It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

United Nations Declares War On America

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 09:15 AM
link   
And it will be Bill Clinton? Go figure, there after Americas guns and wont be able to do it. I think until they get Americas private arms, Ive said before America is the last domino to fall in this New World Order struggle for one world government. I also think this is all hyperbole, I really dont see it happening.
Maybe America should kick the United Nations out of the United States after all.




UNITED NATIONS DECLARES WAR ON AMERICA


Rodney Stubbs
December 2, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

The United Nations unveiled a sweeping proposal to overhaul the organization, including the Security Council, in what would be the biggest UN reform since its founding in 1945, according to a press release posted by the Worldwide News Agency.

The long awaited charter amendment that creates the policy for world governance is now being unveiled. The only thing missing is the implementation phase that will commence when Annan retires in 2006. That phase will likely be lead by none other than William Jefferson Clinton.

Citing .bitter divisions over the war in Iraq, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan ordered a high-level panel last year to come up with the blueprint for the 21st century. The blueprint eliminates representative government and destroys the constitution of the United States.

No longer will Americans be able to carry arms, and no longer will the sovereignty of the United States exist. This spells the end of Freedom as espoused by the Founding Fathers of the United States and the Declaration calls for Americans to rise up and take down those who advocate this form of governance.

More

Sorce: www.newswithviews.com...

I have to add I think the title is very misleading I did not read anywhere in the links that the United Nations plans war.




[edit on 2/12/2004 by Sauron]




posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Sounds like that guy was trying to spin that story.

Another article I read made it seem like the US was getting what it wanted in the overhaul.

UN to back pre-emptive strikes in first major overhaul



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   
"No longer will Americans be able to carry arms, and no longer will the sovereignty of the United States exist. This spells the end of Freedom as espoused by the Founding Fathers of the United States and the Declaration calls for Americans to rise up and take down those who advocate this form of governance. "


Let's see.... UN says the soveriegnty of the US no longer exists..... US says get the f out of our non-existant country.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
Sounds like that guy was trying to spin that story.


Yes, I tend to agree with you, mind I have not read what these sweeping proposals are either, I will go see if I can find them.

Follow-up to the out come of the Millennium Summit (its only 99 pages
be back in a little while), the link below is pdf format
www.un.org...




[edit on 2/12/2004 by Sauron]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 10:01 AM
link   
It looks like a spin story to enrage people more about the problems in the UN.

We know that the UN has not power over the US so I will not even worry about what the link is saying.

I tell you some people out there in the media will do anything to get the public attention in a bad way to pursue their sensationalism.

Nice link anyway Sauron, we need to know what is the purpose of information like that .


BTW I am glad you got to it first.

[edit on 2-12-2004 by marg6043]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 10:10 AM
link   
lol

If that was true (which it isn't even close to), with who's army would it try to implement these changes on the US?



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
www.un.org...


I'm a cynic. They can try these new 'sweeping'
changes. But honestly ... the U.N. is sooo very
corrupt and the people that go there are so
very corrupt .... I don't see how 'sweeping'
changes will change basic human corruption.

Best to junk it and start over with something
fresh and new (and not in the USA so we can
get our land back in NYC).

BTW - I agree with the posters who said to watch
our freedom to carry arms. THAT freedom, and the
freedom to worship or not worship as we please,
are the two that will measure just how close the
USA is to losing it's soverignty to the U.N.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
No longer will Americans be able to carry arms, and no longer will the sovereignty of the United States exist. This spells the end of Freedom as espoused by the Founding Fathers of the United States and the Declaration calls for Americans to rise up and take down those who advocate this form of governance.



And Kofi and his wife can team up with nelson mandela and start going around America burning us alive at the stake..

This will never happen, if they want to play dirty, we'll stop funding the un and kick them the # out of nyc.... that guy is nothing but a hooligan... he needs a nice shoe shining on his ass anyway....



[edit on 2-12-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I'm a cynic. They can try these new 'sweeping'
changes. But honestly ... the U.N. is sooo very
corrupt and the people that go there are so
very corrupt .... I don't see how 'sweeping'
changes will change basic human corruption.

so removeing people will just make the replacements just as currupt?
yeah sure...
also so your saying WE are currupt and the UK has stoen money of iraqi's? is that what you are saying huh?


Best to junk it and start over with something
fresh and new (and not in the USA so we can
get our land back in NYC).

what would propose huh? a multinational attack force?



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Ive been to a few sites trying to source more info on this, I havent found anymore, I think it is spin as a few here have said already. I think it has a lot to with the US wanting Annan to step down.


