Constitution non-existent? Interesting
- Thread starter beenthere
- Start date
shootinstudent
New member
redhawk41,
Those articles were a couple of pages each. I posted a half hour after you did. More than enough time, I assure you.
I also did a little search, as I've done many times before (for school) on the UN website to look up different proposed resolutions. Nothing even remotely like what LAK is claiming. Did you find anything that matches LAK's claims?
Those articles were a couple of pages each. I posted a half hour after you did. More than enough time, I assure you.
I also did a little search, as I've done many times before (for school) on the UN website to look up different proposed resolutions. Nothing even remotely like what LAK is claiming. Did you find anything that matches LAK's claims?
shootinstudent
New member
Redhawk41,
Not really. "New world order" doesn't mean "one world oppressive government" to most people. President G. H. Bush has used the term too. The only people I've known who think it means something sinister are the people who make the claims that LAK does, ie, that there is a plan to roll all governments into one.
Trade agreements? Sure. Seen those. Agreements on treatment of prisoners and customs of war? Those have been made for more than 500 years now.
But, uh, troops rolling into the US to take it over, for some mysterious purpose? Definitely seen no evidence for that.
Not really. "New world order" doesn't mean "one world oppressive government" to most people. President G. H. Bush has used the term too. The only people I've known who think it means something sinister are the people who make the claims that LAK does, ie, that there is a plan to roll all governments into one.
Trade agreements? Sure. Seen those. Agreements on treatment of prisoners and customs of war? Those have been made for more than 500 years now.
But, uh, troops rolling into the US to take it over, for some mysterious purpose? Definitely seen no evidence for that.
i don't recall using the word "oppressive" in my discussion of a "one world government". all i am saying is that we are heading towards global governance. citizens of the world.
shootinstudent, please read some of the material from the UN website in the searches i gave you. granted i haven't read all the stuff myself, but so far i have been suprised at what is actually there. get some articles and i will read them as well and we can discuss particulars.
i agree that you probable won't find a document describing this on the UN website.
again, please read some of the documentation on the UN website. if this is not true, it should be easy to find something to discredit it. provide me some articles and we can discuss them.
i will do the same.
shootinstudent,
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan000136.pdf
goto page 9 under the heading 'GOAL OF WORLD GOVERNMENT HIGH ON UN AGENDA'
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan000136.pdf
goto page 9 under the heading 'GOAL OF WORLD GOVERNMENT HIGH ON UN AGENDA'
shootinstudent
New member
Redhawk41,
As for post one, I was talking about LAK's claims. Not yours.
The document you posted....well, that's not a UN document. It's a collection of paragraphs cut from mass media news articles. That piece on page 9 is just what someone at CNS said about a conference that met to talk about providing food and economic aid to poor countries. It definitely isn't a UN piece on its plan for world government.
I have read through the UN site many times. Studying conventions and norms for warfare was one of the things I did as an undergrad. I'm not seeing the "one world government" movement in there. If anything, the UN has been ridiculously ineffective at asserting control even in places where UN troops were given the legal authority to act.
I hope you realize that it's not really feasible to prove that the UN has asserted no such thing, because that would require for you to either 1)Take my word for it or 2) Read every document the UN has ever made yourself, to see if you agree. You can't really find documents that disprove points like LAK made, because most organizations don't spend all their time writing about what they do not plan to do.
I think the only fruitful way to go about this is for you or LAK to find a document that supports the claim that one-world government is coming, and that the US will lose all sovereignty through it. Then we can all look to judge what weight we ought to give that piece.
As for post one, I was talking about LAK's claims. Not yours.
The document you posted....well, that's not a UN document. It's a collection of paragraphs cut from mass media news articles. That piece on page 9 is just what someone at CNS said about a conference that met to talk about providing food and economic aid to poor countries. It definitely isn't a UN piece on its plan for world government.
