The UN is becoming more stupid by the day.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Japher
-How's that for bashing the UN Oerdin?

[Sandman]

which part of it wasn't true? its pretty obvious if u ask me. who guards taiwan? who arms israel? who tries to twist north koreas arm? the list gets pretty lengthy.

Who thinks peacekeeping and diplomacy is for wimps? Who tears up treaties whenever it suits them? Who, in it's dealing with NK, encourages every tinpot there is to get nukes as fast as possible?

how many carriers does the UN have? how many forward deployed troops? how often have they responded quickly in force?

The American Navy is useful (although the super-carriers are questionable), at least for keeping the sealanes free of pirates. I have no idea how many forward deployed troops are currently operating under UN command. Tens of thousands, at least. When was the last time the American army responded quickly in force? Certainly not Iraq.

At least the UN doesn't spend it's money on pointless weapons systems.

the UN doesn't have the capability, the will or the history to be vital to the security of the globe. so its not hard to call u out when u say silly **** like that.

Sorry, but I don't think you've proved your point at all. Security does not stem purely from force, indeed, excessive force can be detrimental to security.

Time to take off the gloves in dealing with the dear leader George II.

I'd say he's George III, for added irony.

[Cruddy]

On topic; what's all the fuss? Who cares about the UN finding out about human rights abuses when Amnesty's been doing that for decades?

Anyway, who would you rather have on the case - a bunch of ex-secret police who know the tricks because they used to play them, or a bunch of soft bummed business types who don't know their arse from their elbow?

Judge on results - if Libya makes a dog's breakfast of it well fair enough, but at least give them a chance.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sandman Who tears up treaties whenever it suits them?

That's just a plan lie Sandy. The treaty in question clearly spelled out the things any signatory had to do in order to end the treaty. Following those steps isn't tearing up the treaty it is fully following the treaty to the letter.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Sandman


Who thinks peacekeeping and diplomacy is for wimps? Who tears up treaties whenever it suits them? Who, in it's dealing with NK, encourages every tinpot there is to get nukes as fast as possible?



The American Navy is useful (although the super-carriers are questionable), at least for keeping the sealanes free of pirates. I have no idea how many forward deployed troops are currently operating under UN command. Tens of thousands, at least. When was the last time the American army responded quickly in force? Certainly not Iraq.

At least the UN doesn't spend it's money on pointless weapons systems.



Sorry, but I don't think you've proved your point at all. Security does not stem purely from force, indeed, excessive force can be detrimental to security.



I'd say he's George III, for added irony.

security indeed does not stem purely from force. but lacking the history the capability and the will to use force doesn't lead to security anymore than yelling at a guy w/ a gun leads to not getting jacked.

the US's carrier fleets are some of the best projections of power the world has ever known. and are extraordinarily effective at giving aggressive nations pause.

in the end you do not like the US's policies but u have failed in every regard to try to diminish their actual role in security.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sandman
Who tears up treaties whenever it suits them?

All countries.

Roland: Your counter trolling is getting better. Kudos.

[Sandman]

That's just a plan lie Sandy. The treaty in question clearly spelled out the things any signatory had to do in order to end the treaty. Following those steps isn't tearing up the treaty it is fully following the treaty to the letter.

Fine, I concede that 'tears up' is emotive language. Do you think that ending treaties related to arms control is likely to make the world safer?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sandman


Fine, I concede that 'tears up' is emotive language. Do you think that ending treaties related to arms control is likely to make the world safer?

Arms control treaties did not make the world safer in the 20's and 30s. We would have been better off keeping strong forces and slapping Hitler on the nose immediatley

[Sandman]

security indeed does not stem purely from force. but lacking the history the capability and the will to use force doesn't lead to security anymore than yelling at a guy w/ a gun leads to not getting jacked.

Having the history, capability and the will to use force also does not lead to security.

the US's carrier fleets are some of the best projections of power the world has ever known. and are extraordinarily effective at giving aggressive nations pause.

They are also extraordinarily effective at giving non-aggressive nations pause, and are also extraordinarily effective in the hands of aggressive nations. If they are so effective, why are you still launching them?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sandman


Having the history, capability and the will to use force also does not lead to security.



They are also extraordinarily effective at giving non-aggressive nations pause, and are also extraordinarily effective in the hands of aggressive nations. If they are so effective, why are you still launching them?

I think that there is almost a resentment of the carriers. This site is full of armchair generals and sideline admirals. And the carriers are just too cool. It bugs those that don't have em. And is a point of showmanship for those that do. But the real point is how well they help us be a gloabal prescnece.

[Sandman]

Arms control treaties did not make the world safer in the 20's and 30s. We would have been better off keeping strong forces and slapping Hitler on the nose immediatley

Hitler had a substantial industrial and technological base.

The collection of nothings, misfits and tinpots that make up the 'threat' today do not.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sandman


Hitler had a substantial industrial and technological base.

The collection of nothings, misfits and tinpots that make up the 'threat' today do not.

You asked for examples of ineffective arms control. I cite the treaties of the 20's.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Sandman

If they are so effective, why are you still launching them?

Sandman, you are overlooking the fact that nuke ships have a limited lifespan. OK, all ships do - but nukes are a special case.

The US has to keep building them to keep the numbers in service.

In a sense, they're locked into a cycle - but the nuke fleets have had notable sucesses, albeit at a huge cost.

As noted above, they also have had their failures.

[Sandman]

You asked for examples of ineffective arms control. I cite the treaties of the 20's.

I did? Anyway, they were ineffective because the League of Nations did not have America as a member, the other major powers watered down the proposals, and so on. Obviously disarmament treaties don't work if all the major players don't take part.

[Sandman]

I think that there is almost a resentment of the carriers. This site is full of armchair generals and sideline admirals. And the carriers are just too cool. It bugs those that don't have em. And is a point of showmanship for those that do. But the real point is how well they help us be a gloabal prescnece.

You have a point there. But at the same time, you can't just reduce all criticism to jealousy.

Sandman, you are overlooking the fact that nuke ships have a limited lifespan. OK, all ships do - but nukes are a special case.

Hmm, didn't know that. Thanks.