He would have got the 2/3 majority of the Assembly easily over that incident and have the US kicked out for good from the UN. Even Britain, with Blair the poddle, wouldn't have followed.

Not likely, considering that if you kicked the US out of the UN, the UN would go broke in a day.

It's the one big stick the US has to force the UN into seeing things the US's way. Agree to what we suggest, or we will withhold our "membership" dues.

Too many other member nations don't pay their dues, or volunteer forces for peace-keeping tours (for which they get credits they can use to offset their dues).

Not to mention that if the US got the boot from the UN, the Arab nations would be able to immediately get resolutions passed declaring Israel to be.....whatever, and authorizing the Arab nations to use force against Israel.

(It would be up to England, France, China and Russia to block such attempts, all oil dependant countries that could possibly be coerced, bribed or outright bought-off in order to get them to vote for the resolution, or at least not veto it).

There is also the problem then of only having 4 Permament Members on the Security Council. With 5, you don't ever have to worry about a tie (or split) vote. Who would replace the US as a Permament Member, India ? Pakistan ? Iran ?

(Remember that all 5 Permament Members are Nuclear Powers, they don't like the idea of having non-nuclear members in the most exclusive club in the world).

It's all supposition anyways. One day the UN will self-implode much the way the League of Nations did. It will be replaced with a newer version, designed to correct the problems of the old system, just like the UN was supposed to fix the problems that plagued the League of Nations. And so it will go until............"boom"

I agree, except you're painting too negative a picture of European and other memberstates here. They are not backing Israel in the same way as the US, but there are good reasons for this which have nothing to do with oil or bribes.

I agree, except you're painting too negative a picture of European and other memberstates here. They are not backing Israel in the same way as the US, but there are good reasons for this which have nothing to do with oil or bribes.

Perhaps.

I'll bet some of those "good reasons" are the very large Muslim populations in some of those countries. Some of those reasons may also have to do with with the persecution that the Jews have faced for hundreds of years (before WWII, it wasn't just the Arabs that disliked them). They were actively persecuted and discriminated against in many countries. Maybe old habits die hard.

Point is, without the US in the UN, Israel's future would be a whole lot dimmer (even though the US would still defend them, probably to the point of defying any kind of embargo or blockades set up).

Not likely, considering that if you kicked the US out of the UN, the UN would go broke in a day.

Not true, since then the UN would already be broke since US has withheld its memberfee for several years on many occations.

It's the one big stick the US has to force the UN into seeing things the US's way. Agree to what we suggest, or we will withhold our "membership" dues.

Too many other member nations don't pay their dues, or volunteer forces for peace-keeping tours (for which they get credits they can use to offset their dues).

Not true. Not even close. Please look up the number of forces the different countries supplie to UN-missions. Also peacekeeping and peace-'forcing' (aka going into hot zones).

Not to mention that if the US got the boot from the UN, the Arab nations would be able to immediately get resolutions passed declaring Israel to be.....whatever, and authorizing the Arab nations to use force against Israel.

(It would be up to England, France, China and Russia to block such attempts, all oil dependant countries that could possibly be coerced, bribed or outright bought-off in order to get them to vote for the resolution, or at least not veto it).

That Israel would have resolutions against it right away is not true, as you should know.

Or are you saying that it's only US in the whole world that supports Israel? Telling me that GB wouldn't use its veto?

There is also the problem then of only having 4 Permament Members on the Security Council. With 5, you don't ever have to worry about a tie (or split) vote. Who would replace the US as a Permament Member, India ? Pakistan ? Iran ?

(Remember that all 5 Permament Members are Nuclear Powers, they don't like the idea of having non-nuclear members in the most exclusive club in the world).

It's all supposition anyways. One day the UN will self-implode much the way the League of Nations did. It will be replaced with a newer version, designed to correct the problems of the old system, just like the UN was supposed to fix the problems that plagued the League of Nations. And so it will go until............"boom"

I'm myself awaiting the US to sign the same documents as many other democratic states...*cough* something about a court somewhere *cough*...

"Everyone is equal, some more then others"?

I agree, except you're painting too negative a picture of European and other memberstates here. They are not backing Israel in the same way as the US, but there are good reasons for this which have nothing to do with oil or bribes.

Perhaps.

I'll bet some of those "good reasons" are the very large Muslim populations in some of those countries. Some of those reasons may also have to do with with the persecution that the Jews have faced for hundreds of years (before WWII, it wasn't just the Arabs that disliked them). They were actively persecuted and discriminated against in many countries. Maybe old habits die hard.

Point is, without the US in the UN, Israel's future would be a whole lot dimmer (even though the US would still defend them, probably to the point of defying any kind of embargo or blockades set up).

