UN and "Old Europe" : opinion of a coward weasel

Off course, the UN is a big unefficient machine. How can someone intelligent think that the UN should have appeared suddenly in all their perfection in 1945 ? The system of the UN as it is working currently is the result of the post war years. And the US played the major role in its creation. But, does it mean that the only place where peoples of the Earth come to talk and to express their differences have to disappear, only because they sometimes don't please to the military super-power ?

The UN have to be reformed. That's an evidence. The system of vetoes, for example. You will, off course, claim that France permanent siege is an absurdity, even if you probably won't claim it about the UK whose voice is always an echo to the voice of the US. And I will agree with you, because I'm the most stupid of the nationalist self-proud coward Frenchmen. I will agree, but let's be logical. The whole system is not democratic, and not ANY country should own a veto to impose its will to the rest of the world. Neither France, nor the US, or Russia.

Two logical possibilities if you want a just, democratic UN : 1°) one country, a voice, everyone equal ; 2°) a number of voices according to the number of inhabitants. All other possibilities, and the current one included, are unjust, and only reflect the military weights. I don't think those more democratic solutions would please the "greatest defender of freedom on the planet, enjoying the freest institutions, seeking its moral yardstick in the looking-glass values of a corrupt, perverse institutional relic".

The UN haven't been reformed because it's not in your interest. The UN have to disappear because they're the place where the whole world can talk, and the whole world doesn't always (euphemism ?) agree with the US.

When I read the American and English media, I feel like France and Germany have invaded in silence the whole peninsula. It's all simply absurd. What is the "French-German axis" ? Institutionaly : nothing. It only means that French and German leaders sometimes agree about their proposals for the EU. When the time comes to vote a decision, every countries are free to decide. The French-German axis has only sometimes boosted the EU evolution. Without Mitterrand and Kohl, we probably wouldn't have the Euro. They didn't impose it to Europe. They had the courage to propose it.

But I'm stupid. The audacious challenge of creating a new common currency can only be the idea of old, stupid, nationalist, anti-semitic, coward, traitor, French and German weasels. The UK, which first waits and observes before joining the move of Euro because its economic leaders know where lies its interest, is far more audacious. The UK, which since 1956 has chosen always to stand next the super-power and to behave as a vassal country, is far more politically courageous. Really, an Europe which tries to sublimate itself by building a supra-national entity can be nothing but coward and nationalist.

Let's tell things honestly : the current US-UK attack against France and Germany is an attack against a strong political Europe. In the next years, Rumsfeld ant its colleagues and successors will keep on dividing Europe, playing the card of an alleged "new Europe" against "old Europe". This card will be played thanks to economic and financial pressures, thanks to NATO, and thanks to the Trojan horse that is UK and perhaps will be soon Turkey.

In the short term vision, the US government will be able to tell its people that the whole world is standing next to them, since the NATO (except Canada, France, Germany, Belgium…) and Australia are on their side. It will persuade everyone that old Europe is nothing, that the whole Europe wants to follow them. The 8 governments' letter will hide the fact that the European citizens, as the rest of the planet, don't want this war.

In a long term vision, the result will be a gap between the US and the humiliated old Europe. A few minutes ago, I was reading a mail from an Euro-enthusiast Spaniard : I can tell you he was not proud of his government's policy. And I had to fight against his anti-americanism - an attitude don't find constructive but unjust. A human being doesn't have to be "anti" any other human being. But humiliation leads to anger. Old Europe, especially French and German coward weasels, can at least teach you that.

The UN has had FIFTY F***ING EIGHT years to get it right. They have history and the example of the League of Nations of what NOT to do. And what do they do? Go racing off in the exact wrong direction, bending to a totally unelected majority of totalitarian states, and thwarting practically every initiative for expanding human freedoms, in the name of "human rights".

The UN wouldn't even be as effective as it is today, without the support of the US. And they are just about to lose us, as they insist on their continued irrelevance.

The baby doesn't walk yet : let's kill the baby.

Does the UN appear to be moving in the direction of getting less crapulent, or has it just been drifting in a sea of appeasement, moral abdication, dictator-coddling, terrorist-loving, and indifference to human rights? I think it's the latter. If I saw the UN improving, I would be far more inclined to keep it.

Let's tell things honestly : the current US-UK attack against France and Germany is an attack against a strong political Europe.

No, with respect, Pierre, it is not. It is simply that the French and the Germans, who have up to now exercised an inordinate domination of EU direction, are being reminded in this that Europe is a much larger place than those two countries with a much wider range of concerns than have been addressed there.

Spain and Italy, for example, have quite as valid a claim to the sobriquet "Old Europe" (perhaps somewhat more so in the case of Italy) as do France and Germany. Why then the tendency to represent the latter's consensus on the Iraq intervention as that of all of "Old," much less all, of Europe? If there is arrogance in evidence here surely there is plenty of it to go around.

My question is simply this - are France and Germany prepared to subordinate their own national concerns to those of a larger Europe, or pretend that all of Europe is being attacked when, in fact, it is they who differ from the rest of Europe and perhaps ought to subordinate those interests? Membership in a federation does not, after all, imply leadership even if you happen to be the first, or the biggest, members.

Any Aerican card playing of the new Europe against the old Europe would not be possible unless the divisions were already there. Germany and France see themselves as the ruling states of Europe--but this can only produce antagonism from the rest.

And right now, with their economies and dreams of hegemony in Europe in disarray, they simply look ridiculous.

Your previous thread "shocking propaganda against France" generated an onslaught of taunts and insults (all well deserved and quite hilarious) but within it were numerous serious rebuttals as well. At the sight of the first post, a cartoon insult, you apparently dropped your gun and ran.

Things are a little different this time around. You have six serious responses from six different posters and only one slight jab. Still no response from you. Are you unwilling or unable to defend your position? If it is your aim to become the resident FR French joke you are well on your way. (As if America needed more material to make fun of the French with.)

Is this the best you can do? Are you the best France can do?

Here is a suggestion. Post #4 is a relatively uncomplicated and direct challenge to your position. How about giving us a cogent response to that?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.