OT- The U.N., the U.S. Army, and me

[Minnesota Joe]

As many of you know, I have been planning on joining one of the branches of the U.S. military. I have decided on the Army, and more specificly, armored cav.

I have even gone so far as to enlist in the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) and so now I am part of the U.S. Army, even though I have yet to finish my Senior year of highschool, which I started on Tuesday. For those of you who don't not know, the DEP allows me to sign up for service before I have completed highschool or become 18. Its advantage is that it saves me time and practically guarentees whichever positition I request.

This is all beside the point, though. The real purpose of this topic is to bring to light the issue of the U.S. involvment with the United Nations.

I was watching TV a couple of days ago, channel surfing, if you will. I came upon a program on the local public access channel that interested me because it was of unusually high quality for PATV. The program called for the withdrawel of the U.S. from the U.N. It made many points on how the U.N. has been manipulating its relationship with the U.S. and how it handles world affairs.

The program was made by the John Birch Society.

Their address is here:

www.jbs.org/

So basicaly, the U.N. has alot of power over the U.S. military and the comentators on the show state that the U.N. is using the U.S. as a pawn because of its power and influence. The funny thing is, the U.S. doesn't need the U.N. at all and it could withdraw its membership w/o any change to Americans. The U.N. is quietly trying to change U.S. doctrine into U.N. doctrine.

I am very concerned about this because I don't want to be sent by some damned U.N. general to help some country in God knows where, that has no significant value to the U.S. without being a volenteer to go there.

Many of the people who post at this forum have served for the Army and some may have even served under a "peaceforce" organized by the U.N.

I suggest that you watch the TV program or visit the website, especially if you are an American.

Many of you may dispel me as some raving 17 year old who doesn't know what the hell I'm talking about, bursting out with unproved rhetoric on your beloved forum. Well try to prove me wrong, if you do, I'll be a lot more comfortable about going into the Army.

BTW, I have no problem with NATO, they have little to do with this. I also don't agree with everything that the John Birch Society has to say.

Thank you in advance for any mature comments you have to offer.

------------------

Ah scheist.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Minnesota Joe:

As many of you know, I have been planning on joining one of the branches of the U.S. military. I have decided on the Army, and more specificly, armored cav.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What MOS? 19D I hope. Unfortuantly, I doubt you will be guranteed an Armored Cav assignment.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I have even gone so far as to enlist in the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) and so now I am part of the U.S. Army, even though I have yet to finish my Senior year of highschool, which I started on Tuesday. For those of you who don't not know, the DEP allows me to sign up for service before I have completed highschool or become 18. Its advantage is that it saves me time and practically guarentees whichever positition I request.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did the same back in '90.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

So basicaly, the U.N. has alot of power over the U.S. military and the comentators on the show state that the U.N. is using the U.S. as a pawn because of its power and influence. The funny thing is, the U.S. doesn't need the U.N. at all and it could withdraw its membership w/o any change to Americans. The U.N. is quietly trying to change U.S. doctrine into U.N. doctrine.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am no fan of the U.N. but the U.N. doesn't control the U.S. military. The U.N. can't make the U.S. do anything it doesn't really want to do.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I am very concerned about this because I don't want to be sent by some damned U.N. general to help some country in God knows where, that has no significant value to the U.S. without being a volenteer to go there.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you have voluntered. When you have taken your oath, if you haven't yet, you have. "[i DO] SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Many of the people who post at this forum have served for the Army and some may have even served under a "peaceforce" organized by the U.N.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was "lucky" enough to have missed one.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

BTW, I have no problem with NATO, they have little to do with this. I also don't agree with everything that the John Birch Society has to say.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interestingly enough, I currently have more problems with NATO than I do with the U.N. Go figure.

Cav

------------------

"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."

--Bertrand Russell

"God is always with the strongest battalions."

--Frederick the Great

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

--Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."

--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

[windstarz]

Soldiers have challenged serving under the auspices of the U.N. and lost. The Constitution is really only a piece of paper that doesnt carry much weight anymore in my opinion. The U.N. is pretty inept at this time but will only grow more powerful as time goes by because of the push for globalization. You will have to go wherever the army sends you and do whatever they tell you or suffer the consequences. Just make sure you get the MOS you want make the best of it.

Just my opinion feel free to disregard it.

[Dittohead]

Get all your friends and family to vote for George Bush and Dick Cheney. The military can't survive another 4 yrs of Liberalism.

[Guest Pillar]

"[i DO] SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD"

Interesting oath. There are many things the US President advocates that in fact violate the Constitution. Especially within the context within which it was written.

[Phoenix]

"The program was made by the John Birch Society."

There's your answer.

JBS has had a major hard on about the UN forever.

The UN has NO power over the US military.

Those who claim otherwise are (im my opinion) the same people who find a conspiracy behind every airplane crash or "unexplained" event.

My .02

[Minnesota Joe]

That's the thing though. I don't believe in many conspiracies (if any), however I am deeply concerned about this issue alone.

------------------

Ah scheist.

[This message has been edited by Minnesota Joe (edited 09-07-2000).]

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by windstarz:

Soldiers have challenged serving under the auspices of the U.N. and lost. The Constitution is really only a piece of paper that doesnt carry much weight anymore in my opinion. The U.N. is pretty inept at this time but will only grow more powerful as time goes by because of the push for globalization. You will have to go wherever the army sends you and do whatever they tell you or suffer the consequences. Just make sure you get the MOS you want make the best of it.

Just my opinion feel free to disregard it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, I am no fan of the U.N. but nothing in the Constitution prevents US soldiers from serving with the U.N. Both the Constitution and oath a soldier takes places the President in charge of the military. If he wants the soldier to be part of a U.N. mission then so be it. The oath says, in part, they "WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE". Notice it says the UMCJ and not the US Constitution. Also note that it says "OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME" and nothing about who those officers are. IMO, serving in the UN is no different than US soldiers serving under the British in WWII.

Cav

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar:

Interesting oath. There are many things the US President advocates that in fact violate the Constitution. Especially within the context within which it was written.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For example?

[kmead]

You should consider the source, the John Birch Society has a long isolationist history as an organization, and are a rather exclusive group. They are also extremely conservative in thier viewpoint. As I recall, and this may be an incorrect recollection on my part, they also in the past had a strong racial slant. If I am mistaken in this last statement I apologize and mean no disparagement to any members that may frequent this board.

They are among the groups who espoused the term of "new world order" and used to publicise things like soviet era military vehicles (being sold for surplus) in the USA being a indication of the Red menace. As you might tell from my post they are not my idea of a well balanced group to base decisions on your future from.

Good luck in the military. I went through ROTC and spent several summers at Fort Knox, Kentucky. The army and I parted ways before I graduated which I think was good for the army and me. You have chosen an importatnt and honorable path which will be difficult and have many rewards. Some of which will not be evident until long after you have left the service. Good luck and thankyou.

[Chupacabra]

As a confirmed peacenik bleeding-heart commie-kissing liberal (I voted Green in '96, if that gives you an idea) I'll chime in with my opinion.

The UN is not managed as well as it should be. I don't think you'll find anyone who disputes this. However, I think isolationism as a national policy is a serious mistake, and can lead to little good. I believe, in my big-government liberal heart, that the powerful (in this case, the US) have a moral obligation to give aid to the less fortunate (pick yr. third country), whether financial, military, whatever. In my opinion, the US military is going to spend more and more time performing peacekeeping missions, and less and less time conducting actual large-scale military campaigns. Again, this is merely my opinion, and future events may very well prove me wrong. I believe that a country can't claim the title "superpower" for itself if it doesn't back that title up with actions once in a while. The last really large-scale US isolationist movement to enjoy grassroots popular support was America First, who thought that "that Mister Hitler's a reasonable guy, and if we just leave him alone, he'll leave us alone."

As far as the UN dominating the US military goes, my understanding is that it's the other way around. As two examples, look at two large-scale UN military actions, the Korean War, and the Gulf War. Is it coincidence that American generals commanded both?

And Dittohead, you say that "the military can't survive another four years of liberalism." Correct me if I'm wrong, but Congress determines defense spending, yes? And for the last four years, we've had a Republican Congress. I think you're going to have to try a little harder.

