At 16:01 22-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
The why was not adressed to that part of your statement. It was adressed to whether letting governments vote is the next best thing.
Do you have a better suggestion?
First of all, I do not know how may of the 191 UN member countries are dictatorships, so I cannot say whether or not they would comprise a majority. Second, the fact that a certain number of countries qualify as "dictatorships" does not mean they all agree with each other. If they would, they would be controlling the UN completely.> >Why should dictatorships be able to dictate their will to representative > >governments. > > In the UN (with the exception of the UNSC), no dictatorship can dictate > their will to other governments. No, but the governments of dictatorships, when they comprise the majority, vote to ensure that resolutions favoring dictatorships pass the UN.
I think that what keeps them from controlling the UN is what keeps the European right-wing extremists from controlling Europe -- these parties have roughly the same unhealthy ideas, they would even be willing to work together, but each and every one them only wants that if *they* can be the leader. And of course, none of the parties are willing to let someone else lead them. They do not trust each other. The same applies for dictators. (Being somewhat paranoid is a great help if you want to be a dictator; do you think that someone like, say, Saddam Hussein, would trust someone like, say, Khadaffi to lead the United Dictatorships?)
Actually, this is the first time I hear that. Can you point me to a website that lists the various members of the various Human Rights commisions?You surely know how they stack the Human Rights commisions with representatives of dictators who commit gross violations of human rights.
(This is not a "I demand proof!" statement -- it is a genuine question.)
Dan, you have to read my statement complete with the paragraph that preceded it. In that paragraph, I did not write about "do what the terrorists want", I wrote about the responsibility of the US with regard to the rest of the world. The US should consider that a war against Iraq will have consequences (in the form of terrorist attacks) not only within the US, but throughout the world. If the US decides to go in alone, without support from the rest of the world, other countries would get attacked by terrorists because of a war they did not even support.> When the US launches a war against Iraq, the fundamentalists in the > Middle East (and elsewhere) will see this as yet another act of > aggression by the Evil US, and will no doubt strike back with terrorist > attacks. When that happens, US cities will not the be the only cities > in the world where bombs will start going off. So, its much better to do whatever terrorists will want, and hope that its the US they hit first, and you'd be spared? That's gutless.
I am not arguing that the UN should walk away from its promises; I am arguing that the US should keep in mind that if they decide to go to war on their own, other countries will still feel the consequences.I can see arguing that the war in Iraq isn't wise. I'm not really a strong supporter of it; there have been thoughtful people who have argued that the negatives outweight the positives. But, arguing that the UN should walk away from its promises because you are afraid that terrorists will get mad if it doesn't is not a reasonable suggestion.
No, my suggestion is to come up with a plan that the international community can support, and see an invasion as the *last* option, not as the *first* option.> And quite frankly, I do not really like the idea of being blown up in The > Netherlands because a warmonger in the White House wants to enforce his > will on the rest of the world. So, your suggestion is to wait until millions die in the US from a WMD, and then you would then graciously allow us to fight back?
Considering the fact that your country kept its representative government only because the US was willing to put NY and Washington on the line to protect it,
Huh? That requires some explanation.
I work for the military, yes, but that does not mean that I favour military action as a First Option.and considering the fact that you are part of the military of the Netherlands, that is reprehensible.
Now *that* is reprehensible -- the idea that the Dutch would deliberately let the Bosnians in Srebrenica be deported (the women and children) or killed (the men).Unfortunately, it adds verisimilitude to the idea that standing aside to keep safe and letting the Bosnians that y'all promised to protect die was no accident.
Coincidentally, I watched a report about that on TV tonight. It again confirmed what I already knew: the problem lies not with the Dutch troops, but with the politicians. One of the things they did wrong was sending the Air Mobile Brigade there (against the recommendations from the military); the AMB was a brand new brigade that was not even operational yet (FREX, it did not even have armoured vehicles) and the first troops were still being trained. They were essentially told to go anyway.
The politicians also failed to consult with other countries. The only country that had gone to Srebrenica was Canada; they were replaced by Dutchbat I. The politicians did not bother to ask the Canadians about their experiences, and did not even wonder why all the other countries, while willing to send troops to Yugoslavia, explicitly refused to go to Srebrenica. First, Srebrenica is situated in a valley, which makes it a nightmare to defend; second, to get there they would have to travel from one end of Serbian territory all the way to the other side, which meant that the Serbs could easily cut off supply lines.
Dutchbat I came and went. Dutchbat II came and went. Then came Dutchbat III. And then the Serbs attacked Srebrenica. Why did the Dutch troops not stop them? Well, they could not do that. The heaviest vehicle they had were light armoured personnel carriers, the heaviest weapon they had were .50 calibre machine guns. That kind of equipment is no match for Serbian tanks. It also did not help that the troops were relatively small in number and had not been trained well enough for the mission.
But, at least now you have the chance to read the entire NIOD report on it, free of charge. The full text (in English) is available at http://194.134.65.21/srebrenica/. One hell of a read, though, considering that the printed version is IIRC some 3,000 pages...
Jeroen "Make love, not war" van Baardwijk
__________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
