UN: Worst case

[charrison]

So lets assume the US goes to war against the UN wishes(just like every other member of security council has done in the past). What will the UN do?


Write a resolutions?
Sanctions?

What will the UN do?


What will the UN do if the US pulls out of the UN?

 

[MacBaine]

They'll vote on a resolution to stop us, and France will Veto it.

 

[optoman]

What will the UN do if the US pulls out of the UN?

Pack its bags and go home.

 

[BigJelly]

Do what it always does--have a meeting and do nothing. Then change its name to The League of Nations--after US leaves.
Or if it does do any action it will turn to.......usually the US, but can't so no one.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: MacBaine
They'll vote on a resolution to stop us, and France will Veto it.

Wrong. They'll vote on a resolution to stop the U.S. and France will vote for it. They will then immediately surrender.

 

[kuk]

I'm no expert in international law, but from what I remember (and I'm still not really sure about this):

1) Iraq would have the right to launch an attack against the U.S. (yeah yeah, start laughing

)
2) Bush and other military authorities could be put on trial at the International Court for crimes against humanity (like our old friend Slobodan).

I'll see if I can remember more.

Edit: I've gone Platinum

 

[PMoore]

War stinks as much as the Bush administration!

 

[arynn]

If the US pulls out of the UN it will cease to exist. The League of Nations didn't last too long without the US; neither would the UN.

Regardless, the UN will cease to have any relevance in world affairs (at least for the foreseeable future) after the US attacks Iraq. It could be blamed on the US; however, as we are simply enforcing earlier UN resolutions I think we have a valid argument. I think it will be more the fault of the French as they will veto the resolution.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: kuk
I'm no expert in international law, but from what I remember (and I'm still not really sure about this):

1) Iraq would have the right to launch an attack against the U.S. (yeah yeah, start laughing

)
2) Bush and other military authorities could be put on trial at the International Court for crimes against humanity (like our old friend Slobodan).

I'll see if I can remember more.

Edit: I've gone Platinum

And who is going to force Bush to trial?

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: PMoore
War stinks as much as the Bush administration!

That was a profound statement. Couldn't you come up with anything better? Come to think of it, you sound like you're French. Have you tried holding your arms over your head lately?

 

[stspad]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: PMoore
War stinks as much as the Bush administration!

That was a profound statement. Couldn't you come up with anything better? Come to think of it, you sound like you're French. Have you tried holding your arms over your head lately?

yours isnt exactly oozing with intelligence

 

[kuk]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: kuk
I'm no expert in international law, but from what I remember (and I'm still not really sure about this):

1) Iraq would have the right to launch an attack against the U.S. (yeah yeah, start laughing

)
2) Bush and other military authorities could be put on trial at the International Court for crimes against humanity (like our old friend Slobodan).

I'll see if I can remember more.

Edit: I've gone Platinum

And who is going to force Bush to trial?

It's a good read ...

 

[Ime]

I keep wondering why Bush is even going to the UN when he knows it'll just be voted down or vetoed.

Why even bother going to the UN? What's Bush thinking?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: kuk

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: kuk
I'm no expert in international law, but from what I remember (and I'm still not really sure about this):

1) Iraq would have the right to launch an attack against the U.S. (yeah yeah, start laughing

)
2) Bush and other military authorities could be put on trial at the International Court for crimes against humanity (like our old friend Slobodan).

I'll see if I can remember more.

Edit: I've gone Platinum

And who is going to force Bush to trial?

It's a good read ...

It took the United states to bring Slobadon to trial. Who is going to bring Bush to trial. Will the senate have to go along as well as they approved the action?

Will it be retroactive and include russian for chechnia?
Will it be retroactive and include france for the ivory caost?
Will it be retroactive and include china for its past actions?


Or is the US just held to a different standard?

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: kuk

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: kuk
I'm no expert in international law, but from what I remember (and I'm still not really sure about this):

1) Iraq would have the right to launch an attack against the U.S. (yeah yeah, start laughing

)
2) Bush and other military authorities could be put on trial at the International Court for crimes against humanity (like our old friend Slobodan).

I'll see if I can remember more.

Edit: I've gone Platinum

And who is going to force Bush to trial?

It's a good read ...

It took the United states to bring Slobadon to trial. Who is going to bring Bush to trial. Will the senate have to go along as well as they approved the action?

Will it be retroactive and include russian for chechnia?
Will it be retroactive and include france for the ivory caost?
Will it be retroactive and include china for its past actions?


Or is the US just held to a different standard?

If the US was held to a different standard than saddam, then the UN would ask for action against the US.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: MacBaine
They'll vote on a resolution to stop us, and France will Veto it.

Wrong. They'll vote on a resolution to stop the U.S. and France will vote for it. They will then immediately surrender.

I was being sarcastic They'll veto any resolution that's up for vote...

 

[kuk]

If a member of the UN requests, hearings should be opened. I don't know what is going to take to bring him to court, but legally it's a fragile situation.


If these nations you mentioned request hearings, I don't know what force would refrain this from happening.

 

[isekii]

We are the UN

I really don't see them stopping the US if US wants a war with iraq

 

[kuk]

Originally posted by: isekii
We are the UN

This kind of thought that worries me the most.
Not the actual power of the U.S. inside the UN, but how americans view the world.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: kuk
If a member of the UN requests, hearings should be opened. I don't know what is going to take to bring him to court, but legally it's a fragile situation.


If these nations you mentioned request hearings, I don't know what force would refrain this from happening.

Well the US could always veto it.....

 

[slider64]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: MacBaine
They'll vote on a resolution to stop us, and France will Veto it.

Wrong. They'll vote on a resolution to stop the U.S. and France will vote for it. They will then immediately surrender.

That was very funny, how long before they surrender to a three year old with a capgun?

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: kuk
If a member of the UN requests, hearings should be opened. I don't know what is going to take to bring him to court, but legally it's a fragile situation.


If these nations you mentioned request hearings, I don't know what force would refrain this from happening.

Well the US could always veto it.....

good point--so simple it was overlooked by everyone

 

[arynn]

I think Bush went to the UN because Tony Blair (and probably Colin Powell) wanted him to do so.

The UN will have not bring Bush up on any kind of charges. They didn't do anything to Clinton when he bombed countries without UN approval.

 

[kuk]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: kuk
If a member of the UN requests, hearings should be opened. I don't know what is going to take to bring him to court, but legally it's a fragile situation.


If these nations you mentioned request hearings, I don't know what force would refrain this from happening.

Well the US could always veto it.....

But will it have this power after running over the U.N.?

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: kuk

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: kuk
If a member of the UN requests, hearings should be opened. I don't know what is going to take to bring him to court, but legally it's a fragile situation.


If these nations you mentioned request hearings, I don't know what force would refrain this from happening.

Well the US could always veto it.....

But will it have this power after running over the U.N.?

Power of US >>> no power >>> Power of UN