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.

 

Is the cat out of the bag?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Yes is the cat out of the bag that America is beholden to the U.N.? And any thought of sovereignity is now out the window? I ask this in retrospect to the Libya struggle. That our military can just be thrown at anybody and congress has no say so. Well maybe the U.N. is the new congress.

And I have to digress. I am a little angry that President Obama did not address the American people on this. To just say hey this is what were doing. were helping out the Libyan people. I mean you can say alot of things about Bush the son. But I mean at aleast he told what he was going do.

Back to the U.N. thing you hear all kinds of conspiracies that America has given up soveriegnity to the U.N. This could be the first blatant truth of that.




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by American-philosopher
 


The further down the road that we all take, the easier it will become to spot the truth about what is actually going on.

Just my thoughts.




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by XXXN3O
 


The cat was in a mesh bag that you could see through the whole time! I seen this coming a long time ago. Btw this is my 200th post finally! yippie kiyay

edit on 21-3-2011 by agentblue because: had to gloat



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by agentblue
 


Yes but now it seems they are openly flaubnting it. Almost maybe a smake in the face of individual nation states that believed in sovereignity.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
I can't decide if it is the US following the UN or the UN following the US. A regular real chicken or the egg question. My guess is toward the US pushing the UN.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by American-philosopher
 


We don't dance to the UN's tune. We dance to the Zionists tune. We lost our sovereignty a long time ago; if even we ever had it.

www.redicecreations.com...

edit on 21-3-2011 by whaaa because: iiv



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Excuse me if I am on the wrong end of the stick here but I am reacting how I read the first post.

Sorry but do you even understand what the United Nations is?
You seriously think America should control the UN?
Wow, that's pretty damn selfish and arrogant.
It's a little harder for someone to oppose the actions of a nation if it was already discussed and voted on in a world council.

If you turn a no fly zone agreement into a trigger happy bombing campaign then that isn't what was agreed in the UN meeting was it.
The UN is also there for this very fact.
Or should America just do what it wants, when it wants and to hell with what any other country says because America is always right.

edit on 21-3-2011 by keepithush because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   


Or should America just do what it wants, when it wants and to hell with what any other country says because America is always right
reply to post by keepithush
 


Yeah we should at least have the option to do what we want within the rule of law ofcourse. And not be chained to the U.N.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by American-philosopher
 


You do have that option, you aren't forced into the UN, its just sensible to do so.
The UN is a place to bring things to the table, the 'leaders' of the UN are those taking part, hence the vote.
And if you was to do things without the UN then what do you mean by 'within the law', what law? Who enforces the law?
Do you think Saddam had the UN backing to do what he wanted? Iraq was still in the UN, the problem then was the rest of the UN or to put it another way, most of the rest of the world didn't agree with what he was doing, votes was in and it was jointly agreed that something needed to be done about Iraq.
It's a little better than a couple of countries plotting and attacking another country without discussion, warnings and the backing of other nations isn't it.
I don't know who put it in your head that the UN is run by some overlords and each country is working under them and giving orders, but I suspect his name ends in Jones.
edit on 21-3-2011 by keepithush because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by keepithush
 


okay fine and dandy even though to make your point I don;t know if it was really necessary to bring up Iraq and Saddam. I mean if youi want to get technical about it he played into the trap by wanting people to believe he had weapons when he didn;t and also by restricting inspectors access.

Now are you at all angry that president Obama has not addressed his people concerning this matter? And if you say he said something in Chile today about it. That is not good enough. (and furthermore ont hat point I don;t know if I like it when leaders of other countries can joke with him about how they know he loves basketball so much)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
true it is obvious we are completely under globalist control, but the silver lining is the american people are getting very mad about this latest globalist trip to the sandbox. we didn't even get congresses approval like before the iraq war. add to that that everything that could go wrong in libya, has gone wrong, and the globalists are about to end up with a whole lot of egg on their face.

that will do more for ending this nonsense than if nothing had happened at all.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRepublic
 


okay the American people are angry I would like to see a sourcce to back that up but okay. What are we the Angry American people gonna do about it? Like yoda would say what does Anger lead to?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by American-philosopher
 


The Cats outta the Bag with the Fact that our So Called " Liberal President" is in Reality a Neocon in Sheeps Clothing .The Only thing Different between Obama and Both Bushes is his Skin Color............



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by keepithush
Excuse me if I am on the wrong end of the stick here but I am reacting how I read the first post.

Sorry but do you even understand what the United Nations is?
You seriously think America should control the UN?
Wow, that's pretty damn selfish and arrogant.
...
Or should America just do what it wants, when it wants and to hell with what any other country says because America is always right.

edit on 21-3-2011 by keepithush because: (no reason given)



I managed to separate the quote from my reply. Sorry about that.
edit on 21-3-2011 by watcher3339 because: quote separated from reply



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by American-philosopher
 


you should go to some of the liberal websites and see comments. about half are already opposed to obama's action. conservatives should already be aware this nonsense is bankrupting our already bankrupt country. this could bring everyone together in this country by showing that either republican or democrat all we get is the same crap.

if this goes badly...and it will... obama might have to worry about rebel forces marching on washington, not benghazi.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Always love to see that we can agree on some things!

