Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What If The UN Was The Target?  
User currently offlineApathoid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (12 years 17 hours ago) and read 1618 times:

I was just pondering...what do you think the international reaction would be if an American "religious freedom fighter" (read: terrorist) were to hijack an aircraft and fly it into the UN?

I mean, the justification so many give for what the WTC killers did was American arrogance, America meddling in foreign affairs and America always tries to tell everyone else what to do and think. Kind of like what the UN does to America.

So, to those who think we should try and "understand," let me know: What would you say if we asked you to understand when we blow up the UN?

71 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 17 hours ago) and read 1589 times:

Look, If you really want to get into the world of hypotheticals why do you think someone would want to fly a plane into the UN building?

QANTASforever


User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (12 years 16 hours ago) and read 1579 times:

The UN doesn't have an history like the US has, which could explain (I DIDN'T SAY JUSTIFY) any revenge from some groups of people.
That's the point you didn't get.

That doesn't mean that some terrorists wouldn't be glad to bomb the UN. And ? What do you want to prove ?


User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (12 years 15 hours ago) and read 1575 times:

The UN and other countries are only saying that because they aren't a deciding factor in the war on terror. They want to have some say on what we are doing (which in the long and short run will produce inaction), we said BS, either help us or we will go at it alone if need be to protect our borders.

The UN is in horrible shape many of the resolutions and events happening there are being consumed with poltics and bickering, they are getting little done that needs to be done. If they don't shape up soon, they are going to be like the league of nations, and if we have a president with enough balls to him we might just pull out completely and tell them to get out of our country too.



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5032 posts, RR: 44
Reply 4, posted (12 years 13 hours ago) and read 1558 times:

Apathoid,

No-one has been trying to JUSTIFY the attacks on the US. There's a GIGANTIC difference between justifying the attacks and looking for reasons why some people might have committed this INJUSTIFIABLE act.

As for the UN: the UN only 'tells the US what to do' on the world scene, in other words, it tells the US that it can't just tell everyone else what to do. And guess what: that's one of the reasons why it was created, so that no one state would go around bossing the others around. Oh, and the UN does this to every country on the planet.

Now on to your question: if an American terrorist were to blow up the UN, we'd be outraged at that person and the group he represented. No-one in their right mind would suggest going to war with the US because of what one of their countrymen did.

BTW, if you say the UN does to the US what the US does to the world, I have one question: when was the last time the UN threatened to bomb the US?


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 13 hours ago) and read 1554 times:

As for the UN: the UN only 'tells the US what to do' on the world scene, in other words, it tells the US that it can't just tell everyone else what to do. And guess what: that's one of the reasons why it was created, so that no one state would go around bossing the others around. Oh, and the UN does this to every country on the planet.

The UN has no power over the US, Scorpio-none. Tell me this: if the U.S. decides to go to war with Iraq without a UN resolution, who is going to stop it? The UN? How? Last time I checked, the UN doesn't have a standing army to stop the U.S. The U.S. will still go do what it thinks is in it's national interest.

Oh, and the UN doesn't do this to every country on the planet-the old Soviet Union ignored the UN for 40 years, and the UN could do nothing but wring it's collective hands over it. In the long run, the UN can do NOTHING to any large state.



User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (12 years 12 hours ago) and read 1550 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The UN has no power over the US, Scorpio-none. Tell me this: if the U.S. decides to go to war with Iraq without a UN resolution, who is going to stop it? The UN? How? Last time I checked, the UN doesn't have a standing army to stop the U.S. The U.S. will still go do what it thinks is in it's national interest.

Oh, and the UN doesn't do this to every country on the planet-the old Soviet Union ignored the UN for 40 years, and the UN could do nothing but wring it's collective hands over it. In the long run, the UN can do NOTHING to any large state.


If this is the case, then i really wonder what the whole purpose of the UN really is? If it has no authority and no nation will listen to it, then what's the point of the UN?





In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 12 hours ago) and read 1545 times:

If this is the case, then i really wonder what the whole purpose of the UN really is? If it has no authority and no nation will listen to it, then what's the point of the UN?

It was a Utopian idea that emerged from the ashes of World War II. It had a noble cause, I think: to let all nations have an "equal" voice in a world body, where the smallest had as much legitimacy as the largest, but the real world doesn't work that way. The U.S., China, Russia, Britian, France, etc, really don't want to share the world stage with the little pin-prick nations of the world. They will, in the long run, do what they think is best for their nation, no matter what the UN says.


