The French.Are they entitled to a permanent seat on the security council |
| Posted by: battleweary | | Can anyone tell me how the French got a place on the Security Council?
As a country they haven't won a war for over 200 years. They always seem to lose. They are about as secure as a sieve and their latest antics show they know nothing about world security | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: NothingSacred | | I'm not sure how they got on, but I don't think the by-laws require that you must vote with the U.S.?
I don't think anybody should have a veto. What if there's a need to sanction the U.S. or Russia or G.B. how could you do it? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Charles | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by NothingSacred
I'm not sure how they got on, but I don't think the by-laws require that you must vote with the U.S.?
I don't think anybody should have a veto. What if there's a need to sanction the U.S. or Russia or G.B. how could you do it? |
Nothing Sacred:
After I clarified your example of bombing someone just because they have a mirrir on their roof.
Was my example too stupid?
Charles
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Right-hand | | The French are one of the few countries in the world that possess nuclear weapons. That is likely to be the reason why they got their seat on the Security Council. Don't think to hard about it though, look at who is currently in charge of the human rights council at the UN - Lybia! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: DrPoke | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by battleweary
Can anyone tell me how the French got a place on the Security Council?
As a country they haven't won a war for over 200 years. They always seem to lose. They are about as secure as a sieve and their latest antics show they know nothing about world security |
They got a place like the USA, GB, China and Russia as permanent members because at the formation of these councils they, like the others, were in possession of nuclear weapons. (Also USA, GB, Russia, France were the allies in WWII)
Currently many other members of the UN are putting forward their arguments to become permenant members of the security council. Some say representative should be from each continent, others that members should be assessed on their economic stability and military power.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Charles | | The UN was founded in 1945.
At this time only the USA had nuclear weapons.
France was invited to participate as a permanent member of the security council because they, along with China, USA, UK, and "USSR", were on the winning side of WWII.
Their contribution to victory was absolutely minimal, relative to the contributions of the other members. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: zid | | Yes, the French do have rights as a Permanent Member of the Security Council. Winning a war or conflict has nothing to do with establishing policy and negotiating a political solution.
France has, for a long time now, been a strong voice on the European Front. They are a respected member of the world community (even though I don't agree with everything they say or stand by....but then again...who am I..=P) and hears and acts on behalf of alot of other nations. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Americaaah | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Ron Ackerman
We shouldn't judge the French by their current leader. |
Too late!
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Americaaah | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by battleweary
As a country the [French] haven't won a war for over 200 years. They always seem to lose. They are about as secure as a sieve and their latest antics show they know nothing about world security |
You got that right!
"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man." —George S. Patton on the French Maginot Line and Hitler's Atlantic Wall.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Barbed wire | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by battleweary
Can anyone tell me how the French got a place on the Security Council?
As a country they haven't won a war for over 200 years. They always seem to lose. They are about as secure as a sieve and their latest antics show they know nothing about world security |
1. UNSC was founded in regard of the balance in international politics at the time of founding (WWII and post-war era).
2. France was victorious before 1812 led by Napoleon. It was about 190 yrs ago. Later it succeded in Crimean war in 1855, then successfully helped the Italians during their revolution (Emperor Napoleon III). They also was a winning party at WW I.
RTF(history textbook).
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Barbed wire | | Decision on UN and all the shape of post-war world was decided by the winner allies (UK, US, USSR) on
1. Yalta conference in 1943
2.Potsdam (spelling?) conference in 1945. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | If you are simply going on the fact that France has not won a war in a long time then why the hell are China on the permanent council.
France is in there because it is one of the three stongest countries in Europe along with Britain, and Germany, it also a nuclear power, anyone see a comparison with China, stongest country in Asia and a nuclear power. And also the US srongest country in north/south american continent and also a nuclear power. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Barbed wire | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by lodgebo
If you are simply going on the fact that France has not won a war in a long time then why the hell are China on the permanent council.
|
Really? in XX century France won WWI and lost WWII.
1:1
But there is loosing France's colonies.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: JY_French | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Barbed wire
Really? in XX century France won WWI and lost WWII.
1:1
But there is loosing France's colonies. |
Barbed wire: France, at the price of huge losses, won WW1. It lost the war against Germany by june 1940 (it was not yet a world war) but was part of the winners at the end of WW2 since soldiers enlisted in Free French Forces were involved in all of the battles waged during the war - with significant successes. This is only an example, but Paris was liberated thanks first to the French Resistance, then by Leclerc's 2nd Armoured Division.
The French signed a peace treaty with the Germans as winners.
Of course, the contribution of allies has been crucial to reach this situation. It is obvious that without the actions of the US nothing would have been possible.
War in Indochina (former name of Vietnam) in the fifthies has been a failure mainly because of political reasons (as for the beginning of WW2). War in Algeria (1954 - 1961) was won militarily but lost politically. By the way, Indochina and Algeria were decolonization wars. One can discuss about how good or bad it is to win or lose such wars. They should not be waged at all.
