It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: nwtrucker
This is an initial thought and not well developed. However,it is worth throwing out there as seeing if it has any merit.
One of the fears of the right wing in the U.S. is U.N. action within the country. There have been sporadic reports of U.N. troops/equipment from around the country over the last few years with huge cries of alarm from the 'right'. ( I am 'right' in my views)
I believe the vast majority of these are joint training efforts. Living in the N.W., I've seen over the years a number of Canadian convoys from the P.P.C.L.I. unit on Vancouver Island travelling to the Yakima facility and have 'visited' with members at various truck stops. (Good guys, by the way)
(As I type, more and more comes to mind on this subject and I am now convinced that it's flat out not happening...at least during our lifetimes!)
Consider the U.N.'s history in military interventions. LOL. It sucks. The Korean War is considered a "U.N. action". Numerous nations participated, yes, BUT, it was a U.S. conflict. Both by numbers, command and infrastructure. Outside of Korea, I can't think of any major intervention that was successful. Some still simmering after decades. (Cypress, is an e.g.) The U.N. an entity that has no will/political leadership, no military, completely untrusted by any save the naïve.
Forget the military side of this, the 23 million veterans, the 300 million weapons in civilian control, the probable 50% desertion rate amongst U.S. forces...forget all that.
PRIOR to all this would be the complete crashing of the U.S. dollar and therefore the world's economic system, the probable collapse of U.S. food exports resulting in starvation and soaring food costs world-wide. What country would commit it's forces to an intervention when their home borders and internal problems loom?
Of all the things we have to worry about, this isn't one of them.
originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14
Frankly, I'm a bit surprised we see this similarly. Yes, the 'right' goes a bit too far on this. Probably originating in Militia groups. (there has been a few reports of Saddam stating the best scenario for defeating the U.S. would be the dissolution of the Union. Funding wouldn't be an impossible scenario..)
Not too different than making the U.S. the 'Great Satan' or the great violator of 'International law', however. The same mechanism as the 'militia's. "Boogie Man"...watch out...LOL.
I see France is sending the De Gaulle to assist with the fight against Isis. That's based on 20 dead. No U.N. consultation on that one either. The U.S.-and others- suffer 3,000 dead from 9/11. I highly doubt and major nation would have waited for permission from the U.N. on how to respond if that event had occurred on their soil, my friend.
On the U.N. and International Law we shall have to agree to disagree. You know perfectly well the U.S. never signed on to that particular agreement and the U.N. was never intended to be a world government. Perhaps it has merely 'evolved' in that direction. Perhaps there's more to it than 'mere evolving'....Either way, I don't really care. The resulting organization is unsupportable beyond humanitarian duties and minor agreement issues.
The violation of a nation's sovereignty has the same result with or without U.N. "sanction" from what I can see. The rhetoric is huffing and puffing on semantics.
I, nor anyone I know would or will give credence to the U.N. until they can be looked up to as a standard to be admired. Until that time, I will stick to the U.S. as the standard I also cannot look up to...LOL. It's still 'higher' than the U.N.'s.