StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I don't know much of UN law, but if the US goes in to Iraq without UN approval, will there be some sort of sanction against them? I think that would be hilarious.

I think it would be too, not to mention un-workable and could never be inforced since guess who sits on the security council permenately and has the power of veto?

Thats a load of crap if you ask me

Err, what is?

I think most countries expect and perhaps want the US to kick Saddam's ass. They just don't want to be seen as warmongers or sycophants like Blair, or (as in some cases) they might have some kind of special interest. I'm sure you wouldn't see anything beyond the usual token complaints.

Existing UN resolutions already allow for the use of force against Iraq.

The US would veto it, and any nation which voted in favor would forever fuck relations with the US. Many would also fuck over there militaries when the US government refused export licenses for spare parts and withdraws all technical support.

The US would likely withdraw from the UN though along with many other nations. The UN charter allows for self defence, and Iraq is activly shooting as US aircraft.

Overall this would seem to be a good way to finish off the UN as a crediabul body.

Gandalf wrote:Thats a load of crap if you ask me

It's the only way anything can get done at the U.N., though. If the most powerful nations didn't have a permanent veto on the Security Council, it would have gone the way of the League of Nations a long time ago.

That's why things are going to get interesting when India and other such countries clearly overtake France and start demanding permanent seat number five. Assuming the U.N. is still there.

Crown wrote:Err, what is?

The idea that they can attack outside of the rules and get away with it.

Just imagin for a second if they tried to level sanctums

What could they put it on and not fork themselves over?
Military Hard Ware? No...
Medicual Supplies? No...
Stuffed Animals No...

The problem is that the US is the worlds Leading Econ and many people depend on us for varioous things, any sort of sanctuns and the America people would respond with a large
"Fuck em all"
And temporarly halt exports, Which would be bad for us... but terminal for everyone else

Gandalf wrote:

Crown wrote:Err, what is?

The idea that they can attack outside of the rules and get away with it.

If you mean the US invading Iraq. Its acutally within "the rules"

The fact that you're not aware of existing UN resolutions, which allow for an invasion, nor the fact that the right to self-defense is part of the UN charter is not Americas fault.

How pray tell is the US invading Iraq justifiable self defense? Yes, they shoot US Planes.......who are flying in a "No fly zone" over Iraq itself established by the US and its allies, a "No fly zone" which isn't even sanctioned by the UN.

Though yes, if the existing resolutions weren't repealed after the Gulf War (And seeing as there was never a formal peace agreement, the US and Iraq are still technically at war anyway), the US can still invade "legally".

the us as the only superpower (concidering the amount of money invested in military hyperpower might be the term) can basicly do what they want. nobody can stop them from doing it anyway. un sanctions would be ridicioulous since no body could enact them properly anyways. an economic ban would be bad for the us but even worse for the other country.
the us has a huge amount of power and with that comes a huge amount of responsability.

salm wrote:the us as the only superpower (concidering the amount of money invested in military hyperpower might be the term)

In 1941, Japan put 60% of her GDP into the military. In 2003, America
puts only 3% of her GDP into defense, so STFU

MKSheppard wrote:

salm wrote:the us as the only superpower (concidering the amount of money invested in military hyperpower might be the term)

In 1941, Japan put 60% of her GDP into the military. In 2003, America
puts only 3% of her GDP into defense, so STFU

Except our 3% buys a hell of a lot more military. And why object to the term anyway?

Archaic` wrote:How pray tell is the US invading Iraq justifiable self defense? Yes, they shoot US Planes.......who are flying in a "No fly zone" over Iraq itself established by the US and its allies, a "No fly zone" which isn't even sanctioned by the UN.

Though yes, if the existing resolutions weren't repealed after the Gulf War (And seeing as there was never a formal peace agreement, the US and Iraq are still technically at war anyway), the US can still invade "legally".

that was not imposed by the US, that was imposed by a unanimous united nations security council.

MKSheppard wrote:

salm wrote:the us as the only superpower (concidering the amount of money invested in military hyperpower might be the term)

In 1941, Japan put 60% of her GDP into the military. In 2003, America
puts only 3% of her GDP into defense, so STFU

Imagine what we could do with 8%, which was around a not uncommon figure for most countries a century ago.

Col. Crackpot wrote: that was not imposed by the US, that was imposed by a unanimous united nations security council.

Doesn't matter. The US was a party to it. We were one of the countries that it applied to. Technically, a State of War (halted by a cease-fire) still exists between Iraq and ALL members of the Coalition from the Second Persian Gulf War. Since Iraq has violated that cease-fire, the hostilities within that State of War can be resumed at any time by the injured side - IE, any coalition member. Including the USA.

We didn't even need to get the first U.N. resolution, let alone a second.

Imagine what we could do with 8%, which was around a not uncommon figure for most countries a century ago.

Ooooh with that much money.....
We could afford to fund all those resurch projects that got droped along the years!

Like Hover-Tanks!
And Cyborg Ninjas!
On Submarines!



I'd love to see what the US Military would do with a tripeling of our budget

Mr Bean wrote:

Imagine what we could do with 8%, which was around a not uncommon figure for most countries a century ago.

Ooooh with that much money.....
We could afford to fund all those resurch projects that got droped along the years!

Like Hover-Tanks!
And Cyborg Ninjas!
On Submarines!



I'd love to see what the US Military would do with a tripeling of our budget

Our defense budget would be bigger then the French GDP....

How about 1200 Mach 2.5 F-22's escorting 132 B-2's to attack targets in support of the eight deployed CVBG's, which are conducting tactical operations in support of the two division marine landing.

Hell Dale Browns Megafortress II wankfest would probably be practical by now, the only part where really missing is sufficiently powerful LADAR, and that is the key, even and that's advancing pretty quickly as it is. Some SLAM variant using it as a terminal seekers got proposed not that long ago.

MKSheppard wrote:

salm wrote:the us as the only superpower (concidering the amount of money invested in military hyperpower might be the term)

In 1941, Japan put 60% of her GDP into the military. In 2003, America
puts only 3% of her GDP into defense, so STFU

i didnt even insult your precious us of a, you dumbass. no matter how much of the GDP the us invests in its military it still invests about the same as, i think, the 15 nations behind it together making it the only superpower/hyperpower in the world.
so you STFU!!!