JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Your view of the UN seems to focus on the first world, just like Bolton, but about two thirds of the worlds population lives in poverty, keep in mind everyday 40,000 children die of starvation, and this is where the UN does the most good. Programs to end hunger, promote agriculture, keep populations in check, disease control, aids, refugees, peace keeping, election monitoring, and war crimes prosecution have limited but good results. A lot better than nothing.
Better than nothing?
I guess that depends on your version of "nothing," or maybe your idea of "better" is just skewed buggy:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/UN/peace.html
Beasts in Blue Berets
The Reality Of The United Nations

I'm not in the habit of just copying whole articles into my website, but in this case, I feel the following is worth preserving, and as it will soon depart the original website, It's preserved here.

I've been a past supporter of the United Nations and at one time felt that the concept of a one-world government had merit, until I saw the sort of person that aspires to planetary thrones. Also, with just one planetary government, all social evolution and experimentation would cease, I'm not ready to declare that civilization has peaked, or that it is even civilized (as the following will attest).

Here, as it appeared in the New American (their subscription info is at the bottom) is the story even I found hard to believe.
Atrocities documented in;
Somalia
In early July, Privates Claude Baert and Kurt Coelus, the two paratroopers photographed dangling the Somali child over a flame, were acquitted by a military court, which ruled that the incident &#8212; described by Baert and Coelus as a punishment for stealing &#8212; was "a form of playing without violence," according to prosecutor Luc Walleyn. And what of discipline from the UN, whose "Code of Personal Conduct for Blue Helmets" requires that peacekeepers "respect and regard the human rights of all"? Gould reports that a UN spokesman dismissed the acquittal of Baert and Coelus by insisting that "the UN is not in the habit of embarrassing governments that contribute peacekeeping troops."<snip>

"Shocking as it is, the UN scandal in Somalia is no anomaly," wrote Gould in the Village Voice. "[An analysis] of documents and reports relating to recent UN peacekeeping operations has uncovered incidents ranging from murder and torture to sexual exploitation, harassment of and discrimination against local women and children."<snip>
Liberia and Bosnia:
During the "frenzy of looting" that broke out in Liberia in the spring of 1996, peacekeepers used UN vehicles to make off with pilfered goods, according to the April 12, 1996 issue of USA Today. UN vehicles &#8212; and the troops responsible for them &#8212; have also been a boon to Balkan drug smugglers. The August 9, 1996 Washington Times reported that "U.S. and Bosnian officials suspect that high-ranking UN officials from Jordan based in the central Bosnian towns of Bugojno and Travnik have routinely provided UN vehicles to help smugglers get contraband past checkpoints. The officers appear to have received money and the services of prostitutes from the smugglers, led by Islamic foreigners who entered Bosnia with U.S. approval to defend the Muslim government."
Cambodia:
The UN's "nation-building" mission in Cambodia &#8212; long touted as among the world body's proudest achievements &#8212; added to that unfortunate land's abundant history of lawlessness. In 1993, 170 residents of Cambodia protested the abusive behavior of blue helmet troops in a letter to Yasushi Akashi, who served as then-Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's representative in Cambodia. Prominent among the complaints was the mistreatment of women, who were treated to abuse and harassment by UN officials "regularly in public restaurants, hotels and bars, banks, markets, and shops."

New York Times correspondent Barbara Crossette, whose primary beat is the UN, elaborated: "The bad behavior [of UN forces in Cambodia] was not limited to abuse of women. There were bar fights, brawls, and shootouts and a proliferation of brothels, stolen vehicles and general drunken boorishness. Geographical origins were no indicator of what to expect. While some Asian and African troops got out of line, it was the soldiers of a Bulgarian battalion who had the worst reputation. They went down in local legend as &#8216;the Vulgarians.'" Cambodia has descended again into murderous chaos, and Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, believes that "the mess that Cambodia finds itself in today is in large part a product of the UN's failure to uphold the rule of law" in the course of its "nation-building" mission.
Rwanda:
Nightmare in Rwanda

The same lawlessness infected the UN mission to Rwanda, which suffered a Cambodia-style genocide earlier this decade. Crossette noted that Rwandans accused UN troops "of illicit trading, hit-and-run driving, sexual harassment and criminal abuse of diplomatic immunity they have bestowed on themselves. The disruptive personal behavior of some troops has been a factor in Rwanda's demand that all peacekeepers be withdrawn from the country...."

