UN Forces keep peace in US? Hmmm?

A

andyb

New member
House bill H. R. 4453 strives to effect a "United Nations Rapid Deployment Police and Security Force". The bill may be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/ with a search on H. R. 4453. (The search routine is timed to self-destruct in after short order so the best way is to refresh the search rather than posting a direct URL to the document).

On another board, I posted a reply to this (bill) subject sort of tongue in cheek. Later, I seriously wondered if there was something more useful in my casual statement. We are often asking ourselves (and each other) what can we do to defend our 2nd Amendment right to freely keep and bear arms. I wonder if maybe the term "human rights" is a possible lever to work with. The following is the mission statement from the bill with my silly reply. What do you think? Is there something in this that we can hang our hat on?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>(b) MISSION STATEMENT- The United Nations Rapid Deployment Police and Security Force should have a mission statement that provides for the following:

(1) The United Nations Rapid Deployment Police and Security Force will engage in operations when--

(A) the United Nations Security Council determines that an imminent threat to the peace requires a preventive deployment of forces and the Security Council deems it as an appropriate response;

(B) the United Nations Security Council determines ongoing gross violations of human rights or breaches of the peace require rapid intervention by the international community and the Security Council deems it as an appropriate response;

(C) peace has been restored to a region but the rule of law has not yet been reestablished and when national civilian police or United Nations member nations personnel are not available and the Security Council deems it as an appropriate response; or

(D) the United Nations Rapid Deployment Police and Security Force can utilize its personnel to help train the military and civilian police of member nations of the United Nations to better participate in international peace operations.[/quote]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>-------------------
Human rights? Hmmm. Does this mean that diluting and expunging the BOR (Bill of Rights ... for the newbies) would violate our human rights? If that can be made true, than two things can happen: (1) Since this administration pushes human rights, then they'd be in deep doo-doo killing the BOR, right? And (2) if the BOR is killed and our human rights are infringed (etc.), then UN troops - oops - SWAT (Police and Security)teams composed of all kinds of non-Americans, can be landed here to allay the problem.

Hey, guys, get the muskets - the Redcoats are coming! Yeah, I can see it now, 50 states get dissolved and become colonies of the UN.
----------------[/quote]

Actually, the BOR is there to preserve human rights - considering European history from the year one. So messing with the BOR is messing with human rights - OUR human rights. Is there a "tool" here, people? Hmmm...?

Here's another thought: since we are the power that we are in the world, should a major civil calamity engulf the nation, would not the rest of the world become very, very nervous? Would they not consider actually deploying such a force to the US?

"Blue" Sky?

Well, have at me.
Andy
 
Nice thought. Won't work. Check out the UN's website if you want to see their attitude on personal small arms...and sovereignty in general.

I personally thinkt the UN scenario is a little far fetched, or at least pretty far away, though certainly possible.

The only thing that'll happen if UN forces are sent to do anything in the US is that a lot of blue helmets and berets will get free ventilation and heat dissipation systems courtesy of American citizens. That would be a bad time to be a UN "peacekeeper."

Might have to change their names to "Rest-in- Peace-keepers."

I'm not advocating that, mind you; just repeating what I've heard some folks say.
 
Andy,

Your quote reads, “... the United Nations Security Council determines ongoing
gross violations of human rights or breaches of the peace require rapid
intervention by the international community and the Security Council deems
it as an appropriate response;...”

You emboldened “human rights”. That might be there just to make the law
“palatable”. I believe “breaches of the peace” is the more dangerous phrase.

*IF* a rebellion began in the US and *IF* the federal government was afraid
to trust the US military, *THEN* our federal government could request UN
troops “to restore order and preserve the peace”.

Of course, that could never happen because the federal government is not
granted that power in the US Constitution.

You know, the document that prohibits infringements of our Right to Keep
and Bear arms, prohibits unlawful search and seizure, prohibits seizure of
personal property without due cause, prohibits federal meddling in state’s
affairs, etc., etc., and so forth.....

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
Sorry Glenn, I'm not cranking up for any prolonged thread ... I simply asked if the key words "human rights" could be a way of defending the BOR ... considering the politicos are "all for human rights" and those words appear in the named bill introduced by elected people in the House of Representatives - a bill that supports a UN military/police unit.

Is not the BOR a defense of human rights ... at least for Americans (up to today at least)?

