If you would rule the world...
- Thread starter Hietala
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
I am aware of the fact that they have a military force, however I was making the point that like the League of Nations they too are unable to preserve the peace or such. Just like the League of Nations were pretty much ignored, the UN works the same way.The Mercenary said:
Of course they send in some troops and levy sanctions, but the end result of that is that most countries with any sizable army or just the guts ignores them and does what they wanted to regardless.
I am not knocking the peacekeepers or saying the UN is a bad idea, it just does not work as it is at preventing warfare or ensuring that populations are not wholly oppressed by their governments.
FrisianDude
Archduke
Is Russia on the rise?The Mercenary said:
Bullets don't have it either, if you're able to shoot bullets at N-K, they're able to launch nukes at you.The Mercenary said:UN is much better than the League of Nations. It has a military force.
Hietala said:Well, what are you going to do against those KoreansIf you accidently fire a bullet they will instinctivily launch their arsenal of nukes on your country and say it was out of pure self-defense
All five of those nukes that don't have the range to reach across the world?
Hietala
Grandmaster Knight
And how 'bout debts with the black market's arms dealers?Tuckles said:
The EU is pretty much already a global super power.The Mercenary said:Úlfheðinn said:Yeah, but the UN also fails at accomplishing 90% of what they try...
No offense to them but when was the last time you heard them really managing to stabilize a region.
Mostly, they are able to sit and observe and sometimes stop things from getting out of hand until someone else decides to act(see a global superpower for reference).
The UN is only slightly better than the League of Nations and we all know how well that worked as a means to keep the world at peace.
They're either called peacekeepers or blue-helmets.
The only global superpower in the world at the moment is the United States; others are rising rapidly to that position. (China, EU, Russia, India, etc)
UN is much better than the League of Nations. It has a military force.
But they DO have the range to reach South Korea or Japan. And South-Korea is pretty much the USA's foothold on the Korean peninsula.The Mercenary said:Hietala said:Well, what are you going to do against those Koreans
All five of those nukes that don't have the range to reach across the world?
Elenmmare
Hietala said:The most countries who are at peace have an army just to coöperate with the UN and send soldiers to 3rd world countries to stabilise the situation over there.
(Those soldiers with their blue helmets,
, right. Britain & France, Canada & Germany are all just keeping their armed forces to appease the scary UN.
It's gender is actually unknown.
Actually Hie...
Your suggestions are rather on the dumb side.
No offence intended but. I had to say it.
Your suggestions are rather on the dumb side.
No offence intended but. I had to say it.
The Mercenary
Grandmaster Knight
Hietala said:
Right. I would also like to call NATO, the UN, and every other alliance made up of more than two major powers a global superpower.
FrisianDude said:Is Russia on the rise?The Mercenary said:
Bullets don't have it either, if you're able to shoot bullets at N-K, they're able to launch nukes at you.The Mercenary said:UN is much better than the League of Nations. It has a military force.
Hietala said:Well, what are you going to do against those Koreans
All five of those nukes that don't have the range to reach across the world?
"country", not "soldiers"
I'm not sure about Russia. There are some who postulate that it's rising though.
Hietala said:And how 'bout debts with the black market's arms dealers?Tuckles said:
The EU is pretty much already a global super power.The Mercenary said:Úlfheðinn said:Yeah, but the UN also fails at accomplishing 90% of what they try...
No offense to them but when was the last time you heard them really managing to stabilize a region.
Mostly, they are able to sit and observe and sometimes stop things from getting out of hand until someone else decides to act(see a global superpower for reference).
The UN is only slightly better than the League of Nations and we all know how well that worked as a means to keep the world at peace.
They're either called peacekeepers or blue-helmets.
The only global superpower in the world at the moment is the United States; others are rising rapidly to that position. (China, EU, Russia, India, etc)
UN is much better than the League of Nations. It has a military force.
But they DO have the range to reach South Korea or Japan. And South-Korea is pretty much the USA's foothold on the Korean peninsula.The Mercenary said:Hietala said:Well, what are you going to do against those Koreans
All five of those nukes that don't have the range to reach across the world?
Nuking either of those countries would be suicide for the North Koreans. And South Korea is OBVIOUSLY our foothold on the Korean peninsula. Because there's North Korea, and South Korea. And North Korea ain't our friends. Also, five nukes might mess up the infrastructure of the countries and destroy a few major cities. Then you have the rest of the world with their thousands of nukes pissed off. The only country I can think of that might be remotely interested in helping the North Koreans is China - and they wouldn't be helping the North Koreans.
Hietala said:This, ladies and gentleman is the man who will liberate us from organisations like Al Quaeda and the Taliban by flaming them continiouslyvadermath said:
((Vengeance
Are we under the Taliban's rule? No. Therefore, we cannot be liberated from them. Unless you're an Afghan who's under the rule of the Taliban, but I somehow doubt that.
Similar threads
