It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ultimately is your allegience to the UN or your country?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 01:31 PM
reply to post by Animal

Further more you state that it is to protect a persons right to these ideals that government exists. Under this premise then why is it you are against a WORLD government? What sets YOU apart from THEM?

It is about YOU and THEM .. I honestly hate to break it to you, but we are all different, we are not all the same. And should we be? No, I do not believe we should.

If a people cannot support the ideologies WE live by, by themselves, why should they have them?

Not all people in the world want Democracies, and many people who get it, find that it is just another vehicle used to rape their civil liberties and economic wellfare.

Democracy, and the ideas we live by, are not suited for all situations.

Under the system you seem to be supporting,t hat is the government of the USA over a World Government you are in some ways saying you deserve something that another does not. When we have divisions, when we have US and THEM we allow for conflict, for oppression.

Everyone considers people like themselves to be worthy more so then other people...

Which I agree with.. people who do not give THEMSELVES liberty, do NOT deserve such a system. To mix all governments into one government, every single participant will suffer, because new ideas will be SUBJECTED to them.

Conflict, differences, bigotry, hate and war are natural occurances, and as a part of nature, should NOT be detered. Inhibiting conflicts and fostering the ideas that we are all one in the same, will create new divisions anyways, after a period of explosive population increase, making the next natural occurnce worse then th last.

I am a realist, and my positions are harsh if not extreme.. but sugar coated ideas that make everyone feel all warm and cozy inside and better about themselves because they have such lovely ideas.. does not mean they would ever work.

I totally agree with you when you speak of NATIONS but I disagree on the scale. The Pueblo Nations of New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona are incredibly distinct and seperate nations from that which I am a product of. The USA is comprised of many nations. It does not take too much looking to see the distinctions.

50 Free States and many, many unofficial nations. A nation is a group of likeminded people, typically through history.. the Indian popualtions are Nations.. the States are States because there is no racial, historic or religious unifications.. only political and economical.

This is why the United States is a Republic.. and this is why the States, not the people, vote for the Executive Branch.

Though many would see the Federal portion of the Republic replace the State governments entirely.. and a World government to replace even the Federal system.

And again the subtle distinction, the US and THEM.

Again, ironically, I am different, as is everyone else, from other nationalities.. deep rooted differences. They should be celebrated, not shunned.

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 02:16 PM

"new" .. The US is not Imperial by anymeans, learn the definition. While we do create proxies, and we do exploit.. we do not colonize nations, and while we may have proxies, they are not used in the manor a imperialistic nation would use it for..

Times change and with those times, practices to achieve an idea also change, even if the idea remains the same. The goal of an empire is always profit for the imperialists. The United States doesn't march in and kick the locals around and move in Americans to colonize. It doesn't need to. It can conquer a nation's economy and political structure, and use these proxies, as you note, to influence and control the local populace by using a local face. American culture is inescapable in such places - not so much conquest as absorption.

Me, I'm not one of those people who needs to make up new isms at the drop of a hat, so, it remains imperialism.

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 03:20 PM
I can probably count on my fingers the amount of people I owe my allegiance to. Maybe even on one hand. Simply put, there are quite a few people I respect and whatnot, but few I would follow. And I sure as hell wouldn't follow some of the jokers who are in power right now, be they at a national, regional, or global level.

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 03:27 PM
I pledge my allegiance to my family first and foremost and then after that i pledge allegiance to Planet Earth and the Human Race. I think plegding allegiance to a particular flag or institution only adds to the racial and ethnic tensions and wars in this world. We are all one Human Race, one family, one planet.

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 03:35 PM
The US is Imperial in the fact that when Congress decided not to pay the UN the UN can not function since the USA pays most of money the UN gets. Simply put, that is why there is tension in this world and why the USA wants the UN to listen more to what they say then to other Nations. Look it up. When Congress denied funds previously before and threatened not to pay any money to the UN then there was News about that also for that period of time. That's seems to be the way that it goes. And also into the future if there is a bleak future or a better future.

