Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 5/29/2001 10:13:37 PM EDT
I have always thought that the UN helped save civilian lives. Some negative posts that I have read have had some not to good things to say about the UN flag. I am not up on the latest motions brought up in the assembly in New York. I hope this is not going to interfere with the saving of lives in places like the Balkins. I thought that KFOR were the good guys. Your thoughts.
Link Posted: 5/29/2001 10:26:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/29/2001 10:25:19 PM EDT by HANGFIRE]
[bounce] this topic again. "The UN creates the victims so they can go rescue the victims". Its a sick game they play on the world stage. They are breaking off with the US military and forming their own Army, the new Corps is the European Army. They are also the ones that don't want the US to deploy the Missile Shield.
Link Posted: 5/29/2001 10:32:16 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/29/2001 11:15:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Boland: I have a love/hate relationship with the UN - not only is it ridiculously corrupt, they could quite literally fuck up a wet dream. When we got a tasking to go to Rwanada - where we could really have helped. The ninnies in NY were too busy debating important issues such as the per diem rate etc. that the civy staff would get. So hey what a million or two casualties compared to the importance of working out what some clerk gets to be reimbursed for rats and quaters? That is why I just can't take the UN as a real threat to gun owners - they will be to bust squabling over how much they'd pay themselves and who would do the accounting of guns collected etc. I still support the humanitarian objectives
View Quote
[smoke]Now the real Boland emerges!
Link Posted: 5/29/2001 11:18:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/29/2001 11:31:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/30/2001 12:22:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By HANGFIRE: [bounce] this topic again. "The UN creates the victims so they can go rescue the victims". Its a sick game they play on the world stage. They are breaking off with the US military and forming their own Army, the new Corps is the European Army. They are also the ones that don't want the US to deploy the Missile Shield.
View Quote
European Army is the logical consequence of the process of making United States of Europe, like US Army was the logical consequence of putting toghether (if I remember well...) the first 13 States of the USA. Nothing to do with UN, and I never heard that UN is involved, or giving its bless, or financig or whatever with the EU. If you heard anithing else, I would be glad to know...
Link Posted: 5/30/2001 4:54:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/31/2001 9:23:29 PM EDT
I remember the Rowanda situation now and that it was a UN, so called, peace keeping mission. I guess anything is better than nothing at all. Policing the world is a big job, hopefully their motives are justifiable. It might also depend on which nation is doing the police work.
Link Posted: 5/31/2001 9:46:43 PM EDT
"An alliance whose sole purpose is not to wage war is totally senseless and useless." - Adolph Hitler
Link Posted: 5/31/2001 10:07:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/31/2001 10:06:28 PM EDT by schv]
The U.N.'s agendas are simple. The one that concerns us is the U.N. "Committee on Disarmament". Their goal is to take away all firearms from private citizens worldwide. It is their belief that if they can accomplish this, violent crime will cease. Stopping violent crime is of course a noble cause, but a futile one. The U.N. also wants to dissolve national borders. What this means is we would be one big happy world under the sole control of the U.N. We would be free to pass from country to country without passports or currency exchanges. We could throw away our old constitution in favor of a new more modern system. Places like Rowanda, Croatia, and Ethiopia would enjoy great improvements in living conditions. Of course the United States would suffer a great loss of freedom, wealth, and general quality of life, but hey that is a small price to pay for a new world order. If you couldn't tell the last few paragraphs were meant to be sarcastic.
Link Posted: 6/1/2001 2:54:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/1/2001 2:59:08 AM EDT by LibertyShip]
The NRA joined the UN as a NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) in order to stay ahead of the UN's plans to disarm civilians world wide. The following sarcastic, condescending summary of a press conference held on November 19, 1999 by Sylvana Foa, spokesman for the Secretary General of the UN gives a pretty clear idea of what the UN thinks of us. -- begin quote -- ...Some suggested that the Wassenaar regime for the point of origin control of conventional weapons transfers would be useful. Others favoured a formal arms embargo by the Security Council. "Michigan militia -- you can sleep easy. I want you to know that it is now official that the National Rifle Association (NRA) has gotten NGO (non- governmental organization) accreditation", she said. That meant that they had consultative status in the Economic and Social Council, permitting its representatives to participate in meetings of some of the subsidiary bodies of the Council, including various United Nations bodies dealing with disarmament. She said that the NRA, in applying for that accreditation, had said that they hoped to make a valuable contribution to the safe and responsible use of firearms. Their interest in NGO accreditation was apparently sparked by a May 1995 report by an arm of the Council on civilian firearm ownership. They also said in an interview that the desire to attain such status was to discover precisely what the various United Nations Member States and United Nations Committees were contemplating, and to determine how the initiatives might impact on the rights of law-abiding Americans. "So, Michigan Militia -- don't worry. The NRA's in here." -- end quote -- This is from the UN web site; search for NRA under news and press releases. The link is too long to post here. Sounds like the NRA is crashing their gun-control party to me! (By the way the UN did not want the NRA to have NGO status and the associated access to meetings which were otherwise "closed door." Newt Gingrich somehow forced the issue and got them in.)