I have read through the UN site many times. Studying conventions and norms for warfare was one of the things I did as an undergrad. I'm not seeing the "one world government" movement in there. If anything, the UN has been ridiculously ineffective at asserting control even in places where UN troops were given the legal authority to act.
I hope you realize that it's not really feasible to prove that the UN has asserted no such thing, because that would require for you to either 1)Take my word for it or 2) Read every document the UN has ever made yourself, to see if you agree. You can't really find documents that disprove points like LAK made, because most organizations don't spend all their time writing about what they do not plan to do.
I think the only fruitful way to go about this is for you or LAK to find a document that supports the claim that one-world government is coming, and that the US will lose all sovereignty through it. Then we can all look to judge what weight we ought to give that piece.
this guy has some crazy ideas:
"In the past, we looked to the nation state for solutions. Today the true center of governance has changed dramatically. Transnational and multilateral organizations control our lives; they are the agencies of what we may call real, existing world government.
That government is powerful, it rules the entire world; but it is not democratic. It is not just. And it is not accountable."
- SAID W. MUSA PRIME MINISTER, MINISTER OF FINANCE AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF BELIZE
http://www.un.org/millennium/webcast/statements/belize.htm
"In the past, we looked to the nation state for solutions. Today the true center of governance has changed dramatically. Transnational and multilateral organizations control our lives; they are the agencies of what we may call real, existing world government.
That government is powerful, it rules the entire world; but it is not democratic. It is not just. And it is not accountable."
- SAID W. MUSA PRIME MINISTER, MINISTER OF FINANCE AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF BELIZE
http://www.un.org/millennium/webcast/statements/belize.htm
shootinstudent
New member
redhawk41,
Not surprising. A muslim guy from a developing nation who thinks that the West is part of a grand conspiracy to ruin his country.
That would definitely be a man who believes that the US controls the world along with its european cronies. It's common for third world reps of developing countries to blame all their problems on the industrialized world.
This is the international equivalent of Ralph Nader giving a speech to the news about how American politics work.
Edited to add:
I think this statement puts the "new world order" as seen by the 3rd world more into context: http://www.un.org/millennium/webcast/indexe.htm
The developing countries are imagining a world body that they can use as a sort of "collective bargaining" agent to secure more equitable trade agreements between them and more powerfull countries. I think that's fair, and definitely not an infringement on US sovereignty.
Not surprising. A muslim guy from a developing nation who thinks that the West is part of a grand conspiracy to ruin his country.
That would definitely be a man who believes that the US controls the world along with its european cronies. It's common for third world reps of developing countries to blame all their problems on the industrialized world.
This is the international equivalent of Ralph Nader giving a speech to the news about how American politics work.
Edited to add:
I think this statement puts the "new world order" as seen by the 3rd world more into context: http://www.un.org/millennium/webcast/indexe.htm
The developing countries are imagining a world body that they can use as a sort of "collective bargaining" agent to secure more equitable trade agreements between them and more powerfull countries. I think that's fair, and definitely not an infringement on US sovereignty.
"The day will come I believe for a legislative oversight of the world economic and social system, the first step toward world government."
"This is not in the area of fantasy. Rather, it is action to accommodate to the modern reality."
- John Kenneth Galbraith, Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics Emeritus at Harvard University
http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle-arch/1997/essay.htm
"This is not in the area of fantasy. Rather, it is action to accommodate to the modern reality."
- John Kenneth Galbraith, Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics Emeritus at Harvard University
http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle-arch/1997/essay.htm
shootinstudent
New member
Redhawk41,
I think it might be useful to distinguish between documents that show what the UN itself wants to do, and comments made by people who are completely uninvolved. Lots of people predict and advocate more world government. That doesn't mean that the US will give up all its sovereignty, because economists and professors do not make the decision all by themselves.
And, the type of global governance being invisioned by those folks is by and large more along the lines of what Mike Irwin was talking about, than LAK. Binding trade agreements, international courts, etc. Those are actually beneficial, and they don't require troop invasions because of it.