I raise my freshly opened Sam Adams to you in toast.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by keepithush
 


A couple of things here.
1. The OP didn't indicate that America should be in charge of the U.N. instead the OP expressed dismay that U.S. rules regarding military engagement were not followed by the U.S. That is an internal complaint, an entirely valid complaint, and has nothing at all do you with your assertion that the U.S. thinks it should be in charge of everything or right all the time. In fact, OP seemed to be indicating a desire for the U.S. to just mind its own business and keep U.S. miltary out of this one.
2. The general tone of your post seems to lack an understanding of the true founding principles of the U.N. It was established as a status quo organization to keep the balance of power in favor of the west (G8). IMF and World Bank were the complimentary organizations that went with it. Overtime other nations gained an increasing amount of power (by sheer dint of numbers) and so, many of the founding nations have increasingly lost interest in it as the organization is no longer serving the purpose for which they created it. I am not saying that what they did was right, but your seemingly faultless view of the U.N. and its purpose is missing a bit.

That said, I totally don't want to fight with you. I live in the U.S. and am sick and tired of the U.S. always thinking it is right and sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong. I believe that many powers seek to set you and me, you and the OP, everyone and everyone against each other. They do this by setting up one group to see the U.N. (or other group) in an idealist way and another to see it as the beginnings of the NWO/oppressive force. Both individuals want people to be free to be people. Noble cause! And so they spend their time bickering with each other about the straw man, leaving those behind the scenes to do as they will unchecked.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Consider our situation:
This year we have past peak oil production. www.businessinsider.com...

From here on out oil will continually decline against raising demand. China panders to our extremists enemies as a result, their oil flow and expansion is assured. China is pushing to have the yuan replace the US dollar as the new world currency. China has already developed a stealth fighter. China carries out cyber attacks against our military industries and financial institutions.

In order to enjoy the level of luxury and military might we do now, we have no other choice but to seize control of further resources. If not only to use them, but to also deny the resources towards China’s expansion.

When the US emerged as a super power, we shared the same ideas and had an active interest in preserving global capitalism, as with the previous British and European empires. Now here is the question and remember it’s applicable regardless of who “they” are. Even legitimate elected representatives would have to have considered this situation.

Do we peacefully stand aside and allow China to assume power as the next dominant super power? As their expansion and wealth increases, ours will at the same time decline. If simply left up to time, eventually they will surpass, our economy, our technology and our military strength.

Or

Do you use what resources, technology and military might you have to attack now, while there is still a chance of success?


It's just that much better if we have the UN and Arab League’s blessing to get started: www.washingtonpost.com... Wow, what were they thinking? I guess our idea and theirs of a no fly zone differs in scope.

The influence the UN has doesn’t matter, if their collective will and our government shares the same agenda. In my opinion war is inevitable. How they spin it, or even if the citizens accept it, isn’t even a consideration. Does anyone still believe the delusion, that our government is acting under the constraints of the will of the people? Really? Why, because It couldn’t happen here, the ghost of Thomas Jefferson forbids it? Every measure to prevent rebellion under the guise of terrorism, has already been put into place. "We the People" pose no threat whatsoever to out government and it will act in anyway necessary to ensure it's very survival. Whether we, or our "representatives" approve or not.

edit on 3/21/2011 by JakesterL because: grammar



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by American-philosopher
And I have to digress. I am a little angry that President Obama did not address the American people on this. To just say hey this is what were doing. were helping out the Libyan people.


He did. He gave a press conference Friday afternoon. It aired live and I watched it, and he said exactly what you say he should have.

Next: I do not agree with what is happening. One cannot bomb a sovereign nation that has not attacked oneself. I think the concept of "helping the Libyan people" is a charade, a bunch of BS propaganda covering the true reasons for the actions (could be oil, could be regime change, could be many other things), said reasons which i do not necessarily know because it is so convoluted and there are so many agendas. It's a convenient guise, a scheme aptly played to people who will accept it without thinking for themselves, only what they are led to believe. It reeks of deceitful similarities with Iraq, as also in ways of Afghanistan, but using the reason of *helping* the people by dropping bombs and firing missiles, well...I think someone said somewhere, Obama got played, and maybe he did.

Fact of the matter, though, and the point i am making: He did address the American people for the reasons you say he should. In fact that is exactly what he said. I saw it, and i shook my head as i heard it, 'cause i knew it was far too familiar BS even then.


edit on 22-3-2011 by Liquesence because: eh



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   


We the People" pose no threat whatsoever to out government and it will act in anyway necessary to ensure it's very survival. Whether we, or our "representatives" approve or not
reply to post by JakesterL
 


Is that the problem now? That we the people do not pose a threat to our current government and I am not meaning it in a violent way. I mean it ina way of mass people standing up for what they want the whole of the american people.

And are you saying that we are entering a DUNE scenario where it is just a battle for resources a battle for the spice. And the ends justify the means,anything to get the spice.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join