scout26
Member
Proving once again that the Bush Administration has done nothing for RKBA.....
[sarcasm mode /OFF]
[sarcasm mode /OFF]
YES-Our UN guy spoke
- Thread starter mindwip
- Start date
- Status
Hayward Juhbuzzoff
Member
Okay... I get the impression that a lot a ya don't care much for the United Nations...
Not really sure why.. as a bureaucracy, they're no worse than most.
They have a lot less power than any real governments...
They have no more corruption than the average statehouse...
They have no more immorality or rapists than the average organized religion...
You suppose there's a chance they may actually take over America? Probably more of a chance that space aliens take over America if you think about it...
It seems that a forum where people of different cultures can work out their differences, and try to help each other, is scary to people... not sure why...
Not really sure why.. as a bureaucracy, they're no worse than most.
They have a lot less power than any real governments...
They have no more corruption than the average statehouse...
They have no more immorality or rapists than the average organized religion...
You suppose there's a chance they may actually take over America? Probably more of a chance that space aliens take over America if you think about it...
It seems that a forum where people of different cultures can work out their differences, and try to help each other, is scary to people... not sure why...
carebear
Member
If that's what it actually was, I might be a bit less caustic.
There are a few small scale UN programs that do work, most are run or directed primarily by us (or other free Western nations). they could be operated equally well by us, or the EU or NATO or any number of NGO's.
On the whole though, the UN is devoted to the status quo above right and wrong, that's why tyrants have equal standing with governments of higher civilization. That's why Mugabe can speak in public instead of being ejected for crimes against his own people.
There is greater graft and corruption in the UN than even Tammany could dream of.
DesertEagle613
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2004
- Messages
- 221
I do not care for the United Nations, as you say, because for my entire life the UN has lent its support to murderous tyrants. The blood of millions is on its hands.
Srebrenica. Rwanda. Cambodia. Oil-for-"Food." Darfur.
That the UN subsumed several smaller organizations that actually do good work is only to the detriment of those organizations, and the world. They provide a fig-leaf behind which the chief agents of corruption can cower.
If we want a forum for convenient international diplomacy, it need not be the United Nations. We can keep the ground floor of the Turtle Bay building as it is, so long as every floor above it is cauterized with fire and then leased out to weapons manufacturers, venture-capital firms, and Blackwater.
Srebrenica. Rwanda. Cambodia. Oil-for-"Food." Darfur.
That the UN subsumed several smaller organizations that actually do good work is only to the detriment of those organizations, and the world. They provide a fig-leaf behind which the chief agents of corruption can cower.
If we want a forum for convenient international diplomacy, it need not be the United Nations. We can keep the ground floor of the Turtle Bay building as it is, so long as every floor above it is cauterized with fire and then leased out to weapons manufacturers, venture-capital firms, and Blackwater.
1911TURNER posted:
"Joe McCarthy may have been a little over-zealous...and he may have wrongly accused a *few* people, or ones that didn't have the clout to do anything except spew communistic filth...but he was absolutely correct in his assertions that communism was the greatest threat to America then...and it still is. I remember my old man saying that they'd better listen to McCarthy...and added that they probably wouldn't."
I have some other homework that may open a few eyes about Joe McCarthy. McCarthy has always been portrayed as being the bad guy, looking for commies under every bush, during the "House Committee on Un-American Activities"
McCarthy was never involved at all in that since it was the House committee and he was a Senator. He actually was called as a witness to testify in the Senate "Army" hearings, not the House committee hearings.
He was ONLY concerned with soviet operatives infiltrating into positions of power in the Armed Services, or the State Department, that would be in a position to influence policy (Alger Hiss, advisor to Roosevelt and Truman) or reveal secrets to the Soviets.
Movies and our revisionist history teachers, always portrayed McCarthy as a Gay Bashing nutball, looking for commies under every bush. The transcripts of the Senate "Army" hearing reveal everything we were taught, was B.S.
McCarthy was being hounded by Senator Scott Lucas from Illinois, to reveal the names of the suspected communists. He insisted and interrupted McCarthy repeatedly, demanding McCarthy "tell us the names for the record".
McCarthy finally said in response the following: (after you read the following, ask yourself, Did McCarthy mean spiritedly accuse innocent people?)