Andy
 
Don`t kid yourself Glen, Why is the US Military and FEMA training together by order of the UN???

Marines and Army doing EMERGENCY URBAN THREAT TRAINING!

Told by a friend whos Brother is a Major in the Army, and has access to Military Intelligence Operators.

Unfortunately this Friend is not an extremist or a Bull*hitter...

Would have to give these guys a TRIPLE AAA Credit rating when it comes to Honesty, and Reliability.

"Paranoid" is what we`d call them... ;)

Or should we???

I hope there is no "BIGGER PICTURE" here...

------------------
SHOOT,COMMUNICATE AND MOVE OUT !

[This message has been edited by GIT_SOME.45 (edited July 22, 2000).]
 
"So here is a rant - lose your guns by buying into this crap and convince the undecided
that we are too stupid to own guns."

Sorry, Glenn, but as much as you might want to mandate permits, taxing, and training for concealed carry, as I've seen you post about here, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about the RKBA being restricted to those who pass intelligence, ideology, or popularity tests...yours or anyone elses. I don't give a rat's ass whether what we discuss is palatable to the liberal weenies or not. This ain't about good PR. Those who think it is have missed the boat already.

As for what's "stupid" and what's not...my grandfather, who was a military pilot in the early '40s, in that little skirmish across the big water, would've thought that anyone who suggested the federal government might spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per case just to catch and prosecute individuals for failing to pay a $200 dollar tax on some guns...then shoot them, their wives, children, and dogs over it, or, later, burn them out as a result of it--hell, if someone had told him that, knowin him, he'd have thrown his drink in their face, called em a liar, and ripped them a new one for talking about his country that way--the country he fought for, killed for, and watched friends of his die for.

As I stated, I don't think the UN scenario is probable, but these days anything's possible. None of us knows the future.
 
"The battle can be won with oldfashioned grass roots politics and the strength of our
argument."

Ahhh, if only that were true. I believed that for better than fifteen years of actively trying. Get out there and really fight the battle your way and you will see that it just doesn't work. I've written letters to newspapers and representatives, and checks to political parties, candidates, and gun rights orgs out the wazoo, called everyone under the sun, voted my @ss off, recruited folks, taught newbies to shoot. Other than enriching some folks with my money and, on occasion, my thoughts, know what happens? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Thanks for coming and have a good night.

This is not simply about what's right, or who's right, or the strength of our position. Oh how I wish it were. This is about the federal government usurping power from the people and the states, and the people and the states sitting back, allowing it to happen.

You can't reason with someone who's irrational.

You can't stop someone who's stabbing you by asking them not to.

You can't change things through the Constitutionally mandated electoral process when those you elect don't adhere to their limits set forth by that Constitution.

Saying we just need to vote and recruit at the grassroots level to change things is the precise political equivalent of saying a woman who's got a couple thugs coming through her window threatening rape and murder should just call 911 and let the system work like it's supposed to. Oh, the system will work all right. But she'll still wind up violated and dead.

At the very least, we're at the stage where mass civil disobedience is called for. That will likely take us in any number of directions. Will we all do it? I don't know. But it's the only thing that will work at this point. Think about it...at least the civil rights marchers were willing to stand up and face them down. We're not even willing to do that.

And while I disagree with much of what the government has done with and for the civil rights marchers, their organizations, and their descendents, we must acknowledge the fact that they didn't get as far as they did by voting.

Nor by asking anyone's permission. Rather, they did it by exercising their rights. That was the only thing that made change happen.

Sure, vote. Everyone should anyway. Ain't gonna change this situation. At one time it could, but that time is past. And while I wish it were still true, reality, history, and reason suggest otherwise.

What we have to do is exercise our right, on our own authority, and under the protection of the 2nd Amendment, and not wait for someone to give us permission. Waiting for permission only prolongs the inevitable.

Everything else is just pie in the sky.



[This message has been edited by Franklin W. Dixon (edited July 22, 2000).]
 
Franklin, I could agree with that IF it were truly a national occurrence (I'm not plotting, mind you); but I don't see a couple - or a couple hundred - people operating under their rights on any particular day or occasion as having any real impetus. Now if there were an 80 million gun owner march, I believe THAT would get attention. But getting any significant support for this would be like pulling teeth - without anesthetic.

The pure fact of the matter is there is no organization (I don't mean "clubs" et al) to the many pro-gunners; as a group, it isn't. It is individual - and the majority are caught up in living, with little, if any, idea of what's going on around them.

