US Govt is the Arm of the NWO: Plans for future Total Disarmament (except for UN Peace Force and loc

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Pay special attention to section (c) of Stage 3 below.

The United States undertook bilateral negotiations with the communist Soviet Union in 1961 which lead to a "Joint Statement of Agreed Principles for Disarmament Negitiations" which was circulated to all UN Members in Sept of 1961. According to UN Document A/4879, 20 Sept 1961, the relevant parts were that member States would only have non-nuclear armaments, establishments, etc to maintain internal order and that the States shall support and provide manpower for a UN Peace Force. Later in the fall of 1961 the United States submitted its own proposal for "General and Complete Disarmament" to the UN Assembly. In it were provisions for three stages of disarmament.
Stage 1: States (nations) shall develop arrangements for the establishment of a UN Peace Force.
Stage 2: States shall further develop the peacekeeping function of the United Nations U.N.) and establish a United Nations Peace Force and progressively strengthen it with the purpose (in Stage 3) of deterring any threat or use of force.
State 3: Progressive, controlled disarmament would proceed to the point where no State would have the military power to challenge the United Nations Peace Force. The final phase of the disarmament program would be directed toward the attainment of a world in which:
(a) States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N. Peace Force.
(b) The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.
* (c) The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.*
(d) The peacekeeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all States under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.

As excerpted from the Dept of State Bulletin, 16 October 1961.
Much of the information above came from the book, International Military Forces: The Question of Peackeeping in an Armed and Disarming World, by Lincoln P. Bloomfield.
edit on 28-7-2012 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-7-2012 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
If one were to ask people on the street if a one-world government would need a military force, most would say yes. It’s a damn shame people are this stupid.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ConspiracyBuff
 


Well yes we need a military force. There will always be someone who wants to over through those in charge. And what if we arent alone in the universe, and they dont like us. I'd hate for us (the human race) to be completely defenseless. There will always be some kind of rogue nation or element that doesnt want to be controlled.

Just my opinion, maybe im a sheep



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 

FWIW, the title of chapter that deals with this issue is "World Forces and World Order."



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Eventually, at this pace we will need a world entity (governing body) to deal with intergalactic matters. So who votes for the UN to be that entity?
I don't. Or do we even get a say? Lol



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Dyzan
 

Having all nations ("States") disarmed except for the maintenance of internal order (ie local law enforcement and civil unrest) and having all nations subjugated by the authority of the United Nations means the obvious loss of national sovereignty and the establishment of a real global government. The statement on the total destruction of all other armaments and weapons (implying those in civilian hands also) is self evident and means the "total destruction" of the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In other words. all firearms in the hands of civilians of Member States will be collected and destroyed. Everything coming out of the U.N. lately (ie, Arms Trade Treaty) is to set this up for the not to distant future it seems.
edit on 28-7-2012 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I think this is one of the reasons for the famous speech by JFK;





edit on 28-7-2012 by RobinB022 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by RobinB022
I think this is one of the reasons for the famous speech by JFK;


And by extension...one of the reasons for his assassination (for his opposition to the agenda of those "secret societies").



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


Well, they can try to plan a future disarmament all they want.
There are alot of folks that will NOT be disarmed.
Unless they are dead.

I say, let the games begin.






posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by havok
 

"The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry." Robert Burns



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by HamrHeed
Eventually, at this pace we will need a world entity (governing body) to deal with intergalactic matters. So who votes for the UN to be that entity?
I don't. Or do we even get a say? Lol


Having a unified global force to fight off invading aliens was Ronald Reagan's fantasy (well one of them...he was pretty kinky I understand
). But you are right....where do we get to exercise our vote on international matters? It is a rhetorical question.....answer: we wont have a vote.
edit on 28-7-2012 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


whos to say that this NWO/ one world government wont be Democratic? why does it have to be militaristic and a police state? maybe im just an optimist



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Dyzan
 

That would be very naive to assume that a world government would be democratic. IF SO, a progression to such a body could be argued to be the natural order of things. BUT I am assuming it would not be and that would counter the natural rights of man (ie, "to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"). Let me ask you this....did the US Department of State have a mandate from the Legislative Branch (Congress) of the United States when it presented its General Disarmament Proposal to the UN over 50 years ago? We are talking long term planning here and it appears to be in the acceleration of plans stage to the endgame.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dyzan
reply to post by ConspiracyBuff
 


Well yes we need a military force. There will always be someone who wants to over through those in charge. And what if we arent alone in the universe, and they dont like us. I'd hate for us (the human race) to be completely defenseless. There will always be some kind of rogue nation or element that doesnt want to be controlled.

