U.N. Force to disarm America

Would you welcome a U.N. force to occupy the U.S.?

  • Yes- I would welcome a U.N. occupying force

    Votes: 3 23.1%

  • No- I would not welcome a U.N. occupying force

    Votes: 10 76.9%
  • Total voters
    13
WM is correct, though. The UN would not be allowed to attack the US because we would veto it. Now, Russia and China could get together and attack the US, although I doubt they could really work together. Both distrusts the other, and they have regional disputes (such as everyone laying claim to the Pacific islands that are all under dispute).

That said, China and Russia don't have air or naval power on par with the US...
 
Threedee said:
WM is correct, though. The UN would not be allowed to attack the US because we would veto it. Now, Russia and China could get together and attack the US, although I doubt they could really work together. Both distrusts the other, and they have regional disputes (such as everyone laying claim to the Pacific islands that are all under dispute).

That said, China and Russia don't have air or naval power on par with the US...
Click to expand...

The Pacific islands thing is mostly a deal with China. To be specific, the Diayou islands are mostly between The PRC and Japan (technically the ROC as well, since they are Taiwanese island, but Taiwan largely gets ignored because no one recognizes them as the government of China and they don't have nearly the military strength of either), while the Spratlays (and another set of islands nearby I can't remember right now) are mostly between the PRC and Vietnam (although there are like five other countries involved, Brunei and the ROC for instance, and none of them are Russia).
 
A war between Russia, America, and China wouldn't go very far, because there's no way to get to the US except by sea or air, and we have total sea and air superiority. They might be able to bog down a US invasion force, and their land forces might be able to equal or exceed ours, but they'd be stuck in China and Russia.
 
Watermark the Red said:
A war between Russia, America, and China wouldn't go very far, because there's no way to get to the US except by sea or air, and we have total sea and air superiority. They might be able to bog down a US invasion force, and their land forces might be able to equal or exceed ours, but they'd be stuck in China and Russia.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Not that Russia and China would have a reason to go to war with us to begin with. And we could also just bomb Three Gorges and China would be out of the war.
 
The fact that China and Russia never really got along after the fall of Khrushchev is kind of eye-opening. The Chinese were kind of pissed when he denounced Stalinism, but after the he caved on Cuba, and was ousted, the Chinese broke with Moscow and by 1969 the two sides were actually skirmishing along the border. Putin is not childish like Mao was during the Revolution, but I don't think Moscow and Beijing can really cooperate with one another. I don't think either views the US as such a singularly large rival that it can cancel out the fact that they are also rivals with each other.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Why do you believe the U.S. is not subject to U.N. invasion as other countries are?
Click to expand...
Cause the UN or no other nation has the Naval capabilities and Air power needed to support the 10 million or so properly supplied and trained soldiers that it would require to invade our nation.

When I hear a politician talking about some nation or entity that they're beating the war drums on say "They want to take our freedom away", that they're talking to the idiots out there and there are lots and lots of idiots out there. That's what's really scary. Cause those idiots fall for that evil shit every fucking time and then some poor group of brown skinned people end up getting the shit bombed out of them.
 
Last edited:
Lorca said:
I havent read the thread yet but it would never happen.

The gun-owners and anyone else who objected would just destroy the economy first. It wouldnt be worth it.

And it wouldnt take guns to do it...blow up some bridges near the cities, plant a few domestic terror bombs in malls, and the entire already-weakened economy would finish its swirl down the toilet.

It wouldnt take much....scare folks a little and they'll just stop going out and shopping. And wont be able to get to work or transport goods in big metro areas. People will be afraid to drive over a bridge.

That's why it's also silly when people say, "oh, you dont need an assault rifle....the govt has tanks and granades! Do you want those too?" Nope, dont need 'em. Just need 'em to protect ourselves while the country goes down the crapper. See: Argentina.
Click to expand...
See? This is what I'm talking about. Think how a UN army of psychiatrist armed with Prozac could help people like this with their delusional paranoia.
 
annata said:
no you dimwit..lol.. the UN did the authorization for no fly zone -the US decided to assassinate Qaddafi -regime change, and assassination is supposed to be against our "American Values" ..lol... (not that we have any)..

Look at Libya today; warlord, militia rule, Abu Anas living out in the open... we created a terrorist state. deal with ait..Bengazi...oh and BTW Obam shook Qaddafis hand at the 2009 G-8

View attachment 2378
Click to expand...

The us didn't assassinate Qaddafi, his own people did. How incredibly uninformed you are.
 
Threedee said:
WM is correct, though. The UN would not be allowed to attack the US because we would veto it. Now, Russia and China could get together and attack the US, although I doubt they could really work together. Both distrusts the other, and they have regional disputes (such as everyone laying claim to the Pacific islands that are all under dispute).

That said, China and Russia don't have air or naval power on par with the US...
Click to expand...

The feckless UN couldn't attack ANYONE; they don't have an army.

Are people on JPP really this stupid??
 
Did the UN attack North Korea? It passed a resolution, Russia didn't veto it, and member nations showed up and had a war.
 
Truth Detector said:
The feckless UN couldn't attack ANYONE; they don't have an army.

Are people on JPP really this stupid??
Click to expand...

Sorry, I may have misread the OP then but if the US govt wanted to use the UN to disarm the American people, it would arm the UN ground forces. Do you mean that there just arent enough people in those ground forces? (Or, we're 7 pages in, perhaps you were responding to someone else. If so, my bad.)
 
Threedee said:
Did the UN attack North Korea? It passed a resolution, Russia didn't veto it, and member nations showed up and had a war.
Click to expand...

Where do you get your history; comic books?

The UN didn't attack North Korea; it doesn't have an Army. The North Koreans attack South Korea and nearly conquered it.
The US, supplying the bulk of the heavy lifting, troops and hardware as usual, led a coalition of UN member States that eventually evicted the North Korean occupation up and until their near defeat...then China illegally attacked the US led coalition nearly destroying that effort resulting in the stalemate we live with today.

Get a clue; pick up a book once in a while.
 
Lorca said:
Sorry, I may have misread the OP then but if the US govt wanted to use the UN to disarm the American people, it would arm the UN ground forces. Do you mean that there just arent enough people in those ground forces? (Or, we're 7 pages in, perhaps you were responding to someone else. If so, my bad.)
Click to expand...

No, what you continue to misread, but this is a typical state of clueless for Liberals, is reality.

Again for the dullard class; the UN does not have an army. It does not have a ground force to arm.

You cannot possibly be this stupid can you?
 
Truth Detector said:
No, what you continue to misread, but this is a typical state of clueless for Liberals, is reality.

Again for the dullard class; the UN does not have an army. It does not have a ground force to arm.

You cannot possibly be this stupid can you?
Click to expand...

Really? I'm a dullard and stupid because I ask questions? I'd hate to be your kid.

I said I didnt know numbers but asked if there were enough. The UN has a body of people to use...if the US govt were to throw it's weight around and commandeer them. Call them what you will, "peacekeepers".....but they could be armed and trained. I"m sure the govt would love to keep that name, as a matter of fact.

Just one more person with insults and no actual substance.
 
The U.N. does have armies. They are taken from the U.N. signatory nations and used for U.N. goals.

Asserting that the U.N. doesnt have armies is being in massive denial.
 
AssHatZombie said:
The U.N. does have armies. They are taken from the U.N. signatory nations and used for U.N. goals.

Asserting that the U.N. doesnt have armies is being in massive denial.
Click to expand...
You're paranoid. The UN does not have the influence of the resources that would be needed to invade the US. There isn't an alliance of nations out there that currently has those recources either. That's just plain crazy talk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top