Syria Asks U.N. to Stop a U.S. Strike

Syria Asks U.N. to Stop a U.S. Strike

It looks like the U.S. is not just trying on the 'super villain' cape and boots these days, at least in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Though, I don't think that the U.N. would have the intestinal fortitude to actually do anything against the U.S., I think it will be interesting to see how or even if Ban-Ki Moon responds to this petition by the Syrian ambassador.

How messed up would it be if there were U.S. troops actively engaged in warfare against those of the U.N.?

I don't know, what do you guys think will happen?

Originally posted by ProfessorChaos
How messed up would it be if there were U.S. troops actively engaged in warfare against those of the U.N.??

The U.N. doesn't really have troops. And usually it's the USA who does the 'muscle' for the UN.
And the USA pays 1/4 of the UN bills. (unfortunately). So if the UN goes against the USA, then
they will have to figure out where the troops will come from to fight the USA ... and those troops
won't get paid by the U.N. because America will shut off the money flowing in (since we are the ones
who pay for most of it). ... and we'll kick them out of NYC to boot.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by ProfessorChaos
How messed up would it be if there were U.S. troops actively engaged in warfare against those of the U.N.??

The U.N. doesn't really have troops. And usually it's the USA who does the 'muscle' for the UN.
And the USA pays 1/4 of the UN bills. (unfortunately). So if the UN goes against the USA, then
they will have to figure out where the troops will come from to fight the USA ... and those troops
won't get paid by the U.N. because America will shut off the money flowing in (since we are the ones
who pay for most of it). ... and we'll kick them out of NYC to boot.

True, but that only means that the troops and cash would have to come from a truly multinational source (i.e. the other nations involved).

It's not completely inconceivable.

This should go here, the UN is saying F*** YOU Assad.

NATO’s secretary-general has stated that it is for “individual allies to decide how they will respond” to the Syrian crisis, adding he does not foresee the bloc’s further role except in deploying Patriot missiles to Turkey.

“I don't foresee any further NATO role,” Anders Fogh Rasmussen said at a press conference on Monday. However, he said the bloc still conducts “closed consultations between allies.”

Rasmussen added that he had seen concrete evidence that made him convinced “not only that a chemical attack had taken place, but… also convinced that the Syrian regime is responsible.”

rt.com...

Our system is crumbling right in front of our eyes. Even the UN has lost all its meaning.

IF USA get into a fight with whole Europe over this..
everybody will loose.. we will all be dead
Nukes will go flying everywhere

reply to post by FlyersFan

Actually the US owes 1/4 of all dues.

As of the end of November 2010, the United States owed $1.182 billion, accounting for just over a quarter of all the money due the world body.

Kind of like a dead beat dad, which I'm fine with. The UN was meant to be the precursor to a one world government.

So the US cant exert much financial pressure.

Regarding Syria, they should take it to the international community.

How long is the world going to allow the US to terrorize the world without any consequence.

Problem is, most of the world leaders are all scum.

Hardly matters anymore.

The US government has now turned its sights on the American people in the form of an attack on the Constitution and a militarized police state.

I guess its our turn.

Originally posted by Spacespider
IF USA get into a fight with whole Europe over this..
everybody will loose.. we will all be dead
Nukes will go flying everywhere

I highly doubt that will happen, but the idea of the U.S. standing off against Russian and Chinese troops wearing U.N. uniforms isn't impossible.

The other nations, for the most part are far too fragmented in their views at the moment to make a united stand.

In my opinion, the United Nations would collapse and generally fall apart in short order if the U.S. simply cut off all support, and I mean, across the board on all UN spending of all kinds. No other nation wants that corrupt body of nit picky nannies any more than the average American citizen wants them.

The US Government and a few others (who wouldn't love it enough to pick up the funding gap) have loved it for a tool to 'legally' get nasty things done since 1945. China and Russia have traditionally been the other side and love the UN for a way to throw wrenches in our gears without a war and via versa.

The U.S. has been the largest financial supporter of the U.N. since the organization’s founding in 1945. The U.S. is currently assessed 22 percent of the U.N. regular budget and more than 27 percent of the U.N. peacekeeping budget. In dollar terms, the Administration’s budget for FY 2011 requested $516.3 million for the U.N. regular budget and more than $2.182 billion for the peacekeeping budget.[2]

However, the U.S. also provides assessed financial contributions to other U.N. organizations and voluntary contributions to many more U.N. organizations. According to OMB, total U.S. contributions to the U.N. system were more than $6.347 billion in FY 2009.[3] This is more than $1 billion more than total contributions as compiled by OMB for FY 2005,[4] and it is indicative of the rising budgetary trends in the U.N. and the consequential demand on U.S. financial support.

Source

That was written in August of 2010. Recent enough to be representative, given that I've heard no screaming headlines about UN cuts ...and we'd all hear about it if it came.

For all the good it will do him? Assad could fall to his knees and beg for his life on the floor of the U.N. General Assembly. Obama would probably have him shot right there if he didn't submit to arrest. (Maybe he'd honor diplomatic status inside the building..but I wouldn't count on it, this close to the end of things).