If maybe you found something authoritative from the UN, that might serve to show the point more effectively.
Interesting discussion.
I think it might be useful to distinguish between documents that show what the UN itself wants to do, and comments made by people who are completely uninvolved. Lots of people predict and advocate more world government. That doesn't mean that the US will give up all its sovereignty, because economists and professors do not make the decision all by themselves.
And, the type of global governance being invisioned by those folks is by and large more along the lines of what Mike Irwin was talking about, than LAK. Binding trade agreements, international courts, etc. Those are actually beneficial, and they don't require troop invasions because of it.
If maybe you found something authoritative from the UN, that might serve to show the point more effectively.
Interesting discussion.
Garand Illusion
New member
3 pages of the same hysterical stuff. Oh, well -- the lesson for Lak continues ...
Let's take the big one for instance, Prez George Bush I. Yes, he did speak the words "New World Order." In fact, here is the quote and link
I suggest you read the whole speech, LAK, instead of just hearing the worlds "New World Order" and wetting yourself and running to the woods to wait for the UN paratroopers to arrive and begin surrounding American cities full of button pushers.
Bush wasn't talking about some world government crushing the sovereignity of every other government. He was talking about the new state of affairs with a single superpower and the UN able to bring nations together to confront an agressor nation. "Triple H" of the WWF also spoke of the "New World Order," but he wasn't talking about world government either.
And yes ... he was looking forward to the United Nations getting past the "stalemate" of the cold war and the nations working together for the greater good. Doesn't mean he was giving up sovereinity -- just finally looking forward to a United Nations that could actually deal with situations instead of just leaving two opposing super powers to fight it out.
If there's a shakeup in my block and one neighbor suddenly seizes another neighbors house, I might organize the other homeowners to help out the oppressed neighbor and kick the agressive neighbors butt. Afterwards we might talk about the new spirit of brotherhood and the "new cul de sac order," but it doesn't mean I'm turning over the keys and control of my house to anyone.
It just means we've cooperated to make the neighborhood a better place, and I hope we continue to do so.
The US has a long history of using the UN when it needs it. Like Korea. But we can also ignore it or use our veto power when we don't. Like Iraq II.
If the UN had any real power, we wouldn't be in Iraq right now.
My attention span only covers recorded history. A long history of human feuds, of trading agreements that sometimes succeeded and sometimes failed, and of nations sometimes fragmenting into more nations and sometimes assimilating in to each other.
As for Science fiction writers ... they write 2 basic kinds of novels when they are focusing on changes to society; warning novels of bad futures and how they might happen, and utopian novels of how they hope the future should happen.
George Orwell's 1984 has simply not happened. Certainly technology has somewhat limited our privacy compared to when we were riding around horses and paying with cash/barter, but 1984 was mostly about media control and changing history. All history was processed by the state and changed as needed to support their current agenda/wars.
If you think that happened ... geez, there just aren't enough synonynms for "ignorant" to handle this post. Between the internet, a few hundred channels of cable TV from countries all over the world and the old print media the freedom of the press is alive and well. The press may be left leaning, but there are still people out there to print any story that comes up.
Whether it's memos saying W never showed up for guard duty, or the follow up story that the memos were all forged. Whether it was the story of the "Fast Boat Veterans" or John Kerry's crew that stood with him.
But the bottom line is this, and if you can contend these points fine, but otherwise give it up and accept that the world isn't all evil and working against you:
Let's take the big one for instance, Prez George Bush I. Yes, he did speak the words "New World Order." In fact, here is the quote and link
I suggest you read the whole speech, LAK, instead of just hearing the worlds "New World Order" and wetting yourself and running to the woods to wait for the UN paratroopers to arrive and begin surrounding American cities full of button pushers.
Bush wasn't talking about some world government crushing the sovereignity of every other government. He was talking about the new state of affairs with a single superpower and the UN able to bring nations together to confront an agressor nation. "Triple H" of the WWF also spoke of the "New World Order," but he wasn't talking about world government either.
