Comments on: On Why the UN, EU and NATO? http://thestormypresent.com/ocean/2008/04/04/on-why-the-un-eu-and-nato/ Bursts of Clarity, Illuminated. Thu, 07 May 2009 15:48:24 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: OceansOfThought http://thestormypresent.com/ocean/2008/04/04/on-why-the-un-eu-and-nato/comment-page-1/#comment-47 OceansOfThought Sun, 06 Apr 2008 09:49:30 +0000 http://thestormypresent.com/ocean/2008/04/04/on-why-the-un-eu-and-nato/#comment-47 France is one of the member of the Security Council (the 5 permanent members) since creation of the UN. I mention France because France has made it clear it would veto many of the UN inititives when Shirac was leading it, pretty much for the last 8 years. Whether you like him or not, he's made France a power in the world. France is also one of the Founding members of the EU (and pretty much runs it with UK, they get alot of exceptions to the EU rules too) and has retooled it stock market, and revitilized it's industries. While it still has a lot of problems, it is far better off now than it was before. And that is one of the points, the french do not commit their military and in a "peaceful world" (note the quotes), not spending money on a miltary means you can spend it other places (especially being annoying). It's pretty much halted American or slowed America's diplomatic power especially in the UN. Another note about the miltary, France's military is VERY active, not their national military, but their legal mercenaries, The Foregin Legion. Americans like to dismiss the French, but the French are doing a good job of leading the EU to countering american power everywhere America tries to extend it, especially in the Middle East. France is one of the member of the Security Council (the 5 permanent members) since creation of the UN. I mention France because France has made it clear it would veto many of the UN inititives when Shirac was leading it, pretty much for the last 8 years. Whether you like him or not, he’s made France a power in the world. France is also one of the Founding members of the EU (and pretty much runs it with UK, they get alot of exceptions to the EU rules too) and has retooled it stock market, and revitilized it’s industries. While it still has a lot of problems, it is far better off now than it was before. And that is one of the points, the french do not commit their military and in a “peaceful world” (note the quotes), not spending money on a miltary means you can spend it other places (especially being annoying). It’s pretty much halted American or slowed America’s diplomatic power especially in the UN. Another note about the miltary, France’s military is VERY active, not their national military, but their legal mercenaries, The Foregin Legion. Americans like to dismiss the French, but the French are doing a good job of leading the EU to countering american power everywhere America tries to extend it, especially in the Middle East.

]]> By: FlannelDoormat http://thestormypresent.com/ocean/2008/04/04/on-why-the-un-eu-and-nato/comment-page-1/#comment-46 FlannelDoormat Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:26:46 +0000 http://thestormypresent.com/ocean/2008/04/04/on-why-the-un-eu-and-nato/#comment-46 Not to be trite, but it's unlikely that a room full of five or ten friends could agree on a pizza order, let alone a room full of different cultured trying to agree on reasonable adaptations of policy. And as much as I like to mock our government, I think the people that set up the house and senate rules so many years ago had a great set of ideas, to let each state have an equal voice in one and a pro-rated voice in the other; whoever came up with that was a genius. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's a reasonable way to account for both arguments. As for France and China, I can understand why China would be a major player in international decisions, after all, any given day they could decide to take over the world and probably do it pretty easily just by virtue of sheer numbers and governmental brute force, but why is France still a player? Don't get me wrong, I love the french language (I speak, as does my sister, my son is in school in the local french immersion school) and their culture, but when is the last time they had any sort of military (land or sea) presence anywhere of significance? Their language is just barely in the top 10 most used languages as it is, and as globalization of markets becomes more prevelant, their remnant colonized countries identify less and less with the mother ship. Why would they be a key player as you mention near the beginning of the article? I must be missing something. Not to be trite, but it’s unlikely that a room full of five or ten friends could agree on a pizza order, let alone a room full of different cultured trying to agree on reasonable adaptations of policy.

And as much as I like to mock our government, I think the people that set up the house and senate rules so many years ago had a great set of ideas, to let each state have an equal voice in one and a pro-rated voice in the other; whoever came up with that was a genius. I’m not saying it’s perfect, but it’s a reasonable way to account for both arguments.

As for France and China, I can understand why China would be a major player in international decisions, after all, any given day they could decide to take over the world and probably do it pretty easily just by virtue of sheer numbers and governmental brute force, but why is France still a player?

Don’t get me wrong, I love the french language (I speak, as does my sister, my son is in school in the local french immersion school) and their culture, but when is the last time they had any sort of military (land or sea) presence anywhere of significance? Their language is just barely in the top 10 most used languages as it is, and as globalization of markets becomes more prevelant, their remnant colonized countries identify less and less with the mother ship. Why would they be a key player as you mention near the beginning of the article? I must be missing something.

]]>