Massacre in Kandahar

Originally posted by sh76
The Korean war was the last example where what essentially amounted to a US army was fought under the UN banner; so "UN = US" can presumably refer to no more recent enterprise.

Yeah but as I say I think He is concerned about future U.N intentions if there was no sec council veto. maybe he thinks the world, and by definition the U.N, has changed since the 1950s. As I say I am not agreeing with him it is just that when I read his posts it seemed like the obvious interpretation.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Yeah but as I say I think He is concerned about future U.N intentions if there was no sec council veto. maybe he thinks the world, and by definition the U.N, has changed since the 1950s.

Yes. The world has changed since the 1950s. Back then the U.S. fought in a 'U.N. war'. Nowadays, U.S. military forces fighting under the U.N. flag is utterly inconceivable. "UN = US" is patently absurd. whodey's throw-away sarcastic remark was a clumsy straw man, stood up and smacked down within the space of a five or six word post. 😵

Originally posted by FMF
Yes. The world has changed since the 1950s. Back then the U.S. fought in a 'U.N. war'. Nowadays, U.S. military forces fighting under the U.N. flag is utterly inconceivable. "UN = US" is patently absurd. whodey's throw-away sarcastic remark was a clumsy straw man, stood up and smacked down within the space of a five or six word post. 😵

But He was reacting to this suggestion, notice the lack of a sec council/U.S veto option

A democratically elected and representative UN (without any SC vetoes) could arbitrate disputes between nations and send military force as needed to resolve them.

I personally think it would be an improvement, but I would not expect an anti interventionist, Ron Paul fan to agree.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
But He was reacting to this suggestion, notice the lack of a sec council/U.S veto option

A democratically elected and representative UN (without any SC vetoes) could arbitrate disputes between nations and send military force as needed to resolve them.

I personally think it would be an improvement, but I would not expect an anti interventionist, Ron Paul fan to agree.

The U.S. would not be a member of a U.N. set up in which it didn't have a veto or was compelled to undertake military action against its will. So the whole "UN = US" thing is a red herring.

Originally posted by FMF
Well I was asking him to clarify. As far as I am aware, the U.S. contributes less than 1% of the troops used in U.N. military operations. So presumably whodey's "UN = US troops" 'assertion' harks back to the Korean War. Perhaps he will clarify what he means by "UN = US troops".

The US spends gazillions of dollars a year on its military while those in Europe spend their money on soicial programs for the most part. Just look at how Libya went down. Europe gave Obama a Nobel Peace Price and then basically convinced him to throw around the bulk of the military might to kill off Gaddafi.

Originally posted by whodey
Just look at how Libya went down. Europe gave Obama a Nobel Peace Price and then basically convinced him to throw around the bulk of the military might to kill off Gaddafi.

The bulk of the military might?

Originally posted by FMF
The bulk of the military might?

Which country spent the most $$$ and used the most arms to kill Gaddafi?

Originally posted by whodey
Which country spent the most $$$ and used the most arms to kill Gaddafi?

"Which country spent the most $$$...?" It was the U.K. as far as I know. Which country do you claim it was?

Originally posted by whodey
Which country spent the most $$$ and used the most arms to kill Gaddafi?

Pretty sure Britain spent the most £££, and France spent the most euros, but seriously I thought it was mainly French and British aircraft that were taking out most of gadaffi's ground positions but I could be wrong.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Pretty sure Britain spent the most £££, and France spent the most euros, but seriously I thought it was mainly French and British aircraft that were taking out most of gadaffi's ground positions but I could be wrong.

Nope, I just did a Wiki check. The UK spent about $333 million and the US $1.1 billion. Not to worry though, in the US deficits don't matter, so its all good.

Too bad the US is Europes bitch.

Originally posted by whodey
Nope, I just did a Wiki check. The UK spent about $333 million and the US $1.1 billion.

Are you sure about that? I thought the U.K. spent about $1.5 billion , the U.S. less than $1 billion and France about $0.5 billion (although they alone flew a third of the airstrikes).

edit: One of the sources Wiki cites suggests that the U.K. spent £1.25 billion which would be how much in US$?

more: There seems to be a dud table on one of the wiki pages which only lists a small handful of the countries who contributed, which seems to indicate that Italy spent almost as much as the U.S. and three times what the U.K. spent. Can't see how they figured it out like that. The U.K. surely spent 3 or 4 times what is stated there - even Wiki's sources establish that.

more: It would appear that France, Norway and Denmark flew about 60% of the airstrikes.

Originally posted by whodey
Europe gave Obama a Nobel Peace Price and then basically convinced him to throw around the bulk of the military might to kill off Gaddafi.

Are you suggesting NATO gave President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize? Surely it was the Norwegian Nobel Committee?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Your "impression" is mindless, childish and baseless.