Jump to content


Photo

Is this the end of UN?


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Rygar

Rygar

    title available

  • Hosted
  • 1,089 posts
  • Location:Italy

Posted 16 March 2003 - 04:59 PM

We all know the unacceptable situation about Iraqi crisis. We all know who has create all this mess and claims to bring "democracy" in a land affected by "dicatorship". We know the entire world is against the country that wants just to establish an egemony in the middle east and wants to steal its resources in the name of freedom and peace.

We all know that has already attacked this already suffering country bombarding airports, mosquees, attacking military base under the "no fly zone" without ANY authorization and violating UN directives.

We also know that several countries (supported also by politic and religious organizations) are against this fool war and do what they can to stop this madness.

UN is trying to stop this conflict using the instruments of diplomacy.

BUT the land of freedom doesn't care about nothing (same for allies) and wants this war at all costs and nothing seems stop it.

My questions are:
Is UN near to the end (because if will accept a second resolution in which the conflict is allowed then the UN is like a puppet in the US's hands; if declines the second resolution, the land of freedom doesn't care about it and wats to start the conflict forgetting UN and allies)?

Are we near to WW3 in which a possible scenario will be: Angloamericans against Eurasians?

#2 Deathblow Luc

Deathblow Luc

    Unique

  • Undead
  • 3,768 posts
  • Location:Argentina
  • Division:Ex - Network Leader

Posted 16 March 2003 - 05:10 PM

Thats a question i have been asking to many people, and that i only got answers from southamericans and eurasians.

USA will attack anyway, no matter circumstances. Considering that, the security council is already obsolete. Its obvious that the UN resolution to make Iraq disarm pacifically will go on, the remaining voters are all old French colonies, or islamic countries. USA lost that bit when Mexico and Chile supported France.

Its just a thought, and i wish it wouldnt be it, but this looks like an Atlantis vs Lemuria epic war. What is after it is not only unknown but probably inexistant...(exagerating a little bit)

Margret Thatcher - Fenring's the one for me

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


#3 Rygar

Rygar

    title available

  • Hosted
  • 1,089 posts
  • Location:Italy

Posted 16 March 2003 - 08:53 PM

This scenario seem less epic that you desire, world is sick of "land of freedom" abuses, violations and crimes.

If UN is so impotent its desctruction will be automatic, so for the NATO, and new organizations will be made to guard some countries.....

#4 Dark Dragon

Dark Dragon

    >.<

  • Members
  • 453 posts
  • Location:Dallas, TX

Posted 17 March 2003 - 03:26 AM

Well, President Bush just said he will say tommorrow if indeed we will be going to war. If we do then I might not be online as much because I have no idea what is going to happen. See I live in Texas so if we do go to war and Saddam Hussein drops a bomb, then farewell. :cry: :( :cry: :( :cry: :( :cry: :(

#5 Sydr0

Sydr0

    title available

  • New Members
  • 325 posts
  • Location:Serbia &amp; Montenegro

Posted 17 March 2003 - 04:37 AM

UN and NATO are nothing anymore, they used to be something.

they've been destroyed way before

#6 Deathblow Luc

Deathblow Luc

    Unique

  • Undead
  • 3,768 posts
  • Location:Argentina
  • Division:Ex - Network Leader

Posted 17 March 2003 - 03:13 PM

Id rather think that UN has attempted to be a cover-up for capitalist interests always, it was covered meanwhile Russia was the Soviet Union, as they boicotted the council several times. After USSR fell, it has became clearly evident that UN is just one more label for USA´s army, and economical groups. Answer this question if it isn´t, why does the International Monetary Fund have all its cash sources to be North-American? It does sound pretty much totalitarist, like USA actually presides and controls UNs economical organism, and as for councils, they can get through (or not) by their resolutions.

Margret Thatcher - Fenring's the one for me

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


#7 Rygar

Rygar

    title available

  • Hosted
  • 1,089 posts
  • Location:Italy

Posted 18 March 2003 - 06:37 AM

March 18th 7.22am (got up after a disastrous dream)

At this point I'm asking how can be eliminated a creature that is being out of control.

The council seems more a mask than other. Just think about how important is veto. Land of freedom washes its hands and gives totally illegal ultimata.

