In its near 70 years of existance when has it ever maintained a fair and balanced stance?Bertster7 wrote:
In your opinion.
I'll tell you when; never.
inane little opines
I'll tell you when; never.
It's done an awful lot of good. A lot slips through without the UN doing anything about it (or being ineffectual) and it is a bit inconsistent, but it's done a lot of good over the years.Shocking wrote:
In its near 70 years of existance when has it ever maintained a fair and balanced stance?Bertster7 wrote:
In your opinion.
I'll tell you when; never.
If you had resolutions enacted when agreed by a big majority of the general assembly that would be much fairer and better.
It's like saying communism works
inane little opines
what i could findFatherTed wrote:
Anyone have a breakdown of whats being deployed by who?
For the UK i gather Eurofighter, Typhoon GR4s, VC10 tankers, Sentinel and Nimrod. Unoffcially probably 2 Vanguard class
NATO : 3x E-3
Belgium : 6x F16 ( only 4 for will be used )
United States
USAF : F-16 from Aviano
U-2 ( at Akrotri)
KC-135 + 1x RC135
3x C130J + 2x C-130 USNAVY
USNAVY : P-3 ( Souda Crete )
Carrier Strike group USS Enterprise : current position Red Sea with VFA11, VFA136, VAW123, VFA211, VMFA251 on board
RAF :
1x VC10
?6x Tornado GR4
?6x Typhoon
1x Nimrod ( XV249 )
2x E-3 at Akrotri
1x VC10
1x A310
Denmark : 4x F-16
1 X C130
Qatar :
?x Mirage 2000
Canada :
6x CF-18
2 A310's
France : KC-135 + 1x E3
?x Rafale
?x Mirage 2000
Poland :
Transport C-130
Spain :
4 or 6x F-18
Norway :
4x F-16
Netherlands
6x F16
Italy :
F-16 from Trapani and Typhoon from Gioia del Colle
Greece :
4-6x F-16 (Souda Crete ? )
1x EMB-145H
2x AS-332
Portugal:
4x F-16
1x C-295 and another is already active in the region (southern Italy)
??:
6x Hasegawa F-14D's
Last edited by menzo (2011-03-19 15:09:24)
Rebels shot it down.Bertster7 wrote:
No they didn't:Kmar wrote:
http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?fee … deofeed=36Jenspm wrote:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Gua … jet460.jpg
..the jet that was shot down - you can see the ejected pilot in the background. Has anyone claimed ownership of/responsibility for the aircraft?
edit - The Guardian's Chris McGreal: "Some of the rebels say it's their plane. It might have been their only plane that was shot down by Gaddafi's forces."
Rebels shot it down.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-127764181154: Libyan rebels have acknowledged the plane which crashed in flames in Benghazi early on Saturday belonged to them and it was shot down by Col Gaddafi's forces.
Although now they're saying they shot it down themselves by mistake....1344: Libyan TV claims rebels "admit" downing their own aircraft over Benghazi by mistake.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Yeah (although that is still unconfirmed), but it wasn't Gaddafi's plane, as your link statedKmar wrote:
Rebels shot it down.Bertster7 wrote:
No they didn't:Kmar wrote:
http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?feed_id=0&catid=20044927&videofeed=36
Rebels shot it down.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-127764181154: Libyan rebels have acknowledged the plane which crashed in flames in Benghazi early on Saturday belonged to them and it was shot down by Col Gaddafi's forces.
Although now they're saying they shot it down themselves by mistake....1344: Libyan TV claims rebels "admit" downing their own aircraft over Benghazi by mistake.
*edit* Actually, it doesn't state that - I remembered it wrong (someone elses link said that). But the plane belonged to the rebels.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2011-03-19 15:10:34)
Is that why you hate us? Thorn in the side of your Leninist utopia?Bertster7 wrote:
Not the case. Most of the world quite like the UN. It is far more hated in the US than in most places.Jay wrote:
Most of the world would rather have the UN abolished. No one wants your one world government.Bertster7 wrote:
Because everything else gets vetoed by the security council. Doesn't mean the rules themselves are the problem, but the process used within the UN could certainly do with improvement.
I would like to see the end of the veto and would like to see resolutions implemented by having a very healthy majority in the general assembly.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
If the UN would be reduced to being solely a humanitarian organisation I would agree with you. It CANNOT do anything more except postpone action + giving it more power will make it prone to being abused, plenty of examples throughout history for that.Bertster7 wrote:
It's done an awful lot of good. A lot slips through without the UN doing anything about it (or being ineffectual) and it is a bit inconsistent, but it's done a lot of good over the years.
If you had resolutions enacted when agreed by a big majority of the general assembly that would be much fairer and better.
inane little opines
No, it's accomplished zero. It is a laughingstock.Bertster7 wrote:
It's done an awful lot of good. A lot slips through without the UN doing anything about it (or being ineffectual) and it is a bit inconsistent, but it's done a lot of good over the years.Shocking wrote:
In its near 70 years of existance when has it ever maintained a fair and balanced stance?Bertster7 wrote:
In your opinion.
I'll tell you when; never.
If you had resolutions enacted when agreed by a big majority of the general assembly that would be much fairer and better.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Such as?Shocking wrote:
If the UN would be reduced to being solely a humanitarian organisation I would agree with you. It CANNOT do anything more except postpone action + giving it more power will make it prone to being abused, plenty of examples throughout history for that.Bertster7 wrote:
It's done an awful lot of good. A lot slips through without the UN doing anything about it (or being ineffectual) and it is a bit inconsistent, but it's done a lot of good over the years.
If you had resolutions enacted when agreed by a big majority of the general assembly that would be much fairer and better.
