Thundercheif Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 (edited) After years of it's own tyrany, the U.N. is finally able to flex its muscle and perform the task it was intended to do. Under the leadership of O'Bama, a new United Nations has emerged with thoughtfull, cooperative and decicive action to combat a Libyian government that has been a problem for decades. It's too late for Rwanda (among many others), but it seems that a co-opperative mentality is back in the fold. This situation may be convienient given the oil question but none the less, its obvious that significant humanitarian issues can be rectified with calculated, decicive military actions on a limited scale. If the United States can finally learn from it's mistakes and be a team player, it will certainly revive its standing in the world theatre. I applaud Presedent O'Bama and Secretary Clinton for their diplomacy and conviction. Edited March 20, 2011 by Thundercheif Quote
Bonam Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 The UN? It seems that it is mostly a few NATO nations that are taking action, and those same nations that pushed the proposal to intervene militarily. The only difference here is that for once a few European countries pushed as/more strongly than the US. Also, it certainly remains to be seen whether "humanitarian issues" can really be "rectified" with "decisive military action". The Libyan civil war may well rage on anyway despite the intervention. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 (edited) ....If the United States can finally learn from it's mistakes and be a team player, it will certainly revive its standing in the world theatre. I applaud Presedent O'Bama and Secretary Clinton for their diplomacy and conviction. Why is this only a U.S. responsibility? The UN is a joke if it can only act with American muscle and "leadership". General Dallaire is still crying in his beer because Canada didn't have 50 APC's or the heavy lift cargo capability to get them to Rwanda. Edited March 20, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 Why is this only a U.S. responsibility? The UN is a joke if it can only act with American muscle and "leadership". General Dallaire is still crying in his beer because Canada didn't have 50 APC's or the heavy lift cargo capability to get them to Rwanda. Why is it the US's responsibility? The US is going in anyways. But I know you don't have the answer either. Quote
kimmy Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 O'Bama? Like he's Irish?! Also, you spelled "Chief" wrong... Nonetheless, I agree with the premise. It is reminiscent of the global community that George H.W. Bush advocated for when Iraq invaded Kuwait. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 ....Nonetheless, I agree with the premise. It is reminiscent of the global community that George H.W. Bush advocated for when Iraq invaded Kuwait. OK...but are you willing to pay for it in blood and money? Canada didn't suffer a single casualty during Gulf War I. The "UN Tiger" seemingly only has "teeth" when it means American muscle. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kimmy Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 OK...but are you willing to pay for it in blood and money? Canada didn't suffer a single casualty during Gulf War I. The "UN Tiger" seemingly only has "teeth" when it means American muscle. Of course a big component of American muscle was involved. It might have been a global party, but George HW Bush was the DJ. The objectives of the UN mission happened to coincide nicely with western energy security objectives. I would expect American muscle to be a big part of whatever UN action happens in the Middle East, for the same reason. However, if the US decided to sit out the next "coalition of the willing", I would think that Britain, France, and Germany could provide significant "teeth" to an operation. Canada could help, if our military resources weren't already committed to the ongoing mission to assist our American friends in Afghanistan. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
GWiz Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 The "UN Tiger" seemingly only has "teeth" when it means American muscle. Awww, come on, give your close "allies", those much beloved (especially by Bushies like you) "Frenchies" a little credit for taking the lead here, eh... You don't call them "freedom fries" anymore, do you? Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
DogOnPorch Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 kimmy: ...but George HW Bush was the DJ. DJ G-Boo? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 Awww, come on, give your close "allies", those much beloved (especially by Bushies like you) "Frenchies" a little credit for taking the lead here, eh... Taking the lead means asking the USA to provide 90% of the tactical assets, command and control, intelligence gathering, and damage assessment. Same as in Kosovo.....go "team"! Still waiting for Canada's CF-18's to join the fray. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 Still waiting for Canada's CF-18's to join the fray. The banana boat has sailed...give them a chance...lol. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 (edited) Of course a big component of American muscle was involved. It might have been a global party, but George HW Bush was the DJ. The objectives of the UN mission happened to coincide nicely with western energy security objectives. I would expect American muscle to be a big part of whatever UN action happens in the Middle East, for the same reason. Now why is that? We found out what happens when the US is not onboard in Rwanda. Such an imbalance is a problem for the "global party" and the USA. However, if the US decided to sit out the next "coalition of the willing", I would think that Britain, France, and Germany could provide significant "teeth" to an operation. Canada could help, if our military resources weren't already committed to the ongoing mission to assist our American friends in Afghanistan. Too bad....wars and conflicts do not line up politely in series. The Americans can do it.....the others cannot. Edited March 20, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
scouterjim Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 O'Bama? Like he's Irish?! Also, you spelled "Chief" wrong... Nonetheless, I agree with the premise. It is reminiscent of the global community that George H.W. Bush advocated for when Iraq invaded Kuwait. -k Spelled "president" wrong as well. Quote I have captured the rare duct taped platypus.
