quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 So using your math, any other country has 4/4 or 100% chance of being blocked? Anyway, US can influence all the members of security council by other means (like getting Russians to their side by promising financial loans).

REGARDLESS of which mathematical method you use the US has an equal chance of being blocked as ANY other country. With regards to influence ... I hardly think that EVERY country on the security council can be influenced to side with the US. OTHERWISE THE UN WOULD BE THE US. OTHERWISE THERE WOULDNT BE THIS WHOLE IRAQ ISSUE. PLEASE illustrate an example where the US clear cut and FORCIBLY INTIMIDATED, INFLUENCED, or FORCED the security council to accept a an issue.

Let's look at the security council members:
US
Britain - a traditional ally of the US, blair does what Bush says
Russia - in financial troubles, can be bribed very easily with loans, or by promises that the US will not mind what goes on in Chechenya
France - more or less neutral
China - not very favorable towards the US, but growing more favorable because of the improving trade relations.

Of 5 council votes, two are immediately on the US side, while one is very easily converted. France is not so powerful to go against the rest of the council, but is usually playing hard to get so that it gains image of a decision maker. China might have been an opposing factor earlier, but now is also willing to agree with the US for a price. And US has enough money to offer them all they want.

No other country has a so favorable situation in the UN, because they all have to talk 5 security council members into supporting them, while US has to do it with only 3, and has enough power and money to buy their oppinions. Therefore US has not forced or pressured any of those countries into voting for the US, but has rather bought their support instead.

Everyone's oppinion can be bought, it's only the price that matters. And the US has enough resources to pay that price.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Everyone's oppinion can be bought, it's only the price that matters. And the US has enough resources to pay that price.

true, but the US does not have a monopoly over wealth and resource. it has gotten there through hard work and investment. the four other members are very strong on their own as is, and there is nothing stopping them from gaining the same power the US has, especially china and russia who have a tremandous territories and a vast wealth of resources and human power.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

it has gotten there through hard work and investment.

I would also add the USA got where it is as a result of the slave trade, the genocide of the indigenous population, and the brutal exploitation of its colonies. The USA is an imperialist power just like the European powers in the 19th century.


On Cuba

quote:

what does that have to do with the UN? sanctions are a sovergnty issue each country can decide on its own

Fine, forget the crippling sanctions regime, what about the attempted invasion, the attempts to assassinate Castro?

quote:

Did the UN do anything about Chechnyian terrorist atrocities committed agianst Russia?

That is outrageous. That the same as saying the allies were wrong in carpet bombing the German and Japanese cities in World War 2. To that I say the axis powers started the war, the people in those countries supported their leaders when the going was good, they had no problem when it was their side doing the bombing. Those people got what they deserved. The person who starts a war cant be compared to the person who defends themselves.

The Chechens are entitled under international law to self determination. If that requires terrorism or killing soldiers so be it. The Chechens like every other persecuted minority group in the world are just playing the game with the cards they get dealt with. If one group, race, country uses its power to persecute a minority then they should expect and deserve retaliation.

quote:

true, but the US does not have a monopoly over wealth and resource. it has gotten there through hard work and investment. the four other members are very strong on their own as is, and there is nothing stopping them from gaining the same power the US has, especially china and russia who have a tremandous territories and a vast wealth of resources and human power.

Well, part of it was hard work, but additionally to what rupert said, part of it is also WW1 and WW2. Before WW1, most european major countries were way above the US. But the first war exhausted them enough to become about equal with the US, and the second pushed them below the US standards.

And the US doesn't have a monopoly over wealth and resources, but it's not far from it as it does control more than any other country.
The other countries can gain the same power only if they have rapidly higher economic growth than America does. Although, with Bush's economic skills, that just may happen.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by rupert I would also add the USA got where it is as a result of the slave trade, the genocide of the indigenous population, and the brutal exploitation of its colonies. The USA is an imperialist power just like the European powers in the 19th century.

i disagree, i more agree with drug_tito's reason as to why america became so powerful. what you just said could apply to many nations, UK comes to mind but they didnt achieve the same power as the US.

quote:

Fine, forget the crippling sanctions regime, what about the attempted invasion, the attempts to assassinate Castro?

fine, but lets not forget to look at the other side of the mirror. the invasion of the bay of pigs was a result of US aggression agianst communism, and at the heavy russian influence on that country, remember the missle crisis. dont forget US and Russia were at war agianst each other, be it a cold one, and cuba was just a proxy battle ground.

quote:

The Chechens are entitled under international law to self determination.

say what? where does it say that? never heard of such a resolution or law of that kind! got any proof?

do the native americans have a right to self determination? do the french quebecians have a right to self determination? do the omish people of pennsilvania have a right to self determination? does any and every ethnical group on earth have a right to self determination?

fact is that in 1722 Russian Czar Peter the Great annexed Dagestan (the area ecompassing Chechnya). Chechnya broke away from Russia in 1991. But the declaration went unrecognized by Moscow and the world community. thats like saying all of a sudden rhode island wants to become independent, of course the US and the world would not recognize that. furthuremore with the use of blatant intentional use of force by rebel chechnyians agianst innocent russian civilians, such political movements should not even be worth negotiating with until such actions stop.
the cessacion of terrorism, i think, should be a pre-cursor to any diplomatic relations.