Finally - I'm not in the military, nor do I want to be. I can fully understand that American servicemen might not want to put themselves at risk for people they have no connection to. I also fully understand that it's hypocritical for me to ask others to do something which I wouldn't do myself. But still, I deeply believe that in the future the US will have to be a more active participant in the global community, not a less active one.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Steve Clark]

But what if you have a president that puts the interest of the UN (and its one-world philosophy) ahead of the interest of the US and its Constitution?

BTW, IIRC, a US troop got court martialled(sp?) for not wanting to serve under the UN. I would like to have read the case law for that.

Oh, and don't target the JBS for this. I suspect alot of Americans feel the same way. It's just the JBS tends to be, well, more vocal about it. Just like some radical left groups tend to be vocal about their causes.

[This message has been edited by Steve Clark (edited 09-07-2000).]

[Pvt. Ryan]

Joe, you seem very intelligent and articulate. Have you considered West Point, or do you hate officers like Clint "Kelly" Eastwood?

As far as the US/UN, I have always felt that the UN derives much of its authority from the might of the US and that the US has the ultimate decision on how, when, and where it will exercise use of force.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steve Clark:

But what if you have a president that puts the interest of the UN (and its one-world philosophy) ahead of the interest of the US and its Constitution?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Congress can then not fund such a mission or not fund the UN. The President can only do so much without Congress' OK.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

BTW, IIRC, a US troop got court martialled(sp?) for not wanting to serve under the UN. I would like to have read the case law for that.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some medic... refused to wear a blue beret...

Cav

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

And Dittohead, you say that "the military can't survive another four years of liberalism." Correct me if I'm wrong, but Congress determines defense spending, yes? And for the last four years, we've had a Republican Congress. I think you're going to have to try a little harder.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually both Congress and the President can be blammed. The President does hold the power of the Veto and has brow-beat the spineless Republicans on more than one occasion with it. Of course, if the Congress can share the blame for the military one wonders if they get any of the credit for the economy and the balanced budget...

Cav

[Guest barrold713]

The voting record within the United Nations is clearly stained with much anti-American sentiment including many nations that we send big checks that they don't mind cashing.

While the more extreme (or more tactfully the views more difficult to squeeze into the parameters of reality) are not exactly helpful, the idea that national sovereignty is being lost to globalist organizations that do not share the governing concepts of the founding fathers is still valid.

Voting against Algore is a good first step, but it won't be the final one if we as a country would like to retain 100% self-determination.

BDH

------------------

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb having a say on the vote"

- Ben Franklin

[Phoenix]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dittohead:

Get all your friends and family to vote for George Bush and Dick Cheney. The military can't survive another 4 yrs of Liberalism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh great. One of Rush's sheep wandered in.

Oh wait, who gives the military money again? Yeah, the "liberal" congress we have. LOL.

[Dittohead]

The problems in the military do not stem totaly from the lack of funding. It is a case of poor leadership at the top. Its the US Army Dammit, not Meals on wheels. Reckless deployments lack of a clear mission etc.

Actually I should have said the Country cannot survive another 4 years of Liberalism.

Republicans believe it is the people who make this country great.

Liberals believe it is the government which makes this country great.

Tony

------------------

Republicans define compassion as those that no longer need assistance

[This message has been edited by Dittohead (edited 09-08-2000).]

[Los]

A few quick points:

1. You are horribly misinformed if you think the UN has any real authority over US forces in any operation that we work on together. Every force that works under the UN must ultimately answer to it's wown national authoriyty (Which is good and bad it ensures that normally you won't get screwed by any incompetent UN command, but also ensures that nothing of significance can be accomplished in a hurry or when it matters.)

I have worked on several extended UN operations and there isn't that kind of absolute authority actually enforced. And good thing too,since the UN generally is a screwed up as Hogan's goat. (I could give a whole dissertation.)

2. I find it amusing and bemusing that on one hand you join the army and on the other hand here you are already bitching about the possibility of being ordered here and there by whoever. Dude, you as a lowly peon (Heck you could be a two star, same difference) . Have no real say in where you go or what you do. If this troubles you, then you should have spent an extra five minutes thinking about your decision before signing on the dotted line. In the military you don't pick and choose the operations you wanna go on. Welcome to reality.

