Can this destroy America?

yeah, I kinda doubt that the general public would allow an true international orginazation to exist, even though it would be a better way to do it. people are too paranoid about state security....

It kind of boggles the mind though, can you imagine a the intell cabilities of such a group? They can recruit from anywhere and with no countries interest at the base level. These guys could clean house on international drug trafficing..... you kick out all the political and idelogic garbage and just get down to business.....
 
There was an interesting hypotheses a few years ago discussing the problem with UN military stuff. You could see military vehicles being transported on the trains that were decked out in UN colors and insignia. The question was, will our govt. employ soldiers from another country to supress a grassroots uprising to stand up for our rights as citizens of this country? Ther premise being that a US soldier may not want to actually fire upon his own country people even under orders when he may actually agree with the reason for the uprising. But a soldier from somewhere else, being employed by the UN or someone else wouldn't give a second thought to taking us down. I found this to be an interesting school of thought and with the Minuteman force down on the border, and the complaining about them, founded or unfounded, well, could this be the start of a national uprising to take back some of the freedoms we have lost in the name of National Security, take back some of the jobs we are losing right and left to illegals, etc. Just a question for thought. :confused:
 
it is interesting thought, but I'm thinking strict term of use of UN forces would have to be defined, Kind of like the way the federal governement works with the state and local authorities. If an emergency is declared here in georgia, and I decieded to go a'lootin' the federallies will surely stop me. I can see no reason why the US would be a rogue nation, one that exports illicit drugs, or one that support international terrorism. If I am involved in those activites then maybe I should get should be dealt with in those exacting terms?

I don't think I would advocate getting rid of the entire military at all, I think we should defend our own boarders, but that's not how our military is being used today, They are deployed all over the world keeping peace and doing humanitarian aid while our boarders are unsecure. Why should we foot the bill when there is a whole world out there that has just as much stake in stability as we do? It gives our economic competitors a huge advantage over us.


It a little bit of a conceptual leap but why couldn't the un deal with global problems like the federal government deals with certain defined roles here in the states?
 
Guys, that may happen someday, but won't in my lifetime or yours without a Revolution in the Continental United States.

With the GOOD WORK the UN has done thus far, who is eager to entrust world policing to them? Not I.

If you really want the truth, the UN should manage K-Mart.


munk
 
brantoken said:
I think we should defend our own boarders, but that's not how our military is being used today, They are deployed all over the world keeping peace and doing humanitarian aid while our boarders are unsecure. Why should we foot the bill when there is a whole world out there that has just as much stake in stability as we do? It gives our economic competitors a huge advantage over us.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting slant on it! I had never thought about it from that aspect. Wonder what our defense budget is in relation to our GDP versus other countries?
 
I agree, it's just that the revolution may be an economic one and it may be here sooner than we want. That is the point.

I think the key term here is reform, My kung fu teacher always said energy flows where attentions goes, as long as we sit back and point fingers at the UN instead of putting those fingers to work it will always be a lame duck.

It's not working now and we it needs to work, I guess that is the point.
 
I thought it was interesting that a lot of the Middle Eastern states that the common perception is we provide security for are actually spending a good deal of their $$ on defense.

Also I was surprised that a lot of the countries that have free healthcare, 6 weeks of vacation a year, short workweek, and extended paid family leave actually don't spend a LOT less on defense as a % of GDP than we do. I guess maybe where their tax structure is difft that gives them more $$??
 
Listen to the NDN...we are all related.

did this article come from Stormfont.org, or some other neo-fascist site? Inflammatory Right news source like Newsmax?

I scanned it only, seen this type stuff B4.
 
munk said:
Guys, that may happen someday, but won't in my lifetime or yours without a Revolution in the Continental United States.

With the GOOD WORK the UN has done thus far, who is eager to entrust world policing to them? Not I.

If you really want the truth, the UN should manage K-Mart.


munk
Click to expand...

LOL! Right on. However, come to think of it, if Kofi Annon and his stooges managed K-Mart, the stores would only be open about an hour a day. There would be 500 employees in each store doing nothing but consuming the goods before the customer had a chance to buy them, and they would have the best medical and retirement benefits on the planet. You'd have to pay kickbacks to Kofi and the gang to even shop there, and even the smallest items would cost thousands of dollars. Americans would be forced to buy the goods whether they needed them or not, while citizens of every pissant 3rd world country and terrorist nation got everything for free.

What does the UN cost us, something like a billion a year? We pay 25% of everything. The other 160 or so countries divy up the remaining 3/4 of the bill. Give it to them in pennies next time they scream about us not paying our "fair share."

What a bunch!

Norm
 
Norm, you've forgotten one of the leading benefits serving in the UN at Kmart- rape of local women without fear of prosecution.




munk
 
just a thought - when the constitution was written, I believe, there were three versions: one in English, French and German.
They had to vote on which one to make the official language because we were founded by such a diverse group of people.
 
