA & RUSSIA will most likely ABSTAIN.

so:

9 YES
1 NO
3 ABSTAIN
2 ?

Resolution adopted - bush & blair will have a legal mandate to launch an unjust invasion of another country.
History will show that Amercan-Anglo invasion was authorised by the rest of the world - it will not tell how money and bullying was used to secure that authorisation.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
indi
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Earth, Brisbane, Australia
Posted: 7th Mar 2003 13:53
Link
the vetos mean nothing, the USA government and its methods are a farce.

i still predict march 15th as the day for war.

Thats what these vetos are stopping.
death

http://www.lunarpixel.com

http://www.lunarpixel.com/dt/
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Andy
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 7th Mar 2003 14:02
Link
>The security council was made to represent the views of
>the members of the United Nations.

No!

The security council is the enforcing body of the UN.

The Charter of the UN, chapter V, Article 5 section 1 says the following:
--------------------------
In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the
United Nations,its Members confer on the Security Council
primary responsibility for the maintenance of
international peace and security, and agree that in
carrying out its duties under this responsibility the
Security Council acts on their behalf.
--------------------------

>If France or any other
>country has the power to overrule their view then the role
>of the security council (and the UN) is non existant as it
>is contolled by the 5 countries that hold vieto's.

The security council is not meant to be a debating club, but an effective means to stop aggression. The reason that the 5 permanent members have vetos, is because they were the most powerful nations after WW2...

Besides, If each did not get a veto, then the UN would propably never have existed.

>I am not for war as i said before, but the idea of vieto
>deminishes the right to democracy in the UN. I think that
>the Security Council should be a concil where each vote is
>even and after talking the majority vote should be taken,
>if there is no majority then more talking is needed.

The league of nations(The predecessor to the UN), suffered from too much democracy which resulted in nothing but talk, which resulted in WW2. That is why the UN is built the way it is.

>Why are they permanent members and why they got veto? `Cus
>they got big bastad nukes. Pakistan, India & Israel got
>nukes too but they didn't have when UN was formed.

No! in June 1945, the only country which had 'nukes', were the US. The 5 permanent members were chosen, because they were powerful and it was believed that these large nations could maintain a balance of power and thus maintain stability in the world.

Remember the first paragraph in the UN Charter:

-----------------------------------------
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and...
-----------------------------------------

>i remember that a Veito had to be seconded by another >Veito capable party - else the the vote failed to carry.

Not according to the UN Charter...

>just outta interest, but why doesn't the US/UK just Veito,
>Frances Veito? ... i mean you can abstinance anything with
>a Veito (or atleast you can in the legal sense)

The votes are cast in favourof or against a resolution, not for or against another countrys vote! That is also the way it works in other connections.

The veto is not a veto as such, but rather a 'non vote'
A resolution can only be passed by the security council if all permanent members concur. By either voting 'no' or making no vote at all, the resolution falls...

actually, the non permanent members of the security council are elected by the general assembly for a 2 year period.

Back to top
Profile PM
empty
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: 3 boats down from the candy
Posted: 7th Mar 2003 14:14
Link
Quote: "
Every other country is on a rota which is changed periodicaly (monthly i think).
This month the other 10 are:
SPAIN, BULGERIA, MEXICO, CHILE, SIRREA, CAMEROON(i think), and 3 others that i can't remember.
Germany cannot vote on this resolution because it isn't on council this month (it was on it last month).
"


Well the explanation of the five permanent members was right but...

There are indeed 10 non permanent members in the security council. Every year 5 of them are exchanged and the new countries will be members for 2 years.
At the moment non permanent countries are in the council:
Bulgaria, Guinea, Cameroon, Mexico und Syria (till 31/12/2003), as well as Germany, Spain, Angola, Chile und Pakistan (till 31/12/2004).
The Presindency changes every month. In March it's Guinea (in February it was Germany).

Ogres have layers.
Back to top
Profile PM
indi
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Earth, Brisbane, Australia
Posted: 7th Mar 2003 15:17
Link
I dont hear australia being apart of a "united nations" council.

What a joke this whole thing is.

get the oil
kill the people
establish a 53rd state with bombs and guns.

makes me sick

http://www.lunarpixel.com

http://www.lunarpixel.com/dt/
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Martyn Pittuck
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 7th Mar 2003 15:32
Link
All i am saying is for a real democracy to take place each vote should be equal.

The Outside is a evil place to be, too much light, too much noise and too many distractions....
I went outside once and my FPS rate dropped to 5.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
actarus
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2002
Location: 32 Light Years away
Posted: 7th Mar 2003 18:29
Link
-makes me sick


Indi that doesn't look good at all.Soon you'll disappear and we're gonna hear from someone here that you're at the hospital...Careful man.

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour!
Back to top
Profile PM
The Communist
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2002
Location: Cyberspace
Posted: 8th Mar 2003 02:34
Link
indi, you know what?

your avatar would look reeeeeeeally cool with a pipe in its mouth... just for your information

Workers of all lands, Unite!
Back to top
Profile PM
large_nostril
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 8th Mar 2003 05:54
Link
Sorry in advance Martyn for shifting the direction of your post

"i still predict march 15th as the day for war."
I predict it to be very soon as well.

