Wait a second, since the U.S. is asking the U.K to back them up... it makes less and less sense that

Seriously, they are in control of the UN, correct? Why don't they just automatically send the UN troops towards the fighting? What is with that article, everything is starting to not make sense here. Who agrees?

That just made me confused. who is in charge of the UN?

no one...it�s united nations..not some furgen "alliance for someone to control"...u.k and usa have gone to this iraqi thing together against un rules. So un really doesn�t have anything to do with it..
-ap

The UN don't seem to have the balls to say or do anything that would change the way things are. They either comply and help out, or they simply whimper in the corner and wait for the next whipping.

btw. usa is part of un aswell...it�s coalition of nations to keep peace on earth..it�s not designed to aprove you crusades to middle east..
-ap

When America have thousands and thousands more throops in Iraq compared to British numbers, it seems that this just may be a political. All the Bushies care about right now is re-election.

Originally posted by earthtone
When America have thousands and thousands more throops in Iraq compared to British numbers, it seems that this just may be a political. All the Bushies care about right now is re-election.

Hey quit insulting our friends, they might get mad and leave us to fight our own wars.

Come on, while we've been investing billions or trillions of dollars on our awesome military and far outweigh most other countries, they've been messing around worrying about such things as healthcare for their citizens and such.

Although I could see where someone could be mistaken by who leads in the UN, if one was to consider firepower, I think the US would only be contested by China! We probably have far more troops in the other countries that we are participating jointly with the UN, we have more troops and equipment to offer.

If Kerry's elected, we'll probably become the UN's official Army, if Bush wins...well, we know what to expect, I think.....tough choices......

wtf?..how in hell military power relates to un?...it�s not the same thing as nato...leadership of un should be more to intellectualism of decision makers and by that scale you wouldn�t even be in un ...money put on military only reflects idiotism because many countries would have lot�s of better uses for that money..
-ap

Originally posted by aape
wtf?..how in hell military power relates to un?...it�s not the same thing as nato...leadership of un should be more to intellectualism of decision makers and by that scale you wouldn�t even be in un

...money put on military only reflects idiotism because many countries would have lot�s of better uses for that money..
-ap

ya...like healthcare and such.......
but it really amazes me that when talking about the proportion of troops each country has in any operation that this reason isn't given as to why there is usually more troops from the US than anywhere else. We're the ones that chose to invest heavily (I agree, to the point of insanity) in the military force, so we have lots more to give..

Sorry I'm late responding to the posts. I was just stating that the U.S. was in control of the UN, if you've ever read up on the Omega Agency, you would know what I mean. Basically the Omega Agency is above the presidency, and in charge of the U.N, read at the articles for more info. It's just that what is happening makes less and less sense according to what's written at this website.

That's all I was saying, basically it wasn't adding up to the conspiracy.

[edit on 21-10-2004 by NWObringer]