The Lefty Boom

Just throwing in my two cents before brelfast:

nimh has ecplained excactly, what I think.

"Owing" to the US? Staying 'lifelong' in dependency?

0 Replies

By "great victors they were not" I mean they were both losers, one to Japan and one to Germany. Okay, nice guys, but how did they earn those permanent seats? US, Russia, and Great Britain make sense to me, and I think that opinion is related to reality - not any prejudice of my own.

0 Replies

Germany isn't a permanent menber of the secutrity council.
Current SC Members
The Council has 15 members-- five permanent members and 10 elected
by the General Assembly for two-year terms:
Membership and Presidency of the Security Council in 2003

MONTH

PRESIDENCY

MEMBERSHIP TERM ENDS

January

France

Permanent Member

February

Germany

31 December 2004

March

Guinea

31 December 2003

April

Mexico

31 December 2003

May

Pakistan

31 December 2004

June

Russian Federation

Permanent Member

July

Spain

31 December 2004

August

Syrian Arab Republic

31 December 2003

September

United Kingdom

Permanent Member

October

United States

Permanent Member

November

Angola

31 December 2004

December

Bulgaria

31 December 2003

Cameroon

31 December 2003

China

Permanent Member

Chile

31 December 2004

The following countries began their two-year membership term on 1 January 2003:
Angola

Chile

Germany

Pakistan

Spain

Each Council member has one vote. Decisions on procedural matters are made by an affirmative vote of at least nine of the 15 members. Decisions onsubstantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. This is the rule of "great Power unanimity", often referred to as the "veto" power.

Under the Charter, all Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. While other organs of the United Nations make recommendations to Governments, the Council alone has the power to take decisions which Member States are obligated under the Charter to carry out.

0 Replies

More on the UNSC:UNSC

Quote:

The Security Council has primary responsibility, under the Charter,for the maintenance of international peace and security. It is so organized as to be able to function continuously, and a representative of each of its members must be present at all times at United Nations Headquarters. On 31 January 1992, the first ever Summit Meeting of the Council was convened at Headquarters, attended by Heads of State and Government of 13 of its 15 members and by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the remaining two. The Council may meet elsewhere than at Headquarters; in 1972, it held a session in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and the following year in Panama City, Panama.

When a complaint concerning a threat to peace is brought before it, the Council's first action is usually to recommend to the parties to try to reach agreement by peaceful means. In some cases, the Council itself undertakes investigation and mediation. It may appoint special representatives or request the Secretary-General to do so or to use his good offices. It may set forth principles for a peaceful settlement.

When a dispute leads to fighting, the Council's first concern is to bring it to an end as soon as possible. On many occasions, the Council has issued cease-fire directives which have been instrumental in preventing wider hostilities. It also sends United Nations peace-keeping forces to help reduce tensions in troubled areas, keep opposing forces apart and create conditions of calm in which peaceful settlements may be sought. The Council may decide on enforcement measures, economic sanctions (such as trade embargoes) or collective military action.

A Member State against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council. A Member State which has persistently violated the principles of the Charter may be expelled from the United Nations by the Assembly on the Council's recommendation.

A State which is a Member of the United Nations but not of the Security Council may participate, without a vote, in its discussions when the Council considers that that country's interests are affected. Both Members of the United Nations and non-members, if they are parties to a dispute being considered by the Council, are invited to take part, without a vote, in the Council's discussions; the Council sets the conditions for participation by a non-member State.

The Presidency of the Council rotates monthly, according to the English alphabetical listing of its member States.

That's it for me for tonight. Pumpkin time. Cool

0 Replies

perception wrote:

I am about to make an enemy of someone whose opinion I always have respected so I apologize for offending you.

Nah, dont worry, I dont do enemies and I was already well aware of your opinions.

