Third times the charm? League of Nations, United Nations... what would be next?sergeriver wrote:
Not really, but sometimes you want to believe things are done the right way even if you know they aren't. Call me naive, but I still think an improved organization could deal with this kind of things.FEOS wrote:
Did it really take this for you to figure that out, serge?sergeriver wrote:
Then the UN is not helping to achieve their goals or the goals it was meant to achieve when it was founded after WW2, and it's a useless organization.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4600777a10.html
Not much new stuff in that article, but this excerpt is interesting:
World leaders condemned as illegitimate Zimbabwe's one-candidate election today and Nobel Peace laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu said they had the right to intervene to end the crisis.
Not much new stuff in that article, but this excerpt is interesting:
World leaders condemned as illegitimate Zimbabwe's one-candidate election today and Nobel Peace laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu said they had the right to intervene to end the crisis.
I'd say The League of Justice with Batman and Superman would be fine.imortal wrote:
Third times the charm? League of Nations, United Nations... what would be next?sergeriver wrote:
Not really, but sometimes you want to believe things are done the right way even if you know they aren't. Call me naive, but I still think an improved organization could deal with this kind of things.FEOS wrote:
Did it really take this for you to figure that out, serge?
I thought it interesting that the opposition pulled out of the election.
That way, Mugabi gets an automatic win, that way he'll feel like he owns Zimbabwe, that way he'll do something stupid like making himself back into true dictator (at the moment he can use the excuse of having elections (even if they're not entirely 'free and fair')).
Then, in go the troops.
That way, Mugabi gets an automatic win, that way he'll feel like he owns Zimbabwe, that way he'll do something stupid like making himself back into true dictator (at the moment he can use the excuse of having elections (even if they're not entirely 'free and fair')).
Then, in go the troops.
Gonna be GDI tbhsergeriver wrote:
I'd say The League of Justice with Batman and Superman would be fine.imortal wrote:
Third times the charm? League of Nations, United Nations... what would be next?sergeriver wrote:
Not really, but sometimes you want to believe things are done the right way even if you know they aren't. Call me naive, but I still think an improved organization could deal with this kind of things.
I'd like to see the AU do something about Mugabe. Like they did about Bacar in the invasion of Anjouan in March.
I very much doubt it'll ever happen though.
I very much doubt it'll ever happen though.
Why isn't it the same?sergeriver wrote:
Bubs, it's not the same. Pls, you know what's going on in Zimbabwe.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Certainly, but what right do you have to force you belief of basic human rights upon a nation?
Do you intend to invade the US to stop them trying children as adults?
Highly relevant to the discussion again.usmarine2 wrote:
name one nation that hasn't?ZombieVampire! wrote:
Please, the US only invades a nation when it's strategically useful.
/sarcasm, if you're wondering.
Oh, right, silly me thinking that you'd linked to the important part. I don't have time to read every wiki page that gets thrown at me, provide a real source or go away.FEOS wrote:
It's obvious you didn't even try to read the page. There's USA Today, PR Watch, BBC, CNN, Globalsecurity, and many others sourced for that article.ZombieVampire! wrote:
All sourced from DoD.
And maybe you should read it better: the F-15s were initially to defend Saudi Arabia, a US ally. Personally, I don't have time to read stuff that could have been written by a 5 year old with tourettes (or, worse, Bush Jr).
If that's really what your history books teach...what the hell do they put in your history books?!
Please tell us what your history books say about the US having to be "dragged" into the Gulf War. Would love to hear that.
The Nobel Peace Prize is a joke.Pubic wrote:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4600777a10.html
Not much new stuff in that article, but this excerpt is interesting:
World leaders condemned as illegitimate Zimbabwe's one-candidate election today and Nobel Peace laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu said they had the right to intervene to end the crisis.
Ummm....ZombieVampire! wrote:
Highly relevant to the discussion again.usmarine2 wrote:
name one nation that hasn't?ZombieVampire! wrote:
Please, the US only invades a nation when it's strategically useful.
/sarcasm, if you're wondering.
The OP is about the UN and zimbob. YOU mentioned the US.
Are you feeling well?
No, ATG did.
and you did also. So, if you cant stay on topic......ZombieVampire! wrote:
No, ATG did.
In response to his comment, yes.
why dont we load up a 747 with one person from every willing country, and "accidentally" drop a 500 pounder on that dirty bastards face while he's eating off of that gold plate, followed closely by a note tied to a brick that says..>"the world says fuck you. play nice. the end. the next one will be bigger. tell your friends. Sincerely, -the world"
Last edited by mcjagdflieger (2008-06-28 22:21:08)
Somalia, Balkans, Panama, Haiti?m3thod wrote:
at the risk of sounding like marine. QFT.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Please, the US only invades a nation when it's strategically useful.