I agreed with you earlier, I believe the UN needs the US, but now you're overplaying your cards and going off-track.

Which of the mentioned countries have "large Muslim populations"?

And, are you suggesting Israel will not be supported because of anti-semitism? Which of the nations you mentioned is known for anti-semitic policies?

Not true, since then the UN would already be broke since US has withheld its memberfee for several years on many occations.

Yes, to get their way on some matter or another. Once done, the outstanding dues were paid up. In one case, the US had to pony up their dues sooner than they wanted to, or all UN operations would have come to a halt (that was a few years ago, when I was still in uniform)

Not true. Not even close. Please look up the number of forces the different countries supplie to UN-missions. Also peacekeeping and peace-'forcing' (aka going into hot zones).

I was with some of those "forces" (well, in one, along side some others). Many of the forces in the "hot zones" come from poor, 3rd world countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, Argentina, Kenya and Pakistan.

While in a (fairly) hot-zone (Croatia back in 92/93, I was shot at at least 7 times over a 3 month period, judging from the bullets that actually hit my vehicle), one of my taskings was to calculate the total value of all our equipment in theatre.

Everything from vehicles, weapons, computers, tents, spares and so on. This dollar value was then sent to the UN, who credited Canada with a percentage of the value of that equipment. This credit was (is) used to offset Canada's member fees. The number of troops deployed also earns credits.

That Israel would have resolutions against it right away is not true, as you should know.

Or are you saying that it's only US in the whole world that supports Israel? Telling me that GB wouldn't use its veto?

What's not true about Israel not having resolutions passed (or at least submitted) against it right away? Arab nations submit anti-Israeli resolutions quite often. I can't remember what it was about, but the last one I recall making the press had 3 countries vote against it. The US, Israel and, get this, Guatemala of all countries. That was what made it stick in my mind. Guatemala.

(Many other countries simply abstained from the vote).

GB's veto power only applies in the Security Council, not the General Assembly, though to be fair, anything dealing with sanctions, embargoes or blockades would have to go through the Security Council first.

I'm myself awaiting the US to sign the same documents as many other democratic states...*cough* something about a court somewhere *cough*...

"Everyone is equal, some more then others"?

Ever wonder why the US rarely participates in UN peace-keeping/peace-making missions ? They will only do it if an American is in overall charge of the mission.

They won't allow a situation where American troops could fall under the command of another nation.

Similar situation with the World Court. It's not controlled by the US, and the US won't risk Americans, especially members of the military, being charged and tried in a foreign court for crimes commited outside the US (if they can help it). There are exceptions of course (such as the rape cases in Japan) which probably involve a lot of back-door discussions before the offenders are handed over (discussions like: hand over the rapists or shut down your bases in Okinawa and Japan).

Things like Abu Ghraib and Guatanamo come to mind. If the US joined the World Court, some of the guards at those 2 places could be charged and forced to appear before a court run by foreigners. The only control the US would have would be the defense attorneys.

I'm myself awaiting the US to sign the same documents as many other democratic states...*cough* something about a court somewhere *cough*...

Not to worry. These *courts* like the one attempting to try the Bosinian war criminals are a joke. After all these years, how many have been convicted? One, to my knowledge. Milochivich is still 'out there'...

Nah, Gitmo is the answer for these so-called POW's.

Ever wonder why the US rarely participates in UN peace-keeping/peace-making missions ? They will only do it if an American is in overall charge of the mission.

They won't allow a situation where American troops could fall under the command of another nation.

Similar situation with the World Court. It's not controlled by the US, and the US won't risk Americans, especially members of the military, being charged and tried in a foreign court for crimes commited outside the US (if they can help it). There are exceptions of course (such as the rape cases in Japan) which probably involve a lot of back-door discussions before the offenders are handed over (discussions like: hand over the rapists or shut down your bases in Okinawa and Japan).

Things like Abu Ghraib and Guatanamo come to mind. If the US joined the World Court, some of the guards at those 2 places could be charged and forced to appear before a court run by foreigners. The only control the US would have would be the defense attorneys.

It's all about 'control', isn't it?

I am surprised you, as a Canadian, buy into this.

The guards at Abu Ghraib and Guatanamo, as well as their superiors right up the chain of command, should be tried by an independent, international court, just as the guards of the concentration camps and their commanding officers had been tried.

Any reason why the US should have a monopoly on deciding what constitutes a crime against humanity?

I agreed with you earlier, I believe the UN needs the US, but now you're overplaying your cards and going off-track.

Which of the mentioned countries have "large Muslim populations"?

Seriously ?