I do wish you wouldnt bandy around random rhetorics like that if you're not willing to answer serious follow-up questions about it. Hobit is right, it makes it look like mere "posturing". Personally, I tend to tell myself, if you're not willing to back it up or defend it, don't say it - but then again, that's just me. There's any random number of posters here who merely walk in, post their opinion like it was some kind of deposit, walk out again. Freedom of speech and all that. Only difference with c.i. is that his opinions are less controversial, and therefore hardly anyone calls him on it.

At least you already have posted a number of replies to questions on the page before - can't say you're not trying. Still, can't escape the impression, either, that you're happy to launch into "thats just the way it is" tirades, only to then refuse to answer any difficult questions when it turns out some of your propositions are demonstrably incorrect - choosing to defiantly sneer at your questioners instead. So perhaps not trying all that hard. I guess thats still all OK, fundamentally - nothing against the TOS there, I'd presume. It does kinda dissuade most of us from even responding to your posts the next time round, or taking them seriously - or sympathising with you when you're again lamenting of how people are picking on you. I guess if you are OK with that, we can all carry on as before - 's just earlier in this thread, I had the distinct impression you weren't.

<steps off soapbox, or pulpit, or whatever it was>.
<and leaves it be, hopefully!>

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

Germany isn't a permanent menber of the secutrity council.
Current SC Members
The Council has 15 members-- five permanent members and 10 elected
by the General Assembly for two-year terms:

Jeez, man, cant you edit that to fit on one screen instead of three, or something?

(Damn right I'm in a cranky mood)

In any case, I dont think Roger was talking about Germany. He was talking about China and France.

0 Replies

Try some chocolate nimh, or mebbe some brandy.

0 Replies

Om....... om......... om.........

0 Replies

i had two chocolate cookies already, and it aint helpin'.

cant do the alcohol, i'm at work. (that aint workin, either).

0 Replies

Then go with it, Nimh. I'm serious! Then, after work, go for a run.

0 Replies

Nimh

You put forward many valid points/arguments as you always do. I admit there is a certain amount of "take it or leave it" tone in my words but I'm certain you don't expect me to just "roll over and play dead"---it's just not in my make-up. Let's face it---America has been thrust into the world leadership role by default----we didn't campaign for it but now that we're here we must realize that we can not please everyone , therefore the best plan is to act in a way that will be in the best interests of the most people.

You may be interested to know that I may wind up hating Bush and Rumsfeld more than any of you. They appear to be going Wobbly on Iraq. The way I see it Iraq is the battle field that will determine whether we defeat terrorism soon or let it drag on indefinitely. Rumsfeld has I believed, done a good job bringing the Generals into line with the need for a much more streamlined and efficient military. Now that the tactics have changed he doesn't seem to have valid plan B. This I find absolutely intollerable if my conclusion is accurate. I truly hope I am wrong

I try not be naive in my thinking about the inevitable mis-use of power (regardless of which party is in power) and I have seen the implementation of great plans that I knew nothing about proving time and time again that this gov't is loaded with brilliant people.
The fact remains that I don't like what I see happening in Iraq or Afghanistan----I surely hope I'm wrong.

You're well educated and sophisticated and many of our ways seem simplistic and foolish to you I'm certain. You have good reason to be concerned but I have great faith in our ability to adapt, improvise and overcome the odds. Hope you're with us as we constantly are forced to adapt and cope with the ever changing environment.

Re-reading this it seems a bit over the top but it's the way I feel and I've always believed you couldn't go wrong speaking from the heart.

0 Replies

Quote:

Rumsfeld has I believed, done a good job bringing the Generals into line with the need for a much more streamlined and efficient military.

. How is this so, when events in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown that the current size and makeup of the Army is too small already?Can you back up your opinion that Rumsfeld has been vindicated?

0 Replies

You don't need vindication unless you really messed up and it should be accompanied by a mea culpa. They demanded one for sex in the White House -- is this any less important?

0 Replies

perception wrote:

You have good reason to be concerned but I have great faith in our ability to adapt, improvise and overcome the odds. Hope you're with us as we constantly are forced to adapt and cope with the ever changing environment.

