[Brother in Arms]

Dear High Roaders
I was looking at some various threads here and I saw one about workers vs. employers rights anb it made me think about the discussion I have with my employer almost every day about the united nations. Perhaps I am biased on this particular score but I dont like the un and I have no interest in becoming a citizen of the world or in globalization. Anyway he and I have a fundamental difference in beliefs. He thinks the un is good and that "nothing bad can come from talking with other nations" he also says the un could do so much more for the world but the united states controls what they can do and that is wrong .He also thinks the un should keep the united states and other countrys in check to keep them from beating on the little guy. The man actaully has a un bumper sticker and has offered to take me to the un building so I can see how nice it is. :barf:

I think he is wrong and I have no interest in allowing a dictator or a committee of dictators affecting what happens in this country. I have told him I believe that un's goal is the total disarment all of the civilians in the world, so they can more easily control people and start a one world government.

Now before the preaching to the quire begins, my hopes for this thread is a good discussion. Now as much as I disagree with my what employer says and believes, he has not tried to keep me from voicing my opinion.

All though he did get upset when I told him if the un ever sent soldier here I would be painting blue dots on my rifle stock.

What are your feelings on all or any of this.

Brother in Arms

[jwalk]

I guess my first question is, how does the UN ever expect to be an effective world governor without a standing military force? When you look at the situation in Iran the first thing that comes to my mind is Iran isn't afraid of the UN's threats. Why is that? How can the UN possibly hurt them unless they gather some kind of force to strike Iran. Does anyone really believe some kind of international UN force could acutally take on Iran? Perhaps if the US and UK led them Gulf War 1 style. Iran has more to fear from a US or Israeli pre-emptive strike, not UN security council sanctions.

I just don't see the UN ever creating some kind of world police force under their control. How do they pay for it? Who would join that force besides refugees from third world countries looking for a new life?

I had a professor explain to me a year after the Iraq war started that he had hope that the UN would cooperate like the US colonies did in the Revolution and in creating the constitution. A nobel idea I guess, but there is what 300 nations in the world, and only 13 colonies. I do not believe there is enough compromise in the world to get 200-300 nations to ever agree on any given issue.

Any other thoughts?

[Zundfolge]

He thinks the un is good and that "nothing bad can come from talking with other nations"

The UN is not just "talking with other nations", talking is fine, and I'd agree with him that its a good thing, however handing over your sovereignty to a foreign power is just stupid and THAT is the ultimate goal of the UN.



Anyway, there is no tactical advantage to arguing with your boss over politics :p

[armoredman]

If the UN had existed in 1776, would we have had Czarist and Portugese "Peacekeepers" raping and pillaging in the 13 colonies?

[Kentak]

He's totally bought the "progressive" world view that the world would be better off if nations surrendered their sovereignty to a "democratic" global authority like the UN. Nations would, under this view, no longer be able to act for their own "selfish" interests, but would be compelled to act for the common good of the global community.

The danger of this type of global collectivism can't be overstated.

K

[Kentak]

PS, don't try to argue with him. He's gone over to the dark side and will never be back.

K