Weird article about the UN

[XMan]

I can't decide whether to laugh or say, "Hmmm."

 

[FoBoT]

so exactly which "armed forces" would the general assembly use to attack/stop us?

this is the whole problem with the UN, they don't have anyway to enforce anything, and then when the US goes to do it, we get p!ssed on

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
so exactly which "armed forces" would the general assembly use to attack/stop us?

this is the whole problem with the UN, they don't have anyway to enforce anything, and then when the US goes to do it, we get p!ssed on

Exactly... what are they going to do, ask the U.S. government to invade itself?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: FoBoT
so exactly which "armed forces" would the general assembly use to attack/stop us?

this is the whole problem with the UN, they don't have anyway to enforce anything, and then when the US goes to do it, we get p!ssed on

Exactly... what are they going to do, ask the U.S. government to invade itself?

Let them send the French to stop us.. Please!!!

 

[jjones]

Actually, if they sent a vote to the General Assembly, it's possible the US would get enough votes to validate their action. I have absolutely no idea of how many countries are for war and how many are against, but could it be possible that by going to the General Assembly the U.S. could get what it cannot seem to get from the Security Council?

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: jjones
Actually, if they sent a vote to the General Assembly, it's possible the US would get enough votes to validate their action. I have absolutely no idea of how many countries are for war and how many are against, but could it be possible that by going to the General Assembly the U.S. could get what it cannot seem to get from the Security Council?

No, the US would get about 10 yes votes and ~170 no votes in the general assembly

 

[exp]

ROFL...just when I think the UN has run out of material they surprise me with a fresh new comedy act like this one. 😀

 

[oLLie]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: jjones
Actually, if they sent a vote to the General Assembly, it's possible the US would get enough votes to validate their action. I have absolutely no idea of how many countries are for war and how many are against, but could it be possible that by going to the General Assembly the U.S. could get what it cannot seem to get from the Security Council?

No, the US would get about 10 yes votes and ~170 no votes in the general assembly

What's your source on that? Andrea Buffa in Iraq radio interview? Or Jahawkin National Unbiased News Source?

Nice sig, btw:

A US military source said that Bush and his inner circle seem to be suffering from what is known in the DoD as incestuous amplification. This is a condition in warfare where one only listens to those who are already in lock-step agreement, reinforcing set beliefs and creating a situation ripe for miscalculation. An illustration of this was Bush's address to the AEI - a right-wing think tank in DC - last Wednesday on why military action was required.
Jane's Defence Weekly, March 05, 2003

Yeah I'm sure some of the anti-war protestors are not guilty of the same thing (as well as some of the "pro-war" people). Ah, hypocrisy. Good game.

 

[Grey]

The whole premise is beyong belief. They want to make the UN more important but they are so ignorant of the fact that Iraq has been ignoring the UN because of them being essentially powerless. Now that the US wants to rectify that situation, they suddenly think the UN is weak against the US? Well no sh!t sherlock!!

And who are they going to attack or force the US/Britain/Portugal with? The UK and US account for 90% of their military efforts sigh.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: oLLie

Nice sig, btw:

A US military source said that Bush and his inner circle seem to be suffering from what is known in the DoD as incestuous amplification. This is a condition in warfare where one only listens to those who are already in lock-step agreement, reinforcing set beliefs and creating a situation ripe for miscalculation. An illustration of this was Bush's address to the AEI - a right-wing think tank in DC - last Wednesday on why military action was required.
Jane's Defence Weekly, March 05, 2003

Yeah I'm sure some of the anti-war protestors are not guilty of the same thing (as well as some of the "pro-war" people). Ah, hypocrisy. Good game.

I think most people involved in this debate are guilty of it.

 

[oLLie]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: oLLie

Nice sig, btw:

A US military source said that Bush and his inner circle seem to be suffering from what is known in the DoD as incestuous amplification. This is a condition in warfare where one only listens to those who are already in lock-step agreement, reinforcing set beliefs and creating a situation ripe for miscalculation. An illustration of this was Bush's address to the AEI - a right-wing think tank in DC - last Wednesday on why military action was required.
Jane's Defence Weekly, March 05, 2003

Yeah I'm sure some of the anti-war protestors are not guilty of the same thing (as well as some of the "pro-war" people). Ah, hypocrisy. Good game.

I think most people involved in this debate are guilty of it.

Agreed, that's why I don't think it can be used to attack the Bush administration or its policies.

*edit* I also like the generic source, "A US military source". What is that supposed to mean? That tells me nothing about the credibility of the quote.

 

[konichiwa]

"We must attack Iraq because they are defying the United Nations. Oh. We are defying the United Nations by attacking Iraq for...defying the United Nations."