Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:No it is against certain laws put down by the national government and the UNN, so Arizonia is getting a spanking for that.

I wipe my ass with the UN, its charter, adn everything and everyone associated with it.

You are aware that the UN was formed at the behest of the USA, and that the USA was one of the founding members aren't you? Because I would hate for you to find out like this...

Yep, boy that was a stupid move.

So in essence, he wiped his ass with George Washington and the Declaration of Independence.

That takes some:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

No we're playing the little game where I keep envisioning a Southern talking Brad Pitt telling me I owe him 100 Nazi scalps...

I'll make sure to note this the next time you ban me frivolously and I send lego an email.

Excellent. And remember, your Nazi killing is strictly amateur, and the boys and I were wondering if you'd like to go professional?

Calm down.

Its too late for that. How do you Bingo! Man this actor is going to go far:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:No it is against certain laws put down by the national government and the UNN, so Arizonia is getting a spanking for that.

I wipe my ass with the UN, its charter, adn everything and everyone associated with it.

You are aware that the UN was formed at the behest of the USA, and that the USA was one of the founding members aren't you? Because I would hate for you to find out like this...

Yep, boy that was a stupid move.

So in essence, he wiped his ass with George Washington and the Declaration of Independence.

That takes some:

Incorrect. The UN has nothing to with Washington and the Dceclaration of Independence.

I guess the only thing to ask yourself now is, what if Washington had had a Dodge?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:No it is against certain laws put down by the national government and the UNN, so Arizonia is getting a spanking for that.

I wipe my ass with the UN, its charter, adn everything and everyone associated with it.

You are aware that the UN was formed at the behest of the USA, and that the USA was one of the founding members aren't you? Because I would hate for you to find out like this...

Yep, boy that was a stupid move.

Why? I mean, I know you hate the UN, but do you actually have a reason? A real one? One that isn't just "Dey take away our freedomz"?

i think he's demonstrated quite thoroughly that he has no intention of making an intellectually consistent, or even salient comment on the matter.

Bookwrack wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:No it is against certain laws put down by the national government and the UNN, so Arizonia is getting a spanking for that.

I wipe my ass with the UN, its charter, adn everything and everyone associated with it.

You are aware that the UN was formed at the behest of the USA, and that the USA was one of the founding members aren't you? Because I would hate for you to find out like this...

Yep, boy that was a stupid move.

Why? I mean, I know you hate the UN, but do you actually have a reason? A real one? One that isn't just "Dey take away our freedomz"?

i think he's demonstrated quite thoroughly that he has no intention of making an intellectually honest, or even salient comment on the matter.

I think coherent is the target at the moment.

Every thing tyhe UN has done has been done better or more cheaply than if the UN had not been involved. the Iraq oil embargo scandal remains the largest bribery scam in the history of mankind.

Frazzled wrote:

Bookwrack wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:No it is against certain laws put down by the national government and the UNN, so Arizonia is getting a spanking for that.

I wipe my ass with the UN, its charter, adn everything and everyone associated with it.

You are aware that the UN was formed at the behest of the USA, and that the USA was one of the founding members aren't you? Because I would hate for you to find out like this...

Yep, boy that was a stupid move.

Why? I mean, I know you hate the UN, but do you actually have a reason? A real one? One that isn't just "Dey take away our freedomz"?

i think he's demonstrated quite thoroughly that he has no intention of making an intellectually honest, or even salient comment on the matter.

I think coherent is the target at the moment.

Every thing tyhe UN has done has been done better or more cheaply than if the UN had not been involved. the Iraq oil embargo scandal remains the largest bribery scam in the history of mankind.

"It's bad because things would be better if it wasn't there"

Good argument.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

No we're playing the little game where I keep envisioning a Southern talking Brad Pitt telling me I owe him 100 Nazi scalps...

I'll make sure to note this the next time you ban me frivolously and I send lego an email.

Excellent. And remember, your Nazi killing is strictly amateur, and the boys and I were wondering if you'd like to go professional?

Calm down.

Its too late for that. How do you Bingo! Man this actor is going to go far:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:No it is against certain laws put down by the national government and the UNN, so Arizonia is getting a spanking for that.

I wipe my ass with the UN, its charter, adn everything and everyone associated with it.

You are aware that the UN was formed at the behest of the USA, and that the USA was one of the founding members aren't you? Because I would hate for you to find out like this...

