Would you fight the UN?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The first and foremost mistake we all seem to make is to believe the way things are today, is the way they'll always be. What I mean by that is, yes economies change, markets change, headlines change, and hemlines change, but what about the freedoms we all share? We get up in the morning, take a shower, drive to work, earn a living, come home, hug our kids, kiss our wives, eat dinner, go to the range, play golf, whatever...this is what I mean. The way we live.

We think in such conventional languages. For a second, think about how many Americans have really sincerely taken the Y2K bug seriously, and prepared for it. How many have more than a week's worth of bare essentials stored away? How many are prepared for distribution, communication, conventional system breakdown or interruptions?

Now a twist...

How many are prepared for a bio-weapon threat? Hmmm...I mean a manufactured "bug" sent out into the airstreams, water supplies, etc. Certainly more deadly than the Y2K bug, and one that will assure enactment of "martial law". When you look at Cities and towns around the Country, you can only conclude one thing...that it would be logistically impossible to "take-over" America in its current state of population density, with an armed populace, and our "free" means of transportation.

So how can this objective be accomplished?

Reduce the population, in turn creating a catastrophic change in the way "things" are.
Then, move troops or whatever armies the NWO sees fit into these areas, and occupy it.

Think its a little far fetched?

At the first sign of a biological outbreak in your area, what will you do? Will you even recognize the symtoms? Will you continue with your life the way you've been living? Would you let your kids go to school? Would you then think there is a reason behind every government action down to something as simple as banning military supplies to civilans, like a gas mask?

BTW, where is your gas mask? Where are the masks for your family? What is your plan if an outbreak occurs? Do you know how to keep yourself from being infected with these bugs? Stockpiling weapons and ammo can only become effective against an army who does not use bio-weapons in their first wave of attack. Without gear to protect against this first threat level, your guns will never be used. Both you and your guns will be "cold".

Reduce the threat, clear the streets, confine people to their homes or centralized holding areas, disarm, control, and conquer.

Battlefields today and tomorrow are played on a grand scale, with modern weaponry, and some pretty frightening people calling the shots. You and I are but pawns in this game of Global Monopoly. Never doubt those who desire this level of power haven't employed the latest of technologies to find a means to this end.

For a little insight, read "The Cobra Event", and "Rainbow Six". As much as these fictional stories are but a fantasy in the eyes of their authors, they are plausible, and logical.

The UN? C'mon folks. Think in terms of logistics. Think beyond the scope of conventionalism.
 
I read the Cobra Event and am 1/2 way thru Rainbow Six. Great fiction. The concept of a multibillionaire determined to extinguish 99% of the human race and recruiting all sorts of public and scientific figures is, perhaps, "plausible and logical", I guess?

OTOH, why stop there when we have such scenarios as HG Wells' classic War of the Worlds and such backup evidence as Area 51. ;)
Rich
 
All of our troops and all of our allied troops are equipped and prepared to handle bio-weapons hazards. A standing militia (every able bodied person in America) should also be so equipped and prepared. With such an attack, accident, experiment, or otherwise implemented incident on American soil (without its people having proper equipment/training), what would we have left to defend our freedom?

The plausibility of bio-weapons used on Americans or any other civilized people, stands against all moral reason. But this in and of itself makes this scenario all the more effective against an unsuspecting populace.

When faced with a variety of tools in which to implement one's ideological politics upon the world, and then to end up with a Global monopoly, world power, and complete control over everything, one think's in "God-like" proportions. The comparison to the books mentioned is a slight suggestion of the type of tools available, for those unfamiliar with them.

Apathy and ignoring available information will get us nowhere.
 
Oops. I think I goofed. I just reread the question, and I suppose if they're occupying American soil that IS the threat I was babbling about. Put me in the "fight, reluctantly" column and I hope it never happens.

------------------
Don

"Hey you, let's fight!"
"Them's fightin' words!"
 
Paul Revere, you have again said it correctly and plainly. But the goy just dont get it and will be wofully unprepared when the emergency strikes and the US GOvt calls the troops out including UN troops who will be in coperation and even under US control. No, the UN forces wont be coming in on their own,but UNDER US CONTROL.Remember its for the good of the children. It will be a warm fuzzy feeling that the "governmink" will protray to the confused sheeple. I have a strong feeling that these UN boys will be in US uniforms and not in the UN blue. Makes good sense. Winning a physical battle against the emerging NWO will be unlikely. Divine Intervention will have to handle this Beast System which will be very, very powerful and extremely evil. The previews are in the faces of the leaders of the Western World and their lackeys(Klinton, Blair, Schroder,Allbright, Cohen, Reno, and a host of others)
 
