United Nations and the New World Order

[Paddyboy1]

A few dozen dead is a major international crisis in the west bank or in Tel Aviv. But what about this once democratic, shining example of potential prosperity in west africa, La Cote d'Ivoire? It is thought that soldiers from neighboring Angola and Burkina Faso have agressed against a sovereign signer of the UN charter. 270 dead are the totals now but we need look no further than Angola to remember what a foreign nation (US) sending guns and mercenaries to do their bidding can result in. Do we have to wait for our TVs and president to tell us what we think in this case or should we demand that the security council take action to keep the peace now?

[Amateur Linguist]

It is thought that soldiers from neighboring Angola and Burkina Faso

Angola is more than 1,000 miles from Cote d'Ivoire. I suspect some other country is actually involved.

(I admit this is a mere nitpick and not a substantive response. Forgive me; I sometimes succumb to temptation.)

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Originally Posted by Paddyboy1

Do we have to wait for our TVs and president to tell us what we think in this case or should we demand that the security council take action to keep the peace now?

Why would they start now? Do you know of other "committee" arrangements that are known for effective action? Do you know of other weak executive arrangements (e.g. the Secretary General) that produce strong action? You seem to expect a lot from the UN, perhaps you can explain why.

[fallout]

The security council should take action. Maybe they can say "pretty please stop the killing".

That and of course the obligatory, blame the US for hunger, pollution and religious unrest in those countries that is leading up to the violence.

"we need look no further than Angola to remember what a foreign nation (US) sending guns and mercenaries to do their bidding can result in. "

So the US told the people of these countries to have a dispute? Or did the US give/sell guns to the side of the dispute they felt was just?

[Paddyboy1]

1. You don't care about Angola. What possible response could I give that you would agree was inappropriate. Of course if we are funding a war, we'd have to choose a side, we'd have to have others on our side there, wouldn't we? Did Osama invade the US or did he just choose between two sides having a conflict, the 19 hijackers and the citizenry of the US? For the other people who might be paying attention you should know that actually the Angolan incident that started the decades-long civil war was an invasion from the neighboring Congo coordinated with a South African drive on the seat of marxist power in Angola. So no, we weren't actually choosing a side. We brought our side in from Congo and had our South African friends (also on the US military dole) attack simultaneously. I guess you could say when an organized rebel movement arose from the fighting in Angola that *then* we chose sides, with UNITA and 15 years and one holocaust later they found domestic peace a few weeks ago.

2. At the time, of course there was no UN debate over how to remove the Marxists from Angola. The US people, if they were paying attention, might have asked why would we plan and fund an invasion of this country. But dont' worry, their TV took care of it for them. In between the Jetsons and the Brady Bunch, they told us that there was a huge escalation of Cuban troops occupying Angola. A few months ago it finally came out that this was all for our own protection. National security would be threateened I'm sure, if people were allowed to know that this was a ruse intended to steal power from and for the people and hand it to the shadow government that you shill for. In fact there was a Cuban escalation of troops in Angola, some 50,000 strong, but this only occurred after the CIA and South Africa enacted their plans.

3. You're right about Angola's remoteness. I'm not good at geography and the sum total of my knowledge of the Ivory Coast situation is found at this link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2273859.stm . It doesn't mention Angola so I don't know why I said it.

[fallout]

Wow Paddy = someone people listen to?

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/africa...ast/index.html


BOUAKE, Ivory Coast (CNN) -- About 200 U.S. Special Forces troops are expected to be deployed Tuesday to the Ivory Coast and await possible orders to protect Americans during a rebel insurgency in the West African nation.

[fallout]

Originally Posted by Paddyboy1

A few dozen dead is a major international crisis in the west bank or in Tel Aviv. But what about this once democratic, shining example of potential prosperity in west africa, La Cote d'Ivoire? It is thought that soldiers from neighboring Angola and Burkina Faso have agressed against a sovereign signer of the UN charter. 270 dead are the totals now but we need look no further than Angola to remember what a foreign nation (US) sending guns and mercenaries to do their bidding can result in. Do we have to wait for our TVs and president to tell us what we think in this case or should we demand that the security council take action to keep the peace now?

Hmmm. Come to think of it, If paddy's scenario was correct, we are now sending in US troops, to protect Americans against the rebels that we gave guns to?

Or is it possible that we never did give the guns?

Obviously giving guns to people that you will eventually have to defend against is something that is important to the Hegemony.

[Pseudolus]

The United Nations, the New World Order, and... Buffy the Vampire Slayer

See, there was this episode of "Buffy" that illuminates the current conflict between America and the United Nations. Seriously.

[fallout]

Originally Posted by Pseudolus

The United Nations, the New World Order, and... Buffy the Vampire Slayer

This is not a fair comparison. Buffy can make men do what she wants. The UN has no such power.

[Pseudolus]

No no no. We are Buffy. I have been working out a little recently...