Old news article, printed March 2003, but I had no idea our own people would stupe so low:

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31535

Could U.N. use military force on U.S.?
Americans urge invoking obscure convention to halt 'aggression'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 15, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Art Moore
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Could the U.N. use military force to prevent the United States and Britain from waging war on Iraq without a Security Council mandate?


United Nations headquarters in New York

Some anti-war groups are urging the world body to invoke a little-known convention that allows the General Assembly to step in when the Security Council is at an impasse in the face of a "threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression."

The willingness by the U.S. and Britain to go to war with Iraq without Security Council authorization is the kind of threat the U.N. had in mind when it passed Resolution 377 in 1950, said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a human-rights group in New York City.

In a position paper, Ratner wrote that by invoking the resolution, called "Uniting for Peace," the "General Assembly can meet within 24 hours to consider such a matter, and can recommend collective measures to U.N. members including the use of armed forces to 'maintain or restore international peace and security.'" Kind of a oxymoron, "united for peace", while wanting UN forces to attack us.

The U.N. taking military action against the U.S.?

"It would be very difficult to say what that means," said Ratner in an interview with WorldNetDaily, emphasizing that he did not believe the situation would evolve to that "extreme."

"I don't consider that within the framework I'm talking about," he said.

Steve Sawyer, spokesman for Greenpeace in New Zealand – which has joined Ratner's group in the campaign – told WND he was not aware of the U.N. being able to use force under any circumstances.

Ratner explained that Resolution 377 would enable the General Assembly to declare that the U.S. cannot take military action against Iraq without the explicit authority of the Security Council. The assembly also could mandate that the inspection regime be allowed to "complete its work."

"It seems unlikely that the United States and Britain would ignore such a measure," Ratner said in his paper. "A vote by the majority of countries in the world, particularly if it were almost unanimous, would make the unilateral rush to war more difficult."

Uniting for Peace can be invoked either by seven members of the Security Council or by a majority of the members of the General Assembly, he said.

'Ways to make U.N. more important' Boy that's a good idea!

Ratner, who also teaches at the Columbia University Law School, told WND that the idea of invoking the resolution "came up when I started thinking about the fact that we could get into a situation where the U.S. may go to war without a Security Council resolution or with a veto."

He had two of his students at the law school research the resolution and now has sent out the word to every U.N. mission in New York.  

In addition, about 12 missions a day are being visited by campaigners, he said, and the response has been generally very positive.

He expects there to be support from the 116 countries in the non-aligned movement, who are "already saying inspectors should be given more time."

Greenpeace's involvement has greatly expanded the campaign's reach, he said, since "we're just a small human-rights litigation organization."

"I've done a lot of work with international law and with the U.N.," he said, "and we're always interested in figuring out ways to make the U.N. more important."

Sedition?

A circular e-mail letter promoting the campaign said in the first paragraph that "if Iraq is invaded, it would empower the General Assembly to restore peace, including an authorization to use military action to accomplish this, if necessary." [Treason?]

The letter includes Ratner's name and e-mail address as a contact, but he says he did not send out that particular version, which included the line about the U.N. using military action.

A political science professor at the University of Michigan who forwarded the letter to colleagues, added a note above the text, obtained by WND, that said: "Below you will find an excellent and urgently needed proposal for stopping the war before it starts from the Center for Constitutional Rights. …"

"Please make this major peace action a high priority and forward this message to others," said Susan Wright, who indicated she is with the university's Institute for Research on Women and Gender.

Is Wright essentially urging foreign countries to be willing to take military action against her own country?

"I wouldn't say it's necessarily sedition," said Ratner. "Advocacy is one thing, having the means to carry it out is another. It's not something I would ever recommend."

I would love for the UN to try and wage war on us.

Hell, I posted this possibility 2 years ago and everyone here called me a

Don't get me wrong, I still think it could happen if the popular vote over rides the electoral college again.

