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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   
The UN isnt the NWO. The Worlds different governments comprise the UN in its entirety. The NWO would be a stand alone entity above the World's elected/sovereign governments. The UN cannot do anything that the World's governments do not agree to do, hence no lack or deminished sovereignty.

Also to those who say "why wouldnt you want the Americans to run the World?" "they would be better than China, Russia etc" I say this, speaking personally I would trust the Americans as much as the Chinese or Russians to run the World i.e. dont trust them at all.

The Americans should focus on fixing their own country before trying to "fix the world"



[edit on 17/6/05 by subz]




posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   
The UN is a nearly complete failure and I have very few qualms about ceasing to waste time and money on it. The only thing the UN has truly been 100% effective in is harboring foreign intelligence operatives on US soil.

That being said, we can't just pull the rug out from under Britain after they've bent over backwards to be our friends in the war on terror. They don't have the luxury of ignoring European politics. There will be times when they need to go with the flow and trust us to cast our veto in the security council, and there will be times when they need us to lobby members of the general assembly for them.
Remember what happened the last time Russia walked out on a security council vote? I'll give you a hint: THE KOREAN WAR.


If we leave, it's only a matter of time until we go to war with the UN or a nation acting under the authority of the UN. For example- what happens if Venezuela goes at it with Columbia and has UN backing some day? Then instead of simply casting our veto against intervention and then making our own unilateral intervention and stepping on Venezuela's testacles in defiance of the rest of the UN, we will instead have to either let Columbia fall or defend them against other first-world nations.
And that's not too far out there when you consider that Columbia is having to raid Venezuela to capture FARC members and Venezuela is getting very cozy with Russia and China, probably on their way to joining BRICS, not to mention the Russian military hardware they are acquiring already.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
Soveriegn authority by dictating what the other nations must do due to what the security council decides?! HA!

What?
The security council is made up of the big 5, any one can veto but they cant push things through.
They also only dictate the laws the nations agreed to when joining the UN.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 05:42 PM
link   


What?
The security council is made up of the big 5, any one can veto but they cant push things through.
They also only dictate the laws the nations agreed to when joining the UN.


It's pointless arguing with them DW, those Americans against the UN have a basic misuderstanding they cannot shake.

(That is not an attack against America, or Americans before you all kick off and start ranting that I am some "American Hater")

They seem to believe the UN is some ultra-government entity, rather than the collection of Nations it is.

IIt cannot do ANYTHING without all the big 5 agreeing, but again they don't understand this, they think it as the NWO.

they also fail to see all the good it does, only concentrating on the fact ot doesn't always do what America want's it to do, like Iraq for example.

They have also all ignored my above post about actually being unable to leave the UN. You can not attend meetings, but you can;t just leave the UN. You need to be expelled.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   
What's missing here is reallity. The UN was about "voicing" issues during the Cold War. An "out". Failsafe. It worked, we're still here. The problem right now is that there is nothing to counteract the power of the States. There is no Yin to the Yang. Yang is running wild now, internationally and on home turf. Not a good scenario.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
It's really funny that before the Iraq war the Bu#es were mum on the so-called "widespread" UN corruption but when they start to disagree with the USA then it's a corrupt entity that has served it's purpose and needs to be put down like a rabit dog(that is a direct quote from someone who shall remane nameless from a thread a long time ago...)



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
It's really funny that before the Iraq war the Bu#es were mum on the so-called "widespread" UN corruption but when they start to disagree with the USA then it's a corrupt entity that has served it's purpose and needs to be put down like a rabit dog(that is a direct quote from someone who shall remane nameless from a thread a long time ago...)


Funny that this didn't happen during the Cold War. You would have thought that it would have happened then.

Curious.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
It's really funny that before the Iraq war the Bu#es were mum on the so-called "widespread" UN corruption but when they start to disagree with the USA then it's a corrupt entity that has served it's purpose and needs to be put down like a rabit dog(that is a direct quote from someone who shall remane nameless from a thread a long time ago...)


That's your point of view which is false....the UN has always had dictatorships as member states and have allowed true dictatorships to do horrendous things to civilians. My own view on the UN has never changed... what is funny is that the libel#es now seem to want to make another excuse against all the evidence that shows the UN is corrupt and it is highly probable that even they changed the UNMOVIC reports and were different from the reports by UNSCOM, because the UNMOVIC group was paid off with money from the oil for food program.

[edit on 17-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
That's your point of view which is false....


Why? Because it doesn't fit [your political reallity?



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Why? Because it doesn't fit [your political reallity?


no...because if you would have noticed for as long as i have been a member of these forums i always said the same thing of the UN, and I have been a member for more than a year.

