UN

smithnwessun · Jan 20, 2001

Just a little suggestion....what about some UN skin, could be different and add some variety to the game.

Nemisis-J · Jan 20, 2001

Blue Berrai's

Intresting suggestion but arn't the UN forces Peace keepers? ok they get put inbetween two opposing forces but my inpression is there on the reciving end of everyones triggerhappy recruits but arn't allowed to take the initative. (Not a popular choose for a game (But you UN guys Have my full respect I just wish there was the political unity and drive behind them...sorry going off topic

)
on a tecnical point though Berrais as head gear would allow a couple of real and very famouse forces to be reprecented ie UN [blue] British Parras [Red] US special [GreeN] extra...

mmmm.. make up your own mind http://www.un.org/

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Off-Topic http://unreal.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=10009422&f=16609262&m=881090827

[This message was edited by Nemisis-J on Jan 20, 2001 at 21:52.]

[This message was edited by Nemisis-J on Jan 20, 2001 at 21:55.]

[This message was edited by Nemisis-J on Jan 21, 2001 at 08:51.]

Zundfolge · Jan 20, 2001

The UN is ultimatly a tyranical agencey bent on world domination at the expense of freedom and free enterprise.

Their blue helmets would look lovely behind the reticle of my Robar

Hey Oleg, looks like I got to use this one sooner then I thought
<center>

</center>

HanD_of_DarKNesS · Jan 20, 2001

I agree that we should have a UN skin. The UN Peace Force is basically in international military made up of forces from several militaries (often Canadians are a part of the fold, since it was our Prime Minister who though up the whole idea). As much as they are a force of peace, thay are a military, and thus would make sense to have a skin representing them.

Assistant Coordinator, Contributing Editor & Graphic Artist
INFILTRATION H.Q.

-"For You, The End is Near"

jaunty · Jan 21, 2001

your joking right zund??

you'd actually spend the money on a .50BMG to cap a UN soldier, i can't think of any bigger a waste of ammo.

what we need is an Anti-UN bomb, like a big selective nuke, that only gets blokes in blue berrets.

<img src=http://www.geocities.com/bischlong/jaunty2.jpg>Free fucking speach!

jaunty · Jan 21, 2001

to see my other thoughts on the topic, click here

its just the off topic version of this thread, but i took it somewhat more seriously.

<img src=http://www.geocities.com/bischlong/jaunty2.jpg>Free fucking speach!

RogueLeader · Jan 21, 2001

The UN was formed after CFR members used their influence to practicaly create World War II for the excuse of the one world government project. The CFR are all the wealthy, politicians, and media tycoons, so creating a single world wide government will get them more money. The whole point of the UN to make a world where we all toil in sweat shops to give them money (unlike what many extreme right-winger's believe, evidence suggests their goal is not communism, but ultra-capitalism).

It was Wilson's adviser Edward M. House (who claimed to be a Marxist, but as one myself, I can say he's anything but) who came up with the first world government idea, the League of Nations. He was also the founder of the CFR several years later. Wilson only got involved in World War I because he and his wealthy benefactors needed money. If Britain lost, the wealthy bankers would lose a lot of money. Thats why Wilson and Churchill organized the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, killing over 1000 poeple. It is known now Wilson was secretly sending munitions on that ship, and Churchill (who knew the location of German Uboats because the Brits had cracked their codes) told the Lusitania to go off course toward U-20. In 1921, House formed the Council on Foeign Relations, which at this point can claim a majority of the federal government as its members. The CFR supported removing Oppenheimer when he did not support growing use of nuclear power worldwide. Why did the CFR want nuclear power to spread? Because if a nation can make nuclear power plants, they can make nuclear bombs. The tension of war makes money and gives an excuse to the UN to use its power. It was also the CFR that first told Congress the USSR was a "world-wide communist threat" even though Stalin did not believe in world domination. The CFR's president and vice president were both under JP Morgan's (richest man of the time) control. Is it coincidence that the largest investors of the time (members of the CFR) sold all their stock just before the crash of 29? The CFR control's our money system, which means they control the economy and can do whatever they want with our government. This can easily be done with income taxes. Do you think our founding father's believed the government has the right to take the money YOU earned?