Also contributing to that demand is the fact that UN forces in Rwanda actually abetted the worst bloodletting in recent memory &#8212; the Rwandan genocide of 1994, in which a half-million Tutsis were annihilated in approximately 100 days. "Many of the mass murderers were employees of the international relief agencies," testified Peter Hammond of Frontline Fellowship in Holocaust in Rwanda. In one incident recounted by Hammond, Belgian UN troops stationed in a heavily fortified compound in Kigali "deceived the [Tutsi] refugees by assembling them for a meal in the dining hall and then [they] evacuated the base while the refugees were eating. Literally two minutes after the Belgians had driven out of their base, the Presidential Guard poured into the buildings annihilating the defenceless Tutsi refugees."
And then there's child prostitution in six different countries:
Follow the Brothels

The market in prostitution &#8212; including child prostitution &#8212; thrives wherever blue berets decamp. According to Gould, records of UN peacekeeping missions document that "brothels have sprouted nearby &#8212; and in one case allegedly inside &#8212; UN compounds. In the latter case, prostitutes were allegedly employed by the UN and were reportedly even shipped on UN planes to fornicate with a UN staff member in hotels paid for by the UN."

Last December a UN study on children in war reported that blue berets had been involved in child prostitution in six of the 12 countries which had been studied. In country after country unfortunate enough to attract the UN's "humanitarian" intervention, "the arrival of peacekeeping troops has been accompanied with a rapid rise in child prostitution," the document reported. Following the signing of a peace treaty in Mozambique in 1992, for example, "soldiers of the United Nations operation ... recruited girls aged 12 to 18 years into prostitution."
Then there's Haiti:
UN in Haiti accused of second massacre in Cit Soleil - January 21, 2007
According to residents of Cite Soleil, UN forces attacked their neighborhood in the early morning hours of Dec. 22, 2006 and killed more than 30 people including women and children. For many this was a repeat of UN military operations on July 6, 2005 when more than 26 people were killed in a successful assassination attempt on Emmanuel "Dred" Wilmer and four of his closest followers.
And the Cholera UN forces inflicted on the residents:
Cholera Linked to U.N. Forces, But Questions Remain
Haiti's Cholera Outbreak
Cholera Linked to U.N. Forces, But Questions Remain
Martin Enserink
An eagerly awaited report from an independent panel leaves little doubt that United Nations peacekeeping forces from Nepal inadvertently introduced cholera to Haiti last fall, triggering an epidemic that has killed almost 5000 and whose end is not yet in sight. The four-member committee, which presented its findings to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in New York City on 3 May, dispatches with the theory that Vibrio cholerae had been lurking in local waters and emerged as a result of favorable ecological or environmental circumstances.

This sums up the U.N and it's "ideals" best, and tell us all much of why your views are SOOOO misguided buggy:
From the quoted article at THE NEW AMERICAN
Haunting Prophecy

Gould described the UN as "a bizarre universe of intrigue and outrage, where diplomats from 185 countries &#8212; stuffed suits simmering with regional, religious, and class-bred hatreds &#8212; try to promote world peace." Such is the character of the institution whose masters crave the power to enforce "world law." <snip>

More than seven decades ago, while the U.S. Senate was debating ratification of the League of Nations Covenant, Senator William Borah (R-ID) sought to cool the ardor of the League's supporters by dousing it with a bracing shower of cold reality. Those who believed that a world army would consist of stainless champions of "world peace" were ignoring the unyielding facts about human nature. A world army, Borah declared, would consist of "the gathered scum of the nations organized into a conglomerate international police force ordered hither and thither by the most heterogeneous and irresponsible body or court that ever confused or confounded the natural instincts and noble passions of a people." Can there be any doubt that the UN has vindicated Borah's dismal prophecy?
 
How neat a U.N. worshipper. I truly dont understand how one can support the 2nd Amendment and in the same breath worship at the alter of the U.N.

"Arab Spring"...is that what the P.R. firm for the Muslim Brotherhood is still calling it?

As for what good the U.N does....well I am very aware.......as a U.S. Tax payer I'm funding alot of it. :) Alas that is another discussion entirely.

The 2nd has nothing to do with the list of valuable things the UN does for the poorest people in the world.
The 'Arab Spring' is a PR term, but here I used it only as an efficient way to point toward all the revolts, the ones you indicated were being botched via our current diplomacy. I see no suggestions on your part for better tactics!

The US spends about 6 billion a year on the UN total, or about the same as we are spending in Afganiraq every 13 days.
 
Better than nothing?
I guess that depends on your version of "nothing," or maybe your idea of "better" is just skewed buggy:
"Peace"keepers???

