| Author |
Message |
    
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 11:47 pm: | 
|
New Constitution for the EU and possible new name? |
Mikej
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 09:16 am: |
|
Blake,
Shhh, that's part of the plan to take over the world (or at least that's what some would have us believe). But somehow I think the name will become UNE, United Nations of Europe. Then they'll have to expand it to UNEWA for United Nations of Europe and Western Asia. Then eventually UNEWAANAMESACAC for United Nations of Europe and Western Asia and Asia and North Africa and the Middle East and South America and Central America and Cuba. But by then they'd be calling it just UNoW for United Nations of the World.
Confused? Good, that too is part of the plan. |
Stormfool
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 02:47 pm: |
|
These silly conspircy theories--I have seen the light and it is CORN  |
Mikej
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 04:16 pm: |
|
I tried burning corn once, didn't work, maybe I should have dried it first.  |
Bomber
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 04:30 pm: |
|
I wonder what the GIP (gross International Product) of this entity might be . . .. . . it would be good for the planet's economy, I think, if the day traders in the US had a little less influance |
Rudebike
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 05:49 pm: |
|
A one world government is not a silly theory, it is happening now. |
Bomber
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 05:51 pm: |
|
hmmmm . . . . . I have difficulty seeing that, given the time that's been required to pull the EU together . . . . .
if it DOES happen, though, it'll be the non-elected beaureaucrats that make it happen, again, like the EU . . . . .
kinda a chilling thought |
Rudebike
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 07:05 pm: |
|
There is a core group of one worlders in our government and other national entity's govts. The humanist manifesto is the doctrine for a lot of them, and the UN is their club house. Their allegiance is more cleary seen in the UN military positions they hold. Our own people are among their number. We have people in our own military who see the UN as their primary allegience over the US for example.
We see the UN trying to get the US to sign onto agreements that over-rule our own national sovereignty and civil rights as Americans. Some of our own politicians are trying to get this done! Democrats, mostly if not soley. The UN also tried to get a global law passed that would make it a crime for Americans to speak out against it.
It's all very intersting and worth looking into. It's a lot more sinister than a comic book conspiracy, and if you think men are not capable of such treachery, you didn't pay attention in history class. He who expects the best from man will be blindsided by his true nature later on. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 07:30 pm: |
|
Who, specifically, in the US military is in bed with the UN? If anything, most are against the UN having any power over us. In fact, one of the conditions of our membership is that at NO TIME will a US service member be placed in the command of a foreign leader. That means that if US troops are involved, there's a US officer commanding them. This was done at the insistence of the US military. Doesn't sound to me like the brass are too keen about the whole thing. Having spent quite a few years in the military, I can honestly say that there is no love lost between the US and the UN. When the UN takes on a mission, it's usually the US who ends up supplying the vast majority of the forces and the money. Why do you think we were a few years behind on our UN dues? We refused to pay until Europe stepped up to the plate to protect itself. Remember Kosovo? Remember the international ass chewing the US took because we didn't jump on the band wagon right away? They brag about how little they spend on defense, and then expect us to defend them. I don't see a big love fest going on with our military and the UN. Far from it.
That the democrats want a world government, I'll agree with. I wouldn't be against a world government if the world constitution was a copy of ours, but it isn't. The very idea of adopting the UN as it is today is like pissing on the grave of every soldier, Marine, sailor and airman who ever fought and died to protect the constitution which they swore to defend.
Jeff |
Rudebike
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 08:00 pm: |
|
Hoot,
As I posted, there are some individuals, not the whole body of our military. I knew someone was going to make me do some research...There was a specific American officer for example, who stated his allegience to the UN over the US. There are some like that also in the UK. Their philosophy and heart is toward the UN, not a separate national enity. Understand that deep philosphical leanings are at the cause here. That is why I mentioned the Humanist Manifesto as a common link.
