The two most terrible countries in the world?
October 19th, 2004


Most Europeans, their pontificators and their polls tell us, think that America and Israel are the two most terrible polities on this planet. Not nuclear North Korea. Not near-nuclear Iran. Not the Sudan, which is practicing genocide. Not even Saudi Arabia, which besides exporting oil and terrorists peddles and bankrolls extreme Wahabbism around the world.

What in Heaven’s name is happening across the Atlantic pond, especially among the Angry Left, whom Lenin used to call the Useful Idiots? Are they thinking rationally? Or are they just emoting against the current President of the United States and the current Prime Minister of Israel?

Did the Europeans like Americans and Israelis more when former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, at the behest of former President Bill Clinton, offered Palestine Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat some 95 percent of the Israeli-occupied territories, a portion of East Jerusalem for his capital, and the dismantling of most of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip? And were the Europeans at all upset when Arafat rejected Barak's offer and began the present intifada?

The truth is that, except for a very few astute observers like Alexis de Tocqeville, Sir Winston Churchill, Lady Margaret Thatcher, and Alistair Cooke, in his marvelous “Letters from America” series on BBC, European intellectuals have never understood the United States. Nor have they wanted to. They’ve always had contempt for us. They have always mocked America’s dynamism, openness, diversity, informality, social mobility, and appeal to the huddled masses of the world.

Never mind that the United States saved Europe in two World Wars and that thousands of American soldiers lie buried in its graveyards. But saving Europe when it screws up is what the United States is supposed to do. And damning Americans for saving them is what Europeans are supposed to do, under the French principle that no good deed should go unpunished.

Also, with the exception of Great Britain, Europe cannot forgive history for its having ceded to the New World the Old World’s erstwhile cultural, diplomatic, economic, and military dominance. France, in particular, cannot abide the fact that it’s no longer a great power. It therefore compensates by tweaking America whenever it can. France exaggerates the importance of its veto on the United Nations Security Council and fantasizes about earlier centuries of real and imagined Gallic glory.

When Europe’s elites and their American hangers-on proclaim that the world despises Americans, they are being delusional. Americans are not flocking to foreign consulates, begging for visas, or sneaking across borders and oceans, so that they can live happily in, say, North Korea, China, Pakistan, or the Congo. Rather, it is the other way around. When was the last time Europeans or anyone else saw Floridians rafting to Cuba to live under Fidel Castro, or Californians crossing deserts to work illegally in Mexico?

As for the Islamist terrorists, they have generally ignored Europe, though not completely, as evidenced by the recent attacks in Spain, France, Turkey, and Russia. Until now, their main focus has been on the Great Satan, which, among its many sins, is its refusal to abandon Israel, the Little Satan.

One wonders why the Europeans, who claim to understand everything, cannot comprehend that for Americans September 11 was the Pearl Harbor of World War Three. Are they so mired in their anti-Americanism that they will worry about the Jihadist threat to Western civilization only after a biological, chemical, or nuclear version of September 11 — not in New York or Washington, but in London, Paris, Stockholm, or Brussels?

As for the Europeans’ negative attitude toward Israel, here, too, they are being delusional, if not outright anti-Semitic. Of course, anti-Israelism is not a synonym for anti-Semitism. And one can favor the evacuation of every Jewish settlement from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank without being either anti-Israel or anti-Jewish. But what is one to make of Europe's unceasing criticism of Israel's response to terror and to the bloodiest intifada in Israeli history?

Since it is a democracy, Israel cannot resort to the military methods that Arabs have used with much success. For example, in order to save his kingdom, the late King Hussein killed several thousand Palestinians and ousted Yasser Arafat from Jordan in “Black September” 1970. Hafez al-Assad killed 20,000 Syrians in Hama in 1982. And Saddam Hussein tested poison gasses in 1988 on Iraqi Kurds in Halabjah, killing 5,000, and then employed the gasses against Iran in the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s. Nevertheless, famous for their double standards, the Europeans saw nothing, heard nothing, and said nothing.