Now if there was a way to get them up to speed, and out to vote, great. But first you have to get their attention, then have pro-constitution/BOR people in place to vote for. (That's the problem with 3rd parties - even if they took a major office, how much can they get done?) And getting their attention by extraordinary means (on our part) can only have negative results IMO. If anyone uses extraordinary means, it has to be government or it won't work. And that action has to be so very reprehensible and ugly - and undeniable - before the wake-up would really happen. Think of it - at 4AM you are invited to turn over your guns NOW! You know the scenerio ... what would the every day person with arms in the house do in the face of that "invite"? There is a way, though - I'm confident in this - but finding it (in time) is the challenge. People must, with one voice, let the powers that am know that enough is enough. If not, our grandchildren will not have a right to pick their nose or anything else.

I'm just venting - not at you, or Glen, or Dennis - just at the d***ed situation. Frustration, I guess. Sorry.
[/my rant off]

Andy
 
I agree with you, Andy, but look closely at my post. My comparison with the civil rights movement brings up the following points...my assumptions, so to speak, for how this thing should happen.

1. There were certainly more than a couple hundred people involved with that!

2. However, it took a while for it to get cranked up and going. Didn't happen overnight. Rosa Parks was simply one woman standing up (well, sitting down) for her rights which, at that time, went unacknowledged (of course it's a little known fact that her move was planned by her group of local civil rights folks who were thinking in that direction already; which is to say, like Lexington and Concord, it wasn't a spontaneous act but part of a well thought out plan of action/contingencies.

En masse, the only real mistake they made was allowing themselves to get the $hit beat out of them. However, given their situation, they didn't have much of a choice.

At least they were willing to stand up.

Yes, the attitude of gun owners right now is overall one of acquiescence. There are even some who prefer the government's permission-for-rights system. Hey, it's easy, it's comfortable, and there's no risk involved. I don't agree with that mindset, but I understand it.

But the civil rights movement, like the War for Independence, the (women's) Suffrage movement, etc started very slowly, with a trickle of ideas and people here and there, and for a long time the vast majority were oblivious or didn't care, were completely unaware of it, but over time it grew until something happened.

In all of these cases, there are similarities:

1. Usurpation...by the government
2. Pragmatism...pragmatic acceptance of "the way things are" by the people

which gives rise to

3. Discontent...among those who are tired of #1

which gives rise to

4.Discussion/Debate/Disagreement...over exactly what the problem is, and what needs to be done about it.

It's at this point where most regimes, not knowing when to quit, continue to rub the people's noses in it. This is where we're at now. And it's not just about guns...but about taxes, bureaucracy, and federal expansion and all that entails. We've simply lost the ability to change this through the electoral process, so like the civil rights folks, we're going to have to wake up and exercise our rights instead of just talk about them. It may take us a year, or 20 years, or more, who knows.

5. Defense and Action...where everything snowballs over time until something happens.


And something always happens.
 
I won't argue your points for I agree with them all. My questions are when and how?

1. When? I just don't know if there are 20 years or more available. We seem to have more ignorance and apathy every day ("I don't know, and I don't care"). This coupled with the dumbing down of our national intellect, seems to make it a long haul - too long for these old bones. The effort could run dry.

2. How? Rosa, as you said, had support - locally, and national with the NAACP and others. Well, maybe I'm assuming something; but, in this day and time, I just can't see a "little old lady" getting that much overall response to her refusal to "move to the rear". But then, there were special circumstances (like a plan someplace). Maybe if I could get my Irish mither fired up, we'd have a chance :).

IMO the successful "how" is still tied to numbers, and the numbers have to be awake, else where's the support? And ... whatever the support, it HAS to be peaceful or run the risk of losing the "maybe ifs" and fence-sitters - (there's always someone with a short fuse and the media would do a number on that, for sure).

There are some heavy thinkers and keyboard orators up here and on some other sites. Maybe if you, Glen, me, and others just keep the words and ideas flowing, we'll get a spark, after all TFL is growing.
 
Andy

Check out Colonel Dan on Sierratimes.com:
http://www.sierratimes.com/colonel.htm

Specifically, scroll down and read what he has to say in his "Combined Forces" editorial. Where he basically gets at the fact that we're all divided right now, and one possible solution to that.