The "one worlders" are indeed on the loose in high places of govt. And some people are rotten enough to betray their countrymen for their "vision" of a united world. Keep track of the politicians who are sympathetic to the UN's attempts at over-riding our laws and pushing their treaties on us. They are them. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 08:06 pm: |
|
Amen to that. |
Chainsaw
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 08:16 pm: |
|
I doubt there will ever be a One World Government. Too many divisions between people based on race and religion. We rarely get along with our own neighbors, much less someone half a world away, speaking a strange tongue, worshiping a different God. Tough enough keeping a country whole, ask the Russians. Quick list of countries in some sort of civil war:
Basques in Spain
Tamil Rebels in Sri Lanka
Chechens
Indonesians
Catholics / Prodestants in Northern Ireland
Kurds in Iraq
ad nausem... |
Rudebike
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 08:44 pm: |
|
A one world government doesn't need to be defined as total compliance on all parties. It needs a majority of compliance by the most important countries. The countries/enities you just named are all small fry. |
Mikej
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 08:37 am: |
|
"In fact, one of the conditions of our membership is that at NO TIME will a US service member be placed in the command of a foreign leader. "
Question: if a U.S. service member wears a U.N. uniform can he/she then be placed in the command of a foreign leader? (Not so much a rhetorical question as it is an eye opening exercise in looking for loopholes. I won't get into a discussion on what clinton did while in office and who's political bed he got into, suffice it to say the U.N. is here already, just depends on where you get your news and how well constructed your tin hat is. Not all is as it seems or as some would have you believe.)
I, for one, would like to see the U.N. headquarters moved to other countries, other host countries, say maybe annually or biannually. Then we can start working on that Diplomatic Immunity thing. |
Bomber
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 08:46 am: |
|
Mike . .. .no such thing as a U.N. uniform, ans the U.N. has no standing force . . . .only forces "on loan" to them from member countries . . .
Rude . . . interesting comments, but, at the risk of sounding like a Texan engineer I will soon buy a beer for, I'd like to see some data supporting your comments . . . . do you publish a mimeographed newletter from your basement, perhaps? |
Mikej
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 09:01 am: |
|
Bomber,
now I have to go search the archives for pics. if I don't return send in the bloodhounds. the internet is a big scarey place with spiders in the corners and lots of hidden stuffs. |
Bomber
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 09:18 am: |
|
giggle . . .Mike . . . . members of the armed forces on loan to the U.N. often wear items (sky blue berets, for instance) that signify their membership in an ad hoc U.N. force . . .. but they are still member's of their respective countries' mmilitary . . .. in the past, command structure had become muddled, and many in our country objected to U.S. forces being under the command of non-U.S. commanders . . . .
don't be a-skeered, man . . . . the spiders are more scared of you than you are of them . . . most of em |
Mikej
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 09:19 am: |
|
Found this info:
"DO AMERICAN TROOPS WEAR UNITED NATIONS UNIFORMS?
U.S. troops participating in UN peacekeeping missions wear their American military uniforms. To identify themselves as part of a UN peacekeeping force, they also wear blue berets or helmets with the UN insignia. U.S. soldiers on
peacekeeping missions do not swear allegiance to the United Nations."
PDF link
So, I was thinking of the blue headgear. |
Mikej
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 09:24 am: |
|
Now, if your tinfoil hat is properly secured then look here: "The difference is that the U.S. troops in Macedonia are wearing U.N. uniforms ..." |
Bomber
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 09:33 am: |
|
damn, hoist on my own petard . . .. I'd be interested what this means/meant, exactly . . . .
left my tinfoil beret at home today, rats! |
Tavs
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 09:48 am: |
|
Soilant green! Its made of peeeeople! |
Mikej
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 09:50 am: |
|
"poof"
told ya |
Bomber
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 09:51 am: |
|
I think I'll check for Idahoans under the bed tonight . . . . . . |
Mikej
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 10:06 am: |
|
Bomber,
Lots of unspoken-of stuff westward. |
Bomber
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 10:10 am: |
|
Mike . . .. yep, been crawlin around that neck of the woods . . .strange doins? you bet!
gotta go . . .my flat-balck Huey is arriving |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 10:22 am: |
|
MikeJ,
Do you believe that site is credible? I'm certainly no fan of Bill Clinton, but it sounds like BS to me. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 10:24 am: |
|
Chainsaw said "Prodestants", hehehehe. |
Mikej
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 10:33 am: |
|
Blake,
It depends on what level of planning and detail you look at. When dealing with relatively short-term planning operations then no-way. When you look at long-range planning operations then there is definite potential. Are you working on your retirement plans or your heirs retirement plans? It's all a matter of perspective.
Credible? No. BS? Probably. Still cause for some concern? Absolutely. |
Chainsaw
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 08:00 pm: |
|
...geez Blake! A full featured spell check could keep me from the occasional spelling error...
Glad to amuse you....corn boy!! |
Rudebike
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 09:31 pm: |
|
Bomber,
I'll tell you what, you do some research yourself on the net to discredit what I wrote. Then you can be cute like a swank lefty and make posts with the word, "giggle" in parenthesis and blow us all a kiss on your way out. |
|
The United States of Europe? 
»
Archive through October 30, 2002