Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What would the UN do?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What would the UN do?

    So I'm reading about all these internationals being kidnapped (and now murdered) in Iraq and reading John Kerry's BIG PLAN to get the UN more involved, and I'm wondering: What exactly is the UN supposed to do to make things all better?

    Quite obviously the kidnappers/terrorists are targeting EVERYONE.

    What are your thoughts, 'cause I just don't get it. I don't think that the UN is sitting around waiting for someone to ask very very nicely before they'll sign up for Iraq duty, and I don't see how their presence in Iraq would do a thing to improve security. I think it would get a few blue helmets perforated, and that's it.

  • #2
    Re: What would the UN do?

    no no no.. the blue helmets would be safe... o they would take the terrorists to a big table and ask what they want.. a helocopter a farrari then they would discuss it...

    then blue guys die....


    www.TeamElement.com

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: What would the UN do?

      well, I would imagine these families might get a chance to spend a little time with their loved ones. Since this is making the "world" safer, they could help share the load.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: What would the UN do?

        I whole heartedly agree we should share the burden with as many other countries, or organizations as we can. However, and there is always a however, not if it means that the mission fails or is dragged out longer than it should have been.

        Look at what the UN has done in the past. They simply cut and ran after their HQ in Baghdad got hit with a truck bomb and their secretary was killed. How are they going to have the fortitude to follow through and commit when it may not be the most popular thing to do?
        New to TG?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: What would the UN do?

          Well that's my point, Frijole, I don't think the "world" (under the UN authority) WILL help share the load, even if someone like John Kerry asks them nicely. Do you honestly believe that France, e.g., will send troops into Iraq - or permit a UN resolution to send troops to Iraq?

          It's also pretty insulting, IMHO, to the nations who DO have troops stationed in Iraq to continue to act as if they don't count.

          So, yes, I agree that it would be nice for these families in the US armed forces to spend more time together, but I don't see another army capable of doing as good a job, I don't see how the UN's presence in Iraq helps the Iraqi people find security, and I don't think it matters anyway since it won't happen until the situation is already under control. Whether John Kerry or George Bush or the freakin' Pope asks, the UN isn't going to budge until the coast is good and damn well clear.
          Last edited by leejo; 04-15-2004, 12:21 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: What would the UN do?

            Originally posted by fr1j0l3
            well, I would imagine these families might get a chance to spend a little time with their loved ones. Since this is making the "world" safer, they could help share the load.
            Ugh... Your post sickens me.

            I wish that the Stars and Stripes website wasn't available to the public. Those families shared their thoughts with a military community newspaper without the intention of you perverting their letters into political propaganda. I'm pretty sure that just about every one of them would have written a different type of letter if it had been intended for a general circulation publication. The military is one big family. Sometimes it's happy and sometimes it isn't. Members of the family fight and argue amongst themselves all the time, but when faced with an external threat they'll band together closer than you can imagine. Please don't try air the family's dirty laundry with people outside the family.

            Nobody wants their loved ones to be away from them, but somebody has to do it.

            Nobody does it better than the United States Armed Forces.
            Become a supporting member!
            Buy a Tactical Duck!
            Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
            TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: What would the UN do?

              wow..

              Not trying to "pervert" anything. I think there are valid grievances mentioned in those letters.

              And I agree, no-one does it better than our armed forces, I just think they need to be treated better in this instance. What is happening now is NOT because of what our men and women serving have done or not done, they are bravely doing their jobs. The lack of planning and subsequent reliance on our servicefolks is what I find terrible.

              Instead of bitching about how "they cut and ran" (much the way we did to the iraqis in GW1), how about some discussion on how to bring others into the fray?

              I was never one for invasion in the first place, but now that we're there, we can't leave. Why not have a better plan than forcing our volunteers to stay longer than promised? I'm not buying that this is our only option.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: What would the UN do?

                Originally posted by fr1j0l3
                wow..

                Not trying to "pervert" anything. I think there are valid grievances mentioned in those letters.

                And I agree, no-one does it better than our armed forces, I just think they need to be treated better in this instance. What is happening now is NOT because of what our men and women serving have done or not done, they are bravely doing their jobs. The lack of planning and subsequent reliance on our servicefolks is what I find terrible.

                Instead of bitching about how "they cut and ran" (much the way we did to the iraqis in GW1), how about some discussion on how to bring others into the fray?

                I was never one for invasion in the first place, but now that we're there, we can't leave. Why not have a better plan than forcing our volunteers to stay longer than promised? I'm not buying that this is our only option.
                i do see a point but in the end i do not want this to go down in the history books as the war the UN saved. we have foughht with coalition troops and made this country a better place. why after all the hard work is over does the UN want in on the constitution and rebuilding of this country. no0 way man. it may be easier and allow our troops some R&R but no they should not recieve any glory. they hid behind policy and now they will have to live with their cowadice./


                www.TeamElement.com

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: What would the UN do?

                  I think that is the entire question frij. We are there now, we all accept that there were some valid reasons for going, but we need to work out the exit/handover strategy. As was mentioned in another thread, the Iraqi nation is completely a completely different culture and it is a very difficult thing to calculate for the best.