Re-reading this it seems a bit over the top but it's the way I feel and I've always believed you couldn't go wrong speaking from the heart.

I have always admired the American ability to always adapt, improvise and overcome the odds. It's impossible to stop America, it seems - everytime resurging only to achieve a yet bigger head start in political, economic and cultural power. Most of it seems to be based on stubborn, hard work; a news item this week noted that productivity per hour in the US was lower than in Europe, but it was more than made up by the number of hours an American works. Hard work and a stubborn believe in one's own superiority - "we got it right".

The results are intimidating - however maddeningly misguided they may seem to many of us, they're being achieved - put in place - faster than the EU could even have gathered the resolve to try doing the same. That may be a caricature, but episodes like the belated intervention in Bosnia show that, shamefully, in the end you still need the US to cut the knot and get things done, when they really need to be done. America seem to have this tremendous capacity of getting things done. You just got to be jealous of this - even if the exasperating bit is that it seems to be getting the wrong thing done as often as not. America's past actions certainly don't seem to have done itself any great harm, in the long term. But it's done grave harm to others as often as it did great good.

Thats why we're so ardent with our warnings, admonishments, criticisms. You just know that this superpower isnt going to implode any time soon - its gonna be around. We're not out to drag America back - but we know that America is going to determine our fate - the fate of all the world.

<sighs> If only America would think and listen more like Europe; if only Europe would feel and act more like America. But now I'm just spouting cliches, I think.

Thanks for your answer, perception. <nods>.

0 Replies

Nimh

Thanks for your reply-----it seems that you and I at least have achieved a small start at a mutual understanding.
Looking forward to expanding it but for this moment I am "wrung out".

0 Replies

Bill W.

The "father" of the Neoconservative movement, Irving Kristol, in his book "Neoconservatism- the Autobiography of an idea says that Neoconservatism is more of a descriptive term than a prescriptive one. He says:

"It describes the erosion of liberal faith among a relatively small but talented and articulate group of scholars and intellectuals and the movement of this groupo( which gradually gained many new recruits) towards a more conservative point of view...based on skepticism of many of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society initiatives and increasingly disbelieving of the liberal metaphysics, the view of human nature and of social and economic realities, on which those programs were based" ( end of quote)

It is my opinion, based on a good deal of reading,that liberalism has run its course precisely because the new science of Evolutionary Psychology and the discoveries concerning the human genome knock out the last pillars of the leftist dogma that man is a blank slate and can be completely changed by forces outside of him.

0 Replies

Welcome, massagattos!

You should read The Emerging Democratic Majority.

The demographic trends don't favor the neoconservative ideology.

Shortly we'll look back on the period in political history with embarassment and disgrace.

In about 15 months, I'm thinking.

0 Replies

the nature/nurture debate has raged consistently over the past 50 years and seems to be coming to a modicum of balance (in academia at least) however Rat-O-Morphic Skinner Box politics seems to be just now getting its ugly legs on the ground with the New Conservative movement. Social progress, not unlike bio-evolution, has taken many blind alleys while untimately (hopefully) improving the viability of mankind. To seek a return to some non-existent past of Ayn Randian Individualism, the current Social Darwinist dreams of the american right is not just a blind alley of reactionary short sghtedness, it may very well hallmark the beginings of a new dark age. Fiat Lux. but thats just my opinion, i may be wrong.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

Shortly we'll look back on the period in political history with embarassment and disgrace.

In about 15 months, I'm thinking.

I tend to agree ... but I don't think The Right is gonna be the disgraced and embarrassed faction.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

PDiddie wrote:
Shortly we'll look back on the period in political history with embarassment and disgrace.

In about 15 months, I'm thinking.

I tend to agree ... but I don't think The Right is gonna be the disgraced and embarrassed faction.

And your reasoning is? Certainly the left is not blameless (see: Whitewater), but the actions of the curent administration are shameful.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know