Yep, boy that was a stupid move.

So in essence, he wiped his ass with George Washington and the Declaration of Independence.

That takes some:

Incorrect. The UN has nothing to with Washington and the Dceclaration of Independence.

I guess the only thing to ask yourself now is, what if Washington had had a Dodge?

I will not lie i lolz

Would have applied excellently the following cases:
Hitler
Stalin
Pol Pot
Barney.

crickey almost forgot:

Frazzled wrote:Would have applied excellently the following cases:
Hitler
Stalin
Pol Pot
Barney.

The UN came to existence in response to world war two...

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Would have applied excellently the following cases:
Hitler
Stalin
Pol Pot
Barney.

The UN came to existence in response to world war two...

master of arcane knowledge aren't ya there Shuma.

WTF?

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Would have applied excellently the following cases:
Hitler
Stalin
Pol Pot
Barney.

The UN came to existence in response to world war two...

master of arcane knowledge aren't ya there Shuma.

The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations

You should go back to school, unless you were joking with this post (I can't tell) in which case you should just calm down.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Would have applied excellently the following cases:
Hitler
Stalin
Pol Pot
Barney.

The UN came to existence in response to world war two...

master of arcane knowledge aren't ya there Shuma.

Are you drunk?

Bookwrack wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Would have applied excellently the following cases:
Hitler
Stalin
Pol Pot
Barney.

The UN came to existence in response to world war two...

master of arcane knowledge aren't ya there Shuma.

Are you drunk?

Must be. Because Frazzled is never this funny.

Oh its not that easy Shuma. Ok it really is because I'm outta here for the weekend. But we'll leave you all with:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bookwrack wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Would have applied excellently the following cases:
Hitler
Stalin
Pol Pot
Barney.

The UN came to existence in response to world war two...

master of arcane knowledge aren't ya there Shuma.

Are you drunk?

Not yet.

Bookwrack wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Would have applied excellently the following cases:
Hitler
Stalin
Pol Pot
Barney.

The UN came to existence in response to world war two...

master of arcane knowledge aren't ya there Shuma.

Are you drunk?

...only with power.

BOOM! BIFF! POWWW!

I'm going to borrow that pic and quote this:

ShumaGorath wrote:

No we're playing the little game where I keep envisioning a Southern talking Brad Pitt telling me I owe him 100 Nazi scalps...

I'll make sure to note this the next time you ban me frivolously and I send lego an email.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

On topic...

Nowhere do I see any indication of anything actually coming of this. Even if the 9th Circuit rules in some sort of crazy way, the SCOTUS will most likely strike down their ruling before anything actually happens.

I don't see how this is Barack's fault.

+1 to disapproving of the UN though. That's one reason that I can't fully dislike Dubyuh.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:No it is against certain laws put down by the national government and the UNN, so Arizonia is getting a spanking for that.

I wipe my ass with the UN, its charter, adn everything and everyone associated with it.

You are aware that the UN was formed at the behest of the USA, and that the USA was one of the founding members aren't you? Because I would hate for you to find out like this...

Yep, boy that was a stupid move.

You would have thought they would have learnt their lesson from the League of Nations.

Frazzled wrote:
I wipe my ass with the UN, its charter, adn everything and everyone associated with it.

So, you wipe your ass with the United States and, by extension, yourself?

That doesn't seem very patriotic, or hygienic.

Frazzled wrote:
i didn't say the countries, the UN.

Sorry, you said "everything and everyone associated with it". Last time I checked, countries are things. In fact, they're the things primarily responsible for the constitution of the UN.

Monster Rain wrote:
+1 to disapproving of the UN though. That's one reason that I can't fully dislike Dubyuh.

I don't get the distaste for the UN. The US has a permanent veto on any binding resolutions, and contributes almost nothing to the institution. Its like a nearly-free forum for control of international institutions.

I don't get the distaste for the UN. The US has a permanent veto on any binding resolutions, and contributes almost nothing to the institution. Its like a nearly-free forum for control of international institutions.

Where did you get that dogma?


Veto power for anything good for the world also exists for the Russians, Chinese, French and British. Still doesn't change the fact that anything we try to do to limit nuclear proliferation is poo-pooed by the Russians, since weapons are their best cash cow for export.

