America must isolate it's plans from France.

Former Member

The British papers reported this weekend that documentation was found that not long after 2001 French diplomats were passing infomation to Saddam's gang regarding private conversations between the America government and Chiraq. These included whether the US knew Saddam's people had met with Al Qaeda regarding their mutual enemy: the US.

France is a former power that simply won't accept its position in the world. Given the fact that since the 1960's France will not contribute troops to NATO. NATO needs to make a decision: France or the US. Since the US gives more than its fair share to NATO the choice should be easy. If not, as an American I say who cares. It's also time to redo the Security Council. And again, the UN can choose France or the US. Either way, we'll be free of traitorous friends and freeloaders, France and Belguim to name two.

Former Member

Re: America must isolate it's plans from France.

Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
France is a former power that simply won't accept its position in the world.

What about the British? Do you think we've accepted that the American Empire now holds sway?

Former Member

Yeah the security council needs to change

For a start all countries which have a veto should lose they veto it is unfair and gives to much power to a few countries and i think history has shown that the veto is used for states own self-interests.

Also how come UK, US, Russia, China and France have permenant seats, get rid of that

Bring in more states from different regions because Europe has a at the moment 4 out of the 9 seats. Also the developed world has to many seats.

Can you please quote your source about France giving infomation to Saddam please i am curious

Personally i feel that NATO should be dismantle as it is a relic of the Cold War and that i dont think has any really bearing on the world today.

However i think that you need to understand that in international relations all countries no matter who they be France, United States, N Korea or even Iraqi will follow the course of action which will be in there own self-interests. I think that you need to understand that in the 1980s it suited the US to have Saddam in charge now it isnt so you remove him. It is called politics it isnt pretty nor is if fair unfortuantly that is the way the system works which is a really bitch

Former Member

Originally posted by marv
Yeah the security council needs to change

For a start all countries which have a veto should lose they veto it is unfair and gives to much power to a few countries and i think history has shown that the veto is used for states own self-interests.

Also how come UK, US, Russia, China and France have permenant seats, get rid of that

Bring in more states from different regions because Europe has a at the moment 4 out of the 9 seats. Also the developed world has to many seats.

Can you please quote your source about France giving infomation to Saddam please i am curious

Personally i feel that NATO should be dismantle as it is a relic of the Cold War and that i dont think has any really bearing on the world today.

However i think that you need to understand that in international relations all countries no matter who they be France, United States, N Korea or even Iraqi will follow the course of action which will be in there own self-interests. I think that you need to understand that in the 1980s it suited the US to have Saddam in charge now it isnt so you remove him. It is called politics it isnt pretty nor is if fair unfortuantly that is the way the system works which is a really bitch

The U.N. is also a relic of the cold war and should also be dismantled!

Former Member

I might be wrong but I suspect that the 5 permanent seats are linked to nuclear status. Until India and Pakistan came out of the closet the US, Russia, UK, China and France were the only (official) nuclear nations on earth. A bit of coincidence then that these countries hold the only permanent seats?

The right of veto should definitively be scrapped. It has been unfairly used by many countries over the years whenever their personal or financial interests were at stake. And increasing the number of countries sitting in the SC would be a good idea- or perhaps the UN should embrace the diplomatic principle and use the results of a majority vote from all UN members. The disgraceful spectacle of the Iraq resolution voting, with SC countries being blackmailed, threatened and bribed from both sides, must never be repeated.

Former Member

Initially there was a lot happening behind the scenes, which quickly became of public domain: the US "considering" bigger aid packages for some countries if they voted for action while threatening Mexico with a much tougher line on Mexican immigrants in the US if it didn't, and making it clear that those who voted against action would suffer consequences. France in the meantime was telling Eastern European countries their EU membership application could be negatively affected if they voted in favour of action.

Then eventually France made it clear that it would use its right of veto if a 'Yes' result emerged, and the US abandoned its carrot and stick approach to the other SC members.

Former Member

Basically the French have to do what's right for their people. If they feel French products are so not competitive that they have to trade with people like Saddam...that's their choice. (They've also broken an EU law and met with Mugube.) But now that it has been proven that they will leak information and do whatever it takes to stay in with their customers, they either must be kept out of information sensitive meetings or there must be two meetings. One for the glory of International law in the UN or NATO, and one with America, the UK and their allies where action plans will be decided among trustworthy players.

Former Member

Nothing has been 'proven' yet pnj.

Former Member

Originally posted by Ilson-Youth
Also the 5 "biggest" countries on the international scene?

Nah, they were the "nuke" states and, when the UN was set up, it was felt that they would be in the best position to mediate.

Shamefully, they seem to have done the opposite.

it was obvious that we werent going to get enough nations to back us, in order to overturn the VETO, so, we went ahead without the UNs backing? (i think that was the case?)

You cannot overturn a VETO, by the very definition.

However, the permamnent five tend not to use the veto if there is majority support.

We went ahead without UN support because France said that they wouldn't back the US under any circumstances. Had they not put such a finite position forward, further diplomatic pressure would have been applied. And yes, bribary is a form of diplomacy - you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.