They just need to keep trying. It will eventually work.Shocking wrote:
It's like saying communism works
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Which shows you know nothing about it.Jay wrote:
No, it's accomplished zero. It is a laughingstock.Bertster7 wrote:
It's done an awful lot of good. A lot slips through without the UN doing anything about it (or being ineffectual) and it is a bit inconsistent, but it's done a lot of good over the years.Shocking wrote:
In its near 70 years of existance when has it ever maintained a fair and balanced stance?
I'll tell you when; never.
If you had resolutions enacted when agreed by a big majority of the general assembly that would be much fairer and better.
No, it shows that I lack your blinders and dreams of utopia.Bertster7 wrote:
Which shows you know nothing about it.Jay wrote:
No, it's accomplished zero. It is a laughingstock.Bertster7 wrote:
It's done an awful lot of good. A lot slips through without the UN doing anything about it (or being ineffectual) and it is a bit inconsistent, but it's done a lot of good over the years.
If you had resolutions enacted when agreed by a big majority of the general assembly that would be much fairer and better.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Seriously?Bertster7 wrote:
Such as?
I mean, seriously?
Have you even been reading any of the examples (and those are just some) I gave you? Jesus. 70 years of western manipulation of the UN and you flat out deny it doesn't work. Oh, and complete inaction when the opponent is a little too powerful on the world stage.
Last edited by Shocking (2011-03-19 15:17:46)
inane little opines
Claiming the UN has accomplished nothing is simply absurd. It's accomplished loads over the years. Just because you haven't reaped the benefits, doesn't mean it hasn't done an awful lot of good.Jay wrote:
No, it shows that I lack your blinders and dreams of utopia.Bertster7 wrote:
Which shows you know nothing about it.Jay wrote:
No, it's accomplished zero. It is a laughingstock.
any video of the strikes by foreign nations on libya?
Inaction in lots of instances does not make a case against the UN, with no UN there would be no action in even more instances. In a truly global economy a global democratic system is essential. I only wish it was more democratic.Shocking wrote:
Seriously?Bertster7 wrote:
Such as?
I mean, seriously?
Have you even been reading any of the examples (and those are just some) I gave you? Jesus. 70 years of western manipulation of the UN and you flat out deny it doesn't work. Oh, and complete inaction when the opponent is a little too powerful on the world stage.
havnt seen any on bbc or aljazeera jet13/f/taiwan wrote:
any video of the strikes by foreign nations on libya?
if the us decides to "officially" go to war with libya, what happens to their oil?
Last edited by 13/f/taiwan (2011-03-19 15:26:03)
It needs to keep it's nose out of conflicts, that in itself allows a dominant party to sway the UN to do its bidding. It needs to be reduced to a humanitarian organisation only and leave security affairs to nations that can actually back up their interests with a display of force.Bertster7 wrote:
Inaction in lots of instances does not make a case against the UN, with no UN there would be no action in even more instances. In a truly global economy a global democratic system is essential. I only wish it was more democratic.
If you cannot see that the current model does not and will not work then you're looking at the UN with extreme rose tinted glasses, and no, that's not opinion that's a fact.
Last edited by Shocking (2011-03-19 15:28:14)
inane little opines
Did you read my whole post, or just reply after reading the first sentence?Kmar wrote:
You might want to check my link again.Bertster7 wrote:
Yeah (although that is still unconfirmed), but it wasn't Gaddafi's plane, as your link statedKmar wrote:
Rebels shot it down.
*edit* Actually, it doesn't state that - I remembered it wrong (someone elses link said that). But the plane belonged to the rebels.
I would say that "does not work" is a stretch. It has clear flaws and is far from perfect, but it works a lot better than you seem to think.Shocking wrote:
It needs to keep it's nose out of conflicts, that in itself allows a dominant party to sway the UN to do its bidding. It needs to be reduced to a humanitarian organisation only and leave security affairs to nations that can actually back up their interests with an actual display of force.Bertster7 wrote:
Inaction in lots of instances does not make a case against the UN, with no UN there would be no action in even more instances. In a truly global economy a global democratic system is essential. I only wish it was more democratic.
If you cannot see that the current model does not and will not work then you're looking at the UN with extreme rose tinted glasses, and no, that's not opinion that's a fact.
It only works if we look at Africa because nobody has relevant interests in that shithole.
What good has the UN security council actually done, without seeming glaringly hypocritical and irrelevant?
What good has the UN security council actually done, without seeming glaringly hypocritical and irrelevant?
inane little opines
The security council, now that's a tricky one - not a lot that I can think of....Shocking wrote:
It only works if we look at Africa because nobody has relevant interests in that shithole.
What good has the UN security council actually done, without seeming glaringly hypocritical and irrelevant?
But the UN as a whole have done a lot of good. Which is why I'd like to see the security component of the UN to function in the same way as the rest.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2011-03-19 15:34:30)
More democratic? Are you daft? Oh wait, you are the asshole that thinks squatting is beneficial to society. Wtf would you care if people voted on how you spend your money? You have none.Bertster7 wrote:
Inaction in lots of instances does not make a case against the UN, with no UN there would be no action in even more instances. In a truly global economy a global democratic system is essential. I only wish it was more democratic.Shocking wrote:
Seriously?Bertster7 wrote:
Such as?
I mean, seriously?
Have you even been reading any of the examples (and those are just some) I gave you? Jesus. 70 years of western manipulation of the UN and you flat out deny it doesn't work. Oh, and complete inaction when the opponent is a little too powerful on the world stage.
Letting the rest of the world vote on how my military is used lololololl. You want a say? Pay the fucking bill.
Last edited by Jay (2011-03-19 15:37:10)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat