Article

2003-04-14 International

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by George 2003-04-14 09:29 am|| || Front Page|| [14 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Good for Howard.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-04-14 09:43:57|| 2003-04-14 09:43:57|| Front Page Top

#2 Oh the Greenies in Oz must be pulling their hair out that none of their warnings came true, and that Howard is more of a leader than any of their phoney candidates could ever dream of being.

Posted by g wiz 2003-04-14 09:54:30|| 2003-04-14 09:54:30|| Front Page Top

#3 Hurray for John Howard. The Aussies have rightly won the honor of landing the first blow in the upcoming Froggendammerung. Dropping France from the UNSC may well be our price for continued participation in the UN.

Posted by Dave D. 2003-04-14 10:01:41|| 2003-04-14 10:01:41|| Front Page Top

#4 Japan and India are far more deserving and representative - they shoudl have a permanent seat. A third rate, failed colonial power, France, has no business being there with a veto.

Posted by OldSpook 2003-04-14 10:08:00|| 2003-04-14 10:08:00|| Front Page Top

#5 I LOVE this guy! Someone had to say it, and he deserves accolades for having the balls to call the French what they are: has-been whores trying to live off a beauty they no longer have

Posted by Frank G 2003-04-14 10:12:48|| 2003-04-14 10:12:48|| Front Page Top

#6 Hey Frank, I didn't know John Howard and John McCain were related. Come to think of it....

Posted by john 2003-04-14 10:30:37|| 2003-04-14 10:30:37|| Front Page Top

#7 John, couldn't remember McCain's exact words, so I did the best I could. Had something to do with former film queens living off their former beauty. I think the French aspire to that but deserve less

Posted by Frank G 2003-04-14 10:41:42|| 2003-04-14 10:41:42|| Front Page Top

#8 I'm all for India over France, but as someone recently remarked, giving India a seat makes it look like rewarding them for going nuclear...although by that logic, I'm not sure what France did to deserve its seat, uh, donate massive acreage to Allied graveyards, maybe.

Posted by (lowercase) matt 2003-04-14 10:41:48|| 2003-04-14 10:41:48|| Front Page Top

#9 India actually has a lot going for it other than just being a nuclear power. There's a billion people there, as opposed to France's 65 million; the second largest population of Muslims in the world; and it's the world's largest democracy. Whether they would want to be part of the Security Council is anyone's guess.
BTW, didn't the Aussies call their participation in the coalition "Operation Bastille"?
I love the Aussies!

Posted by Baba Yaga 2003-04-14 11:53:44|| 2003-04-14 11:53:44|| Front Page Top

#10 If India were added along with Brazil and Japan it would not appear to be rewarding them for going neutral but instead recognizing the dominant regional players.

The US should jump on this, and start saying any attempts to stop Japan, India and Brazil are based on racism.A United Europe only needs on veto after all. And if we play it right we can be on the side of the small guy and the third world.

Posted by Yank 2003-04-14 11:54:15|| 2003-04-14 11:54:15|| Front Page Top

#11 Ah, um, find and replace neutral with nuclear in my previous post. I know, pay more attention to the preview.

Posted by Yank 2003-04-14 11:55:50|| 2003-04-14 11:55:50|| Front Page Top

#12 My personal recomendiation is South Africa. Yes they were against the war but the fact that they gave up their entire WMD program voluntarily shows that they are a mature country. Plus they would be able to represent Africa. One thing going against them is the way they dealt with the Zimbabwe issue.

Posted by rg117 2003-04-14 12:22:55|| 2003-04-14 12:22:55|| Front Page Top

#13 Froggendammerung.

Darn it Dave! That required a drink warning!

Posted by Ptah 2003-04-14 12:34:13|| [www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2003-04-14 12:34:13|| Front Page Top

#14 I know it might take a rewriting of UN charter, but has anyone floated the idea of dumping France from the Security Council? I mean, WHY are they still there. Stalin's question about the Pope seems appropo here.

Possible replacement players could be: (we could have fun here)
-Japan (I know, no divisions either - but definite specific gravity)
-The Whole EU as one seat (GB must exit)
-India (imagine that - tooooo scary)
-Brasil (doesn't emerging Sud America rate a seat?)
-If it's just GNP you want, how 'bout Taiwan?

Posted by: Scott 4/11/2003 1:54:48 PM

Further proof of Rantburg's global reach. I'm still rooting for Taiwan, right after they purchase mainland China, in exchange for solving their SARS problem.

Posted by Scott 2003-04-14 13:32:10|| 2003-04-14 13:32:10|| Front Page Top

#15 "One thing going against them is the way they dealt with the Zimbabwe issue."

And another is their irresponsible handling of AIDS...and another is the corruption in the ANC...you get the picture.

While it would be nice to see an African country in a responsible position it would be a terrible mistake to describe South Africa as "a mature country".

Posted by Pink & Fluffy 2003-04-14 16:51:23|| 2003-04-14 16:51:23|| Front Page Top

#16 India should definitely have a seat. I mean, they're only the 2nd largest country in the world in terms of population.

However, bear in mind that India is perhaps even more anti-American than France is. During the cold war, they sided with the USSR and had very close ties. They still mourn the demise of the USSR.

So, the net effect would probably be the same, only less whiney. Indians have a sense of dignity that the French lack (the French think they have it, but they just look ridiculous)

Posted by Jeremy 2003-04-14 17:40:56|| 2003-04-14 17:40:56|| Front Page Top

#17 Think Pakistan will have a hissy if India makes it to the Security Council?

(grin)

Posted by Baba Yaga 2003-04-14 18:18:08|| 2003-04-14 18:18:08|| Front Page Top

#18 I have a better suggestion. Let's just dump the entire UN mess, bills and all, and form a NEW organization, built around the Coalition. Might be easier. No "security council", no "open membership", just those that understand that some things need to be done, and are willing to roll up their sleeves and pitch in. I think it will take about three problems to get the attention of the rest of the world, and the EUnunchs in EUrope will find themselves slowly slipping down the shower drain, with the rest of the scum.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-04-14 18:37:10|| 2003-04-14 18:37:10|| Front Page Top

#19 France relying on England's veto? Oh, boy - Wouldn't that twist their knickers?

Hey, call it the price of federation, guys...

Posted by mojo 2003-04-14 20:53:28|| 2003-04-14 20:53:28|| Front Page Top

#20 Like his Commonwealth colleague, Tony Blair, John Howard has shown himself to be a man of steel. He has stood up to, and now crushed, the whole saddamite fifth column in Ozland: media-monkeys, pinko senators, muslim infiltrators, and slavering greenbats alike. The duplicitous frogs and their hench-scum must be shitting themselves every time they hear his name.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2003-04-15 00:02:21|| [www.nuclearspace.com] 2003-04-15 00:02:21|| Front Page Top

17:47 True German Ally
11:53 Scott
08:15 raptor
10:00 raptor
09:53 raptor
07:33 Ptah
07:28 raptor
07:27 Frank G
07:12 raptor
00:54 Brew
00:52 Brew
00:48 Brew
00:44 Brew
00:35 marek
00:35 Brew
00:16 anon
00:02 Atomic Conspiracy
23:56 John
23:48 Anonymous
23:20 someone
23:19 anon1
23:17 someone
23:06 Scott
22:48 Old Patriot