McCArthy: "The Senator from Illinois demanded, loudly, that I furnish all the names. I told him at the time that so far as I was concerned, I thought that would be improper; that I did not have all the information about these individuals...I have enough to CONVINCE ME THAT EITHER THEY ARE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR THEY HAVE GIVEN GREAT AID TO THE COMMUNISTS. I MAY BE WRONG. THAT IS WHY I SAID THAT UNLESS THE SENATE DEMANDED THAT I DO SO, I WOULD NOT SUBMIT THIS PUBLICLY, BUT I WOULD SUBMIT IT TO ANY COMMITTEE--AND WOULD LET THE COMMITTEE GO OVER THESE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT SOME OF THESE PERSONS WILL GET A CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH"
So what actually happened is, McCarthy was trying to have folks like Alger Hiss investigated in closed session since McCarthy felt the evidence he had indicated Alger Hiss was not only a member of the Communist party, but cooperating and transferring information to the Soviets while working inside the State Department offices and having almost daily contact with President Roosevelt during WW II.
All this is in the Library of Congress. Also, these transcripts show McCarthy was not the one to "out" any homosexuals as being security risks in government during open testimony in these hearings, as is often portrayed in movies or insinuated in history text books. McCarthy's friend, Roy Cohen was the victim of the leftists trying to embarrass McCarthy, by outing Cohen since Cohen was on McCarthy's team in the investigation of the soviet infiltration. The snow job put upon America by the left wing socialist sympathizers in both the media, and in academia, has been total and complete. There are conservative Americans that quake in fear of being accused of "McCarthyism", who totally believe that McCarthy was simply a mean spirited, gay bashing, red-baiting nut case, due to being schooled to believe the exact opposite of what the Senate "Army" hearings transcripst show to be the case.
In fact, the majority of Americans believe McCarthy was the Chairman/Prosecutor/Inquisitor, of the "House Committee on Un-American Activities". The misinformation about McCarthy "falsley" accusing innocent citizens just because they happened to be members of an unpopular political party, was a total and concerted misinformation plot. A great book to read with an open mind, is "Treason" "Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorists" by Ann Coulter. It will literally shock you how badly we got conned as kids, and how it has worked so well that if you even think about defending McCarthy, you are automatically considered to be a racist, red-bashing homo-phobe.
Isn't it interesting that MCarthy is somehow an Anti-Gay Hate Monger, when actually, Roy Cohen was his friend, working with him in his Senate office? How could he be a gay basher, if he knew, and did not care, that his aide was gay, but outed by his opponents on the issue, in order to try and embarrass McCarthy???
"Joe McCarthy may have been a little over-zealous...and he may have wrongly accused a *few* people, or ones that didn't have the clout to do anything except spew communistic filth...but he was absolutely correct in his assertions that communism was the greatest threat to America then...and it still is. I remember my old man saying that they'd better listen to McCarthy...and added that they probably wouldn't."
I have some other homework that may open a few eyes about Joe McCarthy. McCarthy has always been portrayed as being the bad guy, looking for commies under every bush, during the "House Committee on Un-American Activities"
McCarthy was never involved at all in that since it was the House committee and he was a Senator. He actually was called as a witness to testify in the Senate "Army" hearings, not the House committee hearings.
He was ONLY concerned with soviet operatives infiltrating into positions of power in the Armed Services, or the State Department, that would be in a position to influence policy (Alger Hiss, advisor to Roosevelt and Truman) or reveal secrets to the Soviets.
Movies and our revisionist history teachers, always portrayed McCarthy as a Gay Bashing nutball, looking for commies under every bush. The transcripts of the Senate "Army" hearing reveal everything we were taught, was B.S.
McCarthy was being hounded by Senator Scott Lucas from Illinois, to reveal the names of the suspected communists. He insisted and interrupted McCarthy repeatedly, demanding McCarthy "tell us the names for the record".
McCarthy finally said in response the following: (after you read the following, ask yourself, Did McCarthy mean spiritedly accuse innocent people?)
McCArthy: "The Senator from Illinois demanded, loudly, that I furnish all the names. I told him at the time that so far as I was concerned, I thought that would be improper; that I did not have all the information about these individuals...I have enough to CONVINCE ME THAT EITHER THEY ARE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR THEY HAVE GIVEN GREAT AID TO THE COMMUNISTS. I MAY BE WRONG. THAT IS WHY I SAID THAT UNLESS THE SENATE DEMANDED THAT I DO SO, I WOULD NOT SUBMIT THIS PUBLICLY, BUT I WOULD SUBMIT IT TO ANY COMMITTEE--AND WOULD LET THE COMMITTEE GO OVER THESE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT SOME OF THESE PERSONS WILL GET A CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH"
So what actually happened is, McCarthy was trying to have folks like Alger Hiss investigated in closed session since McCarthy felt the evidence he had indicated Alger Hiss was not only a member of the Communist party, but cooperating and transferring information to the Soviets while working inside the State Department offices and having almost daily contact with President Roosevelt during WW II.
