Brown wants New World Order, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 24-1-2008 @ 10:41 PM by Jacks56

Brown wants New World Order

news.bbc.co.uk

Chancellor Gordon Brown has spoken of the need for a "new world order" to deal with future security and environmental challenges.

He called for a "new diplomacy" to go alongside military power to defeat terrorism, share prosperity and "win the battle of hearts and minds".

(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:
www.truthnews.us
cryptogon.com
www.leftlib.org
www.guardian.co.uk

reply posted on 24-1-2008 @ 10:41 PM by Jacks56

Nothing new for Gordon Brown...he's been talking about a NWO since last year. I think bringing the UN in to provide security is a bad idea. Won't take long before they've taken our weapons, confiscated our golds and assigned us to work/internment camps.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 24-1-2008 @ 10:52 PM by NewWorldOver

Just another toad croaking for the pond of scum that is the New World Order.

"You need us to protect you. Military is good. We need to be EVERYWHERE. You need to hand over your land so we can station our international troops in your national forests " blah blah blah.

The only people who buy this garbage are the brainwashed pro-militariats and the uninformed (which is still half of the populace).

Yes, UN, PLEASE! Roll in with your international troops and take away our guns! My neighbor might be a terrorist!

UN = UNdoing of global society. God willing, something will put a stop to their nonsense.

reply posted on 24-1-2008 @ 11:01 PM by IAF101

I dont think any of you even realize what he means. With the failure of the Security Council to do anything and the UN looking like a dumb duck that doesnt do anything he has hopes to expand the permanent membership of the UN to include more countries and thus remove the lame duck tactics that the Chinese and Russians and French have so far carried out. He wants to bring in countries like Japan, Brazil, India and maybe some African countries to make the permanent council more representative and holistic and also give it more power. Because as of today the worlds most powerful nations are not represented there.

The point of empowering the UN is to prevent unilateral actions against the UN like the US did in Iraq and the make the UN actually do the work it is paid to do.

reply posted on 25-1-2008 @ 01:50 AM by NewWorldOver

Originally posted by IAF101
The point of empowering the UN is to prevent unilateral actions against the UN like the US did in Iraq and the make the UN actually do the work it is paid to do.

I don't feel the UN will ever do the work it was paid to do. To this day UN soldiers are raping and murdering civilians, keeping UN food from them, etc. This is widely documented. The UN is a travesty and giving it more power or including more nations is nothing but the act of a spider spinning a bigger web.

I wish I didn't have such a bleak view of the UN, seeing as so many people join it to help the world... but I know the sickos that operate within it and I know what they're about. It's scary.

reply posted on 25-1-2008 @ 02:01 AM by Britguy

The UN is, and always has been a toothless money pit.
Big countries bribe small countries with aid packages to support them - hence GWB's coalition of the bribed and clueless for Iraq

The concept is idealistic but factor in the greed and political posturing and it becomes just another bunch of idiots riding a lucrative gravy train.

reply posted on 25-1-2008 @ 05:34 AM by infinite

I hate to ruin your thread,
but Chancellor Gordon Brown is no longer Chancellor...

He is now the Prime Minister. Your source is WAY out of date

(It's a year old)

reply posted on 25-1-2008 @ 09:18 AM by Jacks56

Originally posted by infinite
I hate to ruin your thread,
but Chancellor Gordon Brown is no longer Chancellor...

He is now the Prime Minister. Your source is WAY out of date

(It's a year old)

Review the 2nd link - Prime Minister Brown still wants New World Order. Dated January 21, 2008

reply posted on 25-1-2008 @ 09:28 AM by infinite

reply to post by Jacks56

Oh, I'm meant to believe Alex Jones? The man who has profited so much off his theories about 9/11

Jones prints nothing but BS.

Research his theories, he is bias to organised religion and ignores factors about majority of the founding fathers being Masons. Nothing but a Christian Conservative.

reply posted on 25-1-2008 @ 10:01 AM by Jacks56

Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by Jacks56

Oh, I'm meant to believe Alex Jones? The man who has profited so much off his theories about 9/11

Jones prints nothing but BS.

Research his theories, he is bias to organised religion and ignores factors about majority of the founding fathers being Masons. Nothing but a Christian Conservative.

Try the 3rd link...any way you spin it, Brown is still pushing for a NWO and a revamping of the UN to fit new security needs. He was talking about it in 2006 and he's still talking about it now as Prime Minister.

reply posted on 25-1-2008 @ 10:15 AM by infinite

reply to post by Jacks56

Yeah, YOU keep thinking that mate

Erm, sadly, he is hardly talking about it. As a British citizen, who is VERY political activate, he rarely mentions anything about UN reform or talks about the "New World Order" every week.

