USA leads the world towards WW3

And now all americans will scratch there heads and say: uhh?


Since the terrorist attack 9/11 the USA has pushed the UN to the brink of disaster. USA have resorted to threatening the UN, saying if you don't agree to this and that (war on afghanistan was aproved after much quarell, the war on Iraq was not..) if UN wouldn't it was Usless or as USA put it irellevant.

What the USA regime did was making UN into a lapdog. In Europe we saw that everytime UN agreed whit USA, it was becuse USA said so (UN was/is seen as americas lapdog). When UN didn't agree as in going to war vs Iraq, USA said: well we don't give a shit we can do whatever we want, we have the power.

Of course everyone could see how powerless UN was and is to stop USA, and the faith in UN was more or less droped to zero.

USA refused to play by the rules so to speak and has done so a big number of times even thought all other countries say: stop, you can´t do his. (Reffering to the imprisonment of "unlawfull combatants" on cuba) All Including Kofi Annan sayd: You must follow the Geneva conventions, thay are either civilians who has comited a crime (and should be able to face the alegations) or thay are prisoners of war (beeing releaced after the conflict). US said, thay are on Cuba our laws don't abide there (but in the Geneva convention it says that if prisoners of war is put on a third countys soil the one who put them there are in charge and responsible for them and that countrys laws still are in effect).

Well US once again run over UN. Faith both in UN and USA are down to nothing....

USA has now shown that the laungauage of Power is the only who can do anything. Everytime now when USA says to a country: No you can't go to war, or kill people just becuse you want to. Thay just shruk it of and say: well you did, and can you then i can to.

UN can't say to some one: don't do this or there will be dire consecuenses (can't spell that word). Thay just say: well nothing happend to USA.

So what will this lead to?

It will lead to that no one has any faith left in UN. People will know that UN is powerless to stop a large country from going to war.

Countrys who are a bit un sure of USA will start (or have allready) to stockpile more weapons and soldiers becuse thay know thay might get invaded. The majority of the world will become/has become unstabile (not Europe and north america, but pretty much all ellse).

Conflicts between smaler nations (non-veto counries) will no longer put forth there differances to UN, becuse thay will think thay have the right to Act whitout UN-aproval.

All countries whit an minority who dislikes the regime will be branded as terrorists by the regime, no one can say anything (it has allready been done) becuse US have allready done so (whitout UN)

One of the more allarming things is that USA refuses to acnowlage the War-Criminal tribunal in Haag and are writing non-extraditon treatys whit countries so american citizen wont be put before it....

That means that USA thinks thay have the right to commit war-crimes (becuse saying that americans will be sentenced becuse of political resons is plain dumb).

Well why shouldn't the rest of the world be able to do the same?..


We can now say that UN is very close to dead. One more overrun from USA vs UN will certainly kill it and whit it the dream of a peacefull earth (look at Indonesia, reffering to the conflict whit Aceh)

Whitout UN it will be the strong who rule..... It will be the bane of a lot of small states. and in the end USA will triger ww3 whit the curent atitude thay have..

I cant decide whether to respond to this point by point or in essay form. The essay would be very neato, but take really long and perhaps not be very effective.

oh well, here goes:

For one, I disagree with you that the US is the primary element of the UN's loss of influence, for another, i disagree over whether the loss of influence by the UN is a bad thing.

Far from being torn down by the US, the UN has coasted on the authority of the US. Before Iraq went down, MWO commented to me that why should we have gone in when Iraq was just starting to cooperate again? I had my own responses, including that their cooperation was only skin deep and that they were still thoroughly in violation of many resolutions, but the fact remains that Iraq cooperated because the threat of force was applied. By the US.

Remember that. Not only does the UN allow countries to flagrantly violate their SC resolutions, but they righteously defend the right of these nations to do so while unmolested from other nations.

OK, they dont compromise their values, you say. Yes, they do, they compromised their values by issuing SC resolutions important enough to be given the status of ceasefire demands (see resolution 837) and then turning a blind eye when they were violated.

If they were "important to the continuation of peace in the world" then why can they be violated? Is not war the natural response to the breaking of accords vital to peace?

Of course, you can just say that the US breaks resolutions too. I havent been given an example (though I've been told they do) but I'll just assume its true and direct you again to resolution 837 and the numerous points in which it is stated that "important to the continuation of peace in the world" in regard to Iraqi resolutions.

The UN should have gone in in 98, and it should have gone in in aught-3 alongside the coalition.

Now to point by point, because I'm tired.

QUOTE

thay are on Cuba our laws don't abide there

Actually the argument was that they didnt fit any of the classifications. Kinda weak, I know, but still...

QUOTE

Everytime now when USA says to a country: No you can't go to war, or kill people just becuse you want to. Thay just shruk it of and say: well you did, and can you then i can to.