When I was in high school, during the height of the cold war, I had a history teacher who raised the question of a conventional military invasion of the U.S. as a class exercise.
It was an interesting study, and while I doubt that it was as thorough a simulation as the Pentagon could have prepared, it illustrated a number of commonly held misconceptions concerning our vulnerability.
To begin with, the U.S. is not exactly some small, land locked, 3rd world country that could be easily or quickly subjugated. We have over 3.5 MILLION square miles of territory. We have a population of well over 250 MILLION citizens, many of whom are armed and will continue to be armed regardless of any future gun control legislation.
An army, big enough to subdue a population that size in a country this large would have to number in the 10's of millions.
Even if you were able to conscript every soldier in every member nation of the U.N., you wouldn't be able to come up with a force that size. If you could, there aren't enough ships and aircraft on this planet to transport them here. And if you were able to do so, the logistical network necessary to sustain them would require the most massive military effort in human history. D-Day would seem like a weekend trip to the beach in comparison.
Take a good look at some of our recent "allied" actions. Just how many "combat ready" troops have our foreign friends contributed to these missions? A couple of hundred? A thousand? That's a far cry from what would be required. And most of these troops were not battle hardened veterans.
As DC pointed out above, any U.N. soldier sent here would be coming to his own funeral.
How long do you think that would go on before these contributing member nations started to experience massive desertions in their ranks?
How long could many of those "peace-loving, democratic" countries in the U.N. afford to part with a portion of their armed forces before the natives back home started getting restless?
We would see a "New World Order", but I doubt that it would resemble anything currently imagined.
In answer to the original question, if U.N. troops were sent here on a "peace keeping" mission, I probably would shoot at them, but I doubt if I would ever get the opportunity.
Those poor slobs would be lucky to get off the dock or out of the airport alive.
 
Paul Revere,

I think your right on tbe money about the UN infecting an entire population. I do not know this as fact but from what I've read and heard, I think the UN infected Africa with the HIV virus. I know it sounds far fetched and many of you may laugh, but sit back and think for a minute. The HIV virus is extremely complex has its own survival mechanisms making it literaly indestructable, unlike any natural virus. Many scientist are begging to suspect that this virus was man made. Now back to the point, the HIV virus was strategicaly put in Africa as a test so to speak. Pick a Nation that is poor, poverished, no economic backbone, over populated ...etc. In other words Africa is a parasite to the rest of the world so lets try it here. Sound funny but did you know 8 out of 10 Africans is infected with HIV/AIDS. Now tell me and Paul Revere are crazy.
 
No, I don't think you're crazy. I think you have been listening to the wrong people.

My understanding is that AIDS is a disease that was prevalent in chimpanzees. There are natives in Africa who eat chimp meat (much like many of us eat pigs, chickens, cows, deer, elk, etc.).

If not confirmed, it is pretty well substantiated that an HIV-infected chimp was butchered by a native who became infected with that disease.

It was not a Soviet (or U.N.) experiment. It was not from humans having sexual activity with that chimp - Miss Lewin...
Oh, sorry, wrong thread..... ;)
 
Solo-
I'll bite. Let's assume that HIV is man made...I don't find this incredible. But why the UN as opposed to the African white power structure, as opposed to the Christian Right looking to create negative sentiment against US Gays, as opposed to NeoFascists looking to kill off Blacks?

See what I mean? Depending on your preconcieved "picture", the dots can connect lots of ways. Surely, no one who had the scientific ability to develop, test, refine and disseminate the HIV virus would think that it might be contained in a continent-wide test tube. Therefore, the assumption follows that an antidote has been and remains available.

Back to Rainbow Six, I guess. ;) Depends on the picture that you want to paint, no?
Rich
 
To start things off. Yes, I would resist the U.N., or even U.S. forces, if they were deployed here and attempted to confiscate my weapons or detain me, etc.

What kind of situation would you expect? Fighting in the city/suburbs among rioters or heading for the hills by yourself and surviving until things blow over (not likely). Just how would it end anyway? Would we organze into some kind of renegade army and either secede or overthrow the leaders that are causing this U.N. invasion/martial law?

Sadly, I would more than likely die trying though. Think about it. Me, my little gun, against several trained soldiers. Many of you would be in the same situation as well. In order to stand a chance you would need to get organized with other likeminded people willing to resist as well.

How do you organize? If you try to get organized publicly you'll be arrested for conspiracy or some other nonsense. I suppose joining a militia would work. But I don't know of any in my area (Austin, TX. I haven't looked though).

My point is that it would be an uphill battle from the start. They're organized and trained to fight as a unit. You and others like you would be labeled as terrorists by the media and painted as the badguys. Even if you could resist the soldiers you would still have to contend with the popular opinion that you're part of the problem.

I don't have the answers to the questions I asked above. I think about it a lot but it's nearly impossible to tell how it would turn out in reality.
 
Maybe now I will get with the topic ;)

Any UN soldiers, or other troops for that matter, are indeed taught to fight as a unit. However, keep in mind that the vast majority of soldiers, especially foriegn ones, really are not great combat material. They lack motivation, and in many cases, guts. Most nations armies have low morale, which would be brought down lower by having to deploy to a nation with several MILLION armed resistance fighters. What would be the resulting damage to unit cohesion if one or two (or more) members of the unit became casualties on every operation? They would run out of men fairly quick.

