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.

 

NEWS: Law Before House to Repeal the UN Act of 1945

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   
What does any of this to do with repealling the UN Act?




posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
What does any of this to do with repealling the UN Act?


It has everything to do with repealing the UN act... the UN is too corrupt to be considered as a humantarian group anymore.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

I see....so just because Hamas doesn't just conduct terrorist organizations, which in that statement alone you are agreeing that they are terrorists, they are ok

I agree that they belong to a terrorist orginisation, until they commit an attack or help in one they are not terrorists.


...... Sure, let's have an organization that has carried suicide bombings work for a humanitarian group..... Now we only need a new definition for the word humanitarian...... how about humanitarian suicide bomber??......

So your for the good old "black and white" we dont see anything else veiw?
Because they belong to a terror group DOES NOT MEAN they commited acts of terror.


BTW....we are not talking about 20+ years ago, we are talking about now...and what UN troops have been doing recently such as French troops working for the UN shooting and killing unarmed civilians at the end of last year,

Yes we are talking about now, we are talking about diffrent people and diffrent cultures, your trying to judge them by YOUR culture.
Oh and BTW there is far more to that french shooting incident than your telling, mabye you'd like to remind people that there was a crowd growing around the troops and hasseling them and getting extremly close to the soldiers.
Tell me if an angry mob gathers round you , are you going to keep your cool?


and UN troops raping women and children in Africa last year.

Like I have said before there are always bad people in the world.


Weren't you saying the UN is "the jewel in the crown"?...


No I said they where needed because if we go back to pre 1914 thinking we will see another WW1 incident.


It has everything to do with repealing the UN act... the UN is too corrupt to be considered as a humantarian group anymore.

Image Linked Here
So is this man not being humanatarian?

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Mod Edit: Fixed link length.

[edit on 16-6-2005 by ZeddicusZulZorander]



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
It has everything to do with repealing the UN act... the UN is too corrupt to be considered as a humantarian group anymore.


You may see it that way, I however see it as 2 people argueing off-topic jargon in the news forum.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
You may see it that way, I however see it as 2 people argueing off-topic jargon in the news forum.

Yes I agree, I say we take this arguement PTS.....



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
.
The one place on the planet where all nations come together to have a dialogue,
And we have a king-pin seat on the Security council.

Now we want to trash it so we can feel self righteous, because it isn't our own personal little lap dog?

Some of us American's have to be about the dumbest humans on the planet.
.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
It is my opinion that it's about time for us to depart the United Nations. The intentions of this organization is not one of human rights and dignity for the world masses.
Its peace keeping power is worthless and it has done nothing to abolish human rights violations.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   
On one hand, the UN is a globalist hive; the land for the UN headquarters was purchased with an 8.5 million dollar donation from who other than John D. Rockefeller Jr. himself.

I think that even though the Administration is more nationalist and has less globalist ties than Clinton did, this is too drastic of a step and would definiteley scare the crap out of the far left; Bush doesn't want to alienate any more than he already has.

I want to say that Bills like this go to the House of Representatives quite frequently. I could have drafted a bill - I think many people on these forums forget that the Unites States' democratic process is still intact, wheather or not it's payed attention to is what most are wrapped up in.


[edit on 6/16/05 by Bly Magister]



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by flycatch
It is my opinion that it's about time for us to depart the United Nations. The intentions of this organization is not one of human rights and dignity for the world masses.
Its peace keeping power is worthless and it has done nothing to abolish human rights violations.


I second what flycatch said.


I think we should have departed from the UN a long time ago.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

You may see it that way, I however see it as 2 people argueing off-topic jargon in the news forum.


This thread is about a law which requests to move the UN HQ from New York, that the US would withdraw from the UN, and stop all payments to the UN...

So, do tell me how discussing the reasons why we should do exactly what this law is about, the withdraw of the US from the UN, is "jargon and off-topic"?.....

Let's actually see the name of the law.

H. R. 1146

To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.



[edit on 16-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Not sure this will even work, as I am pretty sure that the only way to leave the UN is to be expelled. Not that I am saying that is right or wrong, just the way it is.

This is in place due to the farce of the League of Nations, which allowed Nations to withdraw will-nilly, thus making it pretty redundant. Nazi Germany withdrew when they didn't like the noises being made against them, therefore making any moves against them pretty academic.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
The article here states Mr. Paul introduced this act in the 109th congress in March 8th. However when I googled it up I found the same resolution here introduced by Mr. Paul again in March 6th of 2003 during the first session of the 108th congress. It says this amendmant will be enacted 2 years after the enactment of the amendmant. It appears to me this thing was just brought up again this year with the new congress.

