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

[sneaky]

Scarlet,

That's right. And it's just as ludicrous to suggest that the world of 1952 and the state of affairs, along with the role of the UN is the same in 2000.

Sneaky

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 82nd Airborne:

You have a problem with German troops on US soil? They are Allies, and might I suggest there is probably alot more US troops on German soil.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have trained with British, Ukaraine and German soldiers in the US. It has nothing to do with the UN as far as I know. The Brits and Germs are our allies and we will likely fight along with them, only makes since to train. As for the Ukraines, they are trying to model a defensive force of the US National Guard system.

Cav

[IntelWeenie]

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

However, remember there are German troops on US soil.

Sneaky<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've seen British, Australian, Canadian, Mexican, Honduran, French, Israeli, Jamaican, and even Russian troops on US soil (and I'm sure I've forgotten a few.) OK, so the Russians were just on a inspection tour/shopping trip! Now can someone tell us how many countries have a US presence? There is a big difference between allies visiting/training with each other and troops occupying territory.

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

Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses.

-Dudley Do-right

[Blackhorse]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Here in Canada we see it as a priviledge and an honour to serve in UN missions. Why? Instead of being like the US and only wanting to invade or 'liberate' countries for money, the UN does it more often to keep the peace and lower world suffering under tyranical leaders.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh great, Another "The USA is the Great Satan" argument. If you hate us so much, boycott us. Do without the goods or products from the Evil Empire.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Try living in Europe for a while! You have less disposible income to by more luxury items, but, your nation has a much better social conscience! Unfortunately

anything like this is labled 'communist talk'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that the same Europe we helped save from Nazism???

Spare me the rubbish.

To quote that much hated American icon Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon".

[CavScout]

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

82nd,

It depends on why they are deployed. Remember, US Marines took part in the legal confiscation of firearms in Australia.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In what way? Where did this come from?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I think it would be slightly disconcerting to see a German Soldier approaching my house for that kind of reason.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You won't.

Cav

[Jeff Heidman]

Someone needs to cue up some X-Files music for this thread...

Remember, just because you're paranoid does not mean they aren't after you!

Jeff Heidman

[sneaky]

Chupacabra,

We all have our own opinions. I expect the UN to become a global governing body with national sovereignty being eliminated. In my lifetime? Maybe.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, and again I would mention that whether you or I view this as good or bad really doesn't matter. However, it appears that you view this as an impossibility. That's okay with me. I would hope you'd have more tolerance for a differing point of view however.

Sneaky

[CavScout]

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

It depends on why they are deployed. Remember, US Marines took part in the legal confiscation of firearms in Australia. I think it would be slightly disconcerting to see a German Soldier approaching my house for that kind of reason.

-Sneaky.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On a side note, how can anyone entertain the idea that the UN will be taking over the US when the UN couldn't evn "take over" Somalia?

Cav

[82nd Airborne]

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

82nd,

It depends on why they are deployed. Remember, US Marines took part in the legal confiscation of firearms in Australia. I think it would be slightly disconcerting to see a German Soldier approaching my house for that kind of reason.

Please notice I did not say it was good or bad. Just that is is happening and those who think "globalization" is a figment of the JBS imagination have missed it.

The world is changing and it is important for MJ to realize what kind of army and operations he may be involved with.

Sneaky.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough Sneaky. But really, if the Germans were coming to get your gun, it would be at the behest of the US government.The fact that they are Germans is irrelevant and slightly paranoid IMHO.

Your advice to MJ is correct in that one needs to be aware of what he signs on for but the real jist of his post was that the UN somehow controlled the US military and he was uncomfortable with that. I think the evidence shows this to be false and therefore makes the JBS a dubious source of ANY information, globalization or otherwise.

Just MHO.

Oh, I will add a great quote I read too-

"If we believe absurdities , we will commit atrocities"- Unknown

I think it applies to JBS and their ilk.

Happy wargaming.

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

What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

On a side note, how can anyone entertain the idea that the UN will be taking over the US when the UN couldn't evn "take over" Somalia?

Cav

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL.

No doubt.

Hey, any organaization that can take over the entire world without any military of its own, essentailly by tricking the people they are about to take over into using their very own military to do it, all the while keeping the entire thing a secret from everyone, (well except from your odd milita man living in Idaho) deserves to rule the world!

Jeff Heidman

[CavScout]

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

Scarlet,

That's right. And it's just as ludicrous to suggest that the world of 1952 and the state of affairs, along with the role of the UN is the same in 2000.

