BF2S Forums getting involved in Sudan

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

lowing wrote:

Half of the UN nations are hostile toward the US, I bet if full scale war breaks out, the US will not allow the hostile govts. to stay on American soil with "diplomatic immunity" giving them free riegn in America. I am only guessing of course.

In my opinion, that comment just goes to show how quickly the lessons of the last world war have been forgotten (or never learned) by some people in America.

I am not really sure what you are getting at with that comment unorginalnuttah, not trying to be a smart ass at all, but your point eludes me.

I already stated that we are in a world war and allot of the countries in the UN are not in this fight on our side.

lowing wrote:

I am not really sure what you are getting at with that comment unorginalnuttah, not trying to be a smart ass at all, but your point eludes me.

I already stated that we are in a world war and allot of the countries in the UN are not in this fight on our side.

You're either with us or against us, right? 

When all is said and done, if Bush does manage to somehow trigger a world war, then at least some small comfort can be taken from the knowledge that he will be recorded in history in his true colours:

theres a growing paranoia in US about the word.. Politics and Diplomacy need come out to the mainstream again.. war season have to finish or word is going to hell.. 

let expert do its job, let UN do its job. diplomacy and politics is like gay stuff now.. well what would it hapend if a nuclear war betewn US and Commies 30 years ago?..

Rigth now im reading Sun Tzu`s Art of War.. funny how the big war master.. speak:

first paragraph:

-War is a major corcern for nations, the edge betewn dead and life. thats why is necesary to study it.
-Weapons are bad luck tools, war is a situation that need to be think, its concerning that human can think about it in a ligthly way.

(translate by me.. so.. LOL)

this were men who fougth face to face, now wars are figth mostly trought tv missile screens, i think real veterans, dont glorify war. I respect soldiers, but i find sad the way many people glorify weapons, war and find the least reason to start bombing at some nation.

Last edited by IronFerret (2006-05-03 23:05:23)

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

I just dont like the united nations.  I am all for diplomacy and violence of action being the last resort.


If the UN was running the show in iraq instead of the coalition, we would be seeing a whole lot more casualties and much worse off iraqi government.

I can understand that: There are fundamental problems with the UN (such as the veto system - it gives power to the superpowers - hardly a democratic system).

However, name ONE other, powerful, multinational world organisation committed first and foremost to world stability and equality. Because that is the UN's purpose - and that is part of why the likeliness of another 'hot' World War are as low as they have ever been.

MooseRyder wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

lowing wrote:

I am not really sure what you are getting at with that comment unorginalnuttah, not trying to be a smart ass at all, but your point eludes me.

I already stated that we are in a world war and allot of the countries in the UN are not in this fight on our side.

You're either with us or against us, right? 

When all is said and done, if Bush does manage to somehow trigger a world war, then at least some small comfort can be taken from the knowledge that he will be recorded in history in his true colours:

http://www.nogw.com/images/time_machine.jpg

I dont remember where and it was on tv i seen that.

They were saying that "at the end of WWII the 3rd Reich didnt died, it only changed country (went to usa)".

Im not saying i agree with it, i think its kinda pushing a little bit too much. But if the USA starts a World War, they might be seen as the picture tells.

Ohhhhhhh when the US starts a world war huh?......Ya mean just like 65 years ago, the US started WW2 when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor?

Just how much terror attacks SHOULD the US face before we will have your approval to defend ourselves and YOU?

Last edited by lowing (2006-05-04 03:50:08)

Spark wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

I just dont like the united nations.  I am all for diplomacy and violence of action being the last resort.


If the UN was running the show in iraq instead of the coalition, we would be seeing a whole lot more casualties and much worse off iraqi government.

I can understand that: There are fundamental problems with the UN (such as the veto system - it gives power to the superpowers - hardly a democratic system).

However, name ONE other, powerful, multinational world organisation committed first and foremost to world stability and equality. Because that is the UN's purpose - and that is part of why the likeliness of another 'hot' World War are as low as they have ever been.