The Europeans are also unwilling and unable to grasp the impact of the Holocaust — which took place on their turf, after all — upon the Israeli psyche and the Jewish soul. They don't understand that after Auschwitz even Israelis with no familial ties to Europe are determined to ensure that the spectacle of Jews being killed and maimed with immunity and impunity will never happen again, especially in the Middle East.

In the days before we in the West could imagine Palestinian children being used as suicide bombers, and their parents praising them for it, the late Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, herself a mother, used to say that “we shall have peace with our neighbors only when they begin to love their children more than they hate ours.”

If Europe really wants to help — and I am not sure that it does — let it spend its time and money persuading the Arabs and their coreligionists that a sovereign Palestine living in peace with its infidel neighbor is a far nobler Islamic goal than a vanquished Jewish state would ever be.

If Europe really wants to help, let it acknowledge that even without a Jewish Israel there would still be hostility, dictatorship, cronyism, corruption, and overpopulation in the Middle East; there would still be Arab states without oil resenting Arab states who have oil; there would still be hundreds of thousands of unemployed and underemployed Palestinians; there would still al Qaeda terrorists; and there would still be 1.3 billion Muslims in the world.

If only one percent of Muslims are radical Jihadists, there would be 13 million people, a number equal to the total number of Jews in the world, who are hell bent on terrorizing Unbelievers back to earlier centuries of real and imagined Islamic glory.

And, instead of demonizing America and delegitimizing Israel, if Europe really wants to help, let it join America and Israel in their effort to defeat the Jihadists and bring them and the rest of Islam peacefully and productively into the Twenty-first Century.

www.americanthinker.com . . .

The two most terrible countries in the world

No doubts: North Korea and France.

They really brain-wash you well in the US. I just spent 2 weeks in France and I didn't see any of that. My american wife never had an issue with French people for the past 6 years....

I know you need a new enemy....

My vote is: North Korea and Saudi Arabia.

List of past US use of Veto at the UN security council:

Year - Resolution Vetoed by the USA
1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians.
1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.
1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians.
1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.
1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.
1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.
1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.
1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.
1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.
1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports.
1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs of states.
1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.
1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.
1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions.
1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians.
1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement.
1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation.
1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women.
1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.
1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.
1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries.
1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.
1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories.
1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons.
1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.
1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.
1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights.
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.
1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq. 18 resolutions.
1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. 6 resolutions (1982 to 1983).
1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.
1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions.
1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology.
1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts.
1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions.
1982 Supports a new world information and communications order.
1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
1982 Development of international law.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment .
1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment.
1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.
1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions.
1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities .
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.
1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development.
8 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon. 2 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.
1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions.
1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.
1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions.
1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions.
1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace".
1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989).
1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama.
1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.
1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.
1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.
1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.
1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.
1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions.
1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba. 8 resolutions (1992 to 1999).
2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.

Unlike U.S., France wields its veto power sparingly
Barry James/IHT International Herald Tribune Monday, March 3, 2003