On to modern times:
Clinton, a member of the CFR, gave the UN the right to take operational command of our army without Congressional consent. He also accepted a UN proposal for a internation court that would have the power to overturn our Supreme Court's Decision. Clinton also accepted a UN proposal to deny us the right by international law to defend ourselves if the UN attacks us; and a proposal that says we cannot retaliate for a nuclear bombing until we first absorb it.

And don't believe about the UN's "peacekeeping" crap. The CFR control's the UN, and also the media. A study was done that found that people who watched several hours of CNN knew LESS about the events going on in the world, and were more likely to support government and UN policy. Another interesting point about CNN- Turner is i believe a member of the CFR, and at his request the UN lowered the US's share of the UN budget- something our government couldn't do with years of negotiating. Suspicious to me.

Why would the CFR coordinate an effort to let the UN overrule our courts, let them invade our country, and let them take control of our military? Sounds like an invasion to me. I believe mankind will eventually unite, but I will refuse to unite under conquest, and not so I can work my ass off while some rich bastards rake in the money I earned.

[PiP]Celtan · Jan 21, 2001

Uh - oh ... now comes something REALLY revolutionary

that may be a little off-topic, but the thread brought it up ...

Well, I personally believe in the UN and what might be possible if done right.

IMHO the UN is a first step towards an united earth, and that is what I personnally strive for. I think the only things that is made possible by having several nations is WAR, which is in my opinions the worst scourge humanity has ever invented.

Languages, nations and such are only things that separate people, not bring them together. I have found in my experience with the Internet, that people from around the world aren't that much different from each other ...
Look at this forum here ... you can meet people from around the world here, and it is of no interest which nations belong people to. They all meet on the same base, use the same language and cooperate together. Why can't this be in RL? I would be more than eager to give up my natural language if I would get the situation that everybody in the world would speak my mother language.

I didn't serve as an UN peacekeeper, but I've served 5 months with IFOR in Bosnia, and I think that service was necessary but too late. The UN peacekeepers operate under strict Rules Of Engagement, and they have definite lines they aren't allowed to cross ... for example, they aren't allowed to shoot unless in self-defense.
The UN may make mistakes, surely it does, as it is comprised of humans who have errors, but that doesn't mean that this is the completely wrong path.
I'm fairly sure that democracy doesn't always produce the right results, but still many nations stick to the concept.

That may be a very interesting discussion in the Off-Topic Forum

Burn, Baby

Nemisis-J · Jan 21, 2001

Off topic

I tried to pre empt this sorry smithnwessun
http://unreal.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=10009422&f=16609262&m=881090827

Respect [PiP]Celtan

[PiP]Celtan · Jan 21, 2001

Thanks!

I've already found it

Burn, Baby

RogueLeader · Jan 21, 2001

I agree with the UN in principal as well. But principal and actions are different. When the UN is used to take away rights and topple governments for the personal power of a few, that's just sick.

The fact is that this isn't just a conspiracy theory. The facts have been there for a long time. The way most people learn about these things is from the media, which is controled by these plutocrats. Anyone with a firm unbiased grasp of history would be disturbed.

Mankind will someday unite, but what good is a united earth if we are all slaves to the members of these conspiracies? A united earth should be equitable, support human rights, and bridge the gap between rich and poor (whereas these people are the ones that MAKE the gap). In vietnam, laborers work for 12 hours a day in sweat shops and make only half of what they need to eat eac day. Do you want that to spread throughout the entire world? The UN is nothing but an army for plutocratic conspirators who want you to be their slave. And in principal, I don't agree with slavery. Slavery under the name of peace is still slavery.

[PiP]Celtan · Jan 21, 2001

Rogue Leader, do you any proof for that?

Or is it rather a belief ?

Like the Illuminats?

Of course, a world government should correct that, but as it is, the UN aren't even in the position to correct that, because thea aren't allowed to overrule national governments except in very special cases. And you can imagine, that it is not easy to get all the nations in the UN together to make a decision.

