U.S. deserted ruled (not a refugee) in Canada

[Azred]

Of course not. What I mean by that comment is that the UN can sanction a country for years to no avail becuase it cannot really enforce its own sanctions. I don't think anyone would want to see an international body really enforcing its edicts though, because for any given country it is only a matter of time before the UN sanctions it for one reason or another.
Needless to say it is a very complicated situation.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Azred: I don't think anyone would want to see an international body really enforcing its edicts though, because for any given country it is only a matter of time before the UN sanctions it for one reason or another.

So basically:

1) The UN is broken because it can't enforce its decisions
2) You don't want a UN that can enforce its decisions
ergo
3) The UN will always be broken...

It's not surprising that you want it abolished, when you set logically impossible conditions for its existence...

[ 03-26-2005, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Azred]

I'm just cruel that way. [img]graemlins/firedevil.gif[/img]

Seriously, though...the UN does need some serious restructuring that will allow them to recover from the recent scandals of Rwanda and Oil for Food. Also, I cannot speak for our administration, but I suspect that many Americans who currently dislike the UN (as I do) would have a better opinion of the UN if it were to become something than a forum through which to oppose the US. In theory, the UN is great...just not like it is now.

What was this thread about? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Aragorn1]

Back to UN bashing again then? The UN does not always block the US and has been used by the US for its own ends in the past before. Its just that with Iraq they didn't go along, unlike in Korea, where again justification was sought for soemthing that was going ahead regardless. Sorry, i like to see the faults in both the US and the UN, or at least try to. Objectivity is an unobtainable Nirvana.

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by Azred: Shamrock_uk, there is a place in the military for "conscientious objectors" (if they even still call them that these days). You can serve in the military without having to be in a combat role--intelligence, operations, maintenance, medical, etc. Never forget, though, that even though you may disagree with a conflict you must still honor your obligations--you choose to serve--and follow orders. It can be done without running away.

Things have changed. On the modern battlefield there are no longer battle lines, and support roles. Everybody is a combatant on the non-linear field of battle. A lot of the units in the news lately are/were support types, that engeged in direct battle. The old style Army is being replaced with a thing called UAs, (Unit of Action). Each Battalion sized UA is self suppotive, and fully fluid in a combative role.

There are no longer 'places' for "COs" a sailor in Cali is facing special coutsmarshal for his actions, or in-actions.

Once the dotted line is signed, your rights as a countryman have been vacated, first and foremost engrained in memory should be:
"I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD."

With that said, if one's heart is not in the fight, then the battle will be lost.