User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5032 posts, RR: 44
Reply 8, posted (12 years 12 hours ago) and read 1543 times:

Alpha 1,

Tell me this: if the U.S. decides to go to war with Iraq without a UN resolution, who is going to stop it? The UN? How? Last time I checked, the UN doesn't have a standing army to stop the U.S.

That's the whole point! The UN can not enforce its resolutions, and therefore they are not a threat to ANYONE, least of all the US, hence taking away every reason to 'attack' it, as Apathoid suggests. But the UN is the spokesperson for the whole world, and although the US CAN ignore it, it would be plain STUPID to just ignore what the rest of the world thinks and go your own way in someone elses country. That's asking, no begging, for trouble, on your knees.

Oh, and the UN doesn't do this to every country on the planet-the old Soviet Union ignored the UN for 40 years,

Yes, and we all know how everybody LOVED the Soviet Union, don't we?  Insane
If that is the example you want the US to follow...

In the long run, the UN can do NOTHING to any large state.

But that should not be a freebode to the US to do whatever the hell it wants. The US, like every other country, should justify the actions it undertakes outside its borders to the rest of the world, as these actions interfere WITH the rest of the world. This should not be a game of 'I'm stronger than you, so I'm the boss'.


User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (12 years 11 hours ago) and read 1538 times:

I guess Alpha-1 has explained why so many people hate the US: USA just don't care about what other think, and are so powerful that they just act to defend their own interests against interests of other countries.
Nothing more simple.
I guess we all agree now. So why always fighting ?


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 11 hours ago) and read 1533 times:

I guess Alpha-1 has explained why so many people hate the US: USA just don't care about what other think, and are so powerful that they just act to defend their own interests against interests of other countries.

Uh, last time I checked Sebolino, the charge of the United States goverment was TO ACT TO DEFEND THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES!!! What part of that DON'T you understand, boy? ROTFL. The United States is not in this world to be responsible for YOUR country-that's YOUR country's responsibility, last time I checked. Extending the U.S.'s responsibilities to all the other nations of the world is the height of idiocy. We have to look out for ourselves, because left to you, and the likes of you in the world, the US would be at the mercy of everyone else.



User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (12 years 8 hours ago) and read 1511 times:

ALPHA-1:

Why are you repeating what I say, boy ?
Did you miss something in my post, boy ?

"TO ACT TO DEFEND THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES!!! "

That's precisely what I say, kid.


User currently offlineApathoid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 8 hours ago) and read 1510 times:

Actually, the UN does presume to tel the US what to do on its own soil....take a look at the Man and the Biosphere project or the Nation's Rivers Heritage Act. Those programs are the source of a great deal of our animosity to the UN.

Personally, I don't recognize the UN as a governing body, but I DO recognize it as a threat to my national sovreignty.

Aside from that, the question posed was: Would international opinion be as sympathetic to the US as it has been to Al Queda if the roles were reversed?


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13211 posts, RR: 77
Reply 13, posted (12 years 8 hours ago) and read 1498 times:

The UN might have worked better if certain nations, not just the US, hadn't used it for cynical reasons in the cold war. The vetoes by Security Council members for instance.
It might work better if the US didn't not keep withholding payments, pulling out of programmes every so often.

Those in the US government who have to deal with the world, the State Department, must get exasperated by such actions, as they know full well that it never serves the US's long-term interests, but is pure political grandstanding to appease the knuckle-dragging element of the population, done by insular, fear-mongering ultra-right wingers for their own short-term political advangtage.

For instance, the Bush administration pulling funding from contraception/health programmes for the third world, (the EU replaced the funding), just to appease the swivel-eyed Bible-thumpers in the Republican Party.
I don't think that many in the US realise how much even US allies hold Bush & co in contempt for things like that, they get the feeling that they are not dealing with rational people, a sort of Christian Taliban.
For people like Blair, Bush's ideological extremists make his job of getting support for his policy towards helping the US very difficult. And the contempt for the UN and international agreements generally by the US just magnifies these problems.

Sometimes the UN are right, how many in the US now wish they'd listened to the UN when it criticized the US policy in Vietnam back in the 60's?