I don't like the UN because it's an attempt to strip nations of their sovereignty, every resoultion passed by the assembly becomes law above our own. It bothers me a lot that other nations can control our activities through seemingly inncuous resolutions.

Everywhere they take over, it's chaos afterwards. Elanor Roosevelt's great plan is a disaster as an organization and was doomed from the start. The Korean War was their debacle and it got thousands of Western Power's troops killed for what? A nearly 60 year ceasefire? Big deal. They've done little except wag their finger about Iran enriching Uranium, they passed lots of Resolutions about Saddam Huessain's Iraqi Government and activities dealing with Nuclear and biological weapons, yet did nothing tangible. Darfur is their mess, Rwanda theirs too. Haiti has been the UN's literal training ground for strife, yet the place is still a wreck. What about them is so great?

I'm going to quote what you said, what you actually said, then my reaction.

Veto power for anything good for the world also exists for the Russians, Chinese, French and British. Still doesn't change the fact that anything we try to do to limit nuclear proliferation is poo-pooed by the Russians, since weapons are their best cash cow for export.

nuclear weapons are russias best cash cow

lolno.jpeg

I don't like the UN because it's an attempt to strip nations of their sovereignty, every resoultion passed by the assembly becomes law above our own. It bothers me a lot that other nations can control our activities through seemingly inncuous resolutions.

Nations can control our activities through resolutions that we can veto at will at any time

lolwut.jpeg

Everywhere they take over, it's chaos afterwards. Elanor Roosevelt's great plan is a disaster as an organization and was doomed from the start. The Korean War was their debacle and it got thousands of Western Power's troops killed for what? A nearly 60 year ceasefire? Big deal.

A ceasefire is a total failure and south korea is clearly a failed state because military action wasn't allowed to progress to the point of chinese or russian intervention

nojustno.jpeg

They've done little except wag their finger about Iran enriching Uranium, they passed lots of Resolutions about Saddam Huessain's Iraqi Government and activities dealing with Nuclear and biological weapons, yet did nothing tangible.

Iran is mean and terrible. The UN didn't invade iraq to get the WMDs that they didn't have after the inspectors said that they didn't have any WMDs.

iwouldliketoseetheschoolyouwentto.png

Darfur is their mess, Rwanda theirs too. Haiti has been the UN's literal training ground for strife, yet the place is still a wreck. What about them is so great?

Darfur and Rwanda are terrible because the UN who impose their will on all nations respects african national sovereignty and has refused to enter in full military force at the request of the african nations in the region. Haiti is terrible and the UN send their troops their for target practice.

noneofthisaccuractelyreflectstherealitiesofnationalpolitics.gif

ShumaGorath wrote:I'm going to quote what you said, what you actually said, then my reaction.

Veto power for anything good for the world also exists for the Russians, Chinese, French and British. Still doesn't change the fact that anything we try to do to limit nuclear proliferation is poo-pooed by the Russians, since weapons are their best cash cow for export.

nuclear weapons are russias best cash cow

lolno.jpeg

I don't like the UN because it's an attempt to strip nations of their sovereignty, every resoultion passed by the assembly becomes law above our own. It bothers me a lot that other nations can control our activities through seemingly inncuous resolutions.

Nations can control our activities through resolutions that we can veto at will at any time

lolwut.jpeg

Everywhere they take over, it's chaos afterwards. Elanor Roosevelt's great plan is a disaster as an organization and was doomed from the start. The Korean War was their debacle and it got thousands of Western Power's troops killed for what? A nearly 60 year ceasefire? Big deal.

A ceasefire is a total failure and south korea is clearly a failed state because military action wasn't allowed to progress to the point of chinese or russian intervention

nojustno.jpeg

They've done little except wag their finger about Iran enriching Uranium, they passed lots of Resolutions about Saddam Huessain's Iraqi Government and activities dealing with Nuclear and biological weapons, yet did nothing tangible.

Iran is mean and terrible. The UN didn't invade iraq to get the WMDs that they didn't have after the inspectors said that they didn't have any WMDs.

iwouldliketoseetheschoolyouwentto.png

Darfur is their mess, Rwanda theirs too. Haiti has been the UN's literal training ground for strife, yet the place is still a wreck. What about them is so great?