And who, exactly, would the UN have used to provide this force?  Germany?  France?  Senegal?  Give me a fucking break.  We have to evict those sorry fuckers from our land.  If they hate us so much let them go set up shop in some low-rent African nation.

Except they won't.  They can't.  They're impotent.

Blue helmets make nifty targets

Quoted: And who, exactly, would the UN have used to provide this force?  Germany?  France?  Senegal?  Give me a fucking break.  We have to evict those sorry fuckers from our land.  If they hate us so much let them go set up shop in some low-rent African nation. Except they won't.  They can't.  They're impotent.

I wouldn't exactly count them out. What about the Chinese? They'll be the next superpower and put us in our place some day. They have our money, Clinton and the democrats give them our military technology, they have way more manpower than us, and soon more manufacturing capability for war weaponary than us, and the last two things are what win wars.

Quoted: Blue helmets make nifty targets

+1

Quoted: Quoted: And who, exactly, would the UN have used to provide this force?  Germany?  France?  Senegal?  Give me a fucking break.  We have to evict those sorry fuckers from our land.  If they hate us so much let them go set up shop in some low-rent African nation. Except they won't.  They can't.  They're impotent. I wouldn't exactly count them out. What about the Chinese? They'll be the next superpower and put us in our place some day. They have our money, Clinton and the democrats give them our military technology, they have way more manpower than us, and soon more manufacturing capability for war weaponary than us, and the last two things are what win wars.

We could wax China's ass.  Lot's of people over there, no way for them to move them over here.

Quoted: Quoted: And who, exactly, would the UN have used to provide this force?  Germany?  France?  Senegal?  Give me a fucking break.  We have to evict those sorry fuckers from our land.  If they hate us so much let them go set up shop in some low-rent African nation. Except they won't.  They can't.  They're impotent. I wouldn't exactly count them out. What about the Chinese? They'll be the next superpower and put us in our place some day. They have our money, Clinton and the democrats give them our military technology, they have way more manpower than us, and soon more manufacturing capability for war weaponary than us, and the last two things are what win wars.

Which is why we MUST devote more resources to stopping them in the mid-Pacific.  That is their weakness, no matter what they have to move those boots from their side to our side.  We have to make sure the sharks and fishies in the Pacific are super fat on Chinese meat.

Sure...right...

Bring is on Euroweenies!

We ARE the UN....

This doesn't make sense.  Kofi Co. couldn't organize a picnic.  Besides, everyone has 80's vintage Soviet equipment...which is currently tied up in a variety of hot spots throughout Europe.

The UN would have to ask the United States to attack ourselves....being that America represents 90% of the UN's military strength. (I pulled the 90% out of my ass, not sure exactly what we are)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And who, exactly, would the UN have used to provide this force?  Germany?  France?  Senegal?  Give me a fucking break.  We have to evict those sorry fuckers from our land.  If they hate us so much let them go set up shop in some low-rent African nation. Except they won't.  They can't.  They're impotent. I wouldn't exactly count them out. What about the Chinese? They'll be the next superpower and put us in our place some day. They have our money, Clinton and the democrats give them our military technology, they have way more manpower than us, and soon more manufacturing capability for war weaponary than us, and the last two things are what win wars. We could wax China's ass.  Lot's of people over there, no way for them to move them over here.

Why do you think they want to have personnel based in Cuba? I would also bet, that if they had a friend in Mexico, they could move a ton of soldiers there before we could do anything about it. And lets not forget how unprepared our military is here at home. If they invaded using a division of airborne troops, they could do a lot of damage before we'd put up a real fight. Red Dawn senario, but they could put us down to a point where we weren't a world player and had to focus on fighting them here at home. Look what 19 highjackers did to us, just imagine what 50,000 airborne troops would do.

Quoted: We ARE the UN.... This doesn't make sense.  Kofi Co. couldn't organize a picnic.  Besides, everyone has 80's vintage Soviet equipment...which is currently tied up in a variety of hot spots throughout Europe. The UN would have to ask the United States to attack ourselves....being that America represents 90% of the UN's military strength. (I pulled the 90% out of my ass, not sure exactly what we are)

You had 90% of the UN's military strenght in your ass?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And who, exactly, would the UN have used to provide this force?  Germany?  France?  Senegal?  Give me a fucking break.  We have to evict those sorry fuckers from our land.  If they hate us so much let them go set up shop in some low-rent African nation. Except they won't.  They can't.  They're impotent. I wouldn't exactly count them out. What about the Chinese? They'll be the next superpower and put us in our place some day. They have our money, Clinton and the democrats give them our military technology, they have way more manpower than us, and soon more manufacturing capability for war weaponary than us, and the last two things are what win wars. We could wax China's ass.  Lot's of people over there, no way for them to move them over here. Why do you think they want to have personnel based in Cuba? I would also bet, that if they had a friend in Mexico, they could move a ton of soldiers there before we could do anything about it. And lets not forget how unprepared our military is here at home. If they invaded using a division of airborne troops, they could do a lot of damage before we'd put up a real fight. Red Dawn senario, but they could put us down to a point where we weren't a world player and had to focus on fighting them here at home. Look what 19 highjackers did to us, just imagine what 50,000 airborne troops would do.

Enemy planes flying into our air space would not remain flying for very long.

eta - Our air power is far superior to anything that any country has.

The U.N. wouldn't have a chance. Not only would they be fighting ( can the U.N. even do that ?) the BEST military in the WORLD, they would be fighting all former military and everybody that has a set of nuts . Come to think of it , that would be one way of getting rid of the U.N. OK, Lets ROLL !!!

Quoted: Quoted: We ARE the UN.... This doesn't make sense.  Kofi Co. couldn't organize a picnic.  Besides, everyone has 80's vintage Soviet equipment...which is currently tied up in a variety of hot spots throughout Europe. The UN would have to ask the United States to attack ourselves....being that America represents 90% of the UN's military strength. (I pulled the 90% out of my ass, not sure exactly what we are) You had 90% of the UN's military strenght in your ass?

I ate mexican food last night.....yes I certainly do!

Quoted: We ARE the UN.... This doesn't make sense.  Kofi Co. couldn't organize a picnic.  Besides, everyone has 80's vintage Soviet equipment...which is currently tied up in a variety of hot spots throughout Europe. The UN would have to ask the United States to attack ourselves....being that America represents 90% of the UN's military strength. (I pulled the 90% out of my ass, not sure exactly what we are)

+1.  The UN is a joke militarily.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And who, exactly, would the UN have used to provide this force?  Germany?  France?  Senegal?  Give me a fucking break.  We have to evict those sorry fuckers from our land.  If they hate us so much let them go set up shop in some low-rent African nation. Except they won't.  They can't.  They're impotent. I wouldn't exactly count them out. What about the Chinese? They'll be the next superpower and put us in our place some day. They have our money, Clinton and the democrats give them our military technology, they have way more manpower than us, and soon more manufacturing capability for war weaponary than us, and the last two things are what win wars. Which is why we MUST devote more resources to stopping them in the mid-Pacific.  That is their weakness, no matter what they have to move those boots from their side to our side.  We have to make sure the sharks and fishies in the Pacific are super fat on Chinese meat.

Yep we need more attack subs and some long range anti-ship missiles

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And who, exactly, would the UN have used to provide this force?  Germany?  France?  Senegal?  Give me a fucking break.  We have to evict those sorry fuckers from our land.  If they hate us so much let them go set up shop in some low-rent African nation. Except they won't.  They can't.  They're impotent. I wouldn't exactly count them out. What about the Chinese? They'll be the next superpower and put us in our place some day. They have our money, Clinton and the democrats give them our military technology, they have way more manpower than us, and soon more manufacturing capability for war weaponary than us, and the last two things are what win wars. We could wax China's ass.  Lot's of people over there, no way for them to move them over here. Why do you think they want to have personnel based in Cuba? I would also bet, that if they had a friend in Mexico, they could move a ton of soldiers there before we could do anything about it. And lets not forget how unprepared our military is here at home. If they invaded using a division of airborne troops, they could do a lot of damage before we'd put up a real fight. Red Dawn senario, but they could put us down to a point where we weren't a world player and had to focus on fighting them here at home. Look what 19 highjackers did to us, just imagine what 50,000 airborne troops would do.

50,000 airborne troops with no resupply or air support wouldn't last very long.

The UN troops attacking the US,   .

Is the word "attack" in the UN vocabulary, attack usually means springing the French Flag, a white sheet.

Quoted: 50,000 airborne troops with no resupply or air support wouldn't last very long.

I would bet most of them would be shot down while still in their planes.

I want the UN to attack the US.
I couldn't think of any better course of action, or outcome.

Steve Sawyer, spokesman for Greenpeace in New Zealand – which has joined Ratner's group in the campaign – told WND he was not aware of the U.N. being able to use force under any circumstances.

WTF?


Korea, Belgian Congo, Yugoslavia, shall I go on?
What a tard.


Anyway, on the general thread of the article, those blue helmets make nice targets.

Quoted: Quoted: 50,000 airborne troops with no resupply or air support wouldn't last very long. I would bet most of them would be shot down while still in their planes.

Ok guys, how many armed fighters do you think are ready to strike at any given time. If these flights were disguised as commercial cargo planes, they'd get in.

As for resupply, during the Cuban revolution, 90 percent of Castro's forces ammo and weapons came from Batista's military. They used captured weaponry and ammo.

And who says they couldn't be resupplied through the Mexican border?

There biggest obsticle would be the armed citizen. And the UN is trying to make that a non-issue. With asses like Kerry and the Democrats, they would play right into the hands of the UN.

The UN needs to be kicked out of our country and abolished. Black and white. They are no good and will be one of the downfalls of our nation.

I think the key to a successful strategy when attacking someone is not to have your headquarters in their country.  

It just seems to me it leaves you vulnerable somehow...

That would be Christmas come early if they did decide to try and attack us.  We could surround the building and have a big tail gate party / seige. We could set up loud speakers and play Conway Twitty, Spike Jones and Barry Manilow 24 hours a day, shut off the water, phone and lights.   We could lob an occasional mortar round into the building to harass the occupants.

Then when they came out with their hands in the air, we could shoot them down like dogs.

This gets better the more I think about it.

Yeah, I would like to see the UN attack us. Let the blue helmets roll, motherfuckers.

50,000 airborne troops?

There are probably 150,000 gun owners just here in Tucson.

Quoted: We ARE the UN.... This doesn't make sense.  Kofi Co. couldn't organize a picnic.  Besides, everyone has 80's vintage Soviet equipment...which is currently tied up in a variety of hot spots throughout Europe. The UN would have to ask the United States to attack ourselves....being that America represents 90% of the UN's military strength. (I pulled the 90% out of my ass, not sure exactly what we are)

In all actuality you probably aren't far off if we are talking offensive strength. I really can't remember where I read it, but without the US there are basically only 2 countries inside the UN that have a notable size of offensive power. Russia and Great Britain. (3 if you count China) I believe they also listed France, but I just can't pisture France doing ANYTHING offensive. Everyone else is basically a defensive pawn used by the rest of us to slow the advance of potential enemies long enough for us to project that offensive power.

Inside NATO for example the US does hold 80-90% of the offensive strength for the entire alliance. The rest of the countries combined account for less than 10% of our stength. (This included Britain and France) Note however that this comparison was total force dedicated to NATO not offensive strength.

Good example is Iraq. We have deployed 140,000 troops (if memory serves correctly) which accounts for less than 10% of our total force. While in comparrison all the other countries combined have added somewhere around 40-50,000. More than half of which is Great Britain. They can not send more because they don't have more. The rest of their total force is purely defensive.

if united nations forces went into action here on american soil, if they were to initially gain the upper hand, they wouldnt have it for long once people discovered what was going on, even if a large portion of our military backed them...

my totally amateur, quick and dirty analysis, according to us census and military figures from 2003:

total us troop strength: 1,434,377
percent of us troops abroad: 17.6%
total us troop strength at home:  1,181,925

lets be conservative and say the in the event that us troops were ordered to take action on united states citizens, 25% would desert...

that leaves us with 886,443 troops...

add to that united nations and enemy combatant troop strength here at home... lets say its half the final us troop strength, or 443,221...

this puts total number of enemy combatants (remember, if united states troops are obeying illegal orders of foreign commanders to attack united states civilians, that makes them our enemy) at 1,329,664...

now consider this:

total number of united states citizens aged 15 to 54: 160,841,960
percentage of them that are male: 48%
total number of united states citizens, male, aged 15 to 54: 77,204,140
lets say only 1/10 of them are willing or capable of fighting, that gives us 7,720,414...

number of legal firearm owners in the united states: 60,000,000
percentage of us population that owns firearms: 21%

percentage of gun owners in the 1/10 of the male population that are willing or capable of fighting: 1,637,358

so heres what we end up with:
1,329,664 domestic and foreign enemy combatants of both genders but primarily male...

vs

1,637,358 male, aged 15-54, gun owning patriots

that doesnt even count oldsters and females (oldsters have wisdom and experience, and females, well just look at nature... theyre just as dangerous, if not more so, as males!)...

keep in mind once again that these figures are extrapolations based upon the best numbers i could quickly find from 2003...

still, if i were betting money, it wouldnt be on the united nations!

think "a rifle behind every blade of grass"...

number of legal firearm owners in the united states: 60,000,000 percentage of us population that owns firearms: 21%

I seriously think that statistic alone gives the US greater security.
I mean what country in their right mind would think of attacking the US military, much less when it's backed by 21% of the poulation that owns guns as well?! That's a HUGE number of defenders.

Though this is a pointless academic exercise, it is momentarily entertaining to imagine the UN attempting to use force against its most powerful member.

 And who would pay for this UN led attack?  Most of their operating money comes from us.

The Japanese considered invading CONUS during WWII.  Yamamoto, who had studied in the US before the war, talked the High Command out if it . . . he said "You cannot invade America. There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Gotta love the 2nd Amendment . . . .

_Disconnector_

People have their tinfoil screwed on a LITTLE too tight.

A few points of clarificaiton for those who don't understand how the world works.

1) The general assembly is a big circle-jerk designed to make insignificant countries feel like they have a say, but with no power to DO anything.  The general assembly can "recommend" things all day long, but it has no mandate or power to actually do anything.  Nobody cares.

2) Generally speaking, for the U.N. to actually DO something, decisions have to be made in the Security Council (where the power in the UN rests), and the U.S. has the power to veto any decision in the Sec. Council it doesn't like.  Therefore, the UN cannot act to do anything that the U.S. doesn't approve of.

3) There is NO U.N. "army" - when the U.N. performs peacekeeping duties, it asks for forces from member nations to voluntarily donate forces.  There is no secret UN army somewhere, waiting to spring into action - it is always made up of contingents of troops from various countries around the world.  EVEN if the General assembly has the power to do so (which it doesn't) and EVEN if somehow a resolution could be passed calling for force being used against a member nation like the U.S. (which would never actually happen), the U.N. would still need countries to VOLUNTEER troops to attack the U.S. - th emost powerful military in the world.  Nobody woudl be interested in doing so - since they would a) be immediately defeated, and b) earn the perpetual emnity of the U.S.



As SHTF scenarios, this one is less likely that alien invasions from Mars.