And yes ... he was looking forward to the United Nations getting past the "stalemate" of the cold war and the nations working together for the greater good. Doesn't mean he was giving up sovereinity -- just finally looking forward to a United Nations that could actually deal with situations instead of just leaving two opposing super powers to fight it out.
If there's a shakeup in my block and one neighbor suddenly seizes another neighbors house, I might organize the other homeowners to help out the oppressed neighbor and kick the agressive neighbors butt. Afterwards we might talk about the new spirit of brotherhood and the "new cul de sac order," but it doesn't mean I'm turning over the keys and control of my house to anyone.
It just means we've cooperated to make the neighborhood a better place, and I hope we continue to do so.
The US has a long history of using the UN when it needs it. Like Korea. But we can also ignore it or use our veto power when we don't. Like Iraq II.
If the UN had any real power, we wouldn't be in Iraq right now.
My attention span only covers recorded history. A long history of human feuds, of trading agreements that sometimes succeeded and sometimes failed, and of nations sometimes fragmenting into more nations and sometimes assimilating in to each other.
As for Science fiction writers ... they write 2 basic kinds of novels when they are focusing on changes to society; warning novels of bad futures and how they might happen, and utopian novels of how they hope the future should happen.
George Orwell's 1984 has simply not happened. Certainly technology has somewhat limited our privacy compared to when we were riding around horses and paying with cash/barter, but 1984 was mostly about media control and changing history. All history was processed by the state and changed as needed to support their current agenda/wars.
If you think that happened ... geez, there just aren't enough synonynms for "ignorant" to handle this post. Between the internet, a few hundred channels of cable TV from countries all over the world and the old print media the freedom of the press is alive and well. The press may be left leaning, but there are still people out there to print any story that comes up.
Whether it's memos saying W never showed up for guard duty, or the follow up story that the memos were all forged. Whether it was the story of the "Fast Boat Veterans" or John Kerry's crew that stood with him.
But the bottom line is this, and if you can contend these points fine, but otherwise give it up and accept that the world isn't all evil and working against you:
- The leaders of the US aren't going to give up their jobs as leaders of the most powerful nation on Earth for a few bucks. But then, neither is the leader of any country; they worked their whole lives to get there, and they already have more money than they can spend. Politicians are about power, not wealth, because a welathy lifestyle always follows power.
- The Canadians don't want to merge with the US (and lose their health care) the Mexicans don't want to merge with us (they like their language/flag, and a place to go for temp jobs) and while we may sign some trading treaties, no one is giving up their sovereignity.
Garand Illusion
New member
The UN's not going to take away our guns; if it happens, it will be Californians and Democrats. The attacks on the RKBA are local, not international.
There's also an international Star Trek club ... but that doesn't mean we're about to turn over sovereignity to the "Federation of Planets" (though I have to admit, that would be kind of cool if we could get the technology as well).
People do sometimes communicate and even cooperate across national borders. It's a small world, and we all have to share it.
Communication and cooperation good.
World government bad (at least for forseable generations).
But the latter ain't gonna happen anyway, so don't stay awake nights worrying about it. Just try to educate yourself and make your life better, and accept that many things actually are exactly what they seem.
shootinstudent
New member
Redhawk41,
Some very smart people in influential positions are also advocating total free market capitalism, and for ignoring the UN. Does that mean it's inevitable?
Some very smart people in influential positions are also advocating total free market capitalism, and for ignoring the UN. Does that mean it's inevitable?