LMAO.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Wow, a paragraph on Wikipedia which cites only the US DoD website. That's certainly more reliable than my IP textbooks with a number of sources.
What are you disputing on that page ?
Provide a source for your assertion that the "US had to be dragged into the conflict" ..You made the assertion, the onus is on you to back it up.
Don't you remember Bush 1's speech when the Iraqis invaded ? "this aggression will not stand"
Last edited by Vax (2008-06-29 16:26:56)
The US didn't invade Somalia or the Balkans Mr vacuum cleaner.Vax wrote:
Somalia, Balkans, Panama, Haiti?m3thod wrote:
at the risk of sounding like marine. QFT.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Please, the US only invades a nation when it's strategically useful.
not that i can be bothered to look into Haiti or panama but are you trying to tell me the US invaded them nations because.........it had nothing better to do?
There usually something up for grabs....
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
I'm sure the Somalians felt like they had been invaded. By multiple countries.m3thod wrote:
The US didn't invade Somalia or the Balkans Mr vacuum cleaner.Vax wrote:
Somalia, Balkans, Panama, Haiti?m3thod wrote:
at the risk of sounding like marine. QFT.
not that i can be bothered to look into Haiti or panama but are you trying to tell me the US invaded them nations because.........it had nothing better to do?
There usually something up for grabs....
Same with the Balkans.
"Strategically useful" is a bit vague. When you boil it down, no country does anything that's not "strategically useful".
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Haiti - US-backed politician forced out of office (largely by the people), US goes in to escort him out of country because rebels were threatening to attack. No invasion, no lasting presence except through the UN.m3thod wrote:
The US didn't invade Somalia or the Balkans Mr vacuum cleaner.Vax wrote:
Somalia, Balkans, Panama, Haiti?m3thod wrote:
at the risk of sounding like marine. QFT.
not that i can be bothered to look into Haiti or panama but are you trying to tell me the US invaded them nations because.........it had nothing better to do?
There usually something up for grabs....
Panama - Former US-backed politician (and CIA drug runner) forced out of office by the US. An invasion, for the sole purpose of removing a friend-turned enemy of the state. Sounds familiar.
It also works the other way too. Things like resources become "strategically useful" arguments for conflict.FEOS wrote:
I'm sure the Somalians felt like they had been invaded. By multiple countries.m3thod wrote:
The US didn't invade Somalia or the Balkans Mr vacuum cleaner.Vax wrote:
Somalia, Balkans, Panama, Haiti?
not that i can be bothered to look into Haiti or panama but are you trying to tell me the US invaded them nations because.........it had nothing better to do?
There usually something up for grabs....
Same with the Balkans.
"Strategically useful" is a bit vague. When you boil it down, no country does anything that's not "strategically useful".
I was just going off the top of my head, and I was thinking of Haiti '94KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Haiti - US-backed politician forced out of office (largely by the people), US goes in to escort him out of country because rebels were threatening to attack. No invasion, no lasting presence except through the UN.m3thod wrote:
The US didn't invade Somalia or the Balkans Mr vacuum cleaner.Vax wrote:
Somalia, Balkans, Panama, Haiti?
not that i can be bothered to look into Haiti or panama but are you trying to tell me the US invaded them nations because.........it had nothing better to do?
There usually something up for grabs....
Panama - Former US-backed politician (and CIA drug runner) forced out of office by the US. An invasion, for the sole purpose of removing a friend-turned enemy of the state. Sounds familiar.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … ocracy.htm
Panama:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … _cause.htm
Ahh, yes I was thinking of interventions not invasions per se.m3thod wrote:
The US didn't invade Somalia or the Balkans Mr vacuum cleaner.Vax wrote:
Somalia, Balkans, Panama, Haiti?m3thod wrote:
at the risk of sounding like marine. QFT.
not that i can be bothered to look into Haiti or panama but are you trying to tell me the US invaded them nations because.........it had nothing better to do?
There usually something up for grabs....
Point being we have intervened on numerous occasions where the main "strategic' benefit has been attempting to head off humanitarian disasters.
Sure, but stating 'we' implying it was the solely US is incorrect.Vax wrote:
Ahh, yes I was thinking of interventions not invasions per se.m3thod wrote:
The US didn't invade Somalia or the Balkans Mr vacuum cleaner.Vax wrote:
Somalia, Balkans, Panama, Haiti?
not that i can be bothered to look into Haiti or panama but are you trying to tell me the US invaded them nations because.........it had nothing better to do?