Quoted: if united nations forces went into action here on american soil, if they were to initially gain the upper hand, they wouldnt have it for long once people discovered what was going on, even if a large portion of our military backed them... my totally amateur, quick and dirty analysis, according to us census and military figures from 2003: total us troop strength: 1,434,377 percent of us troops abroad: 17.6% total us troop strength at home:  1,181,925 lets be conservative and say the in the event that us troops were ordered to take action on united states citizens, 25% would desert... that leaves us with 886,443 troops... add to that united nations and enemy combatant troop strength here at home... lets say its half the final us troop strength, or 443,221... this puts total number of enemy combatants (remember, if united states troops are obeying illegal orders of foreign commanders to attack united states civilians, that makes them our enemy) at 1,329,664... now consider this: total number of united states citizens aged 15 to 54: 160,841,960 percentage of them that are male: 48% total number of united states citizens, male, aged 15 to 54: 77,204,140 lets say only 1/10 of them are willing or capable of fighting, that gives us 7,720,414... number of legal firearm owners in the united states: 60,000,000 percentage of us population that owns firearms: 21% percentage of gun owners in the 1/10 of the male population that are willing or capable of fighting: 1,637,358 so heres what we end up with: 1,329,664 domestic and foreign enemy combatants of both genders but primarily male... vs 1,637,358 male, aged 15-54, gun owning patriots that doesnt even count oldsters and females (oldsters have wisdom and experience, and females, well just look at nature... theyre just as dangerous, if not more so, as males!)... keep in mind once again that these figures are extrapolations based upon the best numbers i could quickly find from 2003... still, if i were betting money, it wouldnt be on the united nations! think "a rifle behind every blade of grass"...

daaaaang, what's up spock!?

nice work

Quoted: People have their tinfoil screwed on a LITTLE too tight. A few points of clarificaiton for those who don't understand how the world works. 1) The general assembly is a big circle-jerk designed to make insignificant countries feel like they have a say, but with no power to DO anything.  The general assembly can "recommend" things all day long, but it has no mandate or power to actually do anything.  Nobody cares. 2) Generally speaking, for the U.N. to actually DO something, decisions have to be made in the Security Council (where the power in the UN rests), and the U.S. has the power to veto any decision in the Sec. Council it doesn't like.  Therefore, the UN cannot act to do anything that the U.S. doesn't approve of. 3) There is NO U.N. "army" - when the U.N. performs peacekeeping duties, it asks for forces from member nations to voluntarily donate forces.  There is no secret UN army somewhere, waiting to spring into action - it is always made up of contingents of troops from various countries around the world.  EVEN if the General assembly has the power to do so (which it doesn't) and EVEN if somehow a resolution could be passed calling for force being used against a member nation like the U.S. (which would never actually happen), the U.N. would still need countries to VOLUNTEER troops to attack the U.S. - th emost powerful military in the world.  Nobody woudl be interested in doing so - since they would a) be immediately defeated, and b) earn the perpetual emnity of the U.S. As SHTF scenarios, this one is less likely that alien invasions from Mars.

Well stated, and worth repeating

Quoted: Quoted: People have their tinfoil screwed on a LITTLE too tight. A few points of clarificaiton for those who don't understand how the world works. 1) The general assembly is a big circle-jerk designed to make insignificant countries feel like they have a say, but with no power to DO anything.  The general assembly can "recommend" things all day long, but it has no mandate or power to actually do anything.  Nobody cares. 2) Generally speaking, for the U.N. to actually DO something, decisions have to be made in the Security Council (where the power in the UN rests), and the U.S. has the power to veto any decision in the Sec. Council it doesn't like.  Therefore, the UN cannot act to do anything that the U.S. doesn't approve of. 3) There is NO U.N. "army" - when the U.N. performs peacekeeping duties, it asks for forces from member nations to voluntarily donate forces.  There is no secret UN army somewhere, waiting to spring into action - it is always made up of contingents of troops from various countries around the world.  EVEN if the General assembly has the power to do so (which it doesn't) and EVEN if somehow a resolution could be passed calling for force being used against a member nation like the U.S. (which would never actually happen), the U.N. would still need countries to VOLUNTEER troops to attack the U.S. - th emost powerful military in the world.  Nobody woudl be interested in doing so - since they would a) be immediately defeated, and b) earn the perpetual emnity of the U.S. As SHTF scenarios, this one is less likely that alien invasions from Mars. Well stated, and worth repeating

Totally agreed. BUT... hey c'mon guys... why rain on our parade. I admit to salivating over the idea of the UN being stupid enough to actually do this. Yeah, I admit to dreaming of winning the lottery too...

lol....okay okay.....I know how dull things can get in Montana!