PARIS In the 57-year history of the United Nations, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have vetoed more than 250 proposals, but seldom has the power to say no raised as much political dust as France's possible use of its veto to block authorization of the use of force in Iraq.
.
In the early days of the United Nations, the Soviet commissar and later minister for foreign affairs, Vyacheslav Molotov, said no so many times that he was known as "Mr. Veto."
.
The Soviet Union was responsible for nearly half of all vetoes ever cast. Molotov regularly rejected bids for new membership because of the U.S. refusal to admit the Soviet republics. The United States has invoked its veto power 76 times, usually to ward off actions against Israel.
.
Under the United Nations' founding rules, only the permanent members have the right of veto, a single blocking vote that outweighs any majority.
.
For all its criticism of France in the current situation, the United States is the only permanent member of the Security Council to have used its veto power frequently in recent years. Most recently, it vetoed an otherwise unanimous Security Council resolution in December that criticized the Israeli government for a series of attacks by its occupation forces against UN workers and facilities in the Palestinian territories.
.
The veto has been invoked in only a few cases where vital international security issues are at stake, and the current crisis may become one of them.
.
Diplomats say President Jacques Chirac of France is walking a tightrope. If he declares that he will not use the veto power, France would lose much of its negotiating clout in the Security Council. If he announces that he will veto military action against Iraq, the United States and Britain would have no further interest in seeking UN endorsement for their actions.
.
There is also the argument that a veto by France will irreparably damage the United Nations, but the Iraq question is a war and peace issue that will divide the organization no matter which way France votes. And the UN has survived other veto crises.
.
The veto system was established to protect the interests of the founding members of the United Nations, which were the countries that won World War II. At the UN founding conference in 1944, it was decided that the representatives of Britain, China, the Soviet Union, the United States and, "in due course," France should be permanent members. France, of course, had been defeated and occupied by Nazi Germany, but its role as a permanent member of the League of Nations, its status as a colonial power and the activities of the Free French forces on the allied side allowed it a place at the table with the Big Four.
.
Now that both Britain and France have declined in world power and Russia is no longer a superpower, there have been frequent calls either to abolish permanent membership or to bring in new permanent members to the Security Council, which has the role of achieving and maintaining international peace and security on a collective basis.
.
As the United Nations was being established, the Soviet Union argued that all its constituent republics should be members, and in fact it succeeded in having Byelorussia and Ukraine accepted as separate states. The United States has one vote for 50 states, and some argue that the European Union should hold one of the permanent council seats.
.
But the EU is not a sovereign state and therefore is not a UN member. It has also been argued that Germany and Japan should become permanent members to spread the cost of peacekeeping. But this suggestion runs into the opposition from Southern Hemisphere countries and the inflexibility of the permanent members with their veto power.
.
Apart from the permanent five, the council also includes 10 members elected by the General Assembly for two-year periods. Nine votes are required to pass any resolution put before the council.
.
In addition to the 251 public vetoes, the permanent members have cast 43 vetoes during closed sessions of the Security Council to block nominees for UN secretary-general.
.
Beijing has cast a veto only four times since it took China's Security Council seat in 1972, invariably to enforce its view that it and not Taiwan is the legitimate government of the country. France also has used its veto power only 18 times, usually in collaboration with the United States and Britain, and only twice on its own, to defend its interests in Indochina and in the Indian Ocean.
.
The last time that France has been involved in such a dramatic face-off with the United States in the Security Council dates back to the Suez Canal crisis of 1956. Using their veto powers for the first time, France and Britain blocked a resolution calling for the withdrawal by Israel from Egyptian territory it had seized in cooperation with the British and French. The two countries blocked resolutions for a cease-fire in the face of opposition by the United States and the Soviet Union. Furious, President Dwight Eisenhower took the matter to the UN General Assembly, where the veto does not apply. The assembly then passed a resolution demanding the withdrawal of all parties and, for the first time, established a UN peacekeeping force.
.
Diplomats say permanent members, particularly the United States, use the threat of veto as a means of getting their way, a practice known as the closet veto. In addition, the permanent five often meet privately to hash out agreements, which are then imposed on the rest of the council.