Darfur and Rwanda are terrible because the UN who impose their will on all nations respects african national sovereignty and has refused to enter in full military force at the request of the african nations in the region. Haiti is terrible and the UN send their troops their for target practice.

noneofthisaccuractelyreflectstherealitiesofnationalpolitics.gif

Being a petulant contrarian fixes nothing, I stand by what I said since it was all true.

Stormrider wrote:
Veto power for anything good for the world also exists for the Russians, Chinese, French and British. Still doesn't change the fact that anything we try to do to limit nuclear proliferation is poo-pooed by the Russians, since weapons are their best cash cow for export.

Yeah, we try so hard to limit nuclear proliferation.

So hard in fact, that we have nuclear supply deal with India, a nation outside the NPT.

More to the point, we have yet to decide whether or not nuclear proliferation is objectively bad. Its certainly bad for the US, but the UN isn't a US pawn.

Stormrider wrote:
I don't like the UN because it's an attempt to strip nations of their sovereignty, every resoultion passed by the assembly becomes law above our own. It bothers me a lot that other nations can control our activities through seemingly inncuous resolutions.

No, that's not how it works. The vast majority of resolutions passed within the UN are non-binding, and amount to little more than declaration of intent or distaste.

The only binding, legal resolutions are those passed by the Security Council, where we have veto power.

Stormrider wrote:
The Korean War was their debacle and it got thousands of Western Power's troops killed for what? A nearly 60 year ceasefire? Big deal.

Resolution 83 was non-binding. Not all SC resolutions are binding.

Note also that the US order to assist South Korea came on the same day as Resolution 83; indicating that plans to do so were already in the works.

Stormrider wrote:
They've done little except wag their finger about Iran enriching Uranium,

Why should they do more? Iran hasn't violated the NPT, and enriching uranium is not against any of the UN's mandates.

The UN is not a US pawn.

Stormrider wrote:
they passed lots of Resolutions about Saddam Huessain's Iraqi Government and activities dealing with Nuclear and biological weapons, yet did nothing tangible.

So, who cares? More than 90% of the countries in the UN had no reason to do anything tangible to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

The UN is not a US pawn.

Stormrider wrote:
Darfur is their mess, Rwanda theirs too.

Really? Because to me it looks like the former is a Sudanese mess, and the latter is a Rwandan mess. Are you trying to claim that the UN committed genocide?

Stormrider wrote:
Haiti has been the UN's literal training ground for strife, yet the place is still a wreck.

Yeah, 6 years is an incredible amount of time to fix a third-world nation.

Stormrider wrote:
What about them is so great?

Did I say they were great?

The UN's main issue is that it, and most of the people that observe it, don't fully understand what it actually is. Its a giant forum for the airing of grievances and the declaration of international intent. It isn't a pawn for any nation, nor is it a military force. It has an inkling to become the world's largest NGO, which it hasn't been entirely unsuccessful in doing, but that process only began about 15 years ago.

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
Veto power for anything good for the world also exists for the Russians, Chinese, French and British. Still doesn't change the fact that anything we try to do to limit nuclear proliferation is poo-pooed by the Russians, since weapons are their best cash cow for export.

Yeah, we try so hard to limit nuclear proliferation.

So hard in fact, that we have nuclear supply deal with India, a nation outside the NPT.

More to the point, we have yet to decide whether or not nuclear proliferation is objectively bad. Its certainly bad for the US, but the UN isn't a US pawn.

The United State SHOULD encourage more nuclear proliferation. It's a good source of energy with less drawbacks than oil, especially since nuclear winter would counteract global warming.

Heck, should herald a new ice age.

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
I don't like the UN because it's an attempt to strip nations of their sovereignty, every resoultion passed by the assembly becomes law above our own. It bothers me a lot that other nations can control our activities through seemingly inncuous resolutions.

No, that's not how it works. The vast majority of resolutions passed within the UN are non-binding, and amount to little more than declaration of intent or distaste.

The only binding, legal resolutions are those passed by the Security Council, where we have veto power.

Yeah, they should give the UN more teeth against rogue nations.

I.E. nations not on the Security Council or on the crap list of the UN.

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
The Korean War was their debacle and it got thousands of Western Power's troops killed for what? A nearly 60 year ceasefire? Big deal.

Resolution 83 was non-binding. Not all SC resolutions are binding.

Note also that the US order to assist South Korea came on the same day as Resolution 83; indicating that plans to do so were already in the works.