How about when the UN settles a conflict and says "dont mercilessly annihilate this countries entire population" and they say "OK, UN" and two years later are back to their old tricks? Perhaps the fact that power is the only way to get results is more a regrettable fact of life than something inflicted onthe world by the US?

QUOTE

UN can't say to some one: don't do this or there will be dire consecuenses (can't spell that word). Thay just say: well nothing happend to USA.

replace USA with Iraq, and you'll see my point.

QUOTE

Conflicts between smaler nations (non-veto counries) will no longer put forth there differances to UN, becuse thay will think thay have the right to Act whitout UN-aproval.

As opposed to prostating themselves before the UN and then going on doing what they want to anyway?

QUOTE

All countries whit an minority who dislikes the regime will be branded as terrorists by the regime, no one can say anything (it has allready been done) becuse US have allready done so (whitout UN

On what basis? Some minority groups are terrorists.

QUOTE

One of the more allarming things is that USA refuses to acnowlage the War-Criminal tribunal in Haag and are writing non-extraditon treatys whit countries so american citizen wont be put before it....

Because the court would be biased toward americans. You fix your court and we'll submit ourselves to it.

QUOTE

Whitout UN it will be the strong who rule..... It will be the bane of a lot of small states. and in the end USA will triger ww3 whit the curent atitude thay have..

What a fearsome reality the future will hold, no longer will nations be able to ignore their ceasefire agreements in peace, the US shall go about enforcing the UNs demands like a wild beast rampant upon the lands, none shall be safe!

Except for, you know, non-oppressive belligerent sand-intensive regimes.

I will meet your "arguments" whit both quotes and essay form.. (easier to get a hang of then i think..)

QUOTE

Far from being torn down by the US, the UN has coasted on the authority of the US. Before Iraq went down, MWO commented to me that why should we have gone in when Iraq was just starting to cooperate again? I had my own responses, including that their cooperation was only skin deep and that they were still thoroughly in violation of many resolutions, but the fact remains that Iraq cooperated because the threat of force was applied. By the US.

UN has coasted on the authority of the USA in the conflicts that USA have something to gain. USA have only interfeered when it was in there best interest and when thay would have done it anyway.

Well Iraq has violated some resulotions and USA have done that and Israel have done that many times (when the reselutions haven´t been vetod by USA). USA refused to leave Nicuragua alone during the 80´s and i think thay didn´t pay the fee thay where ruled to pay.

I allso belive that Iraq cooperated both becuse there was a threat of violance and becuse thay was hoping on geting the sanctions lifted. But according to USA LAW it is an act of terrorism for someone to Treathen a nation to get it to pass political changes... (mr Bush have probably forgoten all abou that law... when he doesn´t gain anything from it..)

QUOTE

Remember that. Not only does the UN allow countries to flagrantly violate their SC resolutions, but they righteously defend the right of these nations to do so while unmolested from other nations.

yes thay let states like USA and Israel break them whitout having to face sanctions, but when the former "friend" to the USA, Iraq breaks some thay both faces sanctions and war... *strange that there seems to be such a different between Iraq breaking reseloutions and Israel and USA doing the same...*

QUOTE

OK, they dont compromise their values, you say. Yes, they do, they compromised their values by issuing SC resolutions important enough to be given the status of ceasefire demands (see resolution 837) and then turning a blind eye when they were violated.

When thay are violated (as isnt allways the case) UN tells the world about it and tries to make it act.. But the world only acts when it´s in Europe or In the oil-rich middle east. No one acts on behalf of the UN in africa (rawanda for example..). UN has no standing army, so the UN needs the world to act... UN lives on there credability as well as Amnesty, Red cross, Greenpeace, Human rights watch do, whitout credability no one would give a shit what thay say.

USA are undermining that credability when thay first passes a reseloution, which states that Iraq must cooperate and then attack when the country are cooperatiing whit the arms inspectors. US are using UN as long as thay get what thay want, when thay don´t get it all thay disscards it as "unimportant".

QUOTE

The UN should have gone in in 98,

This is an interesting thing. Why did the UN arms inspectors leave Iraq (or be thrown out). Well it wasa becuse a lot of the american inspectors was agents for CIA (acording to several members of the Team from different countries thay where doing things thay shouldn´t have..) So thay where trown out becuse USA refused to let UN replace the american inspectors..

Well if some one is spying in sweden thay becomse locked up i jail or thrown out.. (as the people working on Ericsson cathed in the act of espionage for russias acount.) Russia hasn´t said anything about it, nor threaten us whit war.

(Christian)Quote
*thay are on Cuba our laws don't abide there *

(SB)answer quote
*Actually the argument was that they didnt fit any of the classifications. Kinda weak, I know, but still...*

you have taken what i said and put it in the wrong context here.. Im talking about that USA says that the prisoners have no right for all the ordinary laws on peoples rights to aply to them becuse thay are on cuba. and US laws don´t abide there (according to US, but not according to Geneva conventions.) You are talking about the status of the prisoners(if thay are civilians or prisoners of war.),wich isn´t decided by USA but by geneva conventions. Im talking of laws despite there status, which abide to normal people.