< < Back to Start of Article PARIS In the 57-year history of the United Nations, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have vetoed more than 250 proposals, but seldom has the power to say no raised as much political dust as France's possible use of its veto to block authorization of the use of force in Iraq.
.
In the early days of the United Nations, the Soviet commissar and later minister for foreign affairs, Vyacheslav Molotov, said no so many times that he was known as "Mr. Veto."
.
The Soviet Union was responsible for nearly half of all vetoes ever cast. Molotov regularly rejected bids for new membership because of the U.S. refusal to admit the Soviet republics. The United States has invoked its veto power 76 times, usually to ward off actions against Israel.
.
Under the United Nations' founding rules, only the permanent members have the right of veto, a single blocking vote that outweighs any majority.
.
For all its criticism of France in the current situation, the United States is the only permanent member of the Security Council to have used its veto power frequently in recent years. Most recently, it vetoed an otherwise unanimous Security Council resolution in December that criticized the Israeli government for a series of attacks by its occupation forces against UN workers and facilities in the Palestinian territories.
.
The veto has been invoked in only a few cases where vital international security issues are at stake, and the current crisis may become one of them.
.
Diplomats say President Jacques Chirac of France is walking a tightrope. If he declares that he will not use the veto power, France would lose much of its negotiating clout in the Security Council. If he announces that he will veto military action against Iraq, the United States and Britain would have no further interest in seeking UN endorsement for their actions.
.
There is also the argument that a veto by France will irreparably damage the United Nations, but the Iraq question is a war and peace issue that will divide the organization no matter which way France votes. And the UN has survived other veto crises.
.
The veto system was established to protect the interests of the founding members of the United Nations, which were the countries that won World War II. At the UN founding conference in 1944, it was decided that the representatives of Britain, China, the Soviet Union, the United States and, "in due course," France should be permanent members. France, of course, had been defeated and occupied by Nazi Germany, but its role as a permanent member of the League of Nations, its status as a colonial power and the activities of the Free French forces on the allied side allowed it a place at the table with the Big Four.
.
Now that both Britain and France have declined in world power and Russia is no longer a superpower, there have been frequent calls either to abolish permanent membership or to bring in new permanent members to the Security Council, which has the role of achieving and maintaining international peace and security on a collective basis.
.
As the United Nations was being established, the Soviet Union argued that all its constituent republics should be members, and in fact it succeeded in having Byelorussia and Ukraine accepted as separate states. The United States has one vote for 50 states, and some argue that the European Union should hold one of the permanent council seats.
.
But the EU is not a sovereign state and therefore is not a UN member. It has also been argued that Germany and Japan should become permanent members to spread the cost of peacekeeping. But this suggestion runs into the opposition from Southern Hemisphere countries and the inflexibility of the permanent members with their veto power.
.
Apart from the permanent five, the council also includes 10 members elected by the General Assembly for two-year periods. Nine votes are required to pass any resolution put before the council.
.
In addition to the 251 public vetoes, the permanent members have cast 43 vetoes during closed sessions of the Security Council to block nominees for UN secretary-general.
.
Beijing has cast a veto only four times since it took China's Security Council seat in 1972, invariably to enforce its view that it and not Taiwan is the legitimate government of the country. France also has used its veto power only 18 times, usually in collaboration with the United States and Britain, and only twice on its own, to defend its interests in Indochina and in the Indian Ocean.
.
The last time that France has been involved in such a dramatic face-off with the United States in the Security Council dates back to the Suez Canal crisis of 1956. Using their veto powers for the first time, France and Britain blocked a resolution calling for the withdrawal by Israel from Egyptian territory it had seized in cooperation with the British and French. The two countries blocked resolutions for a cease-fire in the face of opposition by the United States and the Soviet Union. Furious, President Dwight Eisenhower took the matter to the UN General Assembly, where the veto does not apply. The assembly then passed a resolution demanding the withdrawal of all parties and, for the first time, established a UN peacekeeping force.
.
Diplomats say permanent members, particularly the United States, use the threat of veto as a means of getting their way, a practice known as the closet veto. In addition, the permanent five often meet privately to hash out agreements, which are then imposed on the rest of the council. PARIS In the 57-year history of the United Nations, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have vetoed more than 250 proposals, but seldom has the power to say no raised as much political dust as France's possible use of its veto to block authorization of the use of force in Iraq.
.
In the early days of the United Nations, the Soviet commissar and later minister for foreign affairs, Vyacheslav Molotov, said no so many times that he was known as "Mr. Veto."
.
The Soviet Union was responsible for nearly half of all vetoes ever cast. Molotov regularly rejected bids for new membership because of the U.S. refusal to admit the Soviet republics. The United States has invoked its veto power 76 times, usually to ward off actions against Israel.