Based on the negative views on capitalism that i saw in the UN documentation, and the positioning of the UN as a psuedo-world-government agency, i would have to say no.
just because we ignore the UN doesn't mean it will go away.
good point though
i think you have addressed where some of the "paranoid hysterical fear" of the UN comes from. it appears to be in direct conflict with capitalism, and the American ideology.
one major goal of the UN is to end world poverty, and the means to achieve this is redistribution of wealth. a world socialism, if you will.
just because we ignore the UN doesn't mean it will go away.
good point though
i think you have addressed where some of the "paranoid hysterical fear" of the UN comes from. it appears to be in direct conflict with capitalism, and the American ideology.
one major goal of the UN is to end world poverty, and the means to achieve this is redistribution of wealth. a world socialism, if you will.
shootinstudent
New member
Redhawk41,
That's not necessarily so. It is possible to create more wealth, as especially in the developing world there remain untapped resources.
I think especially if you take a look at IMF and World Bank policies, we are in no danger of world socialism.
That's not necessarily so. It is possible to create more wealth, as especially in the developing world there remain untapped resources.
I think especially if you take a look at IMF and World Bank policies, we are in no danger of world socialism.
Garand Illusion
And when you are contemplating this, keep something in mind; anything that conflicts with that "historic vision of it's founders" - be it any of our enumerated rights (like the 2nd), the sovereignty of our courts, our unwillingness to pay a global tax of any kind, etc - will not be permitted to stand.
The veto isn't going to last; one of the foremost issues on the U.N. agenda is the elimination of veto powers. You see, while people like Bush have been using that word "democracy" alot - those hundred and something other nations are saying, excuse us, but "democracy" means everyone. Not just the G7, the G8 or the G20 - it must mean all of us.
There's your WWF.
Yes, the speech is published in entirety on many sites. Bravo; you found one of them.
What new world order?? We have been told by the scoffers that there was no such thing; so what exactly is it?
Since you have discovered how to read some of this stuff yourself; you can explain what exactly is the "historic vision of it's founders".
And when you are contemplating this, keep something in mind; anything that conflicts with that "historic vision of it's founders" - be it any of our enumerated rights (like the 2nd), the sovereignty of our courts, our unwillingness to pay a global tax of any kind, etc - will not be permitted to stand.
Which human rights? The right to self defense and defense of family? A right to keep and bear the means to do so? Have you read the U.N. Charter and the U.N. "Declaration of Human rights"?
Nothing like pig ignorance. If you want to see some of the finer points of U.N. "peacekeeping"; read what they did in Katanga in the early 1960s, for example, at the behest of a communist regime. In the interests of "peace and prosperity in every land", and their "historic vision".
Really? So you are not now, nor never could be brought under the jurisdiction of a world court as a citizen of the United States?
Single superpower? Dream on; wave your made in China flag while doing so.
Is that sort of like saying "the community above the individual"? I mean what if some of those countries are not interested in "working together for the greater good"?
I see; and when all the other homeowners' in the um .. new association order all decide that it is expensive running the community watch program, and some are rather less educated than you are, and have lower incomes - you won't mind being told you have to chip in a greater chunk of your money to keep it all afloat? I mean you are more afluent than some and can afford it.
And when all the other new association order members decided to reconsider the security program after a series of incidents among member homeowners, they all decide that "dangerous dogs" are out. Like you are going to have to get rid of your beloved, loyal pet Dobermans. Not because they are vicious dogs - but simply "on the list of breeds". They also voted unanimously to limit how much ammo you have for your guns; since if you only have a certain amount, you will then not have enough to lay seige to more than one house. The community ammo store is accessible if needed by the new association council only.
When who needs it? That's amusing; since the U.S. has a history of paying most of the bill from the getgo. I think you are just alittle confused about who is using who. Iraq II offered NO benefit to us; we are paying in blood and money though.
The veto isn't going to last; one of the foremost issues on the U.N. agenda is the elimination of veto powers. You see, while people like Bush have been using that word "democracy" alot - those hundred and something other nations are saying, excuse us, but "democracy" means everyone. Not just the G7, the G8 or the G20 - it must mean all of us.
It certainly has. You have doublethink written all over your position and assertions.
And who covered the orchestrated performance of untruth by a young lady called Nayirah before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus in 1990?
