Poll: Did the UN Just Declare War on Libya?! Yes they did

[Danny Ocean]

I have ot thank Danny Ocean. i didnt think he was serious when he said I could use this for just waht you two are stating.

If you express US contributions as a percentage of the total of ~100,000 it really makes it seem small. US forces account for just 0.093% of the total UN peacekeeping force spread around the world.

93 people, no wonder why we send our own troops in. We don't really give a shit on the UN army, when we can send our own. Thanks for the info.

No no no. There's only 93 US troops in the total UN army of about 100,000. The UN army isn't only 93 men strong. That'd be useless! xD

snip

Thank you and I sincerely apologise for being a little defensive it was a very rude of me. Just that, when I see people using the whole big red text thing, its often being used to berate or belittle the poster.

No problem. I get insensitive when I'm tired.

 

[Zirat]

People, just for the knowledge the OP, Booster Gold, has admitted that this was only made to get a reaction out of the rest of you in a half-baked attempt at trolling as obvious by his exagerated lines with such gems as Neo-Liberals and
"Go back to sleep - basketball is on the TV. Soon you'll be able to crack open a 6 pack and enjoy the air strikes like you would a Dwyane Wade slam dunk."

So while this wont stop the thread I thought it would be fair to let you people know that this is only feeding the troll.

 

[Sovvolf]

So while this wont stop the thread I thought it would be fair to let you people know that this is only feeding the troll.

While that information is certainly grand (though it would be nice to see a quote or a source) I see no reason why the thread should stop. While (if what your saying is true and I have no reason to or not to believe you)the poster had ill intent when making the thread, that doesn't mean its not a serious topic worthy of discussion.

 

[Danny Ocean]

...our economy is in the shitter (despite what Obama may say), we're still hurting from Iraq and Afghanistan -- and who even knows when we'll need to start putting pressure on Iran to stop them from building missiles to send us all to hell -- and the US wants to start another war?

And before anyone says, "No, it's the UN not the US!" just look at who actually created the UN, after World War II. Everyone knows the UN is America's *****, and the only reason it remains a 'world force' is because America funds the fuck out of it. If the US didn't support the UN, it (the UN) wouldn't exist. AND, the only reason the US funds the UN is so that it can provide somewhat of an heir of legitimacy to America's operations every time Congress wants to go and "annex" another tinpot nation. (Hmm, that sounds rather suspiciously like how Nazi Germany "annexed" half of Europe in the late 1930s.)

Read through the rest of the thread and you'll see why this statement is, broadly speaking, alarmist or irrelevant or wrong.

The UN is without a doubt the US's economic ***** [footnote](they share the same aims of free trade, but the UN can't stop the US having tariffs very easily)[/footnote], but militarily the US does its own thing most of the time, with or without UN support.

This time it asked first, which is a good step. Hopefully this will set a precedent of allowing the UN to actually do what it was designed to do.

Also, this bears little resemblance to how Nazi Germany annexed parts of Europe. Seriously. That is such a tenuous link it'd snap if I coughed on it.

 

[Zirat]

So while this wont stop the thread I thought it would be fair to let you people know that this is only feeding the troll.

While that information is certainly grand (though it would be nice to see a quote or a source) I see no reason why the thread should stop. While (if what your saying is true and I have no reason to or not to believe you)the poster had ill intent when making the thread, that doesn't mean its not a serious topic worthy of discussion.

I'm not saying it should stop in any way shape or form, but people that got mad or just vaguely annoyed by the OP should have the right to know that he did it in such a way for his own amusement.

This is a good thread topic, but made for the wrong reasons is what I'm getting at.

 

[mxfox408]

Funding
http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/un-budget-contribution-per-country-2

 

[spartan231490]

That is the biggest pile of paranoid, cynical crap I've read all week (and I spend a substantial amount of time on the internet). You seriously think that the US government is intentionally trying to destabilize the region? And you honestly think, that with the countless ethnic and religious differences, taht Arab nations would actually form some kind of superstate? Please. The government isn't some kind of great conspiracy to keep "lesser peoples" down. Even if it was, it's going to take a long, long time for Middle Eastern countries to work out their issues.

Point is, we didn't go to war for oil. We went to war because the CIA genuinely believed that there were WMDs in Iraq, because Saddam was an ass, and because Bush Jr. had a grudge against the guy and wanted to finish what his daddy started. Never assume malice when incompetence (and idealism) makes perfect sense.

Call it paranoid and cynical if you want, I call it realism. Look at the history of CIA interference in the Middle-east. I can come to only two conclusions from their actions there in the past, they are either horrifically incompetent(the incident that comes to mind first is the Shaw of Iran thing that happened a while ago where the CIA supported one leader of Iran without realizing that a rebellion was brewing until it happened.), or they want the region to remain unstable. If they want the region to remain unstable, the only reasons I can see are to prevent the region from calming down and uniting in, at least, a financial alliance.

As for them not uniting, they united several times in the past into powerful empires(Persia, ottoman empire, ect.) and with their massive oil reserves, even a financial alliance across middle-eastern nation would hold major power.

That's my opinion, believe what you want. But just do me a favor and look at the history of US interfering in the middle-east. Come to your own conclusions.

 

[mxfox408]

sometimes I wonder what would happen if the UN tried to sanction China or Russia, I satand corrected as far as numbers go, but the US Financially contributes the most http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/un-budget-contribution-per-country-2

also if there is civil war why is the UN getting involved in a side? if the UN existed during our civil war do you think theyd sanction us?

 

[t3h br0th3r]

sometimes I wonder what would happen if the UN tried to sanction China or Russia

They would veto it. since they BOTH are on the UN security council and it only takes ONE no vote to defeat something there.

the fact that anything has happen in the un is a miracle.

if it weren't for the fact that the 'president' of Libya was acting ape shit crazy and that his own people were the ones that started the fighting no one would be batting an eye at this.

the reason why the US tried to not get involved is because we are in two wars, and are trying to help Japan, and were broke on top of it all.

Whenever an ass needs beat the world tends to look to the US to do it but right now we are tried.

Besides, it would be refreshing to let England or someone else play World Police for a change.

 

[Serving UpSmiles]

seems to me like its too little too late, the rebels have practically lost already and air power alone wont stop the remaining from being killed. We ought to just send in the bloody SAS to take out Gadaffi.

We tried that, although it wasnt to kill Gadafi, it was to recon but i think they were leading up to it.

 

[Fleischer]

They are killing each other anyway - would it not do us to help get in there, remove the cancer that is Gadaffi and help to install someone to run the place who isn't a radical Islamist, like Iran wants to do?

Your suggested course of action is exactly what Islamic terrorist groups are hoping will happen.

That it may be, but if nothing is done, would you rather Gadaffi were overthrown and replaced with radical Islamists, like the Taliban and those Ayatollah nutters in Iran?

Without outside intervention, it will take time and some luck for the Libyan rebellion to be successful. Ghaddafi is a craven, morally corrupt man, and he will stop at no end to remain in power.

*If Ghaddafi is no longer in power, its up to the people of Libya to decide what government they'll have* It's not the right of the UN, US, UK, Iran or any other nation to dictate how they self govern. Frankly, it's a fair assessment to say that theocracy is a horrible way of governing, but if that's what they want, fine. If a new Libyan government is actively plotting and aiding terrorists, that is another story. A threat is a threat; however, we aren't really talking about building a new nation since the old Libya, under Ghaddafi, is what we have.

 

[AxWeildingPsychopath]

Is it just me, or everytime a country has either a civil war or a war with a different country, one of the big guys has to step in and say "Stop playing with your toys, I'll show you how to have a real war, sorry, did I just send thousands of both your soldiers and mine to their deaths, kill civillians and ruin your economy? My bad. Well this is boring now, cya!"

Thats pretty much every country America has ever "helped" another one. So what if the rebels lose? The fate of a war should not be dictated by forign nations, its none of their bussiness or concern. This is how World Wars start.

 

[i am nobody]

Funny, Most people would agree that politicians, corporate CEO's, etc. are all lying, greedy a-holes, but people still seem to believe whatever they tell them: that their plans are all for the good of mankind, for democracy, that they're freeing a country from an evil tyrant, etc. Oh, and it's not about the oil... or gaining control of yet another government. really.

 

[crazyfoxdemon]

Is it a good thing? No.. War is not a good thing.. Is it the right thing? Yes... Yes it is..

 

[Xealeon]

Yeah the UN does have an Army its called the United States Army. Screw the UN why the hell do we always go? Send france or someone else everytime i hear UN this the UN that, i think what is the US doing now? Seriously every other country in the UN sits on thier asses and say send the americans under our flag.

you're totally right because the US never has anybody helping it in any fight ever, certainly not any of those lazy UN countries that never do anything but send the US military in completely alone to do all the fighting.
like in Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq#Troop_deployment_in_Iraq_2003-2009

and Somalia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Task_Force

 

[Lonan]

You've actually cleared a lot of the doubt I had over this issue up. I realise now that Canada should have declared war on Libya, as the RCAF is more than enough to deal with the (mostly grounded) Libyan air force.

I'm not sure how long it would take to build one, but we could have built an aircraft carrier with the full fleet of defense ships and more if the Harper kakistocracy hadn't squandered all our money on hiking trails and card houses when the opposition demanded he put us in a massive hole of debt.

So basically Canada, with one the most bludgeoned militaries in the world could have taken out this terrorist Gadhafi. History will know that when Harper was told to break his principles, he had enough courage to do just that. History will remember how when the innocent people of Libya were slaughtered for wanting freedom for dictatorship, Canada did absolutely nothing.

And now were sending 6 CF-18's to enforce the no fly zone. Out of 80. It's nice to know that were pulling our weight in this world, rather than just holding back because we can reduce our military costs by hiding in the shadow of other countries. And no one blinks an eye, not here or elsewhere. So embarrassing.

 

[Saviordd1]

Neo-libs everywhere are rejoicing. Remember ? war is evil unless it?s sprinkled with the magic pixie dust of UN endorsement and ?humanitarian? rhetoric, in which case the dead bodies, the terror, and the screaming children are all worth it. The fact that Libya is the richest oil nation on the entire African continent is a mere coincidence. Go back to sleep ? basketball is on the TV. Soon you?ll be able to crack open a 6 pack and enjoy the air strikes like you would a Dwyane Wade slam dunk.
This is precisely what we predicted before Obama even took office?.
?Obama may eventually withdraw a portion of troops from Iraq, but mark our words, they won?t be home long before they are sent off to bomb another broken-backed third world country, this time in the name of a United Nations-backed ?humanitarian? war, just as Bill Clinton presided over in Somalia and Serbia with the full support of the establishment political left.?
-Paul Joseph Watson

Despite Mr. Watson's opinion about oil, I'm more concerned about the waging war thing, not that Libya wasn't doing a good job of that already
[HEADING=1]ADDENDUM: THE PURPOSE OF THIS THREADS CREATION WAS TO STIR UP CONTROVERSY FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF HAVING THE OP SHOT STRAIGHT TO HECK, AND CREATE A MEANINGFUL DEBATE. I apologize if I offended anyone in anyway[/HEADING]

Honestly if we're gonna be waging war we might as well wage war for a somewhat noble cause