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.

 

Bush want control of UN forces!!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Source



Breaking: Bush Wants Command Of UN Forces
by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse
Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 09:16:35 PM PST

This is all the world needs. Bush Team wants to place a US General in charge of ALL UN peacekeeping missions. This would essentially make Mr. Preemptive, Unilateral Decider the Commander In Chief of worldwide military missions with an extra 95,000 soldiers (or UN peacekeepers) to manage "trouble spots from Lebanon to Sudan."

* Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse's diary :: ::
*

The Australian reports this "hugely controversial" measure would be a huge step backwards to how the UN operated when established in WWII as a "US-led alliance." Some UN officials are concerned that the US may use UN forces for covert actions "as it did with the UN weapons inspection teams in the Iraq of Saddam Hussein." IT may also be Bush's exit strategy for Iraq and Afghanistan by replacing US troops with UN forces. Today, the NATO commander indicated that a victory in Afghanistan is not doable without more troops.

It is quite likely that Bush may succeed with this game plan:

"The US is in a strong position to get the top peacekeeping job - currently held by a Frenchman -because of its decisive support in electing Ban Ki Moon, the South Korean Foreign Minister, as the next UN Secretary-General.
Mr Ban, who takes over on January 1, is setting up a transition team to select his top officials and is coming under heavy pressure from the big powers to appoint their favourites to key posts."


Bush Team is justifying its "right" to head worldwide military operations by citing US contributions to the UN. The US only contributes a fraction of the peacekeeping forces: 335 peacekeepers and 330 civilians out of 95,000 UN peacekeepers. However, the US cites that it pays 26% of the UN peacekeeping budget:

"We pay the most," the US official said. "It almost goes without saying that if the Americans are spending the most money on peacekeeping we should have a say in the management of it. It's about time."

The seriousness of this proposal can not be underestimated. Under Bush's great commander-in-chief skills, the world now has conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and wars which have worsened by his neglect in the Middle East and Africa. Taliban and insurgent republics are spreading throughout Iraq and Afghanistan because Bush failed to provide sufficient ground forces.

The Iraq war is spreading into Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia while Bush is prepping Latin America with permanent military bases. Meanwhile, administration hawks are promoting a confrontational stance against Russia and China and advancing with plans to control space, which then brings India into the global space wars. And, now the Afghanistan war is spreading into Pakistan. NATO, Afghanistan and Pakistan agree that "NATO forces operating in Afghanistan would be allowed to conduct hot-pursuit operations across the border into Pakistan."

In addition to seeking control over UN peacekeeping forces, Bush Team is working on a "parallel diplomatic track" to establish a coalition of nations to sanction Iran should the UN not cave to Bush's whims.

Many seemed confidant that Bush could not accomplish his neocon plans to spread wars in Iran, Syria and elsewhere because the continuing Iraq and Afghanistan wars have wrecked our troop capability for new wars. Now we can see that Bush's answer is to get more cannon fodder not by a US draft, but by taking over 95,000 UN peacekeeping forces. Seems Bush actually has a 3-pronged plan for world peace: (1) Bully the heads of foreign countries to bow to his wishes, but if that does not work, (2) impose sanctions with a coalition working outside the UN and (3) be ready to deploy UN forces in combination with US troops and NATO.

Now, more so than ever before, world peace truly lies in the voters' hands.


New World Order? The martial law act that Bush signed could be applied if he have the control of UN troops... dictatorship in the US with the help of NATO and UN troops to implement it... or to further more wars with Iran, North Korea or even Venezuela...

[edit on 3-11-2006 by Vitchilo]




posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   
WoW, I've never seen a more biased written article in my life, i hope this is supposed to be an op piece. Either way I think its a good thing for America to gain control of the UN peacekeepers and send them into Iraq to Stabilize things. That will free our forces up to take on Iran if the need arises.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Yes it's biaised but the UN is supposed to be international, not the puppet of some madman in the white house.

You're right, the article is too biaised...here's others links...

The Australian
The Times Online

Seriously, who want to put 95.000 and NATO forces into the hands of such a war-mongerer and how he managed Iraq?

[edit on 3-11-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Wasn't the UN created to prevent wars? We're seeing more wars now then we did in the period after WWII.

I agree. Putting the UN forces in the control of Bush and the Cons would be a disaster. Even Richard Perle is bailing on the Bush Admin in Iraq now. He even said it was due to incompetence that they are losing Iraq.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by JackJuice
Either way I think its a good thing for America to gain control of the UN peacekeepers and send them into Iraq to Stabilize things. That will free our forces up to take on Iran if the need arises.

He went against the UN's advice to start the war, and now he wants them to clean his mess up?
It will be a disaster if they were to be under his contol.
And that is exactly what it is. Control.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Listen to this guy.

"Take on Iran", "Good for Bush to control more troops".

First of all, we have no legal reason to invade Iran. NONE.
End that.