Just my opinion, maybe im a sheep


Well, I certainly don't want to be controlled!!!!!! This is a negative trait, how?????? Look, I don't bother anyone who doesn't bother me. It's time for the control freaks of the planet to F off!!!
O.P.O.G. (One P.O.'d Granny)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Habit4ming
 


ok controlled was a poor choice of words. what i meant was someone who wanted to over throw those in charge or just cause anarchy in general.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
This is a great topic.

It doesn't seem likely that everyone will just take the high road and agree to stop shooting each other. Too much historical baggage. So then, the logic goes, there should be a peace keeper with superior arms to it's enemies. Currently this responsibility is mostly on the shoulders of the United States Military (with debatable results).

Should 300 million Americans carry the tax burden of protecting the 7 billion humans of the world. Of course not.

So do we shift this responsibility to a UN type organization. Lower defense spending, maybe a positive effect on the American deficit? Although, USA is major financier of UN.

But would a UN Military be trustworthy? Probably no less than an American military...

American companies would still be the major contractors, American leaders would still have major influence on policy, and America wouldn't have as big a target on their back.

A world military, if supported by China, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Russia as well as the western nations may be a quicker path to some level of demilitarization.

With regard to defending against an alien attack, lets hope there is a galactic version of our hypothetical world military to protect us. And if not, let's build a giant laser on the moon.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MassOccurs
 

A global UN Peace (read Police) Force would be comprised of military from the various member States. There is a history of UN "Peacekeeping" forces in the world and it has evolved from being controlled by the US during the Korean Conflict to more of a true International Force (Command And Control) in the Balkans. The question is how well this would work when the UN Force was the true Global Superpower and what is member states cheated and either kept nuclear weapons or developed them after a moratorium?



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


To those coming of age in countries other than America it would be reassuring to have representation in the superpower organization. That could do a lot to keep young men from political violence. Seeing an international logo on aircraft carriers, tanks, planes etc. would drastically change the flavor of the world.

China is the key here. For all intents and purposes the western armies are fairly unified already. I'm sure if China agreed to some sort of proposal a lot of fence nations wouldn't be far behind. If the Arab League nations were a part of a UN military Assad would be gone without risk of anti Western sentiment.

I think this scenario is inevitable if society remains intact for another 20 years. A few decades without global disaster, and a shift toward a representative worldwide power structure will have started no doubt. Accompanying the military aspect will be massive economic and political reform. The situation calls for a 21st century version of America's founding fathers. Without exceptional leaders an organization this powerful will only end in disaster. The intelligence branch here is a scary thought, as well as R&D hoarding.

The point to make above all others is to decrease hostile attitudes as a deterrent to war, as opposed to creating an unbeatable war machine. Ultimately a worldwide government should be the result of increased cooperation willingness to exchange ideas. Not the result of the need to contain war mongering.

A worldwide election for chief could be thrilling...



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by MassOccurs
 

The only way a superpower like Russia or China will disarm (especially nukes) will be AFTER World War III. I wonder if that is in their plans as well???



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dyzan
reply to post by Habit4ming
 


ok controlled was a poor choice of words. what i meant was someone who wanted to over throw those in charge or just cause anarchy in general.




Nothing against you, hon...I am just so very very sick and tired of the psychos, control freaks and other nefarious a-holes who seem to overrun the governments (and other positions of authority) on our planet....
Calling all good guys/gals! Calling all good guys/gals! Run for office, please!

O.P.O.G.





top topics
 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join