Link Posted: 6/1/2001 3:35:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/1/2001 6:02:34 AM EDT
Boland: Let me tell you about a "humanitarian objective" I saw in action. I spent 2+ years as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Nepal. I had the unfortunate opportunity to work with a UNICEF program (briefly).The nominal mission was to provide rural villages with deep water wells and hand-pumps with a submerged bladder so that the villagers and the children (oh won't somebody think of the children!) would have access to safe (safer?) community water rather than having to drink from muddy holes or trek 2km to a polluted river. What a noble cause. NOT! To begin with, the UNICEF advisors were nothing but local thugs (gangsters really) who took every opportunity to line their own pockets with the funds provided for the program (I bet all those Halloween pennies get heavy)Next, remember that they only have power as along as they control the resource (water) so these would be Al Capones' would select the villages that where "appropriate" based on several factors including the villages ethnic make-up, how much backsheesh (bribe money) they could come up with, and if the village leaders were in good standing with the local communist party. Maybe, just maybe, if your village was deemed appropriate you could get a common well point complete with pump handle and concrete pad (to keep mud and feces from following the pipe to the source) the only problem was spare parts and the technical ability to repair the damn thing when something broke. But don't worry as long as your village remained "appropriate" and you could come up with a few rupee UNICEF might be back someday. Heck, with a little luck a couple of your children might survive long enough! Be VERY suspicious of anybody who is "here to help you!" Oh, the savage wars of peace fill full the mouth of famine and bid the sickness cease and when your goal is nearest the end for others sought watch sloth and heathen folly turn all your hope to nought! RUDYARD KIPLING (also a gun owner)
Link Posted: 6/1/2001 8:07:07 AM EDT
My opinion here may sound naive, but here it is anyway...... I don't believe the UN could find it's way out of a paper bag let alone pull off any NWO stuff. At least right now or the near future. All these terds are just a bunch of "wannabees" from mostly third world holes-in-the-ground. They can't even feed there own people let alone control something bigger. Anything they touch gets f'ed-up. I've seen this up close and personal doing relief flights and such. TOTAL DISORGANIZATION!!! In the avaition world, there is an organization called the ICAO...International Civil Aviation Organization. Same type of crap...."Let's all get together, hug, and set up world standards for aviation!" Well, they've been around about as long as I've been alive, and they can't even agree on how far apart runway lights should be. Right now the NWO is a socialists wet dream. We have to keep it that way though too.
Link Posted: 6/1/2001 1:21:32 PM EDT
All I know is the U.S. gives the U.N. $10 Billion every year no questions asked. Our tax dollars.
Link Posted: 6/1/2001 1:43:40 PM EDT
un is EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!![pistol][pyro][heavy][uzi]
Link Posted: 6/1/2001 4:58:08 PM EDT
It seems that the UN has a part to play in the coming NWO, but only a part. While the UN makes a lot of noise, they could not pour p!ss out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the heel. It is obvious that the UN power structure basically wants to get its Third World hands on Western wealth and power, but hasn't the werewithal or intelligence to carry out their plans. The US needs to be out of the UN. Period.
Link Posted: 6/1/2001 5:56:30 PM EDT
It's all about the loss of soverignty. Are you a citizen or a subject; or better yet serf?
Link Posted: 6/2/2001 10:20:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/2/2001 10:29:19 PM EDT
What NODDA said
Link Posted: 6/4/2001 8:03:17 AM EDT
Top Top