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (12 years 8 hours ago) and read 1498 times:

Sebolino, stop blowing smoke up peoples' rear end ok? Read your quote again, son:

I guess Alpha-1 has explained why so many people hate the US: USA just don't care about what other think, and are so powerful that they just act to defend their own interests against interests of other countries.

Translation: the US is always putting it's own interests ahead of other countries-that's what you meant, and you know it. And I was calling you on it. You were not saying the same thing I was-you're not smart enough to do that.


User currently offlineSilverangel From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 7 hours ago) and read 1498 times:

Sebolino,

I guess Alpha-1 has explained why so many people hate the US: USA just don't care about what other think, and are so powerful that they just act to defend their own interests against interests of other countries.


I am from America and I care greatly what the world thinks (I think a lot of us do, but we may still the minority). Heck, I am still hugely embarassed by/ mad at our republican party for airing Billie C's Dirty laundry for all to see.


User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (12 years 7 hours ago) and read 1492 times:

Look, America sucks, because America will handle it's business in a manor that is in the best interests for America, and it's people. Goddamn...what an awful concept that is.  Yeah sure

User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5032 posts, RR: 44
Reply 17, posted (12 years 7 hours ago) and read 1486 times:

Apathoid,

Aside from that, the question posed was: Would international opinion be as sympathetic to the US as it has been to Al Queda if the roles were reversed?

ROTFLMAO!!! You really do live on planet gaga, don't you? I mean, come on, get your damn facts straight before posting total bullsh*t like that! Can you tell me what exactly it is that you've seen to suggest that international opinion is 'sympathetic to Al Queda'? Come on, please do, that should be fun to read...


User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 7 hours ago) and read 1484 times:

Would international opinion be as sympathetic to the US as it has been to Al Queda if the roles were reversed?

International opinion sympathetic to Al Qaeda? Are you off your rocker? I have yet to see a single state, including Iraq, go on the record expressing sympathy for Al Qaeda.

No one is denying the US the right to act in their own national interest if they choose. However, what most of the world takes exception to is that the US tries to have it both ways. You simply can't ignore the UN on some issues while use UN mandates as your platform on others without smelling of hypocrisy.

The US has traditionally been the strongest supporter of the UN and I don't think that a half-century of strong relations will be eroded by one stubborn admininstration's refusal to be diplomatic about their intentions. So before you start declaring war on a building in midtown Manhattan, perhaps you should look at the bigger picture.


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (12 years 7 hours ago) and read 1476 times:

Heck, the way I see it, the UN Is a joke and an ineffective institute. Just look at the "racism" conference fiasco. Pathetic really.


NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 20, posted (12 years 7 hours ago) and read 1474 times:

If the UN went away I wouldn't cry one tear but I would never wish it to go the way of the WTC. Personally, I hope the US pulls out of the UN; then sits back and watches it implode.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineGo Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (12 years 4 hours ago) and read 1449 times:

if an american right wing christain blew up mecca or blew up the untied nations then all hell would break loose, somehow because its an attack on america its an attack on all the ills of the world and the poor little people had no choice because those natsy americans are taking over the world.....


It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
User currently offlineApathoid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (12 years 4 hours ago) and read 1444 times:

All right Canada, YOU at least get my point. The voice of reason is alive in a few places anyway,

User currently offlineOO-AOG From Switzerland, joined Dec 2000, 1426 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (12 years 4 hours ago) and read 1443 times:

Yes the UN might be against your interests because the goal of this organization is the defend the interests...Of the World (You know these +120 small countries, ever heard of them?)

Bush is probably even more dangerous than Saddam, because NOBODY (even not the UN) can't do ANYTHING against his unilateral decisions. This guy is just about to declare a war to defend his own interests even if most countries worldwide are against it. Amazing, everybody will just seat back and watch the show on CNN international with all the 'heroes' fighting for the petrol (oups I mean freedom of course Big grin) of the world. Now should we laugh of should we cry, I don't know...




Falcon....like a limo but with wings
User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (12 years 4 hours ago) and read 1441 times:

Guess the truth hurts, no one likes being told they are not a good neighbour. But the measure of maturity of a neighbour is how they act once they are told.

