The Security Council does have something to do with the UN. But France vetoing the resolution does not undermine the UN in any way. It’s their right. Just as US vetoes of resolutions critical of Israel does not undermine the UN.
That’s not what people are complaining about. No one thinks this is damaging to the UN. No one is complaining about damage to the UN. People are complaining because France already made their deal and now are trying to hold up for a better one because the US had a seperate deal going that is better than the one France got for it’s citizens.
No one is criticizing France for saying “screw you” to the UN. Because that’s not what they are doing. And no one is saying they have.
People ARE complaining that France is hurting US vicitims because they want a better deal than they already negotiated.
I guess i just do not get the idea that once you have an agreement that is immutable. You negotiate and settle for the best you can get and that does not mean you cannot negotiate for more when the conditions are favorable. Otehrwise we’d still be living under the Romans.
The French are using the UN to suit their ends and that is their right. I do not think that is a good thing if it results in undermining the UN as a practical body for international relations but again, the USA has done that repeatedly and much worse.
Nothing stops the USA and Lybia from doing whatever they want bilaterally and comming to any settlements without consulting with France but if the want the blessing of the UN then they have to play by the rules of the UN. And the UN includes France whether some Americans like it or not.
The USA has abused the UN and done actions which harmed the citizens of other countries and I can’t see why they should get a free pass.
For the record, I never said the UN was irrelevant. For that matter, until I began this thread, I never said the French were bastards.
But I would feel the same way about ANYONE who negotiated and closed a deal… and then, when they had their heel firmly parked over someone’s nuts, decided to reopen the FORMERLY CLOSED AND AGREED-UPON DEAL and renegotiate it for a sweeter cut.
If that doesn’t make one a “bastard,” then what does?
By the way I heard on the CBC this morning that with the Libyan letter of admission the US will not veto lifting of UN sanctions. However the US admin has said they will not lift their bilateral sanctions or remove them from the terror-support list. This apparently freezes over half of the settlement amount. Haven’t found an online cite for that specific threat but from CBC:
So if we all continue to accept anonymous sources at face value it looks like the US might be playing precisly the same game. Le sigh.
That’s what governments do all the time. The USA started doing that with the deals it closed with the Indian tribes and has continued to do it ever since. One day the USA is best friends with Saddam Hussein and a few days later. . . things change, don’t they?
sailor, please try to get the bunch out of your panties and (once you can sit down properly) closely examine my post.
All better? Good … now look where I wrote, “Maybe someone could verify or discredit them if possible.” and “Any verification or refutation of the above would be appreciated.”
So I confirmed the accident was due to transponder and communications problems and I refuted the argument about the plane transporting troops. isn’t that what you asked? I was attacking the argument, not you. Where’s the problem? Better check your own panties.
The problem is with your overly aggressive response to someone who has merely put forward impressions and requested clarification. Just because this is the Pit doesn’t mean that courtesy has to take a flying leap out the window.
{b]Zenster**, I apologise if you got the impression I was attacking you because that was not my intent. When i said “arguing that is plainly ridiculous and grasping at straws to defend something which does not need such silly arguments” I think it was clear to all that you were not defending that argument and I was only refuting the argument itself and answering your question. Since it was clear it was not your argument I don’t know how you can feel attacked but I apologise anyway for any misunderstanding.
furt, I would like to see the document where the French said they would forget about the matter and never bring it up again. The fact that you accept a settlement today does not mean you are forever precluded from bringing the subject up in the future. I know of many cases where people have accepted compensation from companies and later sued for more anyway and, in many cases, won. It is not as clear cut as you make it out to be. France is not breaking any laws or treaties in what it is doing (if in fact it is doing anything other than posture).
France has not “broken its word” and if you want to play this sanctimonius game I can bring up plenty of examples where the USA did “break its word”, beginning with the treaties signed with the Indian nations.
When the USA signed the UN charter it agreed to not use force to resolve its disputes with other countries and yet the USA has initiated the use of force plenty of times, most recently you-know-where.
The USA promised the Kurds and the Shiites help if they revolted against Saddam Hussein and then stood by while SH massacred them.
France is no worse than any other country. They play the same game by the same rules. I might question whether it is an intelligent thing to do in the arena of international politics but please spare me the righteousness. “giving your word” means jack shit in real world politics and the USA is no better in that regard than France.
The UN suspended the sanctions on Lybia in 1999 after Lybia handed over the men accused of the bombing.
Now the USA says it would not veto a the lifting of the (suspended) sanctions if Lybia pays the indemnity but France has threatened to veto if they do not get a higher compensation for the erlier incident (although it is believed the threat would not be carried out). In any case the USA will maintain its own sanctions against Lybia.
So here we have
(a) the USA using its threat to veto in the UN to get some compensation out of Lybia and
(b) France using its threat to veto in the UN to get some compensation out of Lybia.
Both countries have veto power and both could use it (although the USA has used it much more often). I fail to see the difference. In effect both countries are saying “pay me off if you want me not to veto”.
The USA would still maintain its own sanctions. . . and probably demand more concessions for the lifting of those in the future. Politics as usual.
And remember my cite from page 1 that describes how the continued U.S. sanctions and terror-blacklisting holds up ~2/3 of the settlement amount. Those damn Americans just don’t seem to care about those poor American victims. I guess the OP can now “give up” and admit that “The Americans are bastards”.
I already told the bank last week, when I went in to renegotiate the interest on my mortgage. My friend’s landlord, meanwhile, is considering raising rents to keep in line with rising property values and tax assessments. These, by the way, are common and widely accepted practices.
No, as a matter of fact, “giving your word” does not mean that the terms agreed upon are absolutely immutable for all eternity and can never be discussed again. Particularly in business and politics.