What is it with you and your antagonism against me now?.... You are a moderator, act like one.

[edit on 17-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by intrepid

Why? Because it doesn't fit [your political reallity?


no...because if you would have noticed for as long as i have been a member of these forums i always said the same thing of the UN, and I have been a member for more than a year.

What is it with you and your antagonism against me now?.... You are a moderator, act like one.

[edit on 17-6-2005 by Muaddib]


What antasgonism? Your point of view can't handle scrutiny?

What do you mean? Have no opinion that disagrees with you?

Not happening. BTW, you should be glad I'm staff, I'd tear you apart as a member.

Bad debate skills.


Pfft!


Sorry, we should be on topic. My mistake.

[edit on 17-6-2005 by intrepid]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
..........
Not happening. BTW, you should be glad I'm staff, I'd tear you apart as a member.

Bad debate skills.


Pfft!
...........


Riiiight...like you have never been able to do before you mean?....

As staff you should be able try to as you say, "rip apart others" as long as you have evidence and what you are "ripping appart" are arguments....

What antagonism?, your favoritism towards other members because they share your views in these topics is showing through intrepid. It is not the only thread where this tendency of yours shows either.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   
And in that same vain Muaddib you could be said to be doing exactly the same.

Any views that disagree with your own, you are known to ferociously argue against, many times flying in the face of the given evidence and sane logic.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
That's your point of view which is false....the UN has always had dictatorships as member states and have allowed true dictatorships to do horrendous things to civilians. My own view on the UN has never changed... what is funny is that the libel#es now seem to want to make another excuse against all the evidence that shows the UN is corrupt and it is highly probable that even they changed the UNMOVIC reports and were different from the reports by UNSCOM, because the UNMOVIC group was paid off with money from the oil for food program.

[edit on 17-6-2005 by Muaddib]

You cant just change a country to suit you, also why are you speaking as though the US and the UN are not the same?



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
You cant just change a country to suit you, also why are you speaking as though the US and the UN are not the same?


Probably they could if they wanted to, but either way the UN shouldn't have allowed dictatorships and countries where genocide is happening to be part of the UN member nations, such as Sudan as an example.

BTW, the US is a member nation of the UN, but it is not the UN.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   


UN shouldn't have allowed dictatorships and countries where genocide is happening to be part of the UN member nations, such as Sudan as an example



You can't have it both ways Muaddib. The US is a member of the UN, but you cry that the UN allows dictators in (the same dictators the US supports). If the US cared so much, then why not make more noise, rather than complain only when you don;t get your own way.

Grow up....



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Probably they could if they wanted to,

They could but they cant.
Firstly its unacceptable to lay down a law against a people that are not your own.
Second, its ethically wrong to kill because you dont like the government.


but either way the UN shouldn't have allowed dictatorships and countries where genocide is happening to be part of the UN member nations, such as Sudan as an example.

So how do you stop the violence to let peacekeepers in?
Go in guns blazeing?
Just mount a military operation everytime a warlord commits genocide?
Know what that is?
A NWO, the UN is not an NWO.


BTW, the US is a member nation of the UN, but it is not the UN.

Technically no, the UN is its members and its members are the UN.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

You can't have it both ways Muaddib. The US is a member of the UN, but you cry that the UN allows dictators in (the same dictators the US supports). If the US cared so much, then why not make more noise, rather than complain only when you don;t get your own way.

Grow up....


Me grow up?...to become a libel#e? naa, i grew up to be a Republican, and i am proud of it.


BTW i don't cry, stu....

Another thing stu, if the UN does not do what the US thinks is best, how can the US be accountable for what the UN does as a whole?... There is not, "you can't have it both ways"...because the US is not the UN...there are many member nations in the UN, and normally they reach decisions that a majority of them agree on.

If the US government, and some of the other nations do not agree with something the majority of the UN nations want to do, there isn't much the US and the other nations can do through the UN.

BTW, can you show us proof that the US supports the Sudanese government?, or the government of NK?



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
If the US government, and some of the other nations do not agree with something the majority of the UN nations want to do, there isn't much the US and the other nations can do through the UN.


The US has veto power, why do you think isreal is still here?



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
The security council is made up of the big 5, any one can veto but they cant push things through.
They also only dictate the laws the nations agreed to when joining the UN.


There have been discussions to expand the UN Security Council to include the losing powers (Japan and Germany) and the non-aligned powers (India, Brazil, Nigeria, Taiwan, few other countries), giving them more says in the dictation of security matters with the permanent five powers.

The days of five powers dictating the Security Council on international interventions alone may be numbering.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join