Second, Bush doesnt need anymore power than he already has. Hes just going to kill Lebanese and Palestinians, and who ever else Israel and the assorted goons tell him to.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   
If you read the article it says that the US wants a US General to be in charge of 95,000 UN Peacekeepers in the general Lebanon region.

That's hardly a world take over.


Considering how France and the rest of the anti-semites feel about Israel, it would be SMART to have a general in charge of the peacekeepers who would actually make an effort to keep Iranian arms out of the region. That wouldn't happen with most of the other members of the security council.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Come on guys, letting Bush take control of UN forces is the dumbest thing to do!!
Right now the UN is cleaning Bush his sh*t all over the world! and some guys are suggesting to give him more troops, if he wants to get peace to the world it ain't gonna happen with more troops! the only thing u gonna have is that the non UN-countrys gonna think is that the UN is a puppet in US hands, and really u don't want that. Why? Because the UN has a quite good reputation around the world for handeling stuff like peacekeeping. If they become like the US and start invading countrys before they really done anything wrong they would lose their credibility to me and lots of ppl i know including alot of ATS-members.

I hope it doesn't happen !!!



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Oh yea. Lets not forget to mention how John Bolton is trying to reform the UN for America. It's sad but I'm sure the UN will fall into NWO hands. How else are they going to achieve world government without using the UN was a rouse?



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   
isn't this exactly what is needed for the 'stereo-typical' NWO takeover of the world? some have always been suspicious of the U.N. and that it was, at some time gunna be one of the 'big boys' on the block...but the U.N. never really had any physical, force influence. butt, if AMERIKA were to take over the military side of the U.N. ....do you see where i'm going??
wouldn't this give the U.N. the military might to actually become a viable force?

i wonder what the 'legalities' are for AMERIKAN soldiers under U.N. colors to operate on American soil.?



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   
I was just reading through this post again and uh..

You guys realize we're talking about the UN here.. The leading public force for World Government..

Kind of a smart plan, if you think about it..
Give the idiot Pres. of America to deploy troops where ever the Rothchilds tells him and if he fks things up, who cares? His international reputation is already trash.
Hes got nothing to lose.

Keep in mind when you give Bush more power that he IS a criminal with nothing to lose, and a FAT bank account.


Bush is not to be trusted.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Using the power of the U.N. is, well... how should I say this?....

Using the power of the U.N. is UN-American!


...I crack myself up...


[edit on 6-11-2006 by Gear]



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Russia, France and China are all on the UN Security Council. And some of the current non-permanent members of the Council aren't exactly US stooges either.

They'll never let this happen, so I wouldn't worry.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Wow, thats pretty outrageous.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by kriegott
Wasn't the UN created to prevent wars? We're seeing more wars now then we did in the period after WWII.

I agree. Putting the UN forces in the control of Bush and the Cons would be a disaster. Even Richard Perle is bailing on the Bush Admin in Iraq now. He even said it was due to incompetence that they are losing Iraq.


In my opinion, we are seeing more wars because the UN at its most basic level was designed to keep the Cold War from going "hot." I was Model United Nations Coordinator for my university at a well-respected school, and I still think the UN needs to be completely re-vamped for the times that we live in.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
But the times we live in means that the UN will become a dictatorship. Surrending freedom for security only gives you tyranny.

History shows us that we cannot be complacent to this criminal activity.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
just look into who pays the UN's paychecks. The UN is already controlled by the USA - IMF whatever you want to call the corporation.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I thought the USA hasn't been paying their UN dues for over a decade now?



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan


Considering how France and the rest of the anti-semites feel about Israel, it would be SMART to have a general in charge of the peacekeepers who would actually make an effort to keep Iranian arms out of the region. That wouldn't happen with most of the other members of the security council.



You what? A whole country is anti-semitic? 'most of the other members of the security council can't be trusted'? Your prejudices are showing my friend! 'SMART'? In who's terms?
Do you have any evidence to back up these sweeping accusations or do you just 'know you're right'.

This will never happen - certainly after Gen Clarke's performance in Kosovo. Gen Mike Jackson had the right attitude!



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by kriegott
Wasn't the UN created to prevent wars? We're seeing more wars now then we did in the period after WWII.

I agree. Putting the UN forces in the control of Bush and the Cons would be a disaster. Even Richard Perle is bailing on the Bush Admin in Iraq now. He even said it was due to incompetence that they are losing Iraq.


Who are you kidding, at any time around the world any year there are many conflicts going on that you or I hear nothing about. A majority by the way which occur in Africa and South East Asia with no US involvement at all. It wouldnt place UN Peacekeepers under control of Bush, but a US General. He would be under the UN's authority, not Bush's. There are always different nationalities in the UN Forces chain of command, whether it be American, French, Chinese, British or whoever. Heres a list of conflicts ongoing right now, 3 of which involve the US.

Muslim Conflicts World-WIde

Armed conflict is actually down 40% since the early 90's, do a little reasearch before you run off making unfounded statements.
World Conflicts down 40% since 90's

Oh and by the way, the French and British have been involved in more conflicts than the US in the last 50 years.

[edit on 11/8/2006 by ludaChris]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join