quote:

If that requires terrorism or killing soldiers so be it

excuse me, but i think you're just plain wrong

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Let's look at the security council members: US Britain - a traditional ally of the US, blair does what Bush says Russia - in financial troubles, can be bribed very easily with loans, or by promises that the US will not mind what goes on in Chechenya France - more or less neutral China - not very favorable towards the US, but growing more favorable because of the improving trade relations. Of 5 council votes, two are immediately on the US side, while one is very easily converted. France is not so powerful to go against the rest of the council, but is usually playing hard to get so that it gains image of a decision maker. China might have been an opposing factor earlier, but now is also willing to agree with the US for a price. And US has enough money to offer them all they want. No other country has a so favorable situation in the UN, because they all have to talk 5 security council members into supporting them, while US has to do it with only 3, and has enough power and money to buy their oppinions. Therefore US has not forced or pressured any of those countries into voting for the US, but has rather bought their support instead. Everyone's oppinion can be bought, it's only the price that matters. And the US has enough resources to pay that price.

I'm not quite sure which of what you're saying is worse. That the US forces every important country in the UN to agree with them, or that all the countries on the security council are willing to bend over backwards and take it up the ass for some hand me downs. Say what you will, but International politics is all about alliances and tit for tat relationships. If you think that what the US is doing now differs from 3000 years of organized government, than you're sadly mistaken. How about this crazy theory ... maybe, just maybe, the reason why a resolution passes through the security council is because of the merits of the resolution. I know ... who am I fooling?

quote:

say what? where does it say that? never heard of such a resolution or law of that kind! got any proof?

Self Determination is implied in the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Taken from the UN webpage..

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations on 10 December 1948, represents a common statement of the goals and aspirations regarding human rights and other fundamental freedoms. It recognizes among other things: the fundamental rights of all people to life, liberty and the security of person; the right to an adequate standard of living; the right to own property; the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right to education, freedom of thought, conscience and religion; and the right to freedom from torture and degrading treatment.


The UN Charter also imposes obligations on those who govern non-self governing territories, to assist them towards obtaining self-determination.

quote:

do the native americans have a right to self determination? do the french quebecians have a right to self determination? do the omish people of pennsilvania have a right to self determination? does any and every ethnical group on earth have a right to self determination?

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. If it is the will of the people that they obtain self-determination then they have an inalienable right to obtain it. A person who cannot live their lives according to their beliefs and traditions and who cannot decide how they will be governed is nothing more than a slave.

quote:

I'm not quite sure which of what you're saying is worse. That the US forces every important country in the UN to agree with them, or that all the countries on the security council are willing to bend over backwards and take it up the ass for some hand me downs. Say what you will, but International politics is all about alliances and tit for tat relationships. If you think that what the US is doing now differs from 3000 years of organized government, than you're sadly mistaken.

I know it's been happening before, and I surely don't think the US is the first one to do it. It is a thing that can't be avoided. By this I'm just saying that the US does have more influence in the UN than other countries.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by rupert Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. If it is the will of the people that they obtain self-determination then they have an inalienable right to obtain it. A person who cannot live their lives according to their beliefs and traditions and who cannot decide how they will be governed is nothing more than a slave.

Fundamentally speaking, I want to agree with this principle. But it's very complicated when two peoples' rights to self-determination are directly opposed to one another (i.e. Israel/Palestine). To some extent, also, a limitation must be placed on what constitutes self-determination. I mean, if I feel that the U.S. doesn't allow myself to live according to my beliefs and traditions, can I claim control of the state of Virginia and declare independence? Obviously this would only lead to chaos. In the same way, Russia by international law own the land the Chechnyans are living on. They don't have any right to take that land. They certainly ought to be given more rights, but a unilateral declaration such as the one you're citing doesn't really help solve real-world scenarios.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert Self Determination is implied in the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Taken from the UN webpage.. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations on 10 December 1948, represents a common statement of the goals and aspirations regarding human rights and other fundamental freedoms. It recognizes among other things: the fundamental rights of all people to life, liberty and the security of person; the right to an adequate standard of living; the right to own property; the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right to education, freedom of thought, conscience and religion; and the right to freedom from torture and degrading treatment.

Everything you've said up to this point are undisputable, individual rights.

quote:

The UN Charter also imposes obligations on those who govern non-self governing territories, to assist them towards obtaining self-determination. Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. If it is the will of the people that they obtain self-determination then they have an inalienable right to obtain it. A person who cannot live their lives according to their beliefs and traditions and who cannot decide how they will be governed is nothing more than a slave.

What's the magical legal disclaimer here? NON-SELF GOVERNING TERRITORIES!!!!! TERRITORIES!!!! This UN "mandate" is a bunch of idealistic bullshit that fails to fully address the issue. This is why I hate the UN, they make a statement, then they castrate themselves so they're not expected to have the balls to stand up for what they're trying to say. This statement can be interpreted into meaning that Chechnya, Idaho, or the bowling alley down the street has a right to secession. A bunch of IDIOTS!!!!