I suggest to Battleweary to open some history books prior to curse others.
Concerning UNSC, and the right to have a veto, I think some reforms are necessary. No more veto right to anybody, an enlarged UNSC - many countries could pretend to be part of it - and a real democratic ruling. Countries such as Lybia or Cuba should not be allowed to lead committees dealing with human rights concerns, unless they carry out all of the necessary internal actions and reforms to prove they are entitled to do it.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Barbed wire | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by JY_French
Barbed wire: France, at the price of huge losses, won WW1. It lost the war against Germany by june 1940 (it was not yet a world war) but was part of the winners at the end of WW2 since soldiers enlisted in Free French Forces were involved in all of the battles waged during the war - with significant successes. This is only an example, but Paris was liberated thanks first to the French Resistance, then by Leclerc's 2nd Armoured Division.
The French signed a peace treaty with the Germans as winners.
Of course, the contribution of allies has been crucial to reach this situation. It is obvious that without the actions of the US nothing would have been possible.
War in Indochina (former name of Vietnam) in the fifthies has been a failure mainly because of political reasons (as for the beginning of WW2). War in Algeria (1954 - 1961) was won militarily but lost politically. By the way, Indochina and Algeria were decolonization wars. One can discuss about how good or bad it is to win or lose such wars. They should not be waged at all.
Concerning UNSC, and the right to have a veto, I think some reforms are necessary. No more veto right to anybody, an enlarged UNSC - many countries could pretend to be part of it - and a real democratic ruling. Countries such as Lybia or Cuba should not be allowed to lead committees dealing with human rights concerns, unless they carry out all of the necessary internal actions and reforms to prove they are entitled to do it. |
Look, as the question was initially formulated, the efforts to win and moral issues are irrelevant. To win or to loose - is what matters.
About the UNSC: at first, it was an effort to install a kind of international law as a result of gentlemen's agreement between the strongest world powers.
The all history of the UN shows that it's not working. If the UN was a most powerful organisation itself including having the most powerful military force its existence would have sense.
I beleive we should return to what works: 'the strong rules' principle.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: frenchfries | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by battleweary
Can anyone tell me how the French got a place on the Security Council?
As a country they haven't won a war for over 200 years. They always seem to lose. They are about as secure as a sieve and their latest antics show they know nothing about world security |
Should USA be allowed to have a seat there? They endangered and jeopardized the UNSC and behaved like a rogue state!
Why should France, second european Economic and military power, be excluded?
Because we refused to obey blindly to some stupid lying ignorant US politicians?
Or is it because you would like to be able to do whatever you think is good, according YOUR criterias, to "protect" other people interests? Keep your crap!!!
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Barbed wire | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by frenchfries
Should USA be allowed to have a seat there? They endangered and jeopardized the UNSC and behaved like a rogue state!
Why should France, second european Economic and military power, be excluded?
Because we refused to obey blindly to some stupid lying ignorant US politicians?
Or is it because you would like to be able to do whatever you think is good, according YOUR criterias, to "protect" other people interests? Keep your crap!!! |
When the speech is about US behaviour towards the UN I remember the France & Germany's behaviour to EU.
When the UN says: "no, we won't rule the invasion to Iraq" the US says in reply: "Guys, we don't care, you're irrelevant, we'll attack them by ourselves".
When the EU says "you should have your budget deficite below 3% of GDP" France and Germany reply: "we're the economic crest of the union, we have the right not to obey".
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Barbed wire | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Ron Ackerman
Ah the US started the UN.... |
To start an alliance., like to start a marriage, one party isn't enough.
But, you're right, the idea was Roosevelt's, but it wasn't new: remember the League of Nations...
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: frenchfries | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Barbed wire
When the speech is about US behaviour towards the UN I remember the France & Germany's behaviour to EU.
When the UN says: "no, we won't rule the invasion to Iraq" the US says in reply: "Guys, we don't care, you're irrelevant, we'll attack them by ourselves".
When the EU says "you should have your budget deficite below 3% of GDP" France and Germany reply: "we're the economic crest of the union, we have the right not to obey". |
you are right, but can we compare both situations? I mean, it's just about money, not about lifes. Furtehrmore, they nevr endangered EU.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Barbed wire | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by frenchfries
you are right, but can we compare both situations? I mean, it's just about money, not about lifes. Furtehrmore, they nevr endangered EU. |
Sometimes a leader should sacrifice some lives (especially lives of others) to save the MORE lives of his/her people.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: frenchfries | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Barbed wire
Sometimes a leader should sacrifice some lives (especially lives of others) to save the MORE lives of his/her people. |
Only when the threat is obvious, overwise, all and nothing can justify wars.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Americaaah | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by frenchfries
Only when the threat is obvious, overwise, all and nothing can justify wars. |
And you'll be the judge of that, right, Frenchie?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | But he is right, war is always the last option and you have to get it spot on. Would you not agree with that ? | | Reply To this Message
|
Post-9/11 Era Forum: The French.Are they entitled to a permanent seat on the security council
|