I'm posting dangerously - having only read Bill's start to the thread - which may necessitate a later addendum.

Bill - I think there is a kernel of truth in the Colorado governor's remarks. However, there are also some slippery slopes.

Speaking very basically, people get more done working together in groups than as seperate little fragments. Witness WWII, the Space program, and many branches of American industry which lead the world in technological development. HOWEVER that is no excuse for a herd mentality. People must think and act for themselves, toward a common goal.

Also, victimhood is a two-headed coin. Someone makes you a victim, but you also have to accept that label. America was built by people who got kicked when they were down, but still got back up. You can't be a victim forever. You must get back up and reach for your goals. HOWEVER that doesn't give someone the right to keep kicking you. If we want the many people of this country to contribute to it, then we need to bring down barriers and become more inclusive. You can't expect immigrants to melt into the pot if they're marginalized in 18-hour-a-day minimum wage jobs where they only interact with other immigrants and have no opportunity to learn English. You can't expect a kid from the wrong side of the tracks with no family in a broken down school to rise up and become Albert Einstein. There is no good solution to this - raising people up without reinforcing victimhood by giving special priviledges. Maybe instead of money and laws, we need individual efforts - people who are willing to open doors for good, hard-working people regardless of their labels.

One thing that does get me steamed about American society is marketing and materialism. We're bombarded by perfect snapshots of perfect people -stars, athletes, models, etc. etc. etc. If only we buy whatever product their hawking, we will have that perfect little life. Unfortunately, we don't see the horrible fractured life outside of the snapshot, or the two hundred people it took to fabricate that 20 seconds of perfection. The world is awful and we shouldn't airbrush that away. The world is beautiful and we shouldn't airbrush that away either. Too many people are out chasing phantoms and looking for the free lunch. (this relates to another of my issues with Government, Healthcare, and many things - if you want something, you have to pay for it. It may not be dollars, but you pay for it somewhere. )


Ok, enough ranting for the evening. Thanks for posting, Bill. I don't think we 100% agree with each other on many, many things, but I respect your opinions. (Oh, that was yet another thing I was going to rant about - "free speech" advocates who shout people down - usually it's left wing vs. right wing. My stereotype is that right-leaning people tend not to varnish it when they bludgeon other people's opinions. But I find the left-leaning hypocrisy of suppressing conservative opinions while trumpeting free speech to be a gross sin. I try very hard to let whomever speak whatever is on their mind, from Bill O'Reily to the people who advocate Islamic jihad against American baby killers ( a real poster that showed up around here) I'll be glad to tell you you're a nutjob and patently wrong, but I'll restrain myself until you've said your piece. I believe it was Justice Potter of the Supreme Court who said "no law means NO LAW" in regards to the First Amendment. Likewise, I try to listen to broad viewpoints.)

Anyway, if our paths ever cross, Bill, I'll locate a keg of your preferred beverage. I'm sure we'll have plenty to talk about. :cool:
 
mamav said:
There was an interesting hypotheses a few years ago discussing the problem with UN military stuff. You could see military vehicles being transported on the trains that were decked out in UN colors and insignia. The question was, will our govt. employ soldiers from another country to supress a grassroots uprising to stand up for our rights as citizens of this country? Ther premise being that a US soldier may not want to actually fire upon his own country people even under orders when he may actually agree with the reason for the uprising. But a soldier from somewhere else, being employed by the UN or someone else wouldn't give a second thought to taking us down. I found this to be an interesting school of thought and with the Minuteman force down on the border, and the complaining about them, founded or unfounded, well, could this be the start of a national uprising to take back some of the freedoms we have lost in the name of National Security, take back some of the jobs we are losing right and left to illegals, etc. Just a question for thought. :confused:
Click to expand...

One of the keys to a functional military IMHO, is dehumanizing the enemy. Hence the prevelence of slurs that emerge from war - Japs, Nips, Ragheads, etc. Taking any ties of sympathy for the enemy - such as using soldiers from another country - would be another way to do this.

With respect to the Minutemen, what I've heard (mostly from the NY Times, but also a brief investigation on their website) is pretty impressive. Whoever is organizing this has a very good head for publicity. They are operating with a very strict playbook, taking extreme measures to avoid vigilantism. I think they're doing an excellent job of accomplishing their goals - reducing illegal immigration, but more importantly drawing attention and shame to the inadequacies of border security. Horay for involved citizens.

I just hope they don't run into a trigger-happy smuggler. I'm sure there are some who aren't so happy about losing passage fees and would be glad to dissuade the Minuteman effort with violence. Even shooting in self-defense, it would invariably draw bad publicity and a long, expensive court battle. Plus, there's a very real possibility that a good person could get killed.
 
I don't think that English was the dominant language during the Declaration of Independence is in dispute. German was the language of science at that time, though, and had a certain authority. It doesn't surprise anyone, does it, that a good teacher could be wrong?


munk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top