Not to mention it was brought up with the 107th congress in 2001 and the 106th congress in 1999. Seems to me this resolution has been getting shot down by congress since 1999. No need to believe this will pass again this time. Here is an interiew with Ron Paul (R-TX) district 14 from 2000.

Just because the U.N. does not authorize men with families to go lay their lives down in foreign nations every week does not mean they are doing nothing in the world. First off the Secretary General does not even have the authority to dictate such things whether he is Koffi Annan, Denzel Washington or anyone one of us. The member bodies have to unanimously agree to send forces anywhere. The U.N. is doing what it can for the world at all times with what little resources it really does have, like clearing minefields in war ravaged nations, boosting literacy in third world countries, bringing medical care to people in poverty and such.

[edit on 6/16/2005 by DYepes]



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Ron Paul have posted an ominous vision of the future from the planned reformed UN, thanks to the efforts of the neo-cons:

This week Congress will vote on a bill to expand the power of the United Nations beyond the dreams of even the most ardent left-wing, one-world globalists. But this time the UN power grabbers aren’t European liberals; they are American neo-conservatives, who plan to use the UN to implement their own brand of world government.

The “United Nations Reform Act of 2005” masquerades as a bill that will cut US dues to the United Nations by 50% if that organization does not complete a list of 39 reforms. On the surface any measure that threatens to cut funding to the United Nations seems very attractive, but do not be fooled: in this case reform “success” will be worse than failure. The problem is in the supposed reforms themselves-- specifically in the policy changes this bill mandates.

The proposed legislation opens the door for the United Nations to routinely become involved in matters that have never been part of its charter. Specifically, the legislation redefines terrorism very broadly for the UN’s official purposes-- and charges it to take action on behalf of both governments and international organizations.

What does this mean? The official adoption of this definition by the United Nations would have the effect of making resistance to any government or any international organization an international crime. It would make any attempt to overthrow a government an international causus belli for UN military action. Until this point a sovereign government retained the legal right to defend against or defeat any rebellion within its own territory. Now any such activity would constitute justification for United Nations action inside that country. This could be whenever any splinter group decides to resist any regime-- regardless of the nature of that regime.


Read the rest of the article here.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   
The US stayed out of the original "League of Nations" formed after WWI. It wished to distance itself from the intrigues of post-war Europe. Many feel this absence to have been an early step virtually guaranteeing an eventual WWII.
The United Nations formed in 1946 was primarily an effort to prevent that same error re-occurring. It was for all intents a containment effort of the then insatiable Soviet territorial appetite. The helmsmanship fell to the US as the world grew to see that only America stood a chance of stemming the communist tide that as history proved, took nearly 50 years to recede.
The United Nations has for some years now proven itself to be incapable of significant 'enforcement', save when the economic/industrial might of again, the American nation backed their claims.
There is little reason for the US to remain a part of this organization, which more and more leans toward a world order contrary to that for which Americans fought in those two World wars. It in fact is an organization bent on now minimizing our influence, and supporting causes quite contrary to our interests.
Check Please !! We're outta here !!



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
What does this mean? The official adoption of this definition by the United Nations would have the effect of making resistance to any government or any international organization an international crime. It would make any attempt to overthrow a government an international causus belli for UN military action. Until this point a sovereign government retained the legal right to defend against or defeat any rebellion within its own territory. Now any such activity would constitute justification for United Nations action inside that country. This could be whenever any splinter group decides to resist any regime-- regardless of the nature of that regime.

Read the rest of the article here.


So if this reformed UN had been in effect during the Shiite or Kurdish uprisings, the UN would have had to intervene on the side of Saddam.
Brilliant move Neocons.

[edit on 16-6-2005 by AceOfBase]



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I think the UN is just another way to control the world and try to create a new NWO.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheApocalypse
I think the UN is just another way to control the world and try to create a new NWO.

You think wrong then.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   
First of all post more than just one comment or two. Secondly, why is that thinking wrong? One universal government to control all nations and destroy their soveriegnty is very NWOish. Thirdly, if you are going to say that his thinking is wrong then back up why it is wrong.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
First of all post more than just one comment or two. Secondly, why is that thinking wrong? One universal government to control all nations and destroy their soveriegnty is very NWOish. Thirdly, if you are going to say that his thinking is wrong then back up why it is wrong.

The back up to my case is in the charter in Chapter 1,article 2.



Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

Notice the bold...



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Soveriegn authority by dictating what the other nations must do due to what the security council decides?! HA!




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join