UN Debate

[PinoX7]

Ive been in a ongoing argument, that never seems to get anywhere. My friend is the Social Security guard in keene, we have been communicating Via e-mail. He feels the same way about the war in Iraq and many other topics as I do. But we never see eye to eye on one thing. The UN (united nations),he loves to glorify them, and he says that they could create a global utopia and such. I always try to point out their flaws, but his retalliation is 'do you have any proof of that?'
Im just asking for anyones input, possibly to put the nail in this coffin.

[Spencer]

His position is the one that requires proof because he is trying to sell you something.  Of course, the UN's first major "police action" ended with an armistice and the situation that we've all been seeing on the news during the last few weeks (Kim Jong Il is the result of UN action).

Spencer

[Fluff and Stuff]

Isn't the UN the organization that wants to control everyone (even going so far as to try to band all personal hand guns and tax everyone) and yet is made up entirely of unelected people? 

[PinoX7]

Thanks I used both of those, and he just said
'can you link the 3
The United Nations
Capitolism
Globalism'

I dont know if hes serious, or if they really are all seperate.

[Dreepa]

How about the fact that the US supplies most of the UN budget.... and I am being taxed to fund them  and they want to ban all guns?  He is probably pro gun right?

[PinoX7]

Well I know hes not against them, cause hes in the Marines, but I dont know if he owns any of his own.

[KBCraig]

Well I know hes not against them, cause hes in the Marines, but I dont know if he owns any of his own.

All military branches are anti-gun, except for those guns they own and control.

Tried buying any guns out on the economy lately, and bringing them on base without the PMO's approval?

Kevin

[Pat K]

I remember when I lived in military housing they wanted us to register all private weapons. Of course we all obeyed this order  . This was in Long Beach Cali. our houseing was right out side a bad area. It was constantly being hit by house thieves, the the fed cops could not seem to stop. Well when one of the scum made a mistake and tried to brake into an ocuppied house, a  load of armed sailors responded. The word must have got around cause, The break in's stopped after that.

[PinoX7]

Well I know hes not against them, cause hes in the Marines, but I dont know if he owns any of his own.

All military branches are anti-gun, except for those guns they own and control.

Tried buying any guns out on the economy lately, and bringing them on base without the PMO's approval?

Kevin

Yeah never really relized how anti-gun troops can be, Sometimes I tell some guys about my weapons at home and some think im just a 'crazy hick', some ask me if my AK's are 'war trophies', only one guy seemed to understand im just simply exersizing my 2nd amendment because to me it feels more like a duty to my country.
Simply put, most marines ive spoken too seem to think most civillians owning weapons is 'dangerous', when its infact the opposite, its very dangerous not to own weapons.

And I did bring a 'weapon' on base and never told anyone about it and got a 6501 for it, this weapon they found in my room after a surprize inspection was a knife with a blade longer than 3 inches, that I bought On base.

[David]

Thats one of the reasons I have no real faith in the idea that if the military is ordered to shoot U S citizens, then many of them will.  Some may protest, but if they can be convince that they are killing 'terrorists', then the moral quams will be surpressed.

Ask your friend if he sees political conflict in this country.  Then ask if he thinks it will be any different under one massive gov't.  Ask him to keep in mind the tremendous hostility in the disputes around the world and ask if he thinks the un can solve these problems.  The only way they can solve any problem, is using the bully pulpit, or force.  Force means killing any who resist. 

The UN is not too much different from any other gov't agency.  It's just bigger.  Keith mention unelected.  That doesn't really matter.  At the start of the US, the senate was choosen by nomination from each state, and many gov'ts around the world are not elected in any real way. 

In the end, no matter how logical, reasoned, or thoughtfully presented your arguments are, it may never convince your friend.  I have had a great many conversations with family about gov't in general, and no matter what I say, I cannot convince them that force and threats of force are wrong.  It is one of the reasons I don't like to debate, I don't think it solves much.  Humans have an amazing ability to justify evil, in all forms.  It is easy to be shocked by the nazis, but what the nazis did, selective persucution taken to its logical conclusion, happens all the time, in this country.  The logical conclusion being death.  If something is to be enforced, what does the enforcer do when someone resists.    But every one says to themselves, well it was only one bad apple.  And they say this about all pet issues.  Every time someone is killed during a drug bust, or in police custody, or a child in school mistreated. 

Something to think about, and it may even be usefull to point out to your friend.    Look past the outrage that happens, rather look at how it is dealt with.  If the first thing after the standard apology is to claim there will be an investigation into whether procedure was followed, then you know that the outrage happenes frequently.  They just got caught this time.  It doesn't matter if it is a school, police, the feds, or an international incident.  If it is treated as a ho hum incident, then it happens a lot. 

[CNHT]

Isn't the UN the organization that wants to control everyone (even going so far as to try to band all personal hand guns and tax everyone) and yet is made up entirely of unelected people? 

The UN is made up of mostly socialist countries, is an unelected bureacracy and a front for all the people pushing for World Government, such the owner of the Democrat party - George Soros.

They want one centralized point of control because they think it would end all wars. They seek to end all ideologies (meaning your religion) and want allegiance only to the state.
They want to disarm the world, tax the world, and be your one-stop totalitarian government.

Just do a search on Google for 'World Federalist' and 'World Government' websites and send the links to this guy.
Even just the UN site alone shows what they hope to accomplish.
They even already have a resolution in place that says they would like to tax FUTURE SPACE VEHICLES.
The UN now controls a lot of what goes on the public schools, which is why they are so politically correct and anti-American.

UN = BAD

[citizen_142002]

I wouldn't be so quick to lump everyone in the service into one catagory. My friend's in the Corps and he's met a variety of people with a wide variety of views. There are socialists, black panthers, libertarians, and of course plenty of Rs and Ds in the service.
From vets to whom I've spoken it seems that the USMC contains the most 2nd amendment sympathetic individuals. Now if people in the military were given orders to participate in the confiscation of firearms, most would probably do it and many would fire on US citizens if they received such orders, but I'm sure that there would be individuals and units that refused to do so.

[Dan]

Go listen to dan carlin's history lesson on the League of Nations.  I thinks it is Hard Core History #2
Found it:  http://www.dancarlin.net/media/dancarlin/Organization_of_Peace.mp3

It is the failed pre-cursor to the UN.  He points out you have to know where the UN came from, to understand it now, and why it will only exist so long as it suits the United State's purpose. 

Leading to a Utopia was the reason for the League of Nations.  It failed.

[Atlas]

A utopia, in my opinion, can't exist without liberty. The UN seeks to repeal liberty where ever it is found. The UN is for those that like to be dominated.

[Dan]

Well, the UN is the mounthpiece of the US now.  So, what you infer from thier actions now are to be applied to US policy, no tthe UN. 

Interestingly; when taken outof the context of this thread I would think you were speaking of the IMF, not the UN.