All this is in the Library of Congress. Also, these transcripts show McCarthy was not the one to "out" any homosexuals as being security risks in government during open testimony in these hearings, as is often portrayed in movies or insinuated in history text books. McCarthy's friend, Roy Cohen was the victim of the leftists trying to embarrass McCarthy, by outing Cohen since Cohen was on McCarthy's team in the investigation of the soviet infiltration. The snow job put upon America by the left wing socialist sympathizers in both the media, and in academia, has been total and complete. There are conservative Americans that quake in fear of being accused of "McCarthyism", who totally believe that McCarthy was simply a mean spirited, gay bashing, red-baiting nut case, due to being schooled to believe the exact opposite of what the Senate "Army" hearings transcripst show to be the case.
In fact, the majority of Americans believe McCarthy was the Chairman/Prosecutor/Inquisitor, of the "House Committee on Un-American Activities". The misinformation about McCarthy "falsley" accusing innocent citizens just because they happened to be members of an unpopular political party, was a total and concerted misinformation plot. A great book to read with an open mind, is "Treason" "Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorists" by Ann Coulter. It will literally shock you how badly we got conned as kids, and how it has worked so well that if you even think about defending McCarthy, you are automatically considered to be a racist, red-bashing homo-phobe.
Isn't it interesting that MCarthy is somehow an Anti-Gay Hate Monger, when actually, Roy Cohen was his friend, working with him in his Senate office? How could he be a gay basher, if he knew, and did not care, that his aide was gay, but outed by his opponents on the issue, in order to try and embarrass McCarthy???
Cosmoline
Member
The UN as a forum for negotiation is fine. But over the decades the GA in particular has been morphing into a would-be world parliament. Conferences formed to discuss treaties increasingly resemble committees formed to draft laws. It's a deeply disturbing trend, as is the shift from viewing international law as based on unanimous consent to viewing it as majority rule. Aside from any issues of national sovereignty, the fact remains that most of the nations of the world are "represented" in the UN by completely corrupt and in some cases evil governments. This includes most of Asia and almost all of Africa, and even some of Europe and Latin America. So the idea of respecting the will of their tyrant lords on some bizarre "one nation one vote" principle is disgraceful and disturbing.
TCB in TN
Member
Improving the UN
Growing up on a farm, with a barn full of horses, I learned long long ago. You don't try to improve the manure pile, you just cart it off and get rid of the stuff. And I think most of you can see the parrallel.
Growing up on a farm, with a barn full of horses, I learned long long ago. You don't try to improve the manure pile, you just cart it off and get rid of the stuff. And I think most of you can see the parrallel.
engineer151515
Member
You're kidding, right?
JohnBT
Member
The U.N. keeps a bunch of our enemies close by where we can watch them (and probably tap their phones.)
____________________
Let's look at one of the more famous targets of Senator McCarthy.
"In 1950 Senator Joseph McCarthy accused [Owen] Lattimore of being a Soviet espionage agent. A Senate committee exonerated him later that year, but the investigation was revived by the Senate Internal Security subcommittee, and in 1952 he was indicted for perjury in connection with testimony that he had given before the subcommittee. In 1955 the Justice Department dropped all charges against him.
Fluent in Chinese, Russian, and Mongol, Lattimore was regarded as a leading expert on the China-Russia frontier. He published many books on Asia and an account of the McCarthy episode, Ordeal by Slander (1950)."
- Encyclopedia Britannica
Now who am I going to believe?
John
____________________
Let's look at one of the more famous targets of Senator McCarthy.
"In 1950 Senator Joseph McCarthy accused [Owen] Lattimore of being a Soviet espionage agent. A Senate committee exonerated him later that year, but the investigation was revived by the Senate Internal Security subcommittee, and in 1952 he was indicted for perjury in connection with testimony that he had given before the subcommittee. In 1955 the Justice Department dropped all charges against him.
Fluent in Chinese, Russian, and Mongol, Lattimore was regarded as a leading expert on the China-Russia frontier. He published many books on Asia and an account of the McCarthy episode, Ordeal by Slander (1950)."
- Encyclopedia Britannica
Now who am I going to believe?
John
Marshall
Member
<Big words, off. To the point, on.>
The UN sucks. Liberals like the UN. Liberals hate Bush. Liberals hate guns. Bush likes guns. Bush thinks the UN is full of wimps and pimps. Bush is right.
Bolton. We sent the right man for the job.