Sneaky<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it is "ludicrous" to suggest that foriegn troops training along-side the US military means the UN is planning a take-over. The US has always trained with foriegn troops. Heck, in the War for Independance we had French troops training us! Do you know how many Japanese were trained or studied in the US before WWII? You did know that during the Cold War Soviets military observed US traing missions, and the other way around, to know how we trained so not to cause any mistakes that would cause a war to start?

Cav

[82nd Airborne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

LOL.

Hey, any organaization that can take over the entire world without any military of its own, essentailly by tricking the people they are about to take over into using their very own military to do it, all the while keeping the entire thing a secret from everyone, (well except from your odd milita man living in Idaho) deserves to rule the world!

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

damn that is funny!

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

What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Heck, in the War for Independance we had French troops training us!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly! And who has a spot on the security council??? Hmmmm, can you think of some reason to justify France having a spot except that they are PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!!!!

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

Do you know how many Japanese were trained or studied in the US before WWII?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course. That is how they have infiltrated their poorly made Toyotas and Hondas!! Soon ALL cars will be ergonomicaly designed with the secret UN-backed Japanese transponders built in!

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

You did know that during the Cold War Soviets military observed US traing missions, and the other way around, to know how we trained so not to cause any mistakes that would cause a war to start?

Cav

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh sure, that is what they WANTED you to believe...

Jeff Heidman

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

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Hey, any organaization that can take over the entire world without any military of its own, essentailly by tricking the people they are about to take over into using their very own military to do it, all the while keeping the entire thing a secret from everyone, (well except from your odd milita man living in Idaho) deserves to rule the world!

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL!

[sneaky]

"Fair enough Sneaky. But really, if the Germans were coming to get your gun, it would be at the behest of the US government.The fact that they are Germans is irrelevant and slightly paranoid IMHO. "

You're right! I used the Germans as an example only. There are certainly allies and even former "cold war enemy" troups which have trained or been stationed here in the US.

And, in the end MJ does need to know what the UCMJ is all about. It is that which he must obey. The court martial case that was mentioned earlier was due to the infantryman's refusal to wear UN insignia's on his uniform (as far as I remember). MJ should remember that he may serve under the authority of another nation's commanders. He should understand that within the context of the UMCJ and his own beliefs.

Sneaky

[sneaky]

Cav,

"But it is "ludicrous" to suggest that foriegn troops training along-side the US military means the UN is planning a take-over."

Yep. But that's not what I said. If it came out that way. Oh well. I think if you read my other responses you'll get the jist of my message.

Sneaky.

[Chupacabra]

If, by "tolerance," you mean that I should respect your right to hold a differing opinion from my own, no worries. Other folks can believe whatever they like.

If, by "tolerance," you mean that I should give credence to an opinion which I perceive as farfetched to say the least, then I'm afraid I can't do that.

The UN isn't some sort of global overlord. It's made up of delegates from its member nations, and the primary duty of these delegates is to look after their country's best interests. Are all of these delegates suddenly going to say, "hey, you know that whole national sovereignity thing? Howsabout we get rid of it?" I mean, it's like saying that the US Congress is going to conspire to get rid of the distinctions between the states and rename the country "The Grand And Glorious American People's Protectorate."

It's my opinion that you're misinterpreting globalism to mean that nations must give up their independence and become subordinate to some sort of global collective.

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

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

[PeterNZer]

Read the article sneaky posted about the UN getting rid of soveriegnty (bla, spelling), and um.. no!

The article was about a debate in which varous luminaries talked about the UN and its role. There was no 'the un is here to destroy national soveriegnty'

The idea is ludicrous, the UN is made up of states, they're hardly going to vote themselves out of existence are they?

Anyway

Joe! What do you think of all this?

PeterNZ

[82nd Airborne]

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

[bMJ should remember that he may serve under the authority of another nation's commanders.

Sneaky<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sneaky, I see this line of thinking quite a bit. Really, who cares what country as long as he/she is the right one for the job. Competency or lack of it is not exclusive to certain countries.

I could think of a few Axis commanders I would rather have leading my unit than some of the Allied ones in WW2. I'd prefer Patton but you get the drift.

Regards

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

What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

[CavScout]

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

The UN isn't some sort of global overlord. It's made up of delegates from its member nations, and the primary duty of these delegates is to look after their country's best interests. Are all of these delegates suddenly going to say, "hey, you know that whole national sovereignity thing? Howsabout we get rid of it?" I mean, it's like saying that the US Congress is going to conspire to get rid of the distinctions between the states and rename the country "The Grand And Glorious American People's Protectorate."

It's my opinion that you're misinterpreting globalism to mean that nations must give up their independence and become subordinate to some sort of global collective.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I do see the UN doing is trying to redistrubte the wealth. You'll notice things regarding polution heavily penalize the US but exempt many of the Third World nations and even some of the not-so third world, like China. What is in the interests of others is not, and rarely seems to be, in the favor of the US.

