Europe-US Split ... Ramifications May Last For Years

[KrazyHorse]

Now you're just not making any sense. They knew what was being discussed. The deliberately didn't attend for a long while because they too didn't believe in the legitimacy of the SC.

And look what happened to them.

[notyoueither]

The Yanks won't stop attending though. They have a good example to go by. They'll just ignore the UN for their own initiatives.

[KrazyHorse]

Now, either this will: delegitimise the SC

or

Delegitimise the US

Now, given world reaction to this crisis, what do you think will be the case?

[notyoueither]

They may pay attention when half the nations on the planet sent troops to oppose them in some theatre or other, but how likely is that?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
Now, either this will: delegitimise the SC

or

Delegitimise the US

Now, given world reaction to this crisis, what do you think will be the case?

The SC is toast. Without either the US or the Russians backing it, it is a chamber of feebleness.

China could be a wild card, but the Yanks still have a veto.

[KrazyHorse]

NYE: you're missing the point.

They might not need the SC to back them up militarily, but up to now they've gained a lot from keeping a veneer of legitimacy to their actions.

The rest of the world seems to trust the UN more than the US. This might not matter overmuch, but it certainly doesn't help the US.

[HershOstropoler]

The USSR boycotted the SC over the row over China's seat.

"They may pay attention when half the nations on the planet sent troops to oppose them in some theatre or other"

There are many other ways to spit in the soup.

"it is a chamber of feebleness."

Law without might is ridiculous, yes. Might without law is tyranny.

I prefer ridicule over tyranny, given no other choice.

[notyoueither]

You mean Europe trusts the UN more than the US. To be honest, the UN is a good place for them without any power to have a say with them that do.

The only nation, or group of nations, to ever gain substantially from the UN was the United States and the other members of the Atlantic Alliance. The Russians sure as hell never did.

Without the US Army to back up its resolutions, the SC is worse than a paper tiger. It is irrelevant.

[KrazyHorse]

You mean Europe trusts the UN more than the US. To be honest, the UN is a good place for them without any power to have a say with them that do

I mean the rest of the world.

Europe, Africa, SA, Asia.

The US can run roughshod over anybody it wants to. They're welcome to it. But when they stop listening to world opinion, they hurt themselves.

So they can ridicule the SC all they want. They're just digging their own grave. I never thought the fall of the American Empire would come less than a century from now, but the way they're running things has led me to believe I might live to see it.

[notyoueither]

Why do you equate the desires of rest of the world with those of Europe?

The end of Pax America is very far off, indeed. I think feelings right now might be a little high-strung.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Frogger
NYE: you're missing the point.

The rest of the world seems to trust the UN more than the US. This might not matter overmuch, but it certainly doesn't help the US.

They trust the U.N. more than the U.S. when they want inaction, and conversely they trust the U.S. more than the U.N. when they want action.

[KrazyHorse]

Yup. And those feelings are leading the US to say and do things that will have consequences once the anger's past.

Bush told Mexico a few days ago that he'd "discipline" them if they didn't vote with him.

Gives you some sense of it.

France isn't doing itself any favours either, but bringing France down with it isn't exactly a notable American achievement...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sikander


They trust the U.N. more than the U.S. when they want inaction, and conversely they trust the U.S. more than the U.N. when they want action.

I think you'll have to provide some examples of this...

[KrazyHorse]

Because I've yet to see a majority world opinion against "UN imperialism"...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Frogger
Yup. And those feelings are leading the US to say and do things that will have consequences once the anger's past.

Bush told Mexico a few days ago that he'd "discipline" them if they didn't vote with him.

Gives you some sense of it.

If the U.S. decides that the U.N.S.C. is a waste of time, then that organization will indeed remain useless. This reduces France's influence significantly on the world stage, while U.S. power is more broadly based and diminished less by this eventuality. For this administration one could make an arguement that this outcome isn't completely unwelcome, though I'm sure that they aren't enjoying the thrashing they are getting at the moment in the public eye.

Originally posted by Frogger
France isn't doing itself any favours either, but bringing France down with it isn't exactly a notable American achievement...

It seems to be more of a French achievement, as much as the administration would like to take credit for it. Very little of what they've thrown at the French government has stuck, but their (the French Government) own statements and actions have done them quite a bit of harm, Chirac's most of all.