If this war is imminent I only hope it will be longer than 6weeks in perfect WWII blitzkrieg stlye, just to logorate their plans. It's too comfortable (and extremely hypocrite), planning a war, send a huge force in a foreign land for the mere purpose to invade it and pretend to finish it in some weeks like if was nothing (just bombing lands destroying everything wearing a smoking like in Afghanistan). The world doesn't need a new Hitler.

The "war against terrorism" is just another oax made by 7 sisters (you know what I mean, right? 5 of them are just from the Land of freedom and in hands of US government) to assure oil control for the next 20 years (because known resources are finishing...)

#8 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 22 March 2003 - 07:41 PM

Yes, well said. All Bush wants is oil. All Blair is is a fvcking puppet to Bush. The real problem with this whole shenanigan is that nobody will do anything about it. Jacques Chirac is totally opposed to the war, yet he will do nothing to stop Bush. The whole of the UN security council won't do jack nanny. For some reason, neither will US Congress which, we really aught to bear in mind, Bush can't do anything without. If the Senate and the House of Representatives don't agree, the President can't declare war. This means that the whole of the US government is either a) Like Bush or B) corrupt. That would lead me to a vote of no confidence in democracy.
Saddam has done nothing in the past 12 years, since he got his ass righteously whooped after he invaded Iran and Kuwait. Since then, he's done nothing wrong. I do not agree with how saddam does things, but in his own country, we have no right to move in and stop him. Essentially, if that is the case, Libya should be next on the list, due to Gadafi's extremist policy against the black population.
War on terror my arse. There's nothing in Libya, just as there's nothing in the Falklands (when Argentina- sorry, Arg- attacked), therefore the US won't give a crap and will ignore it.
If this trend of unprovoked attacks is to continue, then no country is safe. Technically, the US will be declaring war on the UK soon enough, due to the strife leading to US independance in the 1700's.
IMO the US and UK shoulda sent their special forces in and filled Saddam with holes 12 years ago when they had a viable chance. They left it too late as it was, and now a really bad PR is the result. The President won't get voted back in, assuming he actually stays in power until the next US election, and the Prime Minister too is screwed, come election time.

#9 Rygar

Rygar

    title available

  • Hosted
  • 1,089 posts
  • Location:Italy

Posted 23 March 2003 - 10:37 PM

(Sunday 23th of March 11pm, after a horrible Saturday night and a forgettable Sunday afternoon, I'm startingt to feel suicidial tendences)
Comrade, what you have written is gorgeous, I can't express better these concepts.

Here my last considerations about this absurd conflict: in these last 3 days we have seen images about Iraqi and American prisoners.... how disgusting.

I mean: I'm disgusted about all this pubblicity and propaganda made by media (I detest the pic of Iraqi prisoner who drinks water from an American soldier when another soldier aims the machine gun against him) to show how kind and gentle are American troopers and how cruel are Iraqi soldiers (I'm disgusted when I saw the interview of these poor innocent American soldiers who shaked and won't to answer to the questions, same thing for the scene in which Iraqi soldiers fired to the river to kill the pilot).

What is worse is the Runsvelt's interview, he doesn't care about nothing (his soldiers are included), he only thinks about oil (I remember the Bush message to Iraqi soldiers: "please don't destroy your oil derricks"...again, how disgusting ), indeed the first thought was to occupy oil supplies. And there's still someone (you know better than me) that says this war is not for oil... how pathetic.

CJ, I must agree with you when you say regime must be changed 12 years ago, only in that period a war had a sense, but now is too late. All the hype about mass destruction weapons, connections with Bin Laden (which is really laughable), and other trash is totally senseless now.

Does Saddam use mass destruction weapons against Kuwait and US in this conflict? Does Saddam gass other people?
Is the US government proved its (unexisting) points about Saddam and the regime?

Please, give me an answer

#10 Deathblow Luc

Deathblow Luc

    Unique

  • Undead
  • 3,768 posts
  • Location:Argentina
  • Division:Ex - Network Leader

Posted 25 March 2003 - 07:04 AM

Well, ive heard of the plant, but didnt see anymore than text...so i guess i cant really know if its true. In the meanwhile, Iraq has violated the Ginebra convention, but USA might have also done that by showing the Iraqi prisoners, and for example, one soldier giving water to one of them, while other acquires him as target with his rifle. That also violated it.

Margret Thatcher - Fenring's the one for me

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users