I don't believe though that the UN could even afford to storm our beaches, I think they spent their entire budget last year on five cases of sky blue paint.

I could just imagine that scene-Chechens and other 'rabs sneaking into Iraq to fight the US....Americans sneaking into Iraq to fight the UN......LOL

I'd love to see the UN put troops on the streets in the US-it'd be open season on them.

Hell, let 'em come.
I've got my evil new 30 round mag, flash hider, collapsible stock and bayonet lug now.

aww i see everyone here fears the power of the un *L*

Quoted: aww i see everyone here fears the power of the un *L* www.porta-tools.com/ks/pissonun2.gif

I wish the Terrorist Bitches had crashed an 777 into the Fucking UN headquarters, It might give those punks the wake up they need. They cant even stop the shit in the Sudan and africa regions, how are they going to prevent any kind of worldwide Terrorism.

Quoted: The U.N. wouldn't have a chance. Not only would they be fighting ( can the U.N. even do that ?) the BEST military in the WORLD, they would be fighting all former military and everybody that has a set of nuts . Come to think of it , that would be one way of getting rid of the U.N. OK, Lets ROLL !!!

I agree 100%.  Also illustrates one of the real and legitimate reasons for the 2nd Amendment.  

My wife and I are considering a move to AZ (Tucson area).  So that adds 2 AR-10's and 6 .45's to the citizens already there.  As far as former military is concerned, it was a while ago, but if someone has a spare F4C around .....  I can add flags, vehicles and buildings to blue helmets as nifty targets.

Meanwhile… a combined British Royal Marine and US 82nd Airborne Paratrooper Patrol deploys to head off the Mighty UN Forces…

And this five man patrol would be enough to run the UN out of town…

ANdy

Supposing the U.N. Could even come with enough troops to challenge us(which they can't since most of their tyroops and money come from US!) Would anyone be up for a trip to New York say the area around 42nd street?

A U.N army has no teeth if theres no U.N. leadership left alive!

As far as China's ability to get troops here two words come to mind here: "MERCHANT VESSELS"

China is the largest manufacturer of such useful items as every shoe everyone wears, and rubber dogshit! Which means a hell of lot of merchantman traffic goes in and out of places like Shanghai and Hong Kong Hundreds of them that are four sizes the size of our 2000 man troops assault ships in World War Two! If they take all the ones by force that go in and out of there in just two days a couple divisions are already headed our way!

Quoted: I believe they also listed France, but I just can't pisture France doing ANYTHING offensive.

Hell, I find everything that the French do to be offensive.

From the above listed numbers, I dont think they could take Seattle, let alone the U.S.A..

The upside would be for US to once and for all be soverign again.

Quoted: From the above listed numbers, I dont think they could take Seattle, let alone the U.S.A.. The upside would be for US to once and for all be soverign again.

I-5 would stop them cold...

Quoted: As far as China's ability to get troops here two words come to mind here: "MERCHANT VESSELS" China is the largest manufacturer of such useful items as every shoe everyone wears, and rubber dogshit! Which means a hell of lot of merchantman traffic goes in and out of places like Shanghai and Hong Kong Hundreds of them that are four sizes the size of our 2000 man troops assault ships in World War Two! If they take all the ones by force that go in and out of there in just two days a couple divisions are already headed our way!

And I have only two words to describe the ANTIDOTE!…… Mk48 ADCAP!



ANdy

It's worth mentioning that the vast majority of the miserable socialists in this country would gladly side with an invading force as long as they were here to depose George W. Bush.

We'd then be fighting a civil war along with a war against an invading force.