The US chooses to intervene as a way to flex the muscle of their new found power and world status (along with allied nations and others willing to idealistically follow the US and contain rogue nations).

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
They've done little except wag their finger about Iran enriching Uranium,

Why should they do more? Iran hasn't violated the NPT, and enriching uranium is not against any of the UN's mandates.

The UN is not a US pawn.

And invading/attacking/bombing Iran would be bad. VERY bad. As opposed to a nation of 28,000,000 under the rule of hardline Islamists with a fractured powerbase or a nation of 31,000,000 with a dictator holding tenuous power, Iran has a population of 74,000,000 that is more than willing to unite under the banner of Anti-American and Anti-Westernism to throw out any invaders.

An embargo would be impractical for even with the stance Iran has for its foreign policies. Other Islamic nations could potentially rally to Iran's defense. An embargo would be economically costly to the rest of the world.

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
they passed lots of Resolutions about Saddam Huessain's Iraqi Government and activities dealing with Nuclear and biological weapons, yet did nothing tangible.

So, who cares? More than 90% of the countries in the UN had no reason to do anything tangible to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

The UN is not a US pawn.

And in the end, Iraq failed to produce any of these weapons beyond perhaps a theoretical phase.

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
Darfur is their mess, Rwanda theirs too.

Really? Because to me it looks like the former is a Sudanese mess, and the latter is a Rwandan mess. Are you trying to claim that the UN committed genocide?

The UN does not have the ability to involve itself militaristically deeply within a national conflict without the support of a major member nation. The peacekeepers are simply security guards- paid to pretend to maintain the peace but ultimately not a soldier to fight a war.

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
Haiti has been the UN's literal training ground for strife, yet the place is still a wreck.

Yeah, 6 years is an incredible amount of time to fix a third-world nation.

I don't think Haiti will be recoverable after the devestation of a earthquake and the potential for a major hurricane that could wreck it even further in the worst case scenario.

Consider Haiti a fifth-world nation at best until a HUGE investment of funds becomes available.

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
What about them is so great?

Did I say they were great?

The UN's main issue is that it, and most of the people that observe it, don't fully understand what it actually is. Its a giant forum for the airing of grievances and the declaration of international intent. It isn't a pawn for any nation, nor is it a military force. It has an inkling to become the world's largest NGO, which it hasn't been entirely unsuccessful in doing, but that process only began about 15 years ago.

The major global powers of this world and regional power blocs are going to fill in the roll of military interventionalism. The U.S. has NATO, the Africans have their own organization, and so forth.

The UN does lean heavily towards Western values. If anything, there is a bias towards how they set expectations for member nations and are more critical of nations that are not liberal in policies regarding gender, race, social expectations, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Stormrider wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I'm going to quote what you said, what you actually said, then my reaction.

Veto power for anything good for the world also exists for the Russians, Chinese, French and British. Still doesn't change the fact that anything we try to do to limit nuclear proliferation is poo-pooed by the Russians, since weapons are their best cash cow for export.

nuclear weapons are russias best cash cow

lolno.jpeg

I don't like the UN because it's an attempt to strip nations of their sovereignty, every resoultion passed by the assembly becomes law above our own. It bothers me a lot that other nations can control our activities through seemingly inncuous resolutions.

Nations can control our activities through resolutions that we can veto at will at any time

lolwut.jpeg

Everywhere they take over, it's chaos afterwards. Elanor Roosevelt's great plan is a disaster as an organization and was doomed from the start. The Korean War was their debacle and it got thousands of Western Power's troops killed for what? A nearly 60 year ceasefire? Big deal.

A ceasefire is a total failure and south korea is clearly a failed state because military action wasn't allowed to progress to the point of chinese or russian intervention

nojustno.jpeg

They've done little except wag their finger about Iran enriching Uranium, they passed lots of Resolutions about Saddam Huessain's Iraqi Government and activities dealing with Nuclear and biological weapons, yet did nothing tangible.

Iran is mean and terrible. The UN didn't invade iraq to get the WMDs that they didn't have after the inspectors said that they didn't have any WMDs.

iwouldliketoseetheschoolyouwentto.png

Darfur is their mess, Rwanda theirs too. Haiti has been the UN's literal training ground for strife, yet the place is still a wreck. What about them is so great?

