Yeah, but the UN's goal has and always will be a one world government. Its founders were all proponents of it, and they are slowly bringing world government about through international laws, treaties and regulations.
UN "Peacekeepers" with guns, tanks, helicopters and soldiers; obviously do not intend peace! If they were peaceful, they'd be like Monks or some shit, not fully armored troops!
I fail to see anything at all wrong with the U.N. mission statement. I would think that is a goal most all of us here would like to ultimately see. Regarding the whole "end-times"-Christianity thing. Yet another thing that is so often misinterpreted, or misrepresented is the whole "one-world government" BS in the Bible. Nowhere in Revelations or elsewhere does the Bible condemn or say that a globally unified government is "evil" or a negative thing in the slightest. Not one single word against it. What it does speak of is that this "one-world" government would be the instrument of control and tyranny utilized by the unholy trio; The Whore, The False Prophet, and the star of our show, The Anti-Christ. Same with a global cash-less monetary system. Bible doesn't say it's evil, just it is to be a "tool" of the fascist regime of the Anti-Christ. Sooo, you're personal reactions to this "insanity" that STP is going on about is kind of a barometer of your internal convictions/beliefs/fears concerning Biblical prophecy, because the ideals as proposed in the OP sound pretty fucking good to me, especially if you remove any Biblical connotations and you would have to be a special kinda loopy or self-centered to not agree.
So you would take a pea-shooter to an armored tank fight??? or maybe send flowers? STP, Please remove cranium from rectum.
Take your pick out of this: weak. piss poor. vague. ridiculous. What is a 'peacekeepers' mission? to fight? http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/about/ The clue is in the title - keeping the peace.
Got any unbiased sources other than the UN's own website? Or do you just believe whatever official sources tell you to believe?
Indeed, they should get lightsabers instead. An 'elegant weapon for a more civlized age'. Anyway, I understand there's always 2 sides of a coin but those weaponry is ment to be able to intervene in bloody conflicts. Now, they usually have to agree on a cause of course, otherwise they would probably had aided Syria with it for example. If they were an organization like 'monks' in the broadest sense how could they aid in any conflict or expect to make a serious impact in maintaining human rights/global safety? I agree they are not nearly perfect now but they have their use as an international organization.
Why do you automatically disbelieve anything from some official source? That is just as naive and foolish.
Well he did use a UN document to try and make his point...why should I not use a UN website to make mine?
i couldn't possibly agree more, well said. and furthurmore, US get the hell outta the UP while you're at it !!!
I don't believe in "global safety"- that's a facade. That's their way of allowing the people to validate a need for them, when their is none. Peaceful trade and non-coersion, is the way to international prosperty, not force!
I don't believe that. The same way America will support a dictator when it's good for them- so to does the UN. The UN when used to send American troops into Libya without congressional approval, and override our Constitution and national sovereignty.
Honestly I'm going through opiate withdrawls; I'm happy you guys understand me through the typos!:conehead: (There's no smilie with a burning brain and watery eyes)
The UN didn't send in American troops. America sent in american troops. President Obama has taken the formal step of notifying Congress that he has deployed troops “equipped for combat” to Libya and Yemen to defend U.S. citizens and property, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution. “Although these security forces are equipped for combat, these movements have been undertaken solely for the purpose of protecting American citizens and property,” the president wrote in a letter to Congress. “These security forces will remain in Libya and in Yemen until the security situation becomes such that they are no longer needed.” A security force from the U.S. Africa Command deployed to Libya Wednesday to support security of U.S. personnel after the killing of four Americans in an attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. An additional security force arrived in Yemen Thursday after the assault on the U.S. Embassy in Sana’a. “These actions have been directed consistent with my responsibility to protect U.S. citizens both at home and abroad, and in furtherance of U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive,” the president wrote. “I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in these actions.” Consistent with the War Powers Resolution, the president has to notify Congress when he dispatches combat-equipped troops to a foreign country. This situation differs from the U.S. involvement in Libya last year, when the president was criticized for not notifying Congress. No combat-equipped troops were sent to a foreign country in that instance, whereas these are now boots on the ground. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ngress-of-troops-deployed-to-libya-and-yemen/
First of all do you see the forum we're on? Do me a favor and hit "new post" Secondly- being offended is fucking bullshit. I don't support/endorse/follow any stupid/unconstitutional laws; what I do with my body is MY business- and I don't believe we need Mother Government to tell us what we can and can't ingest!