Did anyone hear/see Bush's speech last night. man was that a joke. All of the question the press were asking were all pre-reported to Bush. That is, he (most likely his board of advisors) had a response to ever question before it was even asked.

Did anyone notice how somber he was being (trying) and how much solace he was offering? That was a joke as well.

I only hope that Blair holds true to his statement. Blair stated that if Iraq had completely and fully disarmed, he would take no action against Iraq and Saddam could remain in power. Bush however has no credibility with me. If Blair does back down once Iraq has completed the destruction of their 60 or so remaining "illegal" missiles, the US is forced to go at it alone (with Bulgaria's support possibly).

Bush is literally sending the US economy into the crapper. Gas prices have risen 13 cents per gallon in most places over the last and will only get worse with a campaign against our major oil suppliers. Considernig I go 70 miles to work each day in each direction (140 miles total), I use 9.3 gallons a day. At $2.78 per gallon, I'm already spending $25.95 just on gas. That's nearly 1/3 of what I make a day ($80).

I still don't see how you can go from a surplus, stable stock market, and 91% employment to a defeceit, crumbling stock market, and 78% employment.

If you want fresh underwear in the morning, take it off the night before.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
ESC
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 8th Mar 2003 07:31
Link
"I still don't see how you can go from a surplus, stable stock market, and 91% employment to a defeceit, crumbling stock market, and 78% employment."

Easy, a bad president

"That's not a bug, it's a feature!"
"When all else fails, read the instructions"
-ESC
Back to top
Profile PM
haggisman
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 8th Mar 2003 14:10
Link
If Blair does back down once Iraq has completed the destruction of their 60 or so remaining "illegal" missiles, the US is forced to go at it alone (with Bulgaria's support possibly).

Its not just those missiles, its everything (anthrax , VX). A previous weapons inspector said it would take at least 1 month for complete disarmament if Iraq was complying fully. Lets not forget these inspections have been going on for 3 months now and Hans Blix said Iraq was not immediate in complying, therefore contravening 1441.


i still predict march 15th as the day for war.

Well Blair+Bush et al gave a new deadline of 17th of March for disarmament and if Iraq doesn't comply there will be a short period afterwards before the war starts.

Specs:- 1GHZ athlon, Radeon8500, 192mb ram, winxp
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
indi
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Earth, Brisbane, Australia
Posted: 8th Mar 2003 16:04
Link
wow if my prediciton is even close it will scare me enough to buy a moon ticket.

this planet sux at the momo

http://www.lunarpixel.com

http://www.lunarpixel.com/dt/
Back to top
Profile PM Email
n3t3r453r
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Nov 2002
Location: Russia
Posted: 8th Mar 2003 16:42
Link
We have power to veto. And I'm sure that our president and our country will vote aganist any war. 20 MILLIONS PEOPLE DIED DURING WWII!!!!!!! And you want us to vote for a war???

American's (not all, but mostly in my opinion) just can't imagine the war on their territory!!! I'm sure that if they lose so many people as us, they will never begin a war!!! May be they think that they are better than other or they can do more than other?!

Also there are a lot of good people in Iraq. I like them because they never forget their friends!!! However they will never forget their enemies!

American's administration simply can't understant that they've already lost this war!!! Off course they will win the battle, but they will never win the WAR with Iraq until all its people died. I'm sure that after 'war' there will be more terracts then even NOW!!! And no1 willn't have power to stop them!

Remember for example Stalin. The same situation was in Russia 50 years ago! But terrorist still REVENGE us!!!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Martyn Pittuck
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 8th Mar 2003 17:06
Link
Sorry but WW2 was different.

We HAD to do somming then, or we could have left France to become a German country and then Iraq would probably not exist.

Maybe war is a bad idea then

Martyn 1, Frence NILL

The Outside is a evil place to be, too much light, too much noise and too many distractions....
I went outside once and my FPS rate dropped to 5.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
haggisman
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 8th Mar 2003 18:23
Link
What a joke this whole thing is.

get the oil
kill the people
establish a 53rd state with bombs and guns.

Actually it is indeed about oil – for France and Russia (LUKoil’s Iraqi contracts alone amount to nearly 2% of Russia’s entire GDP!). This is why they consistently favour the most cost-effective oil-centric policy there is, i.e. lifting the sanctions. Yet to remove the moral taint of our oil-lust, the US is instructed to seek support from the United Nations Security Council – in other words to win the blessing of those grand realpolitik-ers, France and Russia. But the war-for-oil theory does help us understand the motives behind the impending US invasion of Venezuela...

I'm sure that after 'war' there will be more terracts then even NOW!!! And no1 willn't have power to stop them!

unlike NATO’s 1999 ‘humanitarian’ war on behalf of oppressed Muslims in Kosovo, which was hugely effective in persuading Muslim terror groups to cease attacking us. This is similar to the mantra, repeated so often in the weeks after 9/11; that a groundswell of anti-Americanism will follow from any US military action against a Muslim nation and, in Barnett’s words, ‘intensify the attitudes that feed terrorism’.


above paragraphs borrowed from http://www.opendemocracy.net because they are quite smart.

Specs:- 1GHZ athlon, Radeon8500, 192mb ram, winxp
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-05-06 03:39:15
Your offset time is: 2024-05-06 03:39:15