.
Under the United Nations' founding rules, only the permanent members have the right of veto, a single blocking vote that outweighs any majority.
.
For all its criticism of France in the current situation, the United States is the only permanent member of the Security Council to have used its veto power frequently in recent years. Most recently, it vetoed an otherwise unanimous Security Council resolution in December that criticized the Israeli government for a series of attacks by its occupation forces against UN workers and facilities in the Palestinian territories.
.
The veto has been invoked in only a few cases where vital international security issues are at stake, and the current crisis may become one of them.
.
Diplomats say President Jacques Chirac of France is walking a tightrope. If he declares that he will not use the veto power, France would lose much of its negotiating clout in the Security Council. If he announces that he will veto military action against Iraq, the United States and Britain would have no further interest in seeking UN endorsement for their actions.
.
There is also the argument that a veto by France will irreparably damage the United Nations, but the Iraq question is a war and peace issue that will divide the organization no matter which way France votes. And the UN has survived other veto crises.
.
The veto system was established to protect the interests of the founding members of the United Nations, which were the countries that won World War II. At the UN founding conference in 1944, it was decided that the representatives of Britain, China, the Soviet Union, the United States and, "in due course," France should be permanent members. France, of course, had been defeated and occupied by Nazi Germany, but its role as a permanent member of the League of Nations, its status as a colonial power and the activities of the Free French forces on the allied side allowed it a place at the table with the Big Four.
.
Now that both Britain and France have declined in world power and Russia is no longer a superpower, there have been frequent calls either to abolish permanent membership or to bring in new permanent members to the Security Council, which has the role of achieving and maintaining international peace and security on a collective basis.
.
As the United Nations was being established, the Soviet Union argued that all its constituent republics should be members, and in fact it succeeded in having Byelorussia and Ukraine accepted as separate states. The United States has one vote for 50 states, and some argue that the European Union should hold one of the permanent council seats.
.
But the EU is not a sovereign state and therefore is not a UN member. It has also been argued that Germany and Japan should become permanent members to spread the cost of peacekeeping. But this suggestion runs into the opposition from Southern Hemisphere countries and the inflexibility of the permanent members with their veto power.
.
Apart from the permanent five, the council also includes 10 members elected by the General Assembly for two-year periods. Nine votes are required to pass any resolution put before the council.
.
In addition to the 251 public vetoes, the permanent members have cast 43 vetoes during closed sessions of the Security Council to block nominees for UN secretary-general.
.
Beijing has cast a veto only four times since it took China's Security Council seat in 1972, invariably to enforce its view that it and not Taiwan is the legitimate government of the country. France also has used its veto power only 18 times, usually in collaboration with the United States and Britain, and only twice on its own, to defend its interests in Indochina and in the Indian Ocean.
.
The last time that France has been involved in such a dramatic face-off with the United States in the Security Council dates back to the Suez Canal crisis of 1956. Using their veto powers for the first time, France and Britain blocked a resolution calling for the withdrawal by Israel from Egyptian territory it had seized in cooperation with the British and French. The two countries blocked resolutions for a cease-fire in the face of opposition by the United States and the Soviet Union. Furious, President Dwight Eisenhower took the matter to the UN General Assembly, where the veto does not apply. The assembly then passed a resolution demanding the withdrawal of all parties and, for the first time, established a UN peacekeeping force.
.
Diplomats say permanent members, particularly the United States, use the threat of veto as a means of getting their way, a practice known as the closet veto. In addition, the permanent five often meet privately to hash out agreements, which are then imposed on the rest of the council. PARIS In the 57-year history of the United Nations, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have vetoed more than 250 proposals, but seldom has the power to say no raised as much political dust as France's possible use of its veto to block authorization of the use of force in Iraq.
.
In the early days of the United Nations, the Soviet commissar and later minister for foreign affairs, Vyacheslav Molotov, said no so many times that he was known as "Mr. Veto."
.
The Soviet Union was responsible for nearly half of all vetoes ever cast. Molotov regularly rejected bids for new membership because of the U.S. refusal to admit the Soviet republics. The United States has invoked its veto power 76 times, usually to ward off actions against Israel.
.
Under the United Nations' founding rules, only the permanent members have the right of veto, a single blocking vote that outweighs any majority.
.
For all its criticism of France in the current situation, the United States is the only permanent member of the Security Council to have used its veto power frequently in recent years. Most recently, it vetoed an otherwise unanimous Security Council resolution in December that criticized the Israeli government for a series of attacks by its occupation forces against UN workers and facilities in the Palestinian territories.
.
The veto has been invoked in only a few cases where vital international security issues are at stake, and the current crisis may become one of them.