GWiz Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 Taking the lead means asking the USA to provide 90% of the tactical assets, command and control, intelligence gathering, and damage assessment. Same as in Kosovo.....go "team"! sssssh, somebody might hear you, that's a secret you moron... Still waiting for Canada's CF-18's to join the fray. Charlottown's been patrolling there a week... CF-18s on tap for tomorrow... When are your 8 F-16s due? BTW - what was the point again? Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 (edited) sssssh, somebody might hear you, that's a secret you moron... Yet my "moron" math is better than yours. Charlottown's been patrolling there a week... CF-18s on tap for tomorrow... When are your 8 F-16s due? BTW - what was the point again? The point is obvious....the Americans will bear the overwhelming brunt and cost for this action. Go "team"...LOL! Meanwhile, back in Canada, they argue about the cost/need for strike aircraft. Can't make this stuff up. Edited March 20, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 Of course a big component of American muscle was involved. It might have been a global party, but George HW Bush was the DJ. The objectives of the UN mission happened to coincide nicely with western energy security objectives. I would expect American muscle to be a big part of whatever UN action happens in the Middle East, for the same reason. However, if the US decided to sit out the next "coalition of the willing", I would think that Britain, France, and Germany could provide significant "teeth" to an operation. Canada could help, if our military resources weren't already committed to the ongoing mission to assist our American friends in Afghanistan. -k Hmm wonder why both Canada and the US are slated to pull out of Afghanistan soon? Needed in other places for future wars? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 Yet my "moron" math is better than yours. The point is obvious....the Americans will bear the overwhelming brunt and cost for this action. Go "team"...LOL! Meanwhile, back in Canada, they argue about the cost/need for strike aircraft. Can't make this stuff up. 100+ Tomahawks = $100,000,000 without pulling back a cockpit canopy. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
GostHacked Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 The point is obvious....the Americans will bear the overwhelming brunt and cost for this action. Go "team"...LOL! I sure hope so, I sure as hell don't want to pay for more stupid wars. But how about them bailouts? Meanwhile, back in Canada, they argue about the cost/need for strike aircraft. Can't make this stuff up. And it's a good argument. Taxpayers are on the hook for these things. Quote
GWiz Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 100+ Tomahawks = $100,000,000 without pulling back a cockpit canopy. Ahhh well; there you have the definition of "easy come, easy go", it's the "American" way"... Some shore time in Italy to "reload", not bad all around... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Moonlight Graham Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 This thread is a joke. Nothing at the UN has changed. Countries are still self-serving. Obama hasn't miraculously turned the UN into some kind of beacon of humanitarian solidarity. It's mostly about oil, and about power as always. If another Darfur or Rwanda happened again right now the UNSC would still do almost jack all. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
GWiz Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 This thread is a joke. Nothing at the UN has changed. Countries are still self-serving. Obama hasn't miraculously turned the UN into some kind of beacon of humanitarian solidarity. It's mostly about oil, and about power as always. If another Darfur or Rwanda happened again right now the UNSC would still do almost jack all. Absolutely right... The only change, if any, is that it was the US that had to be "brought on side" instead of it being the US bringing other countries on side... China and Russia agreeing to "abstain" from using their veto is one other "interesting", but not necessarily significant, aspect in this whole matter... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
jbg Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 Nonetheless, I agree with the premise. It is reminiscent of the global community that George H.W. Bush advocated for when Iraq invaded Kuwait.And the problem with using the U.N. is quite the same. In the Kuwait example, it took 6 months from the invasion and occupation for the U.N. (really the U.S. and other token forces) to get rolling. In the Libya example, the rebellion has already been mostly brutally stamped out and the U.S. and the U.N. ditzed around for about 45 days doing....nothing.As G.W.B. correctly stated the civilized world does not need a permission slip from the U.N. to take action. The time for the U.N. never came and is now gone. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
ToadBrother Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 The UN? It seems that it is mostly a few NATO nations that are taking action, and those same nations that pushed the proposal to intervene militarily. The only difference here is that for once a few European countries pushed as/more strongly than the US. Also, it certainly remains to be seen whether "humanitarian issues" can really be "rectified" with "decisive military action". The Libyan civil war may well rage on anyway despite the intervention. A substantial difference is that China agreed not to veto what amounts to interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. This has been for many years a point of contention between China and a number of other permanent Security Council members. Quote
jbg Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 A substantial difference is that China agreed not to veto what amounts to interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. This has been for many years a point of contention between China and a number of other permanent Security Council members. The Chinese position is directly contrary to the U.N. Charter. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.