Annan told to quit as US Right sniffs blood at the UN
The release of the United Nations' long-awaited proposals for reform was marred yesterday when the senator leading an investigation into the controversial oil-for-food programme for Iraq called on Kofi Annan, the secretary-general, to resign.
Senator Norm Coleman, the chairman of the Senate permanent sub-committee on investigations, said the scale of the scandal meant Mr Annan had no choice but to step down.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 11:07 AM
link   
This sounds to me like more paranoid backwoods militia prattle.

1. The UN would invade the US. How? Good luck.
2. The UN is not going to override the constitution. Since when has the UN ever had any REAL pull in this country anyway?
3. Since when have we ever obeyed the UN anyway? Not in anything signifigant. Sure, we stopped in Kuwait instead of marchinf forward into Iraq last Gulf War. Big deal.

The Un aint gonna do # except sit there and be as useless and ineffective as they always are.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
This sounds to me like more paranoid backwoods militia prattle.

1. The UN would invade the US. How? Good luck.
2. The UN is not going to override the constitution. Since when has the UN ever had any REAL pull in this country anyway?
3. Since when have we ever obeyed the UN anyway? Not in anything signifigant. Sure, we stopped in Kuwait instead of marchinf forward into Iraq last Gulf War. Big deal.

The Un aint gonna do # except sit there and be as useless and ineffective as they always are.


Agreed.
To me this is just right wing crap to show Americans that the UN is bad and the US is good
but we are not stupid enough to believe this. Anyways, how can the UN invade?? they all ready have a building in New York so does that mean they have captured New York without firing a shot



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Yes..as long as Bush is President.

Kerry would have had the US subservient to the UN.

One of the many reasons he lost.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
lol

If that was true (which it isn't even close to), with who's army would it try to implement these changes on the US?


That's why they need an american to run the UN, so he can convince our army to attack themselves.......that seems to be a job that only slick willie himself could pull off.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Kerry wouldnt have had us subserviant to the UN.

The UN is so weak and pointless, wed be serving a nothing. Thats not why he won.

I think the right wing paranoia against the UN is because alot of these super christian nuts believe the UN is the vehicle for the one world govornment that the anti christ is gonna use to take over the world and one world govorn us all to hell.

I simply dont like the UN because they are a potential threat to any nations soverignty, they are corrupt, weak, wishy washy, and pointless.

I think the UN should be disbanded completely. It serves no useful purpose for anyone. Obviously, it sure as hell hasnt made a dent in preventing wars, curing hunger and disease, and helping disaster and poverty stricken countries.

Its as outmoded as NATO is.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I guess you didn't listen to Kerry too much on the campaign trail and the debates, then.

It was always, i would have gone to the UN, again, and again, again.

...global test...blah, blah, blah.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Agreed.

NATO and the UN need to go and be removed. UN needs to be looked at to see if it can still do its job, as for NATO, that should be disbanded. The EU has effected NATOs control i think.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Agreed.

NATO and the UN need to go and be removed. UN needs to be looked at to see if it can still do its job, as for NATO, that should be disbanded. The EU has effected NATOs control i think.

wha? again with the EU military paranioa?
jeez come on! there is no EU military!
the UN has a purpose but would work better if some countries NOT POINTING THE FINGER AT YOU USA REALL I AM NOT! would work together and get the job done instead of rushing ahead and killing everything INCLUDING THEMSELVES AND THEIR ALLIES!



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Opposition to the UN seems to me, to be simply because the US wants to rule the coop. The US doesn't want to be accountable to anyone.

And as much as is has its difficulties, I'm continually amazed that people don't see that there has to be some sort of global structure. Without accountablity to other nations there is so much more potential for abuse.

I don't believe that might should make right and that the US should be beyond touch, being the only superpower in the world. I don't trust our leaders not to abuse this on some imperalistic agenda.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron


I have to add I think the title is very misleading I did not read anywhere in the links that the United Nations plans war.

[edit on 2/12/2004 by Sauron]


Perhaps the word war
could be struggle instead??...as 'they' wrest control & assume the Superior position...i.e. ~war/ struggle ?

back in 1999, it was apparent that Bill 'Caligula' Clinton, had more to his maneuverings with NY, Berkshires, Harlem Office, than met the pop-culture eyeball. (i mailed myself a letter documenting my suspicion that he had/has his eye on the Secretary General position at UN)

whatever your assessment of the UN,,,it's still best to have that org. sitting in your-own-backyard....after all, whats scarier, a rabid animal? or a rabid animal on-the-loose??



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join