France: estimated 5-6 million Muslims (9.6% of the population)

Germany: 3.7 million Muslims (3.6% of the population)

Great Britian: 1.6 million (2.8% of the population)

Netherlands: 945,000 (5.8% of the population)

Spain: 1 million (2.3% of the population)

Italy: 825,000 Muslims (1.4% of the population)

Switzerland: 500,000 (estimated, including "illegals", 4.2 % of the population)

Belgium: 400,000 (4% of the population)

Austria: 340,000 (4.1% of the population)

I won't bother listing the Balkans and places like Turkey. The figures noted above came from a BBC News article dated 23 December 2005, so should be fairly accurate (depending on where they got their figures from of course). The real figures are probably much higher.

Muslims in Europe: Country guide (BBC News)

By "large Muslim populations" I didn't mean that they were the majority in any Euro country.

And, are you suggesting Israel will not be supported because of anti-semitism? Which of the nations you mentioned is known for anti-semitic policies?

I don't think any of them would get away with having openly anti-semitic policies. Often times though, actions speak louder than words.

For example, when synagogues and Jewish cemetaries are desecrated, and little if anything is done to apprehend the culprits, you may wonder where some peoples sympathies lay. (Not just in Europe)

When one sits silent while others openly criticize, are they in support of the critics, or "silently" defending the criticized ?

By abstaining from a vote on a sensitive issue (for example: a UN resolution against Israel), is it because you'd like to vote for the resolution, but can't for fear of being labelled anti-semitic ?

Or is it because you'd like to vote against the resolution, but can't for fear of upsetting a large portion of your population?

I can't say for sure that some countries wouldn't support Israel due to anti-semitism. Perhaps they just prefer to support various Arab nations.

If most of your friends are white, does that make you a racist ? Of course not.

If most of your social and economic ties are with Asian nations, does that make you anti-American ?

If most of your social and economic ties are with Arab nations, does that make you anti-semitic ?

My point is, not supporting Israel doesn't automatically make you anti-semetic. (Does it ?)

I'm myself awaiting the US to sign the same documents as many other democratic states...*cough* something about a court somewhere *cough*...

Not to worry. These *courts* like the one attempting to try the Bosinian war criminals are a joke. After all these years, how many have been convicted? One, to my knowledge. Milochivich is still 'out there'...

Nah, Gitmo is the answer for these so-called POW's.

What has Gitmo got to do with "Milochivich" (learn how to spell names)?

Had another smoke of that Kon Khaen crippler again, Boon Mee?

It's all about 'control', isn't it?

I am surprised you, as a Canadian, buy into this.

The guards at Abu Ghraib and Guatanamo, as well as their superiors right up the chain of command, should be tried by an independent, international court, just as the guards of the concentration camps and their commanding officers had been tried.

Any reason why the US should have a monopoly on deciding what constitutes a crime against humanity?

Don't get me wrong, I don't buy into it. I was just trying to point out the justification behind the US's refusal to join the World Court.

Which, as Boon Mee has pointed out, appears to be a rather large and expensive waste of time so far. Then again, Saddam's trail isn't progressing much quicker either

Being the biggest kid on the block, with the biggest stick in your hand, often lets you get away with things others would be slapped for.

It is just one instance where the US prefers to not participate in something most of the rest of the world agrees is a good thing.

The World Court. The Landmine Treaty. The Kyoto Accords.

There's more I'm sure, but it's late, and raining again.

By "large Muslim populations" I didn't mean that they were the majority in any Euro country.

Fair enough, perhaps I read something into your post you didn't mean.

My point is, not supporting Israel doesn't automatically make you anti-semetic. (Does it ?)

I agree with this, again, perhaps I misread your previous comment.

Sure, governments have to take account in some way of their (minority) Muslim populations, but I think you put to much weight on this. The same with the anti-semitism (-defaced graves, I immediately think of incidences in France), but I wouldn't take this as an indication of European gov's stance on international politics.

Anyway, that's a matter of personal judgement and speculation.

The World Court. The Landmine Treaty. The Kyoto Accords.

There's more I'm sure, but it's late, and raining again.

Yes, there is more. I don't think the US have the answer, either, they're in danger of falling off the edge of the flat world at the moment...

I disagree with you, but I am glad I can disagree with you respectfully.

The same with the anti-semitism (-defaced graves, I immediately think of incidences in France), but I wouldn't take this as an indication of European gov's stance on international politics.

I had France and Canada in mind I used the example of desecrated graves and burnt synagogues.

Politics are always complicated. There's always a requirement to perform a balancing act when making, (or not making ?) decisions. International politics just makes things more complicated.

Yes, there is more. I don't think the US have the answer, either, they're in danger of falling off the edge of the flat world at the moment...

I disagree with you, but I am glad I can disagree with you respectfully.

Me too ! Much better than rioting in the streets and burning down local KFC's and MacDonalds (well, I guess the Mickey-D's could still go up in smoke )