Some will sit down and look at the reasons, others will makes silly excuses and others will rant and rave and tell us that they have every right to do what they like.

Alpha1, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. America has every right to do what they want within their borders and to protect their borders. But apart from that, they have no legitimate right to do anything else unless they have world support. That's what the UN is for, a voice of the world. I'm aware you think it's irrelevant, but that's only because it's no longer a conduit for the American voice, as it used to be when it was making illegal mandates that start 50+ years of war.

It seems to me that the little brothers and sisters have learnt how to voice their opinions, and they're learning that big brother is the schoolyard bully ......




VH-ADG


25 GDB : If Sept 11th teaches anything, it's that even the most powerful nation on Earth is not immune to attack. Misguided foreign policy years back, expedien
26 Jessman : The UN is a joke. If any of the members of the UNSC decieded to do something without UN approval they're too big for the UN to do anything about it. T
27 Alpha 1 : This guy is just about to declare a war to defend his own interests even if most countries worldwide are against it. Sounds like a leader to me, who w
28 B747-437B : Some Hutus kill some Tutsis (sp?) UN doesn't do anything. Millions of africans kill each other in Ruanda and the Democratic Reupblic of Congo (Formerl
29 B747-437B : The US has EVERY RIGHT to protect it's interests abroad Just curious, but what exactly is a "US interest abroad". If its abroad, meaning not in the US
30 OO-AOG : Sounds like a leader to me, who will do what's in the best interest of his nation even if the whole world is against him. Then Alpha1 what's the diffe
31 Jessman : But B747-437B; When is the United Nations right to do anything? The interests of China, for example, are different than the interests of the United St
32 L-188 : What's the UN going to do if the USA invades Iraq without UN authorization? Are they going to get China, Russia, France and others to invade the USA?
33 Pacificjourney : Thanks L-188 now they will know where to find all the inbred hill-billies ... Um, I believe jessamn was speaking hypothetically ...
34 Jessman : B747-437B US Interests Abroad include the following a. US Military Bases and troops; We have troops and equipment all over the world. This allowed the
35 Post contains images Jessman : "Inbred hill-billies" can be pretty good shots, thank you very much. Yes I was speaking hypothetically. I have some 1500 names on a computer family tr
36 Pacificjourney : Jessman "I still managed to get a 30 composite on my ACT, a 5 on my AP Calculus exam; a full academic scholarship to the local University, and I can b
37 B747-437B : Jessman, US interests abroad are no different from other countries' interests abroad, with the possible exception of the military assets. I'm not a US
38 Post contains images Apathoid : Well that was a valid argument, B-747. While the paranoid delusionals on here will tell you differently, our purpose in ousting Sadam is to protect ou
39 Alpha 1 : curious, but what exactly is a "US interest abroad". If its abroad, meaning not in the US, then its pretty hard for me to see how the US has any right
40 B747-437B : Unfortunately, everyone's point of view is always going to be relative. Just as Saddam was pretty much alone in his belief back in 1990 that he had ju
41 Jessman : B747-437B; If I remember correctly Iraq invaded Kuwait for conquest purposes, not exactly to protect its interests. I often disagree with US foreign p
42 B747-437B : This is where you begin to tread on very shaky ground. You and me are educated people who understand the subtleties of each situation and treat them o
43 Redngold : Interesting thought. The last time we discussed something like this, it happened. Please God, not again. redngold
44 OO-AOG : President Bush wants to do something about this thug who has a history of starting conflicts, and who is seeking, or who has, WMD's. That's the differ
45 B747-437B : Saddam wanted to extend his borders, Bush wants the Oil : 2 dictators, No difference. A very key difference is that Bush hasn't yet acted while Saddam
46 Post contains images Apathoid : "You and me are educated people..." Are you sure about that?
47 Apathoid : Oh, and I just want to remind the poster who picked on L-188 for saying that America would defend herself from every roof top that if the Minutemen of
48 Post contains links Jessman : B747-437B; You can either deal with it by projecting more power unilaterally, or you can examine the source of their dis-satisfaction and either modif