QUOTE

How about when the UN settles a conflict and says "dont mercilessly annihilate this countries entire population" and they say "OK, UN" and two years later are back to their old tricks? Perhaps the fact that power is the only way to get results is more a regrettable fact of life than something inflicted onthe world by the US?

Well here UN (if thay can´t send troops becuse the rest of the world doesn´t care about that place) acts like a megaphone telling the world all about it. And in this example there would be two years of no killings which must be seen as a succes, even though a little one.

(Christian)quote
*UN can't say to some one: don't do this or there will be dire consecuenses (can't spell that word). Thay just say: well nothing happend to USA. *

(SB) answer quote
*replace USA with Iraq, and you'll see my point.*

Well having santctions for 12 years is a dire consequence for a country... Still waiting for the "dire consequences" to hit USA.....

(christian)QUOTE
*Conflicts between smaler nations (non-veto counries) will no longer put forth there differances to UN, becuse thay will think thay have the right to Act whitout UN-aproval. *

(SB) anser quote
*As opposed to prostating themselves before the UN and then going on doing what they want to anyway?*

well if thay submit themselves to UN there is a chance that it can be solved diplomaticaly, and thay will know that Un isn´t meddling for there own purposes. (but know days USA have destroyed that faith that othere countries had in UN not being USA´s lapdog). UN can (if the world cares) send in peacekeeping troops to ensure the peace.

If thay just acts none of these things can be done.

QUOTE

On what basis? Some minority groups are terrorists.

depends on your point of view, ones freedome fighter is the other ones terrorist..... But USA have set a standard of branding people/groups who don't agree whit them as terrorists and others have followed in USA´s footsteps here. (ex: us branding hizzbolah as terrorists while Lebanon says thay are lebanese militia.)

QUOTE

Because the court would be biased toward americans. You fix your court and we'll submit ourselves to it.

The judges would be the most distinguised ones from a lot of countries, thay are proffesional enought not to biased vs americans.. how comes France for example dont have that fear? and as i said before you answered me here: It would be ridicilous to belive Americans would unrightfully be targeted by the court.

QUOTE

What a fearsome reality the future will hold, no longer will nations be able to ignore their ceasefire agreements in peace, the US shall go about enforcing the UNs demands like a wild beast rampant upon the lands, none shall be safe! Except for, you know, non-oppressive belligerent sand-intensive regimes

that is not what i was saying, USA shouldn´t be the "world police" as thay have apointed themselves, and all nations should to a larger extent send troops to support UN decisions.

I think the fear that USA have is that these "sand-intensive regimes" will start ruling themselves whitout US pointing at them and say: do as we say or be bomb you. And that all that oil will be out of US controll.

My fear is that US will go on a rampage and blowing nations apart whitout having one good god damn clue of how to put them togheter again (look at afghanistan).

QUOTE

I will meet your "arguments" whit both quotes and essay form.. (easier to get a hang of then i think..)

Yeah, essay-counteressay is too difficult a means of communication.

QUOTE

UN has coasted on the authority of the USA in the conflicts that USA have something to gain. USA have only interfeered when it was in there best interest and when thay would have done it anyway.

We can debate motives, but in the end it will all come down to opinion. I saw little for the US to gain in Serbia, for example.

QUOTE

Well Iraq has violated some resulotions and USA have done that and Israel have done that many times (when the reselutions haven´t been vetod by USA). USA refused to leave Nicuragua alone during the 80´s and i think thay didn´t pay the fee thay where ruled to pay.

Which is why I was careful to point out that the core of the Iraqi resolutions double as ceasefire demands. I dont believe the US has violated many of those strictures recently. And israel was a low blow, leave them out of this.

QUOTE

I allso belive that Iraq cooperated both becuse there was a threat of violance and becuse thay was hoping on geting the sanctions lifted. But according to USA LAW it is an act of terrorism for someone to Treathen a nation to get it to pass political changes... (mr Bush have probably forgoten all abou that law... when he doesn´t gain anything from it..)

Kind of a weak accusation when the "political changes" being demanded are the ousting of a dictator.

QUOTE

yes thay let states like USA and Israel break them whitout having to face sanctions, but when the former "friend" to the USA, Iraq breaks some thay both faces sanctions and war... *strange that there seems to be such a different between Iraq breaking reseloutions and Israel and USA doing the same...*

see above. Not all resolutions carry the same weight.