Atrocities documented in;
Somalia

Liberia and Bosnia:

Cambodia:

Rwanda:

And then there's child prostitution in six different countries:

Then there's Haiti:
UN in Haiti accused of second massacre in Cit Soleil - January 21, 2007
And the Cholera UN forces inflicted on the residents:
Cholera Linked to U.N. Forces, But Questions Remain


This sums up the U.N and it's "ideals" best, and tell us all much of why your views are SOOOO misguided buggy:
From the quoted article at THE NEW AMERICAN

Since when does an organization have to be perfect to have value? And, if you applied this unwavering standard to any - government - business - or even personal set of actions- could you even find one perfect entity?

UN peacekeepers have saved hundreds of thousands of lives in conflcit, UN food programs have saved millions, as have disease prevention programs. Rwanda was a sad episode for the UN, they could have stoped the genocide with very little effort, as seen in Darfur it was a lesson not learned. These show how little the developed world cares for pits like Rwanda and Darfur, as well as how bad people can be to each other for some wealth and power.

I could provide cites for the numbers saved by UN actions, but from the green revolution, to the fight against aids, to the peacekeepers, to the other 100 programs the UN has, I can't find a source that isn't easy to dispute.
 
Am I surprised? NO!

Gee buggy, much like your side of every debate I've seen you engaged in here,...
Easy to dispute, and only a little harder to prove wrong! ;) :s0114:

Most of the information about all the good the UN does is by the UN, as they are the only organization actually counting the dead of the worlds poorest people, and I knew that wouldn't fly, lol.
But how about that argument about perfection, prety darn good, huh, maybe there is perfection, yeah sure!
 
Am I surprised? NO!

Gee buggy, much like your side of every debate I've seen you engaged in here,...
Easy to dispute, and only a little harder to prove wrong! ;) :s0114:

You're free to go prove me wrong about lives saved by the UN, and then go on to make a case that they do more harm than good, and then declare victory!
Nah, declare victory over nothing, showing the extent of your delusions, much like debate I've had with you.
 
According to the linked article in the OP:

The Department of Justice held the first in what is expected to be a series of meetings on Tuesday afternoon with a group of stakeholders in the ongoing gun-policy debates. Before the meeting, officials said part of the discussion was expected to center around the White House's options for shaping policy on its own or through its adjoining agencies and departments — on issues ranging from beefing up background checks to encouraging better data-sharing.

I don't have a problem with background checks so the likes of a Loughner or a Cho can't get hold of guns when they clearly should not have had access to them.

At any rate, I don't see the sky falling on this issue. Why is it whenever something comes up on guns it is automatically "the sky is falling ... Obama is gonna take yer guns!"
 
Kevatc: "At any rate, I don't see the sky falling on this issue. Why is it whenever something comes up on guns it is automatically "the sky is falling ... Obama is gonna take yer guns!"

Except that, until O got the White House, as both state and federal senator, he never saw a gun-control bill he didn't like: Anything to get "arms" out of the hands of the "little people".

In order to get elected, he said "we're not gonna take your guns", then appointed some of the most virulent anti-gun folks in history to key positions, such as DoJ and State Department.

People around him have made statements to the effect that this is something they are reserving for his second term, when there won't be political consequences for his anti-second amendment behavior.

Get it through your heads: "Keep and Bear Arms" is a civil right, just as much as "Freedom of Speach", "Freedom to Assemble", and "Freedom from unwarrented search and seizure". (Now if we could just get SCOTUS to go back and look again at what they did to the 4th Amendment!) In the writings of the Framers, 2A was assumed to put the government on notice that they serve the Will of the People, not the other way around. Which of the other "Civil Rights" requires a backround check, or a state-issued license to enjoy?

In the early 19th century, numerous courts, both state and federal, resisted ANY gun-control measures as being "repugnant to the Constitution". The first "modern" gun-control measure was an effort by corrupt New York politicians to appease their Tammany Hall bosses who wanted travelers disarmed that they may be more easily robbed. Since then we have 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA, 1986, 1994 AWB, and 2000 local and state laws all of which defy the "shall not be infringed" prohibition of the Federal Constitution, and many the 44 state constitutions with 2A corollaries.

We must be ever vigilant, lest these Rights be further eroded away.

"Public Safety": It's not a Right, it's a responsibility of Government, which may not infringe on the Rights of the People.

Another way to put it: In the context of defense against violent criminals, the best way is that the Public be Armed!