49 B747-437B : Jessman, you are absolutely correct. The lunatic fringe exists in every religion, but alas the Islamic fringe is growing by the day and spreading its
50 B757300 : The United States can and will act with or without the joke known as the U.N. We do not need a bunch of third world countries who are jealous of US te
51 Alpha 1 : Bush wants the Oil : 2 dictators OO-AOG, get a dose of reality. Bush is not a dictator-last time I check, he was elected President by a vote. (Please,
52 Post contains images OO-AOG : Alpha1, a little vocabulary lesson just for you: Dic*ta"tor, n. [L.] 1. One who dictates; one who prescribes rules and maxims authoritatively for the
53 Apathoid : Considering our government is a Republic and his service is at the will of the people...um, it is impossible for Bush to be a dictator. No matter how
54 Post contains images Jessman : I don't think unilateral action against Iraq is a solution in and of itself; but I'm not so sure that eliminating Saddam is a bad idea. He is a snake;
55 OO-AOG : The United States can and will act with or without the joke known as the U.N. We do not need a bunch of third world countries who are jealous of US te
56 Pacificjourney : Apathoid, other than the last slice of pizza please tell us what you have ever fought for. You don't think L-188's irrelavent bravado added precisely
57 OO-AOG : Apathoid, who cares about how was elected Bush, that's your domestic internal affairs, not our problem. Now when we have a man acting on the internati
58 Apathoid : The UN is NOT a governing body. Sorry to burst your bubble. And, if the US deems Sadam to be a threat, out he goes. If your government decides that ou
59 B747-437B : If your government decides that ousting Bush is in your national best interest, take your best shot. Most of the world is civilized and does not advoc
60 Apathoid : See, there's the rub. Sadam's regime hardly qualifies and "democratically elected," does it?
61 B747-437B : No one ever claimed Saddam was an angel. I'd much rather see him gone than still there. But I can say the same thing about a whole bunch of non-democr
62 Apathoid : So, now we should go and oust Musharraf because you don't like him? Or how about we get the UN to pass a resolution saying the US has to oust him? See
63 B747-437B : No Apathoid, no one is asking the US to oust Musharraf. The Indians are more than willing to do it without US backing or support. However, should the
64 Petertenthije : The United States can and will act with or without the joke known as the U.N. There are two ways to approach the UN. The US and some other smaller cou
65 Post contains images ADG : Sounds like a leader to me, who will do what's in the best interest of his nation even if the whole world is against him. Yes, in 1939 his name was Ad
66 Sebolino : Very smart Alpha-1 wrote: "Tell me this: if the U.S. decides to go to war with Iraq without a UN resolution, who is going to stop it? The UN? How? Las
67 Alpha 1 : Sebolino, I turn 41 next Wednesday, son, so you can drop the "kid" stuff. If just makes you look vindictive. Left to your thinking, the US can go wher
68 ADG : Sebolino, I turn 41 next Wednesday, son, so you can drop the "kid" stuff. If just makes you look vindictive. Actually, I thought he was simply address
69 Post contains images Scorpio : Sebolino, I turn 41 next Wednesday, son, so you can drop the "kid" stuff. If just makes you look vindictive. I assume he was referring to your MENTAL
70 Post contains images Alpha 1 : I assume he was referring to your MENTAL age there, Alpha 1 Touche, Scorpio! Thanks for making me laugh. Lord knows the way I'm feeling right now, I n
71 ADG : Didn't you tell me that terrorists weren't interested in Oz because it isn't really important in the grand scheme of the world, ADG? Actually Alpha1,
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What If The USSR Still Existed? posted Sat Feb 25 2006 00:39:55 by DIJKKIJK
What If The Sun Went Out Tomorrow? posted Fri Nov 4 2005 04:51:19 by ArmitageShanks
What If The Queen Refused To Sign? posted Wed Feb 2 2005 09:30:58 by Duke
What If The U.S. Was Not A Superpower? posted Fri Oct 3 2003 09:32:54 by Cfalk
What If The US Became Separated posted Thu Sep 25 2003 21:49:43 by Gc
What If The South Had Won The Civil War? posted Fri Jan 10 2003 00:31:50 by MD-90
What If The Palestinians Bought Congress? posted Wed May 8 2002 03:39:52 by Bruno
What If George Bush Was A Black President? posted Fri Oct 6 2006 16:57:37 by VHVXB
What If My Child Was Homosexual? posted Fri Jul 14 2000 16:13:01 by Critter
What If There Were No Religions In The World posted Sat Sep 30 2006 08:58:22 by EK156