                  The involvement of the UN (in my opinion) gives more credence to the argument that this was done for the people, rather than the good ole boys riding roughshod through the nation saving damsels and slaying dragons.

                  The level of antagonism toward the US is clear from the recent 'apparent' bin laden message, everyone pullout and be spared apart from the US. (like that will work!)

                  So perhaps an observed more neutral body would be a step forward?

                  DM, I may have misconstrued your post, but does it really matter who does the sorting out, as long as it is sorted?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: What would the UN do?

                    DM, I may have misconstrued your post, but does it really matter who does the sorting out, as long as it is sorted?
                    well actually yes i think it does. The United Nations decided or rather the French decided not to go to war with iraq. they decided and the UN followed that all thse people in iraq were not worth the effort. 2 countries stood up and said no, sadam will be removed and that counry will be a democracy. and then others including those within Europe said that they would help so nin the coalition we have oh i dont know the number but alot of troops from around the world. between these countries (granted most of the contribution is american then british then italian i believe.) but these countries will finish the job they started.

                    now if it was just oh well the job will be done and iraqis will thank all well ok let them do it with us. but what kind of message are we sending to this new and developing democracy. the countries that are in our democratic circles who refused to help remove sadam now have a millitary portion in the country. they refused to help those thousands of people being totured for religious beliefs but when the fightis over they walk in and become that knight in shining armour as you put it. yes it does matter, it may take a little longer but the democracy will be the birth of countries who truly cared about the iraqis situation with this guy in power and not a birth of people who couldnt be bothered to fight but came squarely back into the picture when oil for rebuilding was mentioned.

                    No sorry this is a coalition war, and countries are welcome to join the coalition but we should not hand over the riegns to the UN they do not deserve the honour of watching a democracy form


                    www.TeamElement.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: What would the UN do?

                      well actually yes i think it does. The United Nations decided or rather the French decided not to go to war with iraq. they decided and the UN followed that all thse people in iraq were not worth the effort. 2 countries stood up and said no, sadam will be removed and that counry will be a democracy. and then others including those within Europe said that they would help so nin the coalition we have oh i dont know the number but alot of troops from around the world. between these countries (granted most of the contribution is american then british then italian i believe.) but these countries will finish the job they started.
                      France didn't believe the lies about Iraq posing an immediate threat to the world (which it didn't) and had interests in Iraqi oil which they didn't want upset. Now we're there for the oil under the guise of 'liberation', giving contracts to Cheney's (or is it Rumsfeld's) halliburton rather than Iraqi contractors (something the british military was peeved at, recently aired in UK newspapers I think) and installing another puppet leader.
                      When this all started it had nothing to do with freeing Iraq. That's the excuse they use now because it's the only one the people will accept. We went to war because Iraq posed 'an immediate threat'. The coalition of forces comprised of a few countries (most of which were a joke and the rest - most of their populations were against an invasion in the first place), some of which didn't even have an army, so desperate were bush and blair to get support. The majority of the world were against the invasion by a large factor. If we live in a democratic society, why didn't we follow the ideal through? If we hate dictators - why are we still doing business with them - therefore I can only conclude that our leaders couldn't really give a damn about us and are in it for their own interests which makes this whole thing a farce to me or I'm seriously missing something.

                      It also happens to be the birthplace of the illuminati (who trace their bloodlines back to Babylon and Sumer - modern day Iraq) and why Bush declared victory on May 1st (illuminati special day) and why they, Jay Garner and Zalmay Khalizadm, made a speech about democracy under the shadow of the 4,000 yr old Ziggurat (stepped pyramid) at Ur. Ur was the alleged home of Abraham and hugely significant again in illuminati operations.

                      Just as a side note Zalmay Khalizadm (US special envoy to Iraq and Ammbassador for Afghanistan) is a consultant for Unocal who have taken over operations in Afgahnistan. His friend, a former Unocal staffer, is Hamid Karzai - the new leader of Afghanistan.
                      Jex.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: What would the UN do?

                        Good lord that's some wild crazy talk.

                        Gandalf is why we invaded Iraq? What's this about the illuminati? Huh?

                        And what's your point about Karzai? Leaders should be prohibited from hiring people they know?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: What would the UN do?

                          It's all a conspiracy!!!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: What would the UN do?

                            So we're stealing the oil? Well this has to be the worst heist in the history of mankind.

                            Here's the thing. If you steal something, the cost of the operation should be less than the value of the thing you're stealing. People accused the US of going into Iraq "for the oil" back in 90. It was a silly accusation then, and it's silly now.
                            Last edited by leejo; 04-15-2004, 09:03 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: What would the UN do?

                              Originally posted by jex
                              and installing another puppet leader.
                              Hmm, I thought this statement was interesting since obviously it differs from what exactly is happening in Iraq.

                              Iraq is in the process of drawing up and ratifying a constitution that would bring democracy to that region. After that process, the people themselves will elect their leader.

                              I don't see how the Coalition forcers are "installing another puppet leader"

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X