QUOTE

When thay are violated (as isnt allways the case) UN tells the world about it and tries to make it act.. But the world only acts when it´s in Europe or In the oil-rich middle east. No one acts on behalf of the UN in africa (rawanda for example..). UN has no standing army, so the UN needs the world to act... UN lives on there credability as well as Amnesty, Red cross, Greenpeace, Human rights watch do, whitout credability no one would give a shit what thay say.

Forget afica, apply what you said to Iraq. When they are violated, the UN backs off and lessens sanctions (admittedly saddam held his people hostage, but still...) and then only when the US demands it and forces Saddam to accept do they even use language (1441) reaffirming their resolutions. Saddam was still in violation, they refuse to act, US steps in. You can see why I view the UN, in this case at least, as shirking its duty and the US acting in its place. i say again: The reason the US circumvented the UN is because the UN ws not doing its job. Inactivity by the duly appointed governing body directly created unilateral activity by a concerned nation-state.

QUOTE

USA are undermining that credability when thay first passes a reseloution, which states that Iraq must cooperate and then attack when the country are cooperatiing whit the arms inspectors. US are using UN as long as thay get what thay want, when thay don´t get it all thay disscards it as "unimportant".

1441 wasnt just about weapons inspectors.

QUOTE

This is an interesting thing. Why did the UN arms inspectors leave Iraq (or be thrown out). Well it wasa becuse a lot of the american inspectors was agents for CIA (acording to several members of the Team from different countries thay where doing things thay shouldn´t have..) So thay where trown out becuse USA refused to let UN replace the american inspectors..

Iraq never had any authority for throwing them out in the first place, in fact, restricting their access in any way merited retaliation. *throwing them out sure as heck "restricted their access"*

QUOTE

(Christian)Quote *thay are on Cuba our laws don't abide there * (SB)answer quote *Actually the argument was that they didnt fit any of the classifications. Kinda weak, I know, but still...* you have taken what i said and put it in the wrong context here..

No I'm not, I'm showing you the aspect of the US's argument I feel is more pertinent. (ie their defense to your specific accusations)

QUOTE

You are talking about the status of the prisoners(if thay are civilians or prisoners of war.),wich isn´t decided by USA but by geneva conventions. Im talking of laws despite there status, which abide to normal people.

No, you see, the US's argument is that they dont fit either classification, and therefore the geneva convention CANT determine that. And therefore it is debatable which laws apply.

QUOTE

Well here UN (if thay can´t send troops becuse the rest of the world doesn´t care about that place) acts like a megaphone telling the world all about it. And in this example there would be two years of no killings which must be seen as a succes, even though a little one.

Its still treating the symptoms, and it still shows that the UN (in its current status) might not be the best thing to govern the world.

QUOTE

Well having santctions for 12 years is a dire consequence for a country... Still waiting for the "dire consequences" to hit USA.....

Sanctions that were lessened with each increase in defiance of resolutions, actually. nd I'm still waiting for you to justify equating Iraq's ceasefire terms with resolutions the US has broken.

QUOTE

well if thay submit themselves to UN there is a chance that it can be solved diplomaticaly, and thay will know that Un isn´t meddling for there own purposes. (but know days USA have destroyed that faith that othere countries had in UN not being USA´s lapdog). UN can (if the world cares) send in peacekeeping troops to ensure the peace.

who amongst the opposition to the US in the UN is *not* looking after their own interests?

QUOTE

depends on your point of view, ones freedome fighter is the other ones terrorist..... But USA have set a standard of branding people/groups who don't agree whit them as terrorists and others have followed in USA´s footsteps here. (ex: us branding hizzbolah as terrorists while Lebanon says thay are lebanese militia.)

exactly, and thats what I'm saying. You say that the US going after these groups justifies it for anyone, but the fact is the definition is all a matter of perspective and so the only way to not give others justification is to ignore these groups, of which some *are* terrorists. Its a lose-lose situation with a lot of mud involved.

QUOTE

that is not what i was saying, USA shouldn´t be the "world police" as thay have apointed themselves, and all nations should to a larger extent send troops to support UN decisions.

if the US shouldnt then someone has to. If the UN will the US doesnt have to.

QUOTE

I think the fear that USA have is that these "sand-intensive regimes" will start ruling themselves whitout US pointing at them and say: do as we say or be bomb you. And that all that oil will be out of US controll.

Time will tell.

QUOTE

My fear is that US will go on a rampage and blowing nations apart whitout having one good god damn clue of how to put them togheter again (look at afghanistan).

Hey, afghanistan was already rubble when we started bombing it. Bring the russians back in and crucify them for not cleaning up before accusing us of not cleaning up their mess for them.

lol. I said "prostating" before the UN. That would cause quite a different reaction than prostrating, i suppose.

The UN is a Joke. They try to impose phony universal "Human Rights." I'll stick with the USA and my bill of rights which is the reason this country is better than most others... I'de rather see a powerful democracy run things vs a small council of corrupt idiots who fear the power of the individual person.