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.

 

Chavez Bids to Move UN to Jerusalem

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   


The U.S. has been the largest impedement for the United Nations; a organization consisting of the world body, and a simply forum of dialouge which has elaborated it's policies and forum to adhere to this ever so conflicting global society.


You're kidding, right? Were it not for the support of the United States, the United Nations would have long ago gone the way of the League of Nations. The United States has done more, and continues to do more, financially for the UN than probably every other nation combined. If we really wanted to impede the UN we could evict them from NYC and stop giving them the billions of dollars we've given them throughout history. The majority of the cases where we have used our veto power involve the United Nation's continued support of the extremist PLO. When they choose to pass a resolution condemning Israel for various acts (including firing missiles at terrorists responsible for the murder of dozens of innocent women and children) and not including the condemnation of the terrorist acts which preceeded it, and terrorism in general, then we use our veto.

What is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. As long as the UN continues to go soft on terrorism and hard on Israel (which is by no means a Saint) for defending itself, and continues to take an unbalanced and unfair approach towards peace in the Middle East, then we will use our veto power everytime similar resolutions come to a vote. Furthermore, the United States is the only nation in history (I believe) to ever seek, and receive, UN approval before going to war. While we didn't get it for the first Iraq war (some will argue that the previous resolution which told Saddam there would be "consequences" was approval enough, or even the 15 he ignored before that) we have gotten it a few times in the past. No other nation has done more than the United States to resolve international issues through the UN body. No other nation has sought and received the approval of the UN before going to war.

Now, one thing I refuse to do, per your request, is give all of the evidence on why the UN is such a corrupt and useless international body. There's a million other threads where you can find all of that information. The bottom line is that I stand by my original statement: The United Nations must go! It's really about time that we put this red-headed step child up for adoption and let it be some other country's problem. Let's see how many countries love the UN enough to babysit them on their home turf.




posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   
The UN, and the rest of the world will sooner or later get tired of the American BS and just kick them to the curb, or at least should. As for what would happen if America Left? Like they follow the rules now? So the answer is really nothing would change, merely easier accounting.


America has and always be a very valued ally, in terms of it's people. As for it's government and the leemings that follow it, the sooner that falls the better. IMO.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Passer By
The UN, and the rest of the world will sooner or later get tired of the American BS and just kick them to the curb, or at least should. As for what would happen if America Left? Like they follow the rules now? So the answer is really nothing would change, merely easier accounting.


America has and always be a very valued ally, in terms of it's people. As for it's government and the leemings that follow it, the sooner that falls the better. IMO.


You do realize that the US is the only reason why the UN still exists?

UN is a large waste of time, effort and money. No one follows the rules and no one does anything about it.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Before the UN or any type of organization like it becomes useful, it would need to be able to force compliance of whatever resolutions it passes. It is useless if it cannot.

The ultimate League of Nations/ United Nations would have the power to make decisions stick, and, IMO, that would be what we all fear as the New World Order.

Moving headquarters around has no effect at all other than the extra curricular activities the representatives have access to while they're there and not working.

Moving it to Jerusalem would be fine with me...there's not a lot there to entertain and maybe instead of partying, the members might be actually workling more. Security concerns could be a little dicey, though.

The more isolated, the better.

Moving it to Hans Island would be perfect...no serious security concerns and no entertainment unless its provided right in the UN building.

And right now...Hans Island belongs to no country at all.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Forgiven

You do realize that the US is the only reason why the UN still exists?

UN is a large waste of time, effort and money. No one follows the rules and no one does anything about it.


Riight, sure thing. Uhhmmm, and other than your own ego what makes you think this? Logically it makes no sense.

Here is something for you to think about. If the US wasn't here, what would the world look like? Can you even conceive of such a thing? Let me know.

IMO, it would look a lot like it does today. The US is many things, and many are bad and many are good. It is, like every country and probably people, a wash. Our good, more or less, makes up for our bad. The US is a non-entity, and at least until they get their own house in order, they are nudged more on the potential to do bad, moreso than good. As is evidensed by recent history.

The UN needs reform, not to be garbaged. There are many things that are redeeming of the UN, much like there are many things that are redeemings about all organasations. However, if we are to grow and evolve into our potentional then we must learn to keep the baby while changing the bath water. Just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean you start fresh, it means you improve on what works, and change what doesn't. There is no sure thing that those changes will work. The only sure thing is that you will be able to change it again if it doesn't.