The UN sucks. Liberals like the UN. Liberals hate Bush. Liberals hate guns. Bush likes guns. Bush thinks the UN is full of wimps and pimps. Bush is right.
Bolton. We sent the right man for the job.
MIL-DOT
member
"Probably more of a chance that space aliens take over America if you think about it..."
well,then why are they trying?
well,then why are they trying?
I saw on the news today a fellow who had made an electric guitar from an AK !!! His efforts were applauded by the UN .BTW for those who don't know , at the UN headquarters there is a statue of a sword being turned into a plowshare !!! They want your swords and guns !
carebear
Member
mete,
Can it still shoot? Cause I'd applaud him too if it could.
Just imagine the Hendrix version of the Star-Spangled Banner capped off with a 30 rd. mag dumped FA. sweeeeet
Did a bus tour of Lower Manhattan on my trip to see family last week, got to see the UN revolver statue with the knotted barrel live and in person. My father was amused by my sullen grumbling to myself.
Can it still shoot? Cause I'd applaud him too if it could.
Just imagine the Hendrix version of the Star-Spangled Banner capped off with a 30 rd. mag dumped FA. sweeeeet
Did a bus tour of Lower Manhattan on my trip to see family last week, got to see the UN revolver statue with the knotted barrel live and in person. My father was amused by my sullen grumbling to myself.
mountainclmbr
Member
To those who bash Bush, what do you think would be happening if Willy Clintoon or Billary Clintoon were in POWER? Would they protect their power over us or try to unrope us?
longeyes
member
earthlings, we are here to bring you peace!
No, but oddly enough we do have "space aliens" sitting on our Supreme Court, in our media and entertainment circles, and, most of all, permeating our educational system. The IDEAS behind the United Nations have become the accepted currency of the realm for tens of millions of Americans.
No, but oddly enough we do have "space aliens" sitting on our Supreme Court, in our media and entertainment circles, and, most of all, permeating our educational system. The IDEAS behind the United Nations have become the accepted currency of the realm for tens of millions of Americans.
engineer151515
Member
Reminds me of the Twilight Zone "To Serve Man" episode.
longeyes
member
Now that was a wonderful episode!
The show was great and full of interesting political speculations.
The show was great and full of interesting political speculations.
Mete --------- the idea is from the Bible. Hard to beliveve I know. There was a time when most people new the verse --Isaiah Chapter 2-4 "And He will Judge between the Nations and will render decisions for many peoples and they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up swoard aganist Nation and Never again will they learn war".The only problem is that verse is in reference to Jesus and the Advent ie. The second comming of Christ. To bad the UN thinks the UN or mankind will save themselves as that is not what the verse means. Just the opposite. There will
not be Peace until the Prince of Peace ie. Christ returns. I bet the new UN will not have this saying anywhere. Wonder where the ACLU has been all this time.
not be Peace until the Prince of Peace ie. Christ returns. I bet the new UN will not have this saying anywhere. Wonder where the ACLU has been all this time.
Ira Aten: what you said is true AND......
What you said is true and let me say that the U.N. is the most dangerous organization in the world right now-AND THEY ARE MORPHING INTO A WORLD GOVERNMENT!
If we're not careful we'll be fighting them and our own Government.
A UN standing army, a continually downsizing U.S.Army, the so-called "Patriot Act",Torture, and Military Courts await all who oppose the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, and The Bilderberg Group. THE BEST INFO ON THIS IS THE HIGHLY CREDIBLE: "WITH NO APOLOGIES" by the late SENATOR BARRY GOLDWATER. I recommend you all read it.
What you said is true and let me say that the U.N. is the most dangerous organization in the world right now-AND THEY ARE MORPHING INTO A WORLD GOVERNMENT!
If we're not careful we'll be fighting them and our own Government. A UN standing army, a continually downsizing U.S.Army, the so-called "Patriot Act",Torture, and Military Courts await all who oppose the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, and The Bilderberg Group. THE BEST INFO ON THIS IS THE HIGHLY CREDIBLE: "WITH NO APOLOGIES" by the late SENATOR BARRY GOLDWATER. I recommend you all read it.
mordechaianiliewicz
Member
UN's plans are for world government
I would actually say, most on the ground folks don't want a UN hegemony. They are for the UN propaganda version of what it is supposed to be. ie
A meeting place of the world's nations, so they may discuss grievances with each other and attempt to come up with compromises to avoid wars.
Hey, if that was what the UN is, I would have no problem with them in principle. However, the problem is that they are attempting a one-world government.
I ask, what is governement fundamentally?