Or look at it this way: There is no "Right" to self-defense, as it is a personal and collective Responsibility. I will say it again: YOU are responsibile for your own self-defense. 2A and those state-constitution corollaries guarantee that NO government may deny you the MEANS to execute your responsibility.
 
Kevatc: "At any rate, I don't see the sky falling on this issue. Why is it whenever something comes up on guns it is automatically "the sky is falling ... Obama is gonna take yer guns!"

Except that, until O got the White House, as both state and federal senator, he never saw a gun-control bill he didn't like: Anything to get "arms" out of the hands of the "little people".

In order to get elected, he said "we're not gonna take your guns", then appointed some of the most virulent anti-gun folks in history to key positions, such as DoJ and State Department.

People around him have made statements to the effect that this is something they are reserving for his second term, when there won't be political consequences for his anti-second amendment behavior.

Get it through your heads: "Keep and Bear Arms" is a civil right, just as much as "Freedom of Speach", "Freedom to Assemble", and "Freedom from unwarrented search and seizure". (Now if we could just get SCOTUS to go back and look again at what they did to the 4th Amendment!) In the writings of the Framers, 2A was assumed to put the government on notice that they serve the Will of the People, not the other way around. Which of the other "Civil Rights" requires a backround check, or a state-issued license to enjoy?

In the early 19th century, numerous courts, both state and federal, resisted ANY gun-control measures as being "repugnant to the Constitution". The first "modern" gun-control measure was an effort by corrupt New York politicians to appease their Tammany Hall bosses who wanted travelers disarmed that they may be more easily robbed. Since then we have 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA, 1986, 1994 AWB, and 2000 local and state laws all of which defy the "shall not be infringed" prohibition of the Federal Constitution, and many the 44 state constitutions with 2A corollaries.

We must be ever vigilant, lest these Rights be further eroded away.

"Public Safety": It's not a Right, it's a responsibility of Government, which may not infringe on the Rights of the People.

Another way to put it: In the context of defense against violent criminals, the best way is that the Public be Armed!

Or look at it this way: There is no "Right" to self-defense, as it is a personal and collective Responsibility. I will say it again: YOU are responsibile for your own self-defense. 2A and those state-constitution corollaries guarantee that NO government may deny you the MEANS to execute your responsibility.

I don't find anything to argue about with your comments ... I agree with you. What I don't see is Obama making an earnest attempt to infringe on the 2A. From the very moment he announced his presidential campaign some have said that he would come after the 2A. Fact is, Obama hasn't done anything to infringe on the 2A. The fear that he might has actually turned him into the greatest gun salesman ever. With all the stuff on the nations plate right now, do you really think going after the 2A is going to happen? I don't. The sky is not falling. I support the concept of beefing up background checks and a more robust sharing of info so that we can help to minimize the chances of another Gifford's or Virginia Tech situation.
 
You both make good points. In so far as Obama and the future I have two fears, 1 would be a second term lame duck move and my even worse fear, 2, a traditional 2nd amendment Supreme Court Justice dying or retiring an Obama installing another justice that is opposed to 2nd amendment rights like the two he has already appointed.
 
dont worry bugeye, I'm sure a ton of people sounded just like you.....when talking about the League of Nations lol
You do know that the US never became a member of the League? The Republican party opposed it, as it was Wilson's idea, even after he was dead.
 
You do know that the US never became a member of the League?

The US didn't join the league of nations because we didn't want to sending our soldier to fight foreign wars nor to have or troops under control of foreign powers. America didn't want the British and french ruling their country because they wanted to be independent. they thought it would be like signing a blank check. spending money that they didn't need to spend was vital for USA because that's what they needed to stay a strong country.






The Republican party opposed it, as it was Wilson's idea, even after he was dead.

Fourteen Points - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Specifically number 14
 
this guy cant, will not get re elected. if he does i completely lose faith in america. we all need to do everything we can to keep him out, the country is in a terrible place, and will get so much worse. i dont know how we can do it but all gun owners, family members of active military, families of VETS, VETS themselves, those seem to be the smartest ones, just get the word out. theres no reason for these oil prices, or for our military who are trying to make a difference, to be dying over seas. SAVE AMERICA
 
K: I agree with you that O is "the greatest gun salesman ever", largely due to panic buying because of fear for what he might have done. Yep, didn't happen that way.

However, his ATF, DoJ, DHS, even EPA and Consumer Protection Agency have been trying (resisted by Congress) to narrow the limits by agency fiat since legislation hasn't been working.