Maybe changing the location of it is a better thing. It is obvious that the US has it's own problems to deal with and with the current situation maybe it is better to move it to a more nuetreal location. I like the Swiss, I think that is about as safe as you can get. It is a good solid city, world class. It is secure, and most importantly - nuetreal.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Put the UN anywhere but New York. Put it in Antartica, for all the good it does. By the way, I saw Ted Turner on Letterman the other night saying that the US owed the UN a billion dollars, which was creating a burden on the august institution, so Ted coughed up a billion dollar donation, one-third of his personal wealth at the time. What a guy! Wonder what he did to run Jane Fonda off?

[edit on 2005/9/20 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Strangecraft, you relise how a hacker could effectively "control" the world via email....right?

Sorry, this is computer-illiterate paranoia. "a hacker" could not control the world via email.


Here's a quote from the Washington Post article in question:



Chavez said U.N. headquarters should be moved from New York to international city "outside the sovereignty of any state," and noted that some have suggested Jerusalem.

"The new U.N. headquarters has to be in the South," which is home to most developing countries, he added.

So it sounds like Chavez wasn't suggesting Jerusalem, but rather the writer spun it that way.



TC said: The U.N. was fashioned so that conflict could be controlled to drive the world to a one world govbernment and that there would eventually be peace, not bliss and happiness, but peace as in the inability to resist.

Ha ha, trust Thomas Crowne to set the matter straight.

This is from Wikipedia:


The UN describes itself as a "global association of governments facilitating cooperation in international law, security, economic development, and social equity

Hmmm, let's see... Cooperation in:

1: International Law? -- Failure.
2: Security? -- Failure.
3: Economic Development? -- Hell yeah!... But not for you.
4: Social Equality? -- Shyeah right!

There seems to be some kind of mental schema where a person wants to believe that the larger entity is somehow the more noble and caring one. These same folks seem mystified that the American federal government failed so poorly to plan for Katrina. They really do think that the larger entity (or more correctly, those who comprise that entity's core decision makers) should have the more moral and helpful mindset.

...NEWSFLASH: This is not true.

As for where the UN should be located? I couldn't care less, but I want access to the sacrificial altar/meditation room, wherever they move it.

www.aquaac.org...



[edit on 20-9-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Passerby, you just can't seem to follow either the bouncing ball or the money trail, can you? You should do a little research before you go shooting your mouth off. Start back at the beginning of the last century; that's a decent place to start to get the U.N. picture. Bette yet, don't bother; I'll do the work for you and send it to your email next week, ok?

Grady, the stupid meeting place could be moved to the MOON, and it won't make one bit of difference as far as what they do or who funds it. This org., created and controlled by "them" for the express purpse to enslave US, and us being all of us across the globe, is the problem, not its location. Another part of the problem is the group who can't seem to get it through their heads that the United States is no more the problem than their own particular country. They'd probably deny that anybody from their country could possibly be a bad guy, when the fact of the matte ris, if they hail from Europe, they exported their problem to us!



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Passerby, you just can't seem to follow either the bouncing ball or the money trail, can you? You should do a little research before you go shooting your mouth off. Start back at the beginning of the last century; that's a decent place to start to get the U.N. picture. Better yet, don't bother; I'll do the work for you and send it to your email next week, ok?


Wow, you'll do the research and get back to me with a completely unbaised, fully open and right down the middle report huh? Wow, that is really nice of you but I think I'll keep with my own studies if it is all the same to you. Thanks.

I can follow every trail, and worse, generally figure the underlying trail that the first trail is covering up. Macavellian I am sure, but that does seem to be the way of the government doesn't it? Ohh to be those that only follow concrete things like bouncing balls, or think that it is the money(and not the more ambigous power) that all this is about.

The US, IMO only, suffers from little man disease. You know that ailment that requires people to always tell you how strong they are, always either picking or instigating fights(That they seldom if ever win on their own) and always seem to have a low self esteem issue, generally hidden by a facade of super-arrogant behaviour. Yep, that pretty much covers it doesn't it? The ego, the threats, the bigging up oneself, ..... all classic symptoms.

However, I digress, the topic is about the UN and possible relocation. It seems obvious that some feel that the UN is worthless and therefor shouldn't have any feelings concerning it's location anyway. Chavez's comment on it being in the south seems to make some sense seeing as it is where most of the problems are, and may lead to a better awareness of the issues surrounding the people in the poorer area's and therefor help in reaching solid conclusions on how to help them. What are your feelings on that? Can you see any problem(Other than the comfort of those diplomates?) with moving it to a more needy part of the world?



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I think moving the UN to Jerusalem is a GREAT idea!
First that will get that bunch of freeloaders out of my country.

Second, a few months of homicide bombers will be good for all those bleeding heart, panty-waisted dignitaries, it won't be long before they tell Israel; "Go get 'em boys, nuke 'em till they glow and shoot 'em in the dark"
Banjo




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join