www.iht.com . . .

Nuff' said.

Saudi arabia??????

Are u crazy!!!

This is a greatfull democraty and a peacefull coutry full of oil. OK benladen is saudi, but his country got so much oil, better attack Irak!

Please do not hurt republican by saying saudi arabia is a terrible country, they could vote for Kerry!

That article is trash. Its so innacurate, and bias.

You might think that the author took his sources from FF.com

I can see why the Euroscum would believe this. After all, the US and Israel has a disturbing habit of killing their allies and trade partners:

Thosebastards, here a K for your great avatar..

In here we very often talk to the wind..

Hehe thanks River k right back at you.

"I'm on the outside looking inside
What do I see
Much confusion, disillusion
Around me"

KC

Here's another K. I saw King Crimson during the late 90s in Paris for the "THRAKATTACK" tour.. I'm still shaken.

The Landed Gentry has always feared the merchant class. The Europeans are playing the role of the dying aristocracy to our emerging merchant democracy. We are the Nouveau Riche to the Old World Old Money class. We are the Jews; and Europe is the threatened Old World Order.

Nothing new under the sun.

I missed the Double Trio (i only know about them since 1996), but i saw them in Paris last year: one of the best concerts i ever been to.

These guys are light years away from any other bands.

These guys are light years away from any other bands.

You're absolutely right.. Robert Fripp is a genius..I once had the chance to interview him for a Progressive rock Fanzine in high school. I've switched back to old fashioned rock n' roll (3 or 4 chords, not more) since the University in which I was playing in Post-Punk bands..

But I do still enjoy listening to crazy experimental music like KC's one. also, "In the Wake of Poseidon" is almost as good as the first one.

Are they so mired in their anti-Americanism that they will worry about the Jihadist threat to Western civilization only after a biological, chemical, or nuclear version of September 11 — not in New York or Washington, but in London, Paris, Stockholm, or Brussels?
Yes

K+ FAT

hey man! look at yourself in the mirror!!!

Here are the stats for the use of vetoes at UNSC over the years:

Changing Patterns in the Use of the Veto in the Security Council
Table shows number of times veto was cast, by country1

Click here for Table and Texts of Vetoed Draft Resolutions


Graph based on this table
Period China* France Britain US USSR/Russia Total
Total 4-5 18 32 80 122 257



2004 - - - 2 1 3



2003 - - - 2 - 2
2002 - - - 2 - 2
2001 - - - 2 - 2
2000 - - - - - 0
1999 1 - - - - 1
1998 - - - - - 0
1997 1 - - 2 - 3
1996 - - - - - 0



1986-95 - 3 8 24 2 37
1976-85 - 9 11 34 6 60
1966-75 2 2 10 12 7 33
1956-65 - 2 3 - 26 31
1946-55 (1*) 2 - - 80 83

*Between 1946 and 1971, the Chinese seat on the Security Council was occupied by the Republic of China (Taiwan), which used the veto only once (to block Mongolia's application for membership in 1955). The first veto exercised by the present occupant, the People's Republic of China, was therefore not until 25 August 1972.

Except for China, France has bezen the smallest user of vetoes with only 18!!

FAT you are a trouduc and you should face the figures; they are AGAINST you!!!


And YOU know well that last year, the importance was not the veto of France (which would have been joined by China and Russia), but the veto of the many - large or small,powerful or not, vevelopped or not - countries who were supporting France in a possible veto against a US resolution which would give peace a chance!!!