Give me a break. It was people like Pamela Harriman who put George H W Bush and William Clinton in the WH - and others like her that made sure no one else was allowed into the ring with them to debate on national TV. Not on cable, local or any other televised media.
There's your WWF.
Right. Perhaps you should look at what is being put to press from time to time about the FTAA and the forthcoming Pan American state up there.
How many Mexicans are actually in the Mexican parliament? You think Vicente Fox is Mexican?
shootinstudent
Well, get this. George Bush has signed us on.
Air and water quality? Ah, a bigger enviromental lobby; now we can have the North American Union Enviromental agency telling us we can't have log fires at home, drive those nasty SUVs, or shoot polluting lead bullets. Ooops - did I say bullets? As in privately owned firearms and shooting ranges?
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?id=444
Read and understand the small print. It is only partially about twade:
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?id=443
Look at the smiling faces
http://pm.gc.ca/grfx/slideshow/Texas/1.htm
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?id=446
Well, let's first go back a decade or two when people like you said there was no such thing at all. Now there is ample proof it is there, and has been there for a very long time, people like you are now trying to swing it to:
So how come "There is no such thing" now changes to, "It's not a dangerous thing"?
Might trade include "global economic governance"? Paul Martin, Prime Minister of Canada apparently thinks so. This is the same Paul Martin that recently met with George Bush and Vicente Fox. They had alittle "North American Summit" of their own. And they formed alittle "partnership" Let's examine this further ....
Did he say "healthier"? I thought this was strictly about TWADE. Did he say "safer" ... um, I thought this was just about TWADE. A TWADE agreement. So tell me, what can Mexico tell me about being "safer" and "healthier"? What has Canada to say about my health in the name of twade?
Well, get this. George Bush has signed us on.
Ah yes, we need to build and fund the huge bureaucracies on top of those we have to "work together". You mean Winnipeg doesn't have telephones? Or is it Mexico City that dosn't have them? Or is it fax machines - or is it consular offices?
Air and water quality? Ah, a bigger enviromental lobby; now we can have the North American Union Enviromental agency telling us we can't have log fires at home, drive those nasty SUVs, or shoot polluting lead bullets. Ooops - did I say bullets? As in privately owned firearms and shooting ranges?
And there you have it folks - straight from one of the puppets' mouths. With a few for-now-reassuring inserts of the word "nations". For now.
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?id=444
Read and understand the small print. It is only partially about twade:
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?id=443
Look at the smiling faces
http://pm.gc.ca/grfx/slideshow/Texas/1.htm
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?id=446
Garand Illusion
I accept it - you do not. You accept being taxed almost on a level that defines the Pan European socialist state - by a "conservative-republican" government. You accept measures of control and increasing oppression fast approaching that same Euro state - from the same "conservative-republican" government that is signing "partnership agreements" that include infrastructure in policing and security (read: military), health and environment etc with a thoroughly corrupt Mexico and socialist Canada. You accept partaking in and funding an international criminal organization called the U.N.
I do not.
You are naive enough to believe that you can join government bureucracies and upper-level government like this and they will not eventually be a de facto homogenous political machine at the street level?
You are naive.
I do. You do not. When these people say what they wanted a long time ago, and regardless of what opposition it steadfastly keeps moving that direction, and those moving it openly talk about it - I believe them.
I accept it - you do not. You accept being taxed almost on a level that defines the Pan European socialist state - by a "conservative-republican" government. You accept measures of control and increasing oppression fast approaching that same Euro state - from the same "conservative-republican" government that is signing "partnership agreements" that include infrastructure in policing and security (read: military), health and environment etc with a thoroughly corrupt Mexico and socialist Canada. You accept partaking in and funding an international criminal organization called the U.N.
I do not.
You are naive enough to believe that you can join government bureucracies and upper-level government like this and they will not eventually be a de facto homogenous political machine at the street level?
You are naive.