The UN acting on behalf of the UN  members is hardly in the interest if world stability and equality. I can not agree that the US should go along with the UN in any capacity when it is not in the best interests of US citizens. Like turning over our foreign policy to the UN. I don't think so. It is as rediculous as black man joining the KKK, or a white comedian at the Apollo lol.

rdx-fx wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

'<[onex wrote:

>Headstone'
Ok Anyone remember the Movie Blackhawk down? Keep it fresh in your minds, because thats How its going to go the whole time ANY forces are in Africa.

This is not true. The Rangers in Somalia asked for certain things They felt the mission reqiured like Armor etc. These were denied because the clinton adminastration didn't want our military response to look.." I have know Idea why he would't aid them really "
When the Sh*t hit the Fan clinton cut and ran. We don't do that anymore. You will have to wait till 98 at the least.

"We must not, for example, send military forces into a crisis with an unclear mission they cannot accomplish -such as we did when we sent the U.S. Marines into Lebanon in 1983. We inserted those proud warriors into the middle of a five-faction civil war complete with terrorists, hostage-takers, and a dozen spies in every camp, and said, 'Gentlemen, be a buffer.' The results were 241 Marines and Navy personnel killed and a U.S. withdrawal from the troubled area." - Gen. Colin Powell

Congress would no longer aprove their stay under the "War Powers Act"

Congress "Also Democratic majority at the Time" Had them patrol with empty rifles if you remember.
Democrats.. Always behind our boys in uniform !

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-05-04 05:52:29)

lowing wrote:

The UN acting on behalf of the UN  members is hardly in the interest if world stability and equality. I can not agree that the US should go along with the UN in any capacity when it is not in the best interests of US citizens. Like turning over our foreign policy to the UN. I don't think so. It is as rediculous as black man joining the KKK, or a white comedian at the Apollo lol.

do you haver reference, or probe at what your saying other than Bush and Cheney speaches?.. my mother and two more relatives worked in UN Mexico.. and I can tell they have done lots for this word , after WWII.. the problem is that US and other superpowers dont like someone put "limits" to their policies.. also UN Security Council is ruled by US alies and they have almost total control over militar operations.

Horseman 77 wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

lowing wrote:

I am not really sure what you are getting at with that comment unorginalnuttah, not trying to be a smart ass at all, but your point eludes me.

I already stated that we are in a world war and allot of the countries in the UN are not in this fight on our side.

You're either with us or against us, right? 

When all is said and done, if Bush does manage to somehow trigger a world war, then at least some small comfort can be taken from the knowledge that he will be recorded in history in his true colours:

http://www.nogw.com/images/time_machine.jpg

Nazis ? This is not the place for this Crap. You should be banned for posting that

You forget where you are at. Anything anti-bush is lauded as genius.

atlvolunteer wrote:

IronFerret wrote:

UN Security Council is ruled by US alies and they have almost total control over militar operations.

Oh, really?  That's strange...  I guess they forgot when we went to the Security Council before the Iraq invasion...

china, russia and france all of sudden became our best allies

IronFerret wrote:

lowing wrote:

The UN acting on behalf of the UN  members is hardly in the interest if world stability and equality. I can not agree that the US should go along with the UN in any capacity when it is not in the best interests of US citizens. Like turning over our foreign policy to the UN. I don't think so. It is as rediculous as black man joining the KKK, or a white comedian at the Apollo lol.

do you haver reference, or probe at what your saying other than Bush and Cheney speaches?.. my mother and two more relatives worked in UN Mexico.. and I can tell they have done lots for this word , after WWII.. the problem is that US and other superpowers dont like someone put "limits" to their policies.. also UN Security Council is ruled by US alies and they have almost total control over militar operations.

sure, google oil for food program

My god SPARK, they just started the "karma" thing and you have 83 already??!!.........Be careful or someone might accuse you of "stat padding" karma and try and have all your karma points erased.

ok back on topic

Last edited by lowing (2006-05-04 16:10:09)