Remember also the very unusual row of applause which followed the last major speech of Villepin. Completely unusual in that room, exceptional as was the support of the many diplomats and UN staff attending the meeting. Bush took it as a "camouflet"; he was right: it was a camouflet!!

The French are proud of their low use of the veto against a bloc of despotic, mostly Islamic, oil controlling countries - i.e. the U.N.. It just proves France is a whore for oil.

America is number one again.

1) France
2) Franistan

Fuck france!

A mong them, how many despotic?

How many islamic?

How many both?


Now, at the UN, how many members?

Now how can you say that this minority makes a majority?

Yeah, you wrote:

(your quote): "despotic, mostly Islamic, oil controlling countries - i.e. the U.N.."

The consequence? France is not a whore for oil (and BTW, USA imports as much crude oil per inhabitant than France: around 2 metric tons a year!!!!)

No YOUR problem is somewhere else: You are unable to stand a fact: to be faced with a majority of countries (and a majority of the world population) who does not share your view of the world and which does stand your behaviour on the international scene.

Especially TODAY!!!!!!!

One wonders why the Europeans, who claim to understand everything, cannot comprehend that for Americans September 11 was the Pearl Harbor of World War Three.

To the whiny author: we DO comprehend. YOU LIKE PLAYING THE VICTIMS, DO YA ?? That's the point of half the threads posted on this site.

the Japanese! And their allies: Nazi Germany and fascist Italy and a few others.

You did not switch after a few months primarily towards Portugal! Or Spain (although the links with Hitler were clear!!). Or Switzerland (neutral but with many links with Germany and, in some cases common practices).

And last point, one does not fight 21st century terrorism with the weapons, and methods and armies of the states-against-states wars we had known up to now....

Since the Palestinians were mentioned here several times, and their cause is near and dear to the Europeans, the stated cause of the palestinians is the complete destruction of the Jewish state. I decided to research the "Palestinian Peoples". I think this says it all:

The Prime Minister of Israel sits down with Arafat
at the beginning of negotiations regarding the
resolution of the conflict. The Prime Minister
requests that he be allowed to begin with a story.
Arafat replies, "Of course."

The Prime Minister begins his story: "Years before
the Israelites came to the Promised Land and settled
here, Moses led them for 40 years through the desert.
The Israelites began complaining that they were thirsty
and, lo and behold, a miracle occurred and a stream
appeared before them. They drank their fill and then
decided to take advantage of the stream to do some
bathing -- including Moses. When Moses came out
of the water, he found that all his clothing was missing.

"Who took my clothes?" Moses asked those around him.

"It was the Palestinians," replied the Israelites--"

"Wait a minute," objected Arafat immediately, "there were
no Palestinians during the time of Moses!"

"All right," replies the Prime Minister, "Now that we've got
that settled, let's begin our negotiations."

Pierre, France's love of Middle Eastern oil is an established fact.

As French President Georges Pompidou put it to Henry Kissinger during the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, "You only rely on the Arabs for about a tenth of your consumption. We are entirely dependent on them."

That explains a lot as to why France takes pains not to ruffle the feathers of certain despotic countries.

And last point, one does not fight 21st century terrorism with the weapons, and methods and armies of the states-against-states wars we had known up to now....

This guy is clearly living in a fantasy land. OK, I'll bite....what weapons and methods should we use?

We can all sit around a campfire and sing "Kumbya", or we can use french ticklers while they use rpg's, or, my personal favorite, the biggest damn hydrogen bomb in our arsenal. . . you pick the weapon or method.

I've heard moronic statements before but this one takes the cake!

Ymifrench: "this one takes the cake"

(OK, I'll bite too..)

...because you just don't understand, thickie. You really think bombs and laser guns or whatever, are actually efficient against hidden, individual enemies?

You think intimidation works against extremists? Just like the UN didn't intimidate Bushhalliberton&co, dont expect ur weapons to soil any Muslim fundamentalist pants.

You're unfortunately soiling CIVILIAN pants.