I got some new's today about what the U.N. think and have to say about the U.S.A. war on terrorist. The leader  of the U.N. said that Only the U.N. can ok a War on terrorist and no one else can. Now this might not be the words he used but the point was the same. If anyone else has heard this or something like this please share.

I don't know if anyone said that, but who cares if they did?

It was our people, planes, soil, buildings, economy, and way of life that was attacked.  

They should give us their blessing, countless member nations had losses.

A wise man once said "if you're not with us, you're against us."  Guess the UN better run into the desert and hide too. [:D]

SCREW the U.N. !!!

I think the U.S. should stop funding those socialist hypochrites & kick them the hell out of our country!!!!!!!!

Remember blue goes well with the sand.

The U.N.


HA!

Those Socialist "NWO" Pantywads are nothing more that a Rogue government with no country of their own, and have caused more trouble than they have solved. We would be better off to dissolve that disease-ridden corpse...
Don Out

Not that anyone needs any more frost on their ass but FOX Cable news had a professor (From the University of Illinois) who proclaimed the
"UN was the highest law in the land due to a treaty." O'Reilly really busted this jerks chops but didn't ask a follow-up question regarding this treaty(?).

Anyone know anything about such a treaty ???

I don't see anything in the Constitution regarding treaties holding more weight than our own laws and Constitution

Treaties are on par with and can supercede the constitution.

Reports are now making it out that the UN has instructed its employees in Afghanistan to just follow orders... Taliban orders.  If you're not part of the solution...

Build a new UN headquarters in Afganistan, lot's of land.

The UN can kiss my ass!  I hope they get on the wrong side of this thing (and it looks like they will) so we have a good excuse for throwing their worthless organization of tyrants out of America!

How about we kick the UN out of NY and lease the office space to those who have been displaced from the WTC?

Koffi Annan can SUCK MY MOTHERFU*%ING D@*K. No really,invite the UN into our cities and homes and bars,wherever,and ply them with drink and good old AMERICAN cooking and then............................................STICK AN ICEPICK into the back of their FUC*IN  head.

easy there, simon.

I heard on the news this morning before I left for work that the Taliban had captured the UN communications equipment.  I guess that falls under "follow orders."  

Who cares what the UN does, or doesn't think about our war on terrorism?  As near as I can tell, aside from food and medicine for people who would otherwise have none, they serve no useful purpose.  

One terrorist act and all legislation gets rubber stamped.
------------------------------
House Approves $582 Million for Back Dues Owed to U.N.

By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 - The House voted today to release $582 million that the United States owes in
back dues to the United Nations, ending a long-running squabble with the organization at a time
when the Bush administration says international cooperation is needed to battle terrorism.

The bill was passed by a voice vote, with no hint of the bitter disagreements that had colored the
issue of dues repayment in the past. The Senate passed a nearly identical bill in February, after
a decade-long standoff that strained diplomatic relations and cast the United States in the role
of wealthy deadbeat.

"At the same time the United States is reaching out to nations from every corner of the globe, the
United States remains the biggest debtor nation at the U.N.," said Representative Christopher
Shays, a Connecticut Republican. "This is not only unacceptable, it is an impediment to our
diplomatic efforts and clearly endangers our national security."

The bill frees the bulk of the $819 million owed in arrears and lays out a series of benchmarks
for United Nations reforms. Under a deal made with the United Nations, the United States' share of
dues for the United Nations administrative budget was lowered from 25 percent to 22 percent.
Unlike the Senate bill, the House bill also seeks to ensure that the United States does not
accumulate additional arrears and that the country's assessed share for peacekeeping operations
will drop from close to 32 percent to 28 percent.

The measure had been blocked in the House by Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the majority whip.
He wanted assurances that Americans would be exempt from the jurisdiction of an International
Criminal Court, a permanent tribunal now being created at the Hague. Other conservatives also
oppposed the bill.

Last week, Mr. DeLay agreed to withdraw his opposition, saying he did not want to hinder the
president. President Bush was scheduled to appear before the United Nations later this month, but
it is unclear whether he will be able to keep the commitment.

(continued)

The bill is the product of a plan drawn-up in 1999 by Senator Jesse Helms, the ranking Republican
on the Foreign Relations Committee and a longtime critic of the United Nations, and Senator Joseph
R. Biden Jr., a Delaware Democrat who is the committee chairman. The plan, which was designed to
prod the United Nations into a series of reforms, created a timetable for the release of the
money.

Congress witheld a portion of the United States' dues for more than a decade, arguing that the
American people were paying too much for peacekeeping missions and that the United Nations was
mismanaging the money.

The task of carrying out the plan fell to Richard C. Holbrooke, who spent almost all of his 17
months as American ambassador to the United Nations during the Clinton administration trying to
broker an agreement on American payments. At one point, even Ted Turner got involved, donating $34
million to some foreign nations through his United Nations Foundation as an incentive to get them
to sign off on the deal.

Representative Tom Lantos, the senior Democrat on the International Relations Committee, said this
is no time to quibble with the United Nations over money or unrelated issues tying up the money.