As of November 30, 2007, members' arrears to the Regular Budget topped $735 million, of which the United States alone owed $688 million (94% of the regular budget arrears).

The Bush Years

The Bush administration (1989-92) set another record in its first year in office as US arrears rose to 79% --$365 million. But thereafter, US arrears fell, as the UN came to play a more central role in US policymaking during the Gulf War and its immediate aftermath. Congress reluctantly agreed to appropriate funds to pay off UN arrears and by Pres. Bush's last year in office, Washington's debts were down to $240 million or 48% of the total. Meanwhile, other countries' arrears had risen, especially as economic difficulties hit the transitional economies of Eastern Europe, forcing such large payers as Russia and Ukraine into large arrears. In 1992, while US arrears had diminished, UN regular budget debts had risen to a record $501 million.

Also Pesident Herbert Hoover was given to Iowa and I am not sure if the President or presidential candidates are not getting confused over that as well. You know President Herbert Hoover, he led the Country into the Great Depression, and it took a New Deal and another President to finally bring the Country back out, then it was WWII.

My allegience, ah, well, ah, I have to think about that one since other things have happened in this Country for the last 40 years, but according to other websites, this has been going on since 1933 or so.
which I think is more Libertarian than perhaps anything else.
Some links still work, while others do not on some pages.

Found the funds of the UN - why edited. Well one place.

[edit on 2/5/2008 by AmoebaSized]

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 03:58 PM
What a stupid question. Sorry, no offense intended- but its one of the dumbest questions I have ever heard in my life.

Were you trying to start a sardonic comedy thread?

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 04:15 PM
Sounds like you're asking 'which eye do you wanna be poked in'?

It really doesn't matter.

Im not a patriot or nationalist.

I give a damn about the planet and everyone on it regardless of where you are.

I wouldn't take up arms to attack another country.

You would, however, find me first in the queue to protect the planet - but that's on the condition we get laser guns and x-wings

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 05:24 PM
reply to post by Animal

I agree with your answers 1 and 2, my heart and my family. Those were what I thought before even reading the thread.
to you sir.

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 06:02 PM
To my country totaly, I may not agree with everything it does, but there is no place I would rather live. The UN is corrupt beyond belief and I hope my nation and people will never allow people who would become a new world elite making rules and laws for my nation. This world is a few hundred yrs away from having a one world govt. 1776! forver

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 06:10 PM
WOW! I agree with dk3000, this is a stupid question, and I was taught there are no stupid questions. I'll quote some Marillion lyrics now... "I will wear your white feather, I will carry your white flag, I will swear to have no nation, and I'm proud to own my heart...this is my heart" Andy

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 08:03 PM
The UN is forum for discussion
If you make decision against
United Nations Security Council and
General Assembly
is okay
but sometimes is not nice
cause many riots that's all
if you make them angry may cause
-possible blockade
-volunteer observer/patrol
(some unit in voting nations may be alert
when discuss/resolution agreed

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 08:09 PM
reply to post by smurf55

You forgot about being invaded but a multi-national "peace-keeping" force.

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 09:17 PM
4 out of 10 ppl form a group
that doesn't mean the other 6 can't do anything.
Do you wan to include their galfriend and pets?

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 12:46 AM
reply to post by GulfCoastGuy

You prefer your corrupt ruling elite to be locals, huh?

Do you know WHY the UN is corrupt? because the founding nations set it up that way. If it were actually updated to be more than a anachronistic artifact of the Cold War, it would be damn useful. Instead all it is is five ruling nations vetoing EVERYTHING that could potentially conflict with their immediate interests and a bunch of other nations sucking cock to get favor from those five.

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 01:38 AM
But i know my corrupt local elite wun be there forever..
This UNSC reform issue
Should GA hav veto power versus UNSC?

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in