posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Flavian
Don't want to get drawn into another gun debate thread. Your country, your choice. However, regarding this UN paranoia / hysteria that i have noticed
creeping in regarding US Gun Control - my question is why? Why do you think the UN would get involved? Why do you think the UN would be allowed to get
That is a serious question, not nit picking or such like. The USA is THE big player on the P5 at the Security Council. No UN "security" action can
take place without agreement by the P5 - the US would obviously veto any such action, even if it was proposed. Therefore i really do not understand
why any think this a big UN plan. It isn't, clearly, as it wouldn't even be worth planning something that has no possible way of
However, if others disagree, please explain why. If i am wrong, i accept that. As always, i just ask to be shown why so i can then reassess my
I can't see any reason why the US would veto UN intervention. Given the proclivities of the current administration, it seems more probable to me that
they would REQUEST it more likely than veto it. Going by Obama's "World Apology tour, 2009" and Bush's unsettling apparent need to involve other
countries into our troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan, together with the Clintonistas working hand in hand with the UN to push for passage of the Small
Arms trafficking treaty, I'm almost certain that UN intervention in our internal affairs in this matter would be requested, rather than vetoed.
To any non-US nationals who may find themselves caught up in any potential UN intervention in US internal affairs: resign now while you still can.
Once your here, with that bright blue target on your head, it's too late, and it's game on. Americans already have enough troubles of their own,
without having to pause to take pot-shots at outside interventionists. That wouldn't turn out well for any of us.
I recall seeing the UN troops standing around the body of a boy in Bosnia, who they were supremely ineffective in "protecting". He lay there in a
puddle of blood, UN troops milling around like so many cattle while the shooters got away. I recall LOCALS having to band together to protect 3 US
trainers there under the auspices of the UN. What the UN abandoned, local farmers defended. The UN troops simply made an offer to give the guys arm
patches from their own countries to conceal their US patches (which would have violated the Geneva Conventions if carried out, and made the trainers
subject to execution for espionage), and then promptly disappeared. It was up to the trainers, and the local civilians, to fortify and defend the
house they lived in.
UN intervention is not welcome here, nor is it likely to be terribly effective as "protection", but could provide a grand training OPFOR for the Angry
Young Men to cut their teeth on, invited by the Obamites or not.
edit on 2013/1/21 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)