It is an organization of human beings who administer laws, see that punishment for violations of the law are carried out, and have an Army. They are always supported by taxes.
By that definition, the UN isn't a world government. However, if one simply looks at their website, and reads the position papers and debates/negotiations, and arrangements that are being formulated, they obviously wish to be a government.
There are:
Plans to have world courts with appointed judges to create a body of international law. There would be a mechanism for judgements to be carried out against those found guilty of those international laws.
Plans to establish a world "Peacekeeping Force." So far, whenever the UN has needed troops, it has used either, a.) The US Armed Forces b.) Indian Armed Forces c.) Bangladeshi Amred Forces d.)various EU member nations Armed Forces. (might have used a couple others as well, but I'm not certain of that, only the nations I've mentioned).
The problem is that these nations ultimately maintain control over those troops. And their allegiance is to their nation of origin. A theoretical "Peacekeeping Force" would be likely 10-20 Divisions strong, able to send Brigade strength levels of troops to anywhere in the world within a week. And most importantly would answer to and have to follow the orders of the UN Security Council only. While they still may use member nation's militaries, they would have a massive conventional force armed as well as any 1st world country.
The linchpin is what is called a Tobin Tax.
A Tobin Tax is a tax on a percentage of any international money transfer. Because only a small fraction of the world's population engages in international monetary transfers, this is seen as an easy thing to get passed. But once passed, it would be accepted that the UN has taxing powers. Once the UN has all these things, it would be a world government. When I look at what the UN is doing right now, in "broad daylight" when I look at what the UN wants to do in terms of scope of responsibilities, it suggests powers which are far beyond anything ever seen in a governmental power, ever on this planet.
Few Americans care about this, because few Americans have researched it like I have. But, through agreements with the IMF, and World Bank, as well as major international corporations (who would get a tidy piece of corporate welfare) this is the greatest threat to American sovreignty since the Soviet Union.
Right now, our allies would be few and far between (couple of wealthy nations not totally adicted to socialism lite, and the various offshore countries of the world, like Carribean nations, and Switzerland), and we still have to convince our fellow Americans of the danger.
I would actually say, most on the ground folks don't want a UN hegemony. They are for the UN propaganda version of what it is supposed to be. ie
A meeting place of the world's nations, so they may discuss grievances with each other and attempt to come up with compromises to avoid wars.
Hey, if that was what the UN is, I would have no problem with them in principle. However, the problem is that they are attempting a one-world government.
I ask, what is governement fundamentally?
It is an organization of human beings who administer laws, see that punishment for violations of the law are carried out, and have an Army. They are always supported by taxes.
By that definition, the UN isn't a world government. However, if one simply looks at their website, and reads the position papers and debates/negotiations, and arrangements that are being formulated, they obviously wish to be a government.
There are:
Plans to have world courts with appointed judges to create a body of international law. There would be a mechanism for judgements to be carried out against those found guilty of those international laws.
Plans to establish a world "Peacekeeping Force." So far, whenever the UN has needed troops, it has used either, a.) The US Armed Forces b.) Indian Armed Forces c.) Bangladeshi Amred Forces d.)various EU member nations Armed Forces. (might have used a couple others as well, but I'm not certain of that, only the nations I've mentioned).
The problem is that these nations ultimately maintain control over those troops. And their allegiance is to their nation of origin. A theoretical "Peacekeeping Force" would be likely 10-20 Divisions strong, able to send Brigade strength levels of troops to anywhere in the world within a week. And most importantly would answer to and have to follow the orders of the UN Security Council only. While they still may use member nation's militaries, they would have a massive conventional force armed as well as any 1st world country.
The linchpin is what is called a Tobin Tax.
A Tobin Tax is a tax on a percentage of any international money transfer. Because only a small fraction of the world's population engages in international monetary transfers, this is seen as an easy thing to get passed. But once passed, it would be accepted that the UN has taxing powers. Once the UN has all these things, it would be a world government. When I look at what the UN is doing right now, in "broad daylight" when I look at what the UN wants to do in terms of scope of responsibilities, it suggests powers which are far beyond anything ever seen in a governmental power, ever on this planet.
Few Americans care about this, because few Americans have researched it like I have. But, through agreements with the IMF, and World Bank, as well as major international corporations (who would get a tidy piece of corporate welfare) this is the greatest threat to American sovreignty since the Soviet Union.
Right now, our allies would be few and far between (couple of wealthy nations not totally adicted to socialism lite, and the various offshore countries of the world, like Carribean nations, and Switzerland), and we still have to convince our fellow Americans of the danger.
- Status