You and I will have to agree to disagree about backround checks & such. Again, my opinion is that a Right, licensed by the Government, is a Right Denied. I go with what David Codrea says: Basically, unless a person is institutionalized for criminal behavior (if they are a threat to society; lock 'em up or kill 'em), or needs a custodian to function, they still must have the right to the means to self-defense. (Is Martha Stewart a violent threat to society?)

It's not Having the tool for which someone should be punished; rather Misuse of a tool which causes Harm should be punished. Anything else is a "feel-good" limitation which only punishes the law-abiding.
 
Backround checks didn't prevent Loughner from doing his deed: The sheriff failed to do his due diligence after the numerous times that Loughner was reported as a threat. Loughner (and the guy at
Virginia Tech) still could have bought his Glock off the street had he been denied by a backround check.

And yet all the "sky is falling" folks wanted to blame the failure of the backround-check system, and the "high capacity magazine" he used.

Citizens present at the event disarmed him as he went to reload; and one CHL-holder, responding to the event, never drew his weapon because the perp was already subdued. "First Responders" were, as usual, the citizens present, not the police.

Those people who were witnesses took the necessary action, and didn't wait on the Government to do it for them.

I'm proud of them for stepping up. They refused to be merely "victims".

(The first modern gun control legislation passed in Britain was due to yellow journalism: British tabloids in 1906 screamed that revolvers needed to be licensed or controlled because "you can shoot six people without reloading!" Thereafter, parliament required that any revolver must be licensed. It was all down-hill from there - they still don't have a written constitution or bill of rights, just Acts of Parliament.)
 
The US didn't join the league of nations because we didn't want to sending our soldier to fight foreign wars nor to have or troops under control of foreign powers. America didn't want the British and french ruling their country because they wanted to be independent. they thought it would be like signing a blank check. spending money that they didn't need to spend was vital for USA because that's what they needed to stay a strong country.

Fourteen Points - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Specifically number 14

Yeah, the GOP kept us out of the League, the League fell apart in the run up to WW2, but we didn't manage to stay out of that conflict. Since the end of WW2 the US has spend more time in hot and cold wars than out, without the UN providing the push. This has resulted in spending lots money that we didn't need to spend doing mostly things that made no sense at all. So, your point is?

I suppose the only reason we are even discussing the League is that svx.. mentioned it, and by now he probably knows more about it than he did. It is possible that a strong league would have toppled Hitler before things got so out of hand.
 
I suppose the only reason we are even discussing the League is that svx.. mentioned it, and by now he probably knows more about it than he did.

That would be untrue, but thanks for playing. To be honest, I find the majority of your posts not really worthy of direct response.
 
this guy cant, will not get re elected. if he does i completely lose faith in america. we all need to do everything we can to keep him out, the country is in a terrible place, and will get so much worse. i dont know how we can do it but all gun owners, family members of active military, families of VETS, VETS themselves, those seem to be the smartest ones, just get the word out. theres no reason for these oil prices, or for our military who are trying to make a difference, to be dying over seas. SAVE AMERICA

So, we have never had high oil prices before Obama? And Obama stated these wars? And the sell out options from the GOP are going to save America? Don't you think your blaming someone for everything, and then expecting some other politico to be your savior? Don't you think this is a little nuts?
 
Yeah, the GOP kept us out of the League, the League fell apart in the run up to WW2, but we didn't manage to stay out of that conflict. Since the end of WW2 the US has spend more time in hot and cold wars than out, without the UN providing the push. This has resulted in spending lots money that we didn't need to spend doing mostly things that made no sense at all. So, your point is?

My point is, one word, Sovereignty



I suppose the only reason we are even discussing the League is that svx.. mentioned it, and by now he probably knows more about it than he did. It is possible that a strong league would have toppled Hitler before things got so out of hand.

LOL! man you are kidding yourself! The league of nations was primarily started to enforce the Treaty of Versailles, that was a stunning success what with stopping the rise of the Nazi's and all! LOL.

In the end The League was a paper pushing farce with lots of lawyers, committees, political pomp and circumstance and no bullets! Basically The League's solution to problems was always harsh language written by lawyers, and when that didn't work the lawyers shuffled more paperwork and issued more harsh language.

It's akin to handing a mugger a note from your mother stating that they must stop immediately.

Just read this on Appeasement by the League and you'll get an idea of what a waste of time and how it actually enabled the enemy.

Appeasement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Upcoming Events

Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Oregon Arms Collectors April 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top