There usually something up for grabs....
Point being we have intervened on numerous occasions where the main "strategic' benefit has been attempting to head off humanitarian disasters.
UN and NATO are not the US...(even though both would be wank without them)
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Somalia wasn't a sovereign nation: effectively it had no government, meaning a UN force had as much jurisdiction as anyone else.FEOS wrote:
I'm sure the Somalians felt like they had been invaded. By multiple countries.
Promoting stability in a region where they're concerned about enemies developing..........yup, not useful at all.FEOS wrote:
Same with the Balkans.
Where did I say anything different? And strategically useful isn't at all vague.FEOS wrote:
"Strategically useful" is a bit vague. When you boil it down, no country does anything that's not "strategically useful".
There are occasional exceptions: arguments could be made for both Somalia and Kosovo. But the whole "US saving the world because they're just so friendly" line is a load of crap.
Last edited by ZombieVampire! (2008-06-30 02:54:21)
Notice I said "the Somalians" not "the Somalian government".ZombieVampire! wrote:
Somalia wasn't a sovereign nation: effectively it had no government, meaning a UN force had as much jurisdiction as anyone else.FEOS wrote:
I'm sure the Somalians felt like they had been invaded. By multiple countries.
Never said it wasn't useful...just that at least some of the people there felt they had been invaded by a foreign power(s). However, it was probably preferred over their situation at the time.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Promoting stability in a region where they're concerned about enemies developing..........yup, not useful at all.FEOS wrote:
Same with the Balkans.
Never said you did. But your implication/tone implied a negative connotation.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Where did I say anything different? And strategically useful isn't at all vague.FEOS wrote:
"Strategically useful" is a bit vague. When you boil it down, no country does anything that's not "strategically useful".
It is most certainly vague. There are about a hundred different ways to apply that concept.
Who said that?ZombieVampire! wrote:
There are occasional exceptions: arguments could be made for both Somalia and Kosovo. But the whole "US saving the world because they're just so friendly" line is a load of crap.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Ignoring that fact that they aren't necessarily right, I doubt they really noticed. It was just more people with guns.FEOS wrote:
Notice I said "the Somalians" not "the Somalian government".
Ok, I clearly missed the conversation thread there. It was definitely an invasion though. Apologies.FEOS wrote:
Never said it wasn't useful...just that at least some of the people there felt they had been invaded by a foreign power(s). However, it was probably preferred over their situation at the time.
Uh..........how so? ATG made a very specific comment about the US, and I responded to it. Sorry if I'm jumping on this, but I'm just so sick of it happening. Someone brings up the US, and when I point out that the sun doesn't shine out of the US Army's ass, I'm asked what Australia's ever done. What does it fucking matter?FEOS wrote:
Never said you did. But your implication/tone implied a negative connotation.
No, there aren't. Strategically useful: it has real, observable, probably even measurable gain.FEOS wrote:
It is most certainly vague. There are about a hundred different ways to apply that concept.
This:FEOS wrote:
Who said that?
sounds like it to me.ATG wrote:
If the U.N. does it's usual nothing and the U.S. did it's usual shouldering of the heavy burden many here would be crying about imperialism.
Calm down. I wasn't chucking a spear at you for making the comment. I was referring to your use of "strategically useful".ZombieVampire! wrote:
Uh..........how so? ATG made a very specific comment about the US, and I responded to it. Sorry if I'm jumping on this, but I'm just so sick of it happening. Someone brings up the US, and when I point out that the sun doesn't shine out of the US Army's ass, I'm asked what Australia's ever done. What does it fucking matter?FEOS wrote:
Never said you did. But your implication/tone implied a negative connotation.
There is a difference between strategic, operational, and tactical. But more to the point: "useful" is the ambiguous part of the term, not strategic.ZombieVampire! wrote:
No, there aren't. Strategically useful: it has real, observable, probably even measurable gain.FEOS wrote:
It is most certainly vague. There are about a hundred different ways to apply that concept.
Fair enough. Although I agree with ATG's point. The US can't win, no matter what we do (or don't do).ZombieVampire! wrote:
This:FEOS wrote:
Who said that?sounds like it to me.ATG wrote:
If the U.N. does it's usual nothing and the U.S. did it's usual shouldering of the heavy burden many here would be crying about imperialism.
Last edited by FEOS (2008-06-30 03:34:51)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular