Question: If North Korea invade Iran, Would NATO/UN/US Intervene?
 

?? would they? or would they watch them kill eachother and then devide whats left when they are done nuking each other.

I know it wont happen, but just food for thoughts

would you just put some clogs on and shut the fuck up already? no one cares about your opinion.

who crapped in your cheerios this morning?

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

he just hates me because I wont agree with him on a drug related question (posted about a year or two ago). Metaman belives that drugs arent bad for you... that is all there is to it.

when has the UN ever stopped a conflict or war?

UN have brokered more cease-fire and stopped more conflicts than any other nation or organisation

How would North Korea invade Iran? Even if they could, I would imagine Russia and China would be involved quickly, aside from the UN saying "hey guys you should stop, lets all be friends and hug".

And why would NATO get involved? Do you know what NATO is?

True. They have also been hindered from stopping many more by the objections of certain countries who have solid track record of objections.

because a threat to security in the region is a threat to the nations NATO is made to protect. Same reason why NATO assisted in the African Union for Darfur

"brokering a cease fire agreement" is not the same as ending or preventing a conflict or war. cease fire agreements generally only happen AFTER both parties are finished fighting or have reached a stalemate or their objectives.

The UN was formed to stop and prevent wars as its purpose and in reality, it is nothing more than a platform for political agendas at the expense of innocent people being murdered.

what is the UN doing in Sudan right now? 3 years, 300K men, women and children slaughtered and rising. Rowanda? 2,000,000 butchered AND THE UN PULLED OUT to let it happen.

in fact, i saw a very touching video of Danish troups pulling out and evacuating a school where about 1000 people took refuge with rebels waiting in the woods all around the school... they drove away with people begging for their lives... 30 minutes later they were all dead. maybe you have seen that?

THAT IS THE UN.

wont ever happen... kim jong il and the leader of iran are both crazier than a ferris wheel operator at the county fair... they have that in common so i imagine they like each other....

So... you don't like the UN too much PP?? :winkwink:

Who is the UN?? You and all of us living in countries who elected to play a role in the UN. Killing off the messenger never won any war.

Never said they were saving the world, just that they have done more than most other have, as a reply to your question "when has the UN ever stopped a conflict or war?"

No doubts of that ebus_dk. If it was not for the existance of the UN there sure as hell would be more bullying/conflict than has been seen already.

Please remember its a "food for thoughts" question. Just to see what will happend if two nations that many would like to see wiped from the earth, start a war on each other

The United Nations does SOME worthwhile things. Awareness on important issues, etc. But overall, what power do they really have? None. Sanctions do nothing. "Peace keeping" missions hardly keep any peace, couple that with the typical deployment time of weeks if not months and not much peace is really being kept.

How long has the Israeli-Hezbollah cease-fire been in place now, 2-3 weeks? There is a whopping total of 200 extra French peace keepers. Whoopty-do. That is exactly the reason neither Israel or Hezbollah wanted to stop fighting. The world called for a cease-fire with promises of helping out... where are they?

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

UN is a fucking joke

i dont like that its an organization formed with the idea of preventing and stopping war and seeing it being nothing more than a humanitarian organization exploited for political agendas. for the purposes of which it was formed, its 100% useless.

just being an occasional mediator where two sides in a conflict agreed to mediation is not proof of its effectiveness... or proof that its effective at all.

its effective as an aid organization, nothing more. they don't prevent conflict or end conflicts.

:2 cents:

Secretly I think the leaders of North Korea and Iran are sitting in a brothel sipping herbal tea and smoking hooka while snickering over the fact that they're driving everybody nuts right now, haha.

Peace keeping missions? like abandoning Rowanda to have 2,000,000 killed? like Bosnia and declaring Srebrenica a "UN Safe Zone" and then promptly pulling out at the slightest threat which resulted in the slaughter and wholesale execution of 8,000 residents? Peace keeping like Sudan where people are being butchered everyday?

they have a horrible track record with "peace keeping missions". they have a great track record of humanitarian aid AFTER the fact.

Actually right now I'm wondering because I don't know for sure, what mediating does the UN actually do? Kofi Annon standing behind his podium shouting "something must be done!" doesn't count. The major mediations I can think of typically involve foreign ministers from various countries. Germany, France, England, the United States...

I am in agreement with you. The peace keeping missions are a joke. There was a peace keeping mission between Israel and Lebanon. What happened there?

You just hit on two things there Sly - both valid.

The Israeli-Hezbollah would have come to a ceasefire resolution quicker had it not been for the objections of the US and Israel - in particular by Bolton at the UN.

Every country who choses to play a role in the UN has an obligation to assist where needed. This has been a failing for decades. Talk is cheap - getting international support is harder in practical terms and this is not the problem of any one country - many have failed.

Rwanda was a classic case where the UN was screaming for practical support from it's members and they sat back and watched. This situation is still no different today with regions of Africa as well as the Middle East.

The UN is also bound by the resolutions of it's members. Unless they grant specific powers under a resolution, - these powers will not be used.

It is also far harder to create a peace deal than cause conflict/war. The UN, with the pathetic support they sometimes get, have done well.

I disagree about the cease-fire happening sooner, but thats another topic altogether.

The other day I was reading an article about the UN Peace Keeping forces. They do not have a regular force. Most countries have a military that within days they can deploy to wherever they need to be deployed. This military is trained and prepared to do what they need to do. Each and every time the UN needs Peace Keepers they have to wait for Member States to offer up troops, then send them wherever they need to go. And thats the problem we're seeing right now not to mention the many other instances in the past that have already been mentioned in this thread.

The way I see it, one of two things needs to happen in order for the UN forces to gain any real power: 1) the development of a structured military type body that can be used and deployed quickly when needed, 2) demanding member states must actually contribute troops quickly instead of grandstanding and "looking good" for their personal political gains.

I was floored when I first saw that France put up 200 troops. As vocal as they were throughout the whole thing, 200. LOL.

Apparently the Lebanon-Israeli issue now has about 7000 troops pledged - and some forms of other support.

France - leadership and 2,000 troops
Italy - 2,000 - 3,000 troops
Bangladesh - two battalions (up to 2,000 troops)
Malaysia - one battalion
Spain - one mechanised battalion
Indonesia - one battalion, an engineering company
Nepal - one battalion
Denmark - at least two ships
Poland - 500 troops
Finland - 250 troops
Belgium - 302 troops, later rising to 392
Germany - maritime and border patrols but no combat troops
Norway - 100 soldiers

Apart from the slowness in stepping forward, there are other problems with objections from Israel where there is a reluctance to accept troops from countries which do not have diplomatic relations with Israel blah (Duh?).

There are also some "issues" with some countries over their precise role and seeing a clear objective and an exit strategy. Even getting this shit together is a massive task in a kids playground :)

Sure... what you suggested may be a solution and think this has been on the table at various times, but again - there was no or little support for it among UN member states, so what chance?

If the UN wants to perform a stronger and more meaningful role in it's various areas of operation (and sure, the elected UN officers want to implement their role - it's what they are paid for), - they need far more support than has ever been given. It's up to the member states to address this.

You are so informed .... Good thing you are here to educate the ignorants ....

Ouppsssss ... I think you are one of them:

BTW, how many are the US supplying ... ????

After all, their cluster bombs are littering Lebanon for kids to blow up.:321GFY

They originally pledged 200. Just the other day they promised the rest.

From the very beginning the United States never promised any and said we probably would not, other countries pledged from the beginning. Even Webby knew exactly what I was saying and we don't agree on just about everything. Now go work on your English comprehension skills, they lack once again.

ha
Heeey buddy, come on; i don't thing they all stupid motherfuckers as much as US hapend :)

for instens: they will never crate fake 9/11s, ladens & alqaidas themselvs :)

sorry :) did i say something correct & annoying for Bush supporters?

i have to admire you. you are not only ignorant, but you seem to strive to be the most ignorant person you can be. you work hard at it, you have clearly set some goals and from reading your posts, you are achieving them and then some.

i admire your passion for stupidity.

they are saying all this as if the world and particularly the Arab world would accept US peace keepers in Lebanon as appropriate.

if people are going to go that far in thier idiocy to make an "argument" why not just argue that Israel should be supplying the peace keepers?
:1orglaugh

Sure.. there is good solid reason why the US is not a "country of preference" in providing troops - stemming from support of Israel. There are vested interests involved and little track record of troops playing the role of peacemakers. This is prob one of the major problems in Iraq at this time.

The fact that this is this case, is kinda sad.

What a retarded thread...

And some people on this board have apparently never seen a map.

I admire your link ...

Sly posted false or outdated information .. I coorect him, backed up with a link ...

Ignorant and clogged up yourself ...

The " other day " was yesterday or the day before ... So why do you post outdated information as truth and then critizise ... because it fits your agenda ...

Then, if time has no relevancy, I can say that SAddam IS USA's best buddy .... :2 cents:

Great link again ... stupid:

Has nothing to do with arab-us thing ...

Before your post your garbage, if you don't know, check ... research .... you will be less dumb the next day :2 cents:

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I wonder if crazy loons really like each other? They seem to bond when you see them hanging out on the streets.

This post shows that the range of stupidity here is endless.