Darfur and Rwanda are terrible because the UN who impose their will on all nations respects african national sovereignty and has refused to enter in full military force at the request of the african nations in the region. Haiti is terrible and the UN send their troops their for target practice.

noneofthisaccuractelyreflectstherealitiesofnationalpolitics.gif

Being a petulant contrarian fixes nothing, I stand by what I said since it was all true.

Except for the parts which were illogical rants, which are 100% of it. My favorite part was where you stated that the UN should have done more about Iraq in response to their inspectors stating that that they had no WMDs because they had no WMDs.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't understand.

If the foreign countries joining the case is illegal, why would they be allowed to join? Surely the 9th Circuit of Appeals will chuck it out.

The Latin American countries are merely filing amicus briefs (i.e., not necessarily even a legal opinion), not joining the case as parties. Just about anything or anyone who believes the ruling of a court might affect their interest can file an amicus brief. Courts can consider them or ignore them as they please. Fox news is gak.

WarOne wrote:
And invading/attacking/bombing Iran would be bad. VERY bad. As opposed to a nation of 28,000,000 under the rule of hardline Islamists with a fractured powerbase or a nation of 31,000,000 with a dictator holding tenuous power, Iran has a population of 74,000,000 that is more than willing to unite under the banner of Anti-American and Anti-Westernism to throw out any invaders.

You think that Iraq had an Islamist population?

WarOne wrote:
An embargo would be impractical for even with the stance Iran has for its foreign policies. Other Islamic nations could potentially rally to Iran's defense. An embargo would be economically costly to the rest of the world.

The biggest issue is China.

WarOne wrote:
The peacekeepers are simply security guards- paid to pretend to maintain the peace but ultimately not a soldier to fight a war.

So they're...peacekeepers?

dogma wrote:

WarOne wrote:
And invading/attacking/bombing Iran would be bad. VERY bad. As opposed to a nation of 28,000,000 under the rule of hardline Islamists with a fractured powerbase or a nation of 31,000,000 with a dictator holding tenuous power, Iran has a population of 74,000,000 that is more than willing to unite under the banner of Anti-American and Anti-Westernism to throw out any invaders.

You think that Iraq had an Islamist population?

Iraq was the one with the dictator, Afghanistan with hardline Islamists. I should of been more specific.

dogma wrote:

WarOne wrote:
An embargo would be impractical for even with the stance Iran has for its foreign policies. Other Islamic nations could potentially rally to Iran's defense. An embargo would be economically costly to the rest of the world.

The biggest issue is China.

America needs to marginalize the Middle East as much as possible (i.e. letting them do what they want as America is not in the business to imperialize anymore and we shouldn't give them any impression of such blatant imperialism, even if it is sending troops over for police/militart action of any kind. I'm not saying be a wuss about foreign disturbances in the Middle East, but there is a line we can and cannot cross there. Building up alliances is better than causing feathers to be ruffled. Damn, that was a pretty long parentheses).

A co-operation with China would probably be in America's best interest. Don't agree on everything with them, but make sure to always be two steps ahead of them in anything.

dogma wrote:

WarOne wrote:
The peacekeepers are simply security guards- paid to pretend to maintain the peace but ultimately not a soldier to fight a war.

So they're...peacekeepers?

Sure, but that just goes back to my point about thinking of the UN as something that it isn't.

dogma wrote:Sure, but that just goes back to my point about thinking of the UN as something that it isn't.

The UN is a forum for remediating international conflicts.

Sanctioned as peacekeepers, they must maintain the peace and ensure stability.

While largely successful, it is the will of other nations that allows conflict to end. The arm of the UN is only as far as member nations allow it.

Therefore failures in peacekeeping missions in Africa that cost millions of lives shows the glaring deficit in that capacity.

One of the UN's roles is peacekeeping. Realistically, it is unachievable. Ideally, it is supposed to prevent war, famine, and genocide.

Stormrider wrote:Veto power for anything good for the world also exists for the Russians, Chinese, French and British. Still doesn't change the fact that anything we try to do to limit nuclear proliferation is poo-pooed by the Russians, since weapons are their best cash cow for export.

and how many nuclear weapons do the USA have? how many weapons do the USA make, supply and trade to foreign nations?

And for the record Russian has alot more profitable exports.


OT Fox news is untrustworthy, biased, republican funded propaganda, not a news channel.