Gordon has been talking about the economy and social housing mostly.

reply posted on 25-1-2008 @ 03:50 PM by NewWorldOver

Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by Jacks56

Oh, I'm meant to believe Alex Jones? The man who has profited so much off his theories about 9/11

Jones prints nothing but BS.

*yawn*

Pseudoskeptic

Yeah, you don't like Alex Jones because he's 'biased'. Sure. Despite the fact that he almost always links to third party articles and backs his topics up with proof.

Seriously, get off your character assassination bandwagon and join the rest of us here in reality. Alex Jones is just a man, the information he provides is available to everyone. Keep plugging your ears... NWO lapdogs.

reply posted on 25-1-2008 @ 03:55 PM by stumason

reply to post by IAF101

Whoaaa...

I find myself in agreement with IAF here... Take a picture, doesn't happen often.

Well said, chap.

The UN wouldn't be useless if the permanent members didn't abuse their veto powers (that's all five, not just the three IAF mentioned) and it was more inclusive of the the current world powers. The world has changed alot since the founding of the UN, so it needs modernising.

reply posted on 25-1-2008 @ 03:56 PM by stumason

reply to post by NewWorldOver

You do actually know that the UN has no troops don't you?

Do you know anything about how the UN operates at all?

reply posted on 25-1-2008 @ 03:57 PM by last time here

the more i read about these guys and their designs to control the world
the more i can't believe they are actually human. is it normal to allow
poverty in a world with the capability to travel in space? to allow
children to die because of improper things like food, water and shelter?

what has gone wrong????

reply posted on 25-1-2008 @ 03:59 PM by stumason

reply to post by last time here

In those countries where there is war, famine, disease and horrible governments, the Un does what it can. However, like in Darfur, if the country in question is not willing to accept UN sponsored troops there to keep the peace, it means you have to fight your way in.

Your that keen to start a war to prevent a war? Even if you are, not many people feel that sacrificing the young men and women of the west is worthwhile if the countries in question don't even want the help to begin with.

reply posted on 25-1-2008 @ 04:10 PM by last time here

well, i see your point although i believe human life supersedes those
greed controlled idiots in government of those countries. indiscriminate
killing will never make sense to me. i'd start a war to get rid of govern-
ments that allow wanton dying for greed. yes. heck, these days govern-
ments start wars for monetary gain and it's accepted. those governments
who do that to their own people should be given a warning from the U.N.
to stop or be rousted. i know many would rebel so the invading savior
of human souls could have an army made up of paid soldiers, to be
paid from whatever resources are available. once that obligation is paid
off, a fair government could be installed. one that would treat it's people
humanely. we both know there are ways to combat the problem, but we
both also know there are those who wish a "culling"...so evil indeed!

[edit on 25-1-2008 by last time here]

reply posted on 25-1-2008 @ 05:09 PM by infinite

reply to post by NewWorldOver

No, get with the real conspiracy theorist's over the NWO.

Real researchers who are not bias towards any part of the NWO theory, heck I have more respect for David Icke than Jones.

As for the reality check, join me over there when you've developed you own ability to research and understand without Alex Jones telling you what to think

[edit on 25-1-2008 by infinite]

reply posted on 28-1-2008 @ 08:36 PM by NewWorldOver

Originally posted by stumason
You do actually know that the UN has no troops don't you?

Do you know anything about how the UN operates at all?

Are you daft?

No such thing as UN Troops??

Oh boy. I'm not even going to touch this with a ten foot pole.

I'm just going to laugh and be on my way. The UN routinely hires 'soldiers' who then abuse the civilians and are caught red handed over and over. Wake up, please. Thanks.

reply posted on 30-1-2008 @ 06:17 AM by stumason

reply to post by NewWorldOver

Hahaha, ok, you're obviously clueless.

Tell me, how do you think the UN recruits these soldiers?

Where do they come from?

Do you know how UN forces are structured?

Do you know anything about the UN?

Do you actually think the UN maintains it's own military?

Because, even though operating under the auspices of the UN and with their nice blue hats, these soldiers are still not UN troops, but troops belonging to a donor country that has provided it's own forces as requested by a UNSC resolution.

Usually, although not 100% of the time, these are provided by developing nations as it is a good way for their governments to earn foreign capital.

The US, and other western nations to an extent, is loathe to send it's own men under UN banners, but will happily "compensate" third world countries to send their own.

Obviously, there is a difference in quality when compared to more professional forces, so some abuses happen.

These are matters to be dealt with internally by the relevant donor nations military law. For example, Congolese troops have recently been summarily executed, by their own commander, for committing looting and rapes.

But, having said that, UK and US forces are also accused of abuses regularly, so what's your point?

So, what were you saying again? Want to argue with me over this or will you just accept you were wrong?

Pages: ^^TOP^^