IMO the UN needs the US far more than the US needs the UN.

Cav

[CavScout]

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

Read the article sneaky posted about the UN getting rid of soveriegnty (bla, spelling), and um.. no!

The article was about a debate in which varous luminaries talked about the UN and its role. There was no 'the un is here to destroy national soveriegnty'

The idea is ludicrous, the UN is made up of states, they're hardly going to vote themselves out of existence are they?

Anyway

Joe! What do you think of all this?

PeterNZ

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the UN has, and is, trying to pass "regulations" that would superceed national one's.

Cav

[sneaky]

It's amazing. I could probably write another 100 paragraphs to every single person here to no avail.

I gave an opinion on the UN and what I thought would happen in the future and it's role as a governing body. Obviously, the majority of thought here is that this is ludicrous, paranoid and of the X-files variety. I have really appreciated the consideration and abilty of members to refrain from disparaging remarks about another member of the forum.

It's funny. I believe this little thing (and it is little) will happen in the future, not with a non-existent army, but with approval from the House of Representatives, Senate and the President, along with the people of the United States. If that's paranoid. Nothing I can do. I don't think it is, it just an opinion of how I see the world developing over then next 10-20 years. The reponse from this forum has been less than I expected.

Lesson learned.

Sneaky

[Jeff Heidman]

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

What I do see the UN doing is trying to redistrubte the wealth. You'll notice things regarding polution heavily penalize the US but exempt many of the Third World nations and even some of the not-so third world, like China. What is in the interests of others is not, and rarely seems to be, in the favor of the US.

IMO the UN needs the US far more than the US needs the UN.

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thing is, I actually agree that the US and other post-industrialized nations should be more heavily penalized for polution.

Think about it. When the US and Europe was at the stage of industrialization that countries like China and India are now, there was ZERO control over pollutants, and the US dumped truly amazing amounts of polutants into the biosphere.

Now, AFTER the US and Western Europe have completed industrialization, we are going to demand that other countries not act the way we acted when we were in their shoes!

Coal is a good example. Coal, as an energy source, is amazingly cheap and easy. Low tech, low plant maintenance, etc.

The US complains about the amount of CO2 China is currently pumping into the atmosphere due to its burning large amount of coal in dirty power plants. But the reality is that the US did much, much worse 100 years ago, and even 50 years ago. By now, our technology and infrastructure has allowed us to largely move to other, cleaner sources of power, and even when we do burn coal, we can do it much cleaner. But those things cost money, and every dollar spent on a clean environemnt is one less dollar a country like India has to spend on building an industrial infrastructure to compete in a global economy. It should not come as any surprise that they are not overly interested in spending those dollars!

Essentially, the US and Western Europe won the race and now would like to make the rules for other countries trying to catch up different than the rules under which the US won in the first place.

So, I think the US and other Western antions should be much more heavily penalized than other countries, and I have no problem with the US and other western nations being asked to subsidize other countries efforts to become compliant.

Jeff Heidman

[Chupacabra]

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

What I do see the UN doing is trying to redistrubte the wealth. You'll notice things regarding polution heavily penalize the US but exempt many of the Third World nations and even some of the not-so third world, like China. What is in the interests of others is not, and rarely seems to be, in the favor of the US.

IMO the UN needs the US far more than the US needs the UN.

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Until all nations are equal, rules are never going to apply equally to all of them. It simply wouldn't work.

And another thing - the idea that nations will be replaced by some sort of global mega-government simply doesn't make sense logistically. People complain about the bureaucracy in the United States, that the government is too big, etc. Can you possibly imagine what a huge freaking mess any organization arrogant enough to believe it could govern the entire world would be? The bureaucracy and confusion in a government which had to recognize and attempt to either accomodate or modify hundreds of different languages, cultures, political traditions, economies and religions would just be staggering. Look at the troubles the EU had (and is having) just trying to get a relatively small and relatively close-knit group of nations to agree on a single currency!

Unless they're getting help from Satan, the aliens, or the Illuminati, no sane person or organization is going to attempt to tackle such a tangled rubbish heap that a global government would be. Maybe when we all speak esperanto, worship the Supercomputer, and are all a light tan color, but not in the foreseeable future.

Edited for spelling.

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

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

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

[sneaky]

82nd,

Yes, this line of reasoning has believers on both sides. Again, I am not stating my position, but that MJ will need to make a decision about that very thing.

And, if you care, my position is: he should serve where his commander tells him. Ultimately that is the President of the United States. If that happens to be under a UN commander, that it his duty and he should execute that duty to the best of his ability.

Sneaky.