What if Trump was the Secretary General of the U.N.?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: nwtrucker

NO!

Just bulldoze the UN bldg into the East River and make something more useful out of the space, like a garbage dump or a parking lot.

Yah, what the hell, talking peace is overrated.

What can you do, some people just Want to watch the world burn.

As long as its other peoples worlds burning, not theirs.

Twisted

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nwtrucker

UN has a puny force of impartial vehicles to 'peace keep'. Its a facade, US uses UN resolutions as mandate to conquer nations unjustly. They don't have an actual army to dispatch.

LOL. Name the nations conquered unjustly by the U.S. via the U.N.?

UN Sanctions and Resolutions for "Humanitarian Interventions" turned to regime change for unjust reasons are numerous. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria are the most recent.

Glib response. You know it. I know it.

Asks me to name nations, then 'glibly' dismisses all those millions of lives.

You should have that condition looked at.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nwtrucker

UN has a puny force of impartial vehicles to 'peace keep'. Its a facade, US uses UN resolutions as mandate to conquer nations unjustly. They don't have an actual army to dispatch.

LOL. Name the nations conquered unjustly by the U.S. via the U.N.?

UN Sanctions and Resolutions for "Humanitarian Interventions" turned to regime change for unjust reasons are numerous. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria are the most recent.

Oh, now it sanctions and Resolutions. A different spin than unjustly conquered. Garbage. Apparently, your in the minority on 'unjustly'. But I'm not playing your game, your idee fixe. The thread is about potentially strong leadership in the U.N. as opposed to the current lot.

Assuming you actually believe your posts then one would think you'd consider the concept of someone leading the U.N. saying NO. No more.

I guess it's too much to ask for you to consider that possibility.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The thread is about potentially strong leadership in the U.N. as opposed to the current lot.

The UN is not a dictatorship.

Do you know the difference between voting and just bombing nations the west don't like?

Not apparently, you want them to just go along with whatever we want. But then tell me about 'voting' elsewhere.

Your dual nature slip is showing...

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: nwtrucker

NO!

Just bulldoze the UN bldg into the East River and make something more useful out of the space, like a garbage dump or a parking lot.

Yah, what the hell, talking peace is overrated.

Simpletons are impressed by "talk".

I look at substance, and when you do, this is what you find:
- The UN did NOTHING to stop the murders of millions by the Khmer in Cambodia
- The UN did NOTHING to stop the slaughter in Rwanda
- The UN did NOTHING the stop the slaughter in the Balkans (instead, NATO went in and did the job)
- The UN's "Oil for Food" program was a disaster where Kofi Annan's son stole money and no one ever got charged

The UN is exactly that - ALL TALK.

ALL the heavy lifting, ALL OF IT, including funding, is done by developped nations.

The UN is a waste

a reply to: M5xaz

The UN is a waste

The UN does not 'waste' anyone.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nwtrucker

The thread is about potentially strong leadership in the U.N. as opposed to the current lot.

The UN is not a dictatorship.

Do you know the difference between voting and just bombing nations the west don't like?

Not apparently, you want them to just go along with whatever we want. But then tell me about 'voting' elsewhere.

Your dual nature slip is showing...

I guess the concept of strong leadership gets equated with dictatorship in your mind. Hard to work with that limited logic. Outside the ME, this world has never been in better shape. Burgeoning third world economies, improved living standards for millions, if not billions. All the ills you fixate on are U.S. originated. Pure, unadulterated garbage.

Sad, really.

This is exactly what Obama had in mind if Hillary became President. All she would have had to do is is recommend him to the security council and he would have had the job. Together they would have taken control for the NWO. This is not a shot in the dark this was discussed several years ago as their objective. What Obama needed was the recommendation from a sitting U.S. President in order for this to happen.a reply to: nwtrucker

a reply to: nwtrucker

I guess the concept of strong leadership gets equated with dictatorship in your mind.

Rather, you are downplaying what you really men by 'strong leadership' , because you know just invading and conquering is illegal.

Where you got the idea the UN is anymore than an international assembly for nations to vote about world affairs.

originally posted by: gimcrackery
This is exactly what Obama had in mind if Hillary became President. All she would have had to do is is recommend him to the security council and he would have had the job. Together they would have taken control for the NWO. This is not a shot in the dark this was discussed several years ago as their objective. What Obama needed was the recommendation from a sitting U.S. President in order for this to happen.a reply to: nwtrucker

I don't doubt that one bit. I do pose the idea that a strong leader could perhaps straighten out the U.N.. Perhaps even turn it into a positive force. Certainly clean up the organization, corruption-wise.

Any idea that the U.N. does the U.S.'s bidding is bunk.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nwtrucker

I guess the concept of strong leadership gets equated with dictatorship in your mind.

Rather, you are downplaying what you really men by 'strong leadership' , because you know just invading and conquering is illegal.

Where you got the idea the UN is anymore than an international assembly for nations to vote about world affairs.

Perhaps you might refresh yourself of the original intent of the U.N.. Then try to fit that into some mold that fits your concerns.

I don't downplay what I mean, I say what I mean. The winners apparently decide what is 'legal'. So if the U.N.-in it's current form- is meaningless, rightly, then so is your constant proclamation of 'illegal'. Equally 'meaningless'. Yes?

So try shifting your viewpoint to allow a theoretical strong leader 'could' steer the U.N. in a different direction.

Not the likelihood, merely the idea.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I don't downplay what I mean, I say what I mean.

No you didn't, you 'implied' you want trump to 'fix' the UN.

The UN was established after WWII to prevent any nation form conquering other nations to dominate the globe, like the Nazis were trying to do.

period

This discussion is pointless, you are feigning ignorance, talking in circles.

Buh-bye

a reply to: nwtrucker
I never thought to much about Clintons circle getting into the UN dam not sure why I rarely thought of such. That would have been a good one to fear!

a reply to: nwtrucker

After his presidency, he should go into the space freight business as a venture capitalist.

His end goal should be to make Mars settlements with Trump towers at the center.

Trump space shuttle service to Mars trump tower 1, 2, 3 and so on.

Then pull a Howard Hughes and spear head the inter planetary mining business.

It would get governments around the world to ask for shuttle and habitat space. He could offer that for a cost to offset his mining investments.

Then he should start a legal process for claiming land on mars.