Burn, Baby

RogueLeader · Jan 21, 2001

The Illuminati were real. They were formed in 1776 by Adam Weishapt (i spelled that wrong, I know). Its been proven they were behind the French Revolution too. However, they dissolved sometime in the mid 19th century.

A lot of the evidence is circumstantial. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be believed. The laws of probability don't support the idea that every one of these events in world history coincidentally leads to a hostile takeover of the world. I do have some support for some things though:

Read the book "The Lusitania" by Colin Simpson. He tells all about the involvement of a conpiracy in sinking the Lusitania. Dives to the wreckage prove it contained munitions.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pdd25/pdd25_01.html
That sight has the summary of PDD #25 that lets the UN take command of our military. This is only a summary, the executive order itself is classified and cannot be read.

All of what I said is common facts, the only thing that I have to "believe" instead of "know" is their intent. Why does CFR member Clinton want to let the UN take control of our military? Why does he want it to be illegal to fight back against an invasion force? Seems to me you don't have to think too hard to become suspicious.

[This message was edited by Rogue Leader on Jan 21, 2001 at 09:39.]

[PiP]Celtan · Jan 21, 2001

What's wrong with the policy?

Page 3:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The policy directive underscores the fact that the President will never relinquish command of the US Forces.[/quote]

Page 5 & Page 6 are too long to quote now, but they show what UN peacekeeping ops have achieved thus far ... I agree especially on the "Former Yugoslavia" part ...

on page 8 is described what factors have to be taken into account when committing US troops to UN missions ...

and I can't find the part where it is said that it is not allowed to fight back against an invasion force ...

the meaning most clearly visible in this document is that the US are only willing to commit troops for an UN mission if it serves the US interests ...

Burn, Baby

smithnwessun · Jan 21, 2001

Good or bad....i dont give a f**k

heeheh i just wanna see a skin because i will probaly wear this uniform this year

Bosnia im comming...

RogueLeader · Jan 21, 2001

1) With a couple exceptions, all of our Presidents since FDR have been members of the CFR who would support the UN if they took command.

2) For the President to use the armed forces, Congress must approve of it. This lets the UN use our forces without Congressinal approval. This makes the usage of our military undemocratic. Its the decision of either a) 1 man or b) foreign powers.

I apologize if I worded it badly, but I said that that "not being able to retaliate" thing was seperate. I don't recall what it was, I think it was 86 or something, but I'm not sure.

Back to the skin thing though: I think a UN skin is a good idea.

[PiP]Celtan · Jan 21, 2001

Page 7:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Congress must be actively involved in the continuing implementation of US policy on peacekeeping.
[/quote]

I didn't read the whole papers, as it is too long for me now, but it seems that it rules out the Congress for economic purposes. But it gives very strict rules to adhere to before committing US troops to a UN peace mission.

But you could still be so kind and point me to the part of the document where the Congress is rueld out of the decision, because the reasons for this are most likely to be found there ...

And, if the Congress is so democratic and important, I understand that you agree with every UN mission so far, as these have been decided democratically ...

Burn, Baby

RogueLeader · Jan 21, 2001

Congress must be active in DEPLOYING forces. Not in giving the UN operational command in the case of a "national emergency". That refers to the US voluntarily comiting its troops.

I do support most UN interventions. To make sure you don't misinterpret what I'm saying: I'm not against the UN directly, I'm against the corrupt people that control it.

[PiP]Celtan · Jan 21, 2001

Then your poll absolutely doesn't go with your opinion

And I understand Page 13 that the President can give control to the UN, but this is judged on the size of the US military role in the mission.
IMO, I think that is a fair rule ... if the US only has a smaller part in the operation, it should be placed under foreign command ... most probably that command of the nation which plays the most important part ...

It also says placing troops under foreign command in not unusual, and has happened very often before ...

Do you read and accept the guidelines under that such things are going to happen, or do you only read:
"We are giving away command everytime and everywhere?"

Burn, Baby

RogueLeader · Jan 21, 2001

The UN is a tool. