Bush and the U.N....

Creating an army?? Here's an article from claimed "Christian Conservative" talk-show host, Chuck Baldwin.

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/bush25may04.html (http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/bush25may04.html)
Our Globalist President Pushing For A Standing UN Army

By Chuck Baldwin
May 25, 2004

Writing for The Washington Times, Bill Gertz reported, "The Pentagon and State Department are planning to set up a 75,000- member international peacekeeping force for Africa, senior Bush administration officials told Congress yesterday."

The report continued by saying,"[Deputy Secretary of State Richard] Armitage said, 'What we envision is about a 75,000- person force, starting in Africa, [for] the training of peacekeepers, people to be available for peacekeeping.' The force will cost about $660 million over five years, with 20 percent of the money coming from State Department funds and the rest from the Defense Department. The program is called the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI)."

The report also quoted Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz as saying, "In most cases, the U.S.-funded peacekeeping force would operate under a U.N. mandate." Wolfowitz was also quoted as saying, "an international force that could be used for peacekeeping operations would reduce 'the stresses' on U.S. forces."

If anyone doubted that President G.W. Bush was a globalist who desires to merge the United States into a one-world society, this report should be more than sufficient to erase that doubt. As did his father, G.W. Bush is pushing America closer and closer to the globalist's dream of a "New World Order."

The issue of internationalism is another one of those issues in which there is virtually no difference between the two major parties in Washington, D.C. The only difference is how conservatives will react to the news that the President of the United States is pushing for a standing UN army.

If the Washington Times had reported that President Bill Clinton was pushing for a standing UN army, conservatives would be "up in arms" about it. They would be howling their disapproval, even demanding that Clinton be removed from office. There would also be those who would doubtless call him a traitor to his country and an egregious usurper of national sovereignty.

Since it is G.W. Bush, however, who is the one calling for a standing UN army (at U.S. taxpayer's expense, no less), those same conservatives will sheepishly offer no resistance whatsoever. Beyond that, they will totally ignore this wretched plan and some will even deny that Bush would even contemplate such a plan.

The blind loyalty of conservatives to President Bush defies logic, reason, Christian principle, and even old fashioned common sense. Conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, have become the largest group of naïve, nonsensical, non-thinking, easily duped people on the planet! It's embarrassing!

President Bush's plan to create a standing UN army at U.S. expense should be met with the most vociferous opposition from every red-blooded American. This opposition should include a massive boycott of the Bush/Cheney ticket in November. And yes, Martha, there is a choice. You can bet your last dollar that Constitution Party Presidential Candidate Michael Peroutka would never propose or even tolerate such a plan.

© Chuck Baldwin

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now THAT's gotta at least raise an eyebrow for you Yog's, right?

BTW, check out who the last person to seek a standing U.N. army was:
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/9/6/112634

And here's some Republicans' reactions to that proposal:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39b692f55164.htm

I'm confused about something.
I'm not denying either story but I have a question concerning the first one.

It states:"If the Washington Times had reported that President Bill Clinton was pushing for a standing UN army, conservatives would be "up in arms" about it. They would be howling their disapproval, even demanding that Clinton be removed from office. There would also be those who would doubtless call him a traitor to his country and an egregious usurper of national sovereignty"

Then the second article states:"President Bill Clinton told world leaders gathered today in New York that the United Nations needs a rapid deployment force of well-trained and well-equipped soldiers capable of projecting "credible force" into trouble spots."

Is the person who wrote the first article not aware that Clintoon did in fact go to the UN and propose such an army? Or is he saying that if it was reported in the Times (which it appears it wasn't) then there would have been an uproar?


Last thing. I never heard of this Chuck Baldwin. Probably because I don't live in Pensicola Fla. I guess. I take it he is popular in that city?
He sounds interesting except that he seems to be on the payroll of Michael Peroutka. He is entitled to back whoever he wants though.

The UN needs to fall into ruin. That is a failing of ALL politicians who support that waste of an organization.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

The UN already is in ruin. its become obvious that it holds no sway and no power in word affairs. it just needs to be formally done away with.

oh, DGB...was Clintoon an honest mistake, or a purposeful typo? (made me laugh either way)

The UN already is in ruin. its become obvious that it holds no sway and no power in word affairs. it just needs to be formally done away with.




Pfffffft.The UN is quietly successful.There are thousands of people from a multitude of countries achieving their goals without a lot of noise and drama.Needy people are getting help,peacekeeping forces are quietly going about their proper business without shooting up civilians at random,and progress is being made on human ruights legislation....

All of which is the complete opposite to the carnage and chaos in Iraq.No wonder Bush devotees find it so unpalatable.

And as for a standing army?No thanks.If the worlds biggest standing army can be so poorly managed by a bunch of greedy and corrupt oil companies, we're better off without another,thanks.

And as for a standing army?No thanks.If the worlds biggest standing army can be so poorly managed by a bunch of greedy and corrupt oil companies, we're better off without another,thanks.

China? I think not. :loser:

oh, DGB...was Clintoon an honest mistake, or a purposeful typo? (made me laugh either way)...:naughty:

The UN is perhaps the biggest failure in history. Supporters are always grasping at straws to show that it still has a heart beat. The scenario is playing out like the Sviet Union. Until its last days, people still feared the beast and thought it would last forever :rofl:













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

sorry taranaki, we're usually on the same side, but when the UN can be totally circumvented by whatever country holds the biggest guns, it has failed. the purpose of the UN was to help prevent unsubstantiated, unilateral aggression, and it failed miserably, not to mention world bank is quickly taking place of the UN in providing needing countries with cash and capital (not that this is good, its just happening)

all in all, im going with failure on this one.

sorry taranaki, we're usually on the same side, but when the UN can be totally circumvented by whatever country holds the biggest guns, it has failed. the purpose of the UN was to help prevent unsubstantiated, unilateral aggression, and it failed miserably, not to mention world bank is quickly taking place of the UN in providing needing countries with cash and capital (not that this is good, its just happening)

all in all, im going with failure on this one.

This reflects my opinion as well.

The UN is a noble idea but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be working :\


Regarding the article:

http://www.r1ch.net/old/c&c/image/big_gdi.gif?

Carrrnuttt, how can you disregard the posts and articles of others and then present this article like it is fact. This seems to be your only source of information every time to attempt to present a fact, and the funny thing is you just echo what he has to say in the article. From what I can tell, you are echoing the words of a radical idiot.

http://www.r1ch.net/old/c&c/image/big_gdi.gif?

GDI? :screwy:

GDI? :screwy:


Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI)

:icon16:

The problem with the UN is the Security Council and the use of Veto. The Veto is outdated and should be scrapped, since it was originally granted to the 5 nuke powers, naturally the most powerfull.

However, in this age of nukes being handed out like condoms at a swingers meeting, it's impractical for the Big Five to still hold so much sway over the rest, since the power in the UN is now disportionate to the world balance of power.

Unfortunatly, the vote to scrap the veto would be veto'd.


BTW:

The UN already is in ruin. its become obvious that it holds no sway and no power in word affairs. it just needs to be formally done away with.


It's not supposed to hold power. Please learn about such topics before sprouting crap.

It's not supposed to hold power. Please learn about such topics before sprouting crap.

actualy, you are the one that needs to learn about things before spouting crap. The UN is supposed to be able to exercise a vast amount of power.

i could sit here all days and cut and paste quotes from the UN own website, but that would be ridiculous, i suggest you check it out for yourself.

though ill give you an example. the creation of an internation court system. thats a bit of power they're swinging around there, buddy.

it would be best for you to keep your fingers off your keyboard until your educated enough on the subject to keep your foot out of your mouth.

Educated? You call me uneducated with your complete lack of spelling or grammar?

Right. Nice one.

yes, thats right, turn the arguement towards my grammer and spelling when you see that you've lost the real arguement.

just to clarify, im not unintellegent, or uneducated. I actually meet all membership requirements for Mensa, and attend one of the most prestigious four year colleges in the nation.

i just dont care enough to proof read typing errors when im in an internet forum.

bite me.

Haha. I like your style. Always get this way when the stakes are down? Egocentric and liar mean anything to you?

Lets concentrate on the thread at hand.

I shall counter all your points. Just not right now since I'm on no sleep.

what stakes? you attacked my grammer and spelling. i fired back, those are hardly high stakes.

you lost the original arguement, and it was YOU that digressed from the original point, not me.

and your on no sleep? usual defense laid down by those who have been beaten.

though, ill play along. ill provide evidence that the UN is supposed to have power, and you do your best to prove otherwise. best of luck, you'll need every bit of it. here i go.

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

well, after ten minutes of reading the UN charter, i find it riculous to cut and paste the whole thing to make my point. i suggest you go here http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html and read before you decide to make yourself look the fool even more.

Alright, I accept that. I am wrong. Most previous comments are withdrawn.

I vote we save the above post forever. Someone in political just admitted they were wrong!!

STOP THE PRESSES!

Dammit......did you have to give in??:shakehead:banhim:










j/k

It's because I'm just fucking AWESOME.