"As President Bush, Secretary Powell and our nation's diplomatic corps begin to secure the
concrete commitments required to wage this battle against international terrorist, they must take
advantage of every forum to reach out to the nations of the world," Mr. Lantos said. "The U.N. is
the world's premier forum and will be one of the primary theaters for U.S. diplomacy on this matter."

[b]"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to
restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true
if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether
real or 'promulgated,' that threatened our very existence. It is then
that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil.
The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this
'scenario', individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the
guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."[/b]-
Dr.Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991

The thing that worries me is how many country are going to change over to the U.N. side? Not that we will need thou ass holes anyway.  

Right now is the time for the U.N. to say that the U.S.A. is only doing this out of revenge and madness and they must be stopped and the U.N. will stop them. There would be a few country that would side with the U.N. and for all we know the U.N. my send supplies and solders to help the Taliban. Just a thought  but I have said this before the U.N. may of had a hand in the WTC attack.

They love the Muslims and everything these are a few things that the U.N. has done for the Muslims.

1. The UN Record on Israel and the Arabs of the 175 Security Council
resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.

2. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429
were directed against Israel.

3. The U. N was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed
by the Jordanians.

5. The UN was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated
the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

5. The UN was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like
policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western
Wall.

The whole day of Sept. 11 I was thinking "why didn't they attack the UN instead of the WTC?"

I mean, trade is not what's wrong.  What is wrong is the globalist control freaks who want to tell us how much water we can flush our own toilets with.  They hit the wrong targets as far as I'm concerned.

That is what I thought also but then I found out what the U.N. has done for the Muslims and thats why they would not hit the U.N. building read what I placed above your post.

bttb

I've said it before, and I'll say it again..FUCK THE UN!!!! [-!-]
Why does America foot the largest part of the UN's bills?? And then try to take away our rights?? Fuck 'em. Time to disolve that worthless POS "organization" and let the "member states" stand or fall on their own.
Is the UN trying t omake all the countries in debt to the US pay up? No. Is the UN really useful for anything? No.
Koffi Annan is a POS. His "government" back home are a bunck of terrorists themselves.  
What did the UN do to help us in Somolia? Not a damn thing.
Screw them. Make them pay going prices on office space  + 50% or get them the hell out.
Our Founding Fathers  would DEMAND a revolution if they were alive today (and would be PROMPTLY burned out by the ATF).

The "treaties" with the UN fly in the face of all that our Founding Fathers stood for.

And as far as the "World Court "I've heard that it does supercede our Constitution, but cannot find a link for it. Two word for that too... Fuck 'Em!!! (sorry for all the language, but this topic "irks" me a little).
[smoke]

EXCELLENT IDEA!

Except milk all the Western Governments for money!  (our tax money!)

To paraphrase that commie bastard Josef Stalin -

[size=5]How many divisions does the UN have?[/size=5]

Eric The(Answer-NotNear'Nuff!)Hun[>]:)]

I second that Timh70.  I got some French guy in a debate on this very subject on alt.military.retired.  If the members of the house and senate are stupid enough to put UN interests ahead of American interests then I just say let them PUT UN TROOPS ON MY SOIL.  Not only that but now I hear talk of giving the UN a DEFENSE FORCE. NO WAY!!!! These are socialist countries and if you want the SOVIET GOAL of world domination to end the way they originally wanted then just let them have those troops.  The US does not have to interface with the NATIONS OF THE WORLD THROUGH THE UN.  GET THE UN OUT OF NEW YORK AND OUT OF AMERICA. PUT IT IN FRANCE WHERE IT BELONGS AND LET THEM DO DIPLOMACY WITH EACH OTHER.  AND THE US CAN DO TREATIES WITH EACH AND EVERY NATO NATION INDEPENDANTLY AND BYPASS THE UN ALL TOGETHER.  WE KEEP THEIR OIL CHEAP. WE CAN SIGN TREATIES WITH ENGLAND,GERMANY,SWITZERLAND,SPAIN,LITHUANIA,LATVIA,ESTONIA,RUSSIA,TURKEY,AUSTRIA,ALL OF THEM.
THE UN THINKS THEY ARE STRONG , ONLY WHEN THEY THINK THEY HAVE OUTGROWN A NEED FOR US. All we have to do is start building another building right next to the UN then Go start doing diplomacy there.  

Who gives a flying f*ck what the UN says; We're America, god-dammit, we can do whatever the hell we damn well please!

Hell, if it wasn't for the US, there would be no UN.

The UN will be the biggest threat to America in the next few years...We need to try and stop them now...

I'm afraid you are correct. The US should begin to back away from the UN, there's nothing in it for us.

How long do you think it's going to be until the U.N. says we have gone off are rocker and try doing something about it?

As interesting as the UN's response to America's new foreign policy may be, I'm still stumped as to whcih one of my nuts the UN can suck.

OHMYGAWD!!! I almost released this morning's coffee in my shorts!!!!

AMEN to that one