One Day will We see United Nations forces in The USA?

I remember reading something that said one day UN forces would be sent into the United States if there is resistance to the New World Order. UN forces would have no problem firing on US civilians. What do Y'all think?

[edit on 16-9-2007 by BigDaveJr]

Originally posted by BigDaveJr
I remember reading something that said one day UN forces would be sent into the United States if there is resistance to the New World Order. UN forces would have no problem firing on US civilians. What do Y'all think?

[edit on 16-9-2007 by BigDaveJr]

Ah, I assume your another American who thinks the UN has a standing Army and is some autonomous entity?

It makes me chuckle, the whole American anti-UN attitude... for crying out loud, it was you guy's who came up with the UN!

The United Nations was founded as a successor to the League of Nations, which was widely considered to have been ineffective in its role as an international governing body, in that it had been unable to prevent World War II. Some argue that the UN's major advantage over the League of Nations is its ability to maintain and deploy its member nations' armed forces as peace keepers. Others see such "peace keeping" as a euphemism for war and domination of weak and poor countries by the wealthy and powerful nations of the world.[5]

The term "United Nations" (which appears in stanza 35 of Canto III of Byron's Childe Harold's Pilgrimage) was decided by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill[6] during World War II, to refer to the Allies. Its first formal use was in the 1 January 1942 Declaration by the United Nations, which committed the Allies to the principles of the Atlantic Charter and pledged them not to seek a separate peace with the Axis powers. Thereafter, the Allies used the term "United Nations Fighting Forces" to refer to their alliance.

The idea for the UN was espoused in declarations signed at the wartime Allied conferences in Moscow, Cairo, and Tehran in 1943 . From August to October 1944 , representatives of France, the Republic of China, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union met to elaborate the plans at the Dumbarton Oaks Estate in Washington, DC. Those and later talks produced proposals outlining the purposes of the organization, its membership and organs, and arrangements to maintain international peace and security and international economic and social cooperation.

Source

Something extremely bad has to happen before UN peacekeepers are deployed within the United States of America.

The UN does not have a standing army, but there are calls from some UN members, especially the French, who think the UN should have a standing force to be deployed at any given time.

I can only respond with this quote from kissenger


"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."


Speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992. Bilderburgers meeting. Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech was taped by a Swiss delegate to the meeting.

Thank you men of the white mountains, down with the Tripods

reply to post by Redge777


All they have to do is assemble a team just like they do in every other sittuation.I see no reason they could not put forces here.Hell foreign troops trian here anyway.

Also lately I have heard a lot about the U.N. getting more say in matters than congress.However I have not looked into it.Heard it from Alex Jones and we all know how he exagerates.

I can think of a couple possible scenarios where armed UN forces would act on US soil, most of them not very good. US gov't collapse would be a prerequisite for almost all of them. US gov't collapse doesn't mean US military collapse, however. As long as the US has a volunteer army, I don't think there's need to worry.

But, just in case, don't ever get rid of your guns!

reply to post by WeaponsOfMassDistraction



The US Military and police are indoctrinated well enough that UN would not be needed. They also have Blackwell for the dirty jobs. The role of controlling the masses does not need the UN.

UN same as World Government same as US police military training.

However, I could see joint North American Union forces used inside US borders.

reply to post by Redge777


Thing you have to consider, would US soldiers turn upon their own families and friends? An order is only successful if the people given the order actually carry it out. One of the benefits of a volunteer army.

reply to post by WeaponsOfMassDistraction


Good question, soldiers are taught they defend the constitution, government then orders them by making them think the actions are lawfull. If a soldier flips and sees his government as unconstituional all his strength can be aligned against the tryanny.

Russian revolution happened because the army refused to engage citizens.

China revolution at Tineman Square was squashed because the military followed the orders from power.

This is the reason so much money is going to the corporate mercenary army, their motivation is money, and money is what the elite got.

They might not shot there own family, but they would shot their neighbors if they believe that they are protecting their own families. I stress believe, martial law would be go hand in hand with some disaster to give that impression.

If UN forces are in the US then they will be US troops. We deploy soldiers in the name of the UN all the time as peace keepers. At any given moment, there are probably 2 battalions or greater strength, of foreign troops, stationed in US military bases and posts for training by US forces. Never hear about these guys except in local papers around the bases and posts.

Chuck Harder used to talk about this on his radio show all the time. This was back in the mid 90's, before he went nuts over Y2K.

Originally posted by stumason
Ah, I assume your another American who thinks the UN has a standing Army and is some autonomous entity?

Look into all the things that it does - it's quite powerful. There have been several calls for a standing UN army, but hopefully those won't be answered.

Originally posted by stumason
It makes me chuckle, the whole American anti-UN attitude... for crying out loud, it was you guy's who came up with the UN!

Yeah, that was one big screwup on the part of the United States. It was pretty broken at that point in time, anyway. We still haven't fully recovered.

Originally posted by Johnmike
Look into all the things that it does - it's quite powerful. There have been several calls for a standing UN army, but hopefully those won't be answered.

Nothing happens in the UN without the approval of the UNSC. Who's on the UNSC?

Any troops the UN has are contributed from member states, with UNSC approval. They are not "UN" forces, just a force of donated troops flying under a United banner, for the sake of whatever UNSC resolution they were formed under.

Originally posted by Johnmike
Yeah, that was one big screwup on the part of the United States. It was pretty broken at that point in time, anyway. We still haven't fully recovered.

The UN is a good idea, but several major flaws exist within it's organisation to prevent it being effective.