However, I don't think ultimately this is a gun issue. This is an issue of federal usurpation of powers reserved for the states and the people. The mistake we've made all along is allowing the government to tell us what the Constitution means. And, after 1865, the states have basically sold us out to the feds. We should all thank our "American Lenin," (Neil Smith's term of endearment for Honest Abe), for that.
 
Wouldnt the follow violate international law as being "A Foreign Invasion". According to this if there are riots (or threat there of) in a city, the UN can send forces in wether or not the country where those riots are wants it or not. Well that how I read it! Lets say during the Riots in CA, a few years ago this UN Force was around, and sent into CA, what would have happened?? I think it would have been a HUGE mess!

(A) the United Nations Security Council determines that an imminent threat to the peace requires a preventive deployment of forces and the Security Council deems it as an appropriate response;

(B) the United Nations Security Council determines ongoing gross violations of human rights or breaches of the peace require rapid intervention by the international community and the Security Council deems it as an appropriate response;

(C) peace has been restored to a region but the rule of law has not yet been reestablished and when national civilian police or United Nations member nations personnel are not available and the Security Council deems it as an appropriate response; or


------------------
-AoW[t]-Dead [Black Ops]
 
Well, now - here I am talking with the "Dead" - and, no doubt, getting a response. :)

There you are, Dead - Get your Reps to stamp your handle on that House bill H. R. 4453, before "turn about being fair play" comes along and the blue helmets and berets come floating down "to bring peace" to our neighborhoods. Mine is a Democrat, and while he's generally a good guy, the influences are still there. Guess he's had enough, since he says he'll not run again.
 
Franklin, thanks for putting me onto that URL - but now - I have this eerie feeling of deja vu. Are not the Colonel's words similar to mine? Are not the points made close to my own? If I've read it wrongly, please leap up and correct me.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>However, I don't think ultimately this is a gun issue. This is an issue of federal usurpation of powers reserved for the states and the people. The mistake we've made all along is allowing the government to tell us what the Constitution means.[/quote]

I agree, it is goes far beyond a gun issue ... it is a Constitution issue, BOR and all. Why? Because the goal as I read it is to reshape the country ... to Europe-ize it if you will. That so, then the structure must be changed and the rights and liberties diluted to the point of oblivion. While the 1st Amend. currently allows the vox populi, it is the 2nd that puts the teeth in it. Ergo, the attack on the 2nd.

I have some doubts about the Colonel's approach re the internet hub that I can't explain now.

Anyway, we are getting a number of visitors here; that may stir the pot a bit. My thanks to all who are participating.
 
Glenn if UN troops are used on US soil, it will be at the request of the US government, and they will land unopposed. Every country in the UN could land troops here under those conditions. Keep in mind, it only took 20,000 British troops to invade Ireland in the 16th century, and they killed 1,000,000 out of 1,600,000 Irish. They faced extreme ratio of people to army there, but they did it by attacking one target at a time, then going to another. How does this apply? If the UN were to come here to help the US "restore order", they would go from one city to the next, systematically attacking militants and disarming them. Frankly they don't need the UN to help them do it, but it is possible. Don't think it couldn't happen, people though there was no way Germany could defeat France during WW2, but they did. They thought it far fetched that Hitler was killing Jews by the millions, but he was. It is suprising what can happen if you are unwary and careless. I'm not saying it will, but it's stupid to think it cannot.

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth
 
Well, Glenn, you're real good at deciding whose arguments are "stupid" and whose aren't. On another thread you defended your posts on the grounds that its always helpful to consider all the possibilities, from all the angles. Guess that only applies when those posts meet your standards of intelligence and middle class respectability, huh.
 
Glenn, if the people we elect to run this country betray us, which they can do, and have done at times, they could make the decision to request the assistance of UN "peacekeepers". It probably won't happen because our government had plenty of it's own troops, but they are increasingly being reduced in numbers and capability. Ireland was not the most potent military power in the world perhaps but they did outnumber the British enormously. The British just attacked their cities sequentially, and killed over 1 million of them in the progress. If the UN assisted US forces were to go from city to city with even 20,000 troops, there would be no stopping them without basic military devices including DDs.
I agree it is unlikely, but very strange and unlikely things have happened in history, and will happen in the future. It is best to be prepared for what you can, becuase as I am always so fond of saying: Be prepared for trouble, because trouble is always prepared for you.

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top