Look how our own military suffered in Viet Nam. Do we have any reason to believe that whoever commands these ad-hoc mongrel forces will do a better job than MacNamara and Johnson?

UN troops aside, even a scenario involving just US forces (Feds, military, police, etc) would suffer from some serious morale problems. Right off the bat, youve got folks having to attack their neighbors, on top of the fact that they are vastly outnumbered by some very determined people.

If they keep their wits about them, those who struggle for freedom shall prevail in the end.

The Founding Fathers faced a very similar situation...only 1/3 of the populace sympathized/supported them. Yet they won.

Besides, those who resist can always hope for "adult supervision" ;)

Keep your powder dry!
 
Oh man!!

"Many scientists believe AIDS is manmade" "....virually indestructible, unlike a natural virus"

There is no credible scientist that believes its manmade and it is eminently destroyable...just not curable. Neither is the common cold, ebola virus, herpes, HPV and a host of other virii.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
If everyone does their part, assuming there really are 50-60 million "armed citizens",no hostile force, military or otherwise can afford that many casualties. Each one reach one. You might get two or three, you never know.
 
The local LEO's know who I am and where I live. This avoids an unpleasant situation and they will make sure they get the right address.

U.N.? If someone in my backyard wants to play soldier, they are bought and payed for. Paid in full..... ;)The local LEO's I know are more vocal on this subject than I am.

Amish Gansta, you have the best nomme de plume I have seen yet. I had a flash image of a Quaker Oats type guy break dancing and such. It took me a few moments to gain my composure.....

[This message has been edited by David Wright (edited September 09, 1999).]
 
I think Karanas' post summed up why I'm not going to worry overmuch about UN troops.

For that matter, there are only some 170,000 trigger pullers in the active-duty US armed forces--per Hackworth, I believe. Add in the 80,000 federal badges with guns--this includes FDA (!), EPA (!), etc. Forcibly control 270 million people?

For all practical purposes, there are many areas in the US where law enforcement is far more imagined than real--particularly after dark. And this is during a time when nobody is particularly upset about anything!

Were some idiot to try to declare a nationwide state of martial law, my advice to a whole bunch of folks is DUCK!

FWIW, Art
 
What did the fish say when it ran into a concrete wall???


Damn.

As to UN troops on US soil. For what would they come here for? It would have to be pritty bad here for that to happen. What "it" is I don't have a clue. Maybe a gun owner revolt? I doubt it. Then too, who would be directing the UN troops and for what purpose? What could possibly motivate Americans to accept the occupation? The media? I'm sure they might try but it would fail.
 
OK lets assume Britian, China, Russia, and all the Commonwealth countries sent a joint invasion force to take over the US with support of some of your military.
As this seems to be a common conspiracy theory I'll use it as an example.
Your armed forces would revolt and split appart - they would be hard to overcome but would be as divided you would fall.
That leaves the civilian population. Well sure you might kill the odd soldier but %99 of resistors would be slaughterd without much of a fight.
A few middle aged guys with ak47's are no match for a well trained modern army.
This isn't the 18th century war isn't fought mainly with men using longarms.
So my advice is donb't shoot that UN soldier because a helicopter/tank/plane won't just shoot you they'll level your whole neighbourhood.

Australia and New Zealanders will be part of this force and we all know they are the best fighters in the world - so give up now - resistance is futile - start learning how to say g'day and how to start driving on the other side of the road.

------------------
New FREE Gun Auctions at http://www.gun-center.com/auctions.html
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>A few middle aged guys with ak47's are no match for a well trained modern army.[/quote]
I guess the Afghans and VietCong never had time to learn this lesson of history. ;)
Rich
 
My fear is not some kind of all out invasion, which would eventually meet mass resistance, even if it were not repelled. My fear is them "nickel-and-diming" folks ala Ruby Ridge. FBI/BATF seems to like to set folks up, then kill first and ask questions later. There is some credibility that accompanies a massive native resistance to something like a US invasion. However, if you're in a Ruby Ridge type situation, you're automatically a "wacko" whether you really are or not; and even if you are, you're still protected by the Constitution. But so-called "wackos" don't get much support/sympathy until after the feds have killed your wife, dog, kid, etc.
 
Cmon they had more than a few ak47's - You got a few grenades and machine guns we don't know about ? or a secret foreign arms supplier?
I'm sure there would be guerilla forces left in mountainous and other areas of the country which could survive indefinitely.
What a civilian and left over army can do is cause losses politically and socially unacceptable to the governments and people of the invading force. Unless they just nuke you - or maybe produce a virus that only kills Americans.
Oops quick Bruce and HS hide that virus we are working on.
Bruce and HS commence operation WOMBAT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top