Los

[Minnesota Joe]

Mr. Clark- huge amounts of campaign financing from individuals and private organizations certainly do not help the commen American.

Pvt. Ryan- Thanks, but even if I could get into West Point, I wouldn't go. I want to go through boot with the rest of the guys. If I ever want to become an officer (through OCS), I will at leat respect and earn the respect of the enlisted men under me.

Cav Scout- I may have overemphacized the power of the U.N. over the U.S. military, however, I will resent taking orders from any non-american to fight in a conflict that the U.S. has no bussiness in. I say this knowing that if I am in one of the U.S. Army armored divisions, I stand little risk of injury or death in all but the largest conflicts. I don't care about that. Its all about the principle.

------------------

Ah scheist.

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by barrold713:

The voting record within the United Nations is clearly stained with much anti-American sentiment including many nations that we send big checks that they don't mind cashing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The US is also infamously negligent in paying its share of dues to the UN. Nations like Bangladesh and Luxembourg are paying for our pet initiatives. I also believe that anti-American sentiment would only get worse if we suddenly dropped off the world stage.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> the idea that national sovereignty is being lost to globalist organizations that do not share the governing concepts of the founding fathers is still valid. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who's trying to take away our national sovereignty? The US is the most powerful nation in the world, and it'd take a lot more than membership in the UN to take away its sovereignity. I also dispute the idea that the concepts of the founding fathers are perfect and inviolate. The world has changed in ways that the founding fathers could not possible have anticipated. Every amendment to the Constitution proves this. To say that the ideas of the founding fathers cannot be improved upon would be like saying "okay, all you black folk, get on back to the field, and all you women, stop yer voting and bake me a cake."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Voting against Algore is a good first step, but it won't be the final one if we as a country would like to retain 100% self-determination.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, I don't believe that self-determination and being a produtive, positive member of the world community are mutually exclusive. I would also argue that no nation in modern history has ever possessed "100% self-determination."

Also, I hope this is evident, but I'll make it plain - none of my statements here are personal attacks, and they should in no way be construed as such. I'm just garrulous, and I like big-picture arguments

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Minnesota Joe]

Hey guys, this is one thread I don't need to get locked up. Just watch what you say, for my sake.

------------------

Ah scheist.

[Dman225]

"So basicaly, the U.N. has alot of power over the U.S. military and the comentators on the show state that the U.N. is using the U.S. as a pawn because of its power and influence. The funny thing is, the U.S. doesn't need the U.N. at all and it could withdraw its membership w/o any change to Americans. The U.N. is quietly trying to change U.S. doctrine into U.N. doctrine."

Even if the U.S does withdraw from the U.N for whatever reason (though very unlikely) the economic impact would be terrible. A lot of country's within the U.N would be very pissed and some may cut down on their trade with the U.S and some may even go as far as to cut all relations with the U.S (China for one). And soon thereafter NATO would fall apart. (good or bad I do not know )

Though a large part fo the peace keeping force I do not think the U.N has the U.S wrapped around its finger. But the U.N does need some serious work.(Just today the PM of Canada along with the president of the U.S made a statment about this issue.)

Dan

[Phoenix]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Minnesota Joe:

even if I could get into West Point, I wouldn't go. I want to go through boot with the rest of the guys. If I ever want to become an officer (through OCS), I will at leat respect and earn the respect of the enlisted men under me.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So West pointers don't have the respect of their men. Well... I don't buy it. In fact there's this guy who graduated from there, pretty good armor guy too. Read this speach.

http://www.1918.com/phil/patton.shtml

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

The US is also infamously negligent in paying its share of dues to the UN. Nations like Bangladesh and Luxembourg are paying for our pet initiatives. I also believe that anti-American sentiment would only get worse if we suddenly dropped off the world stage.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I always find this to be funny. Yes the U.S. was, and likely still is, behind on its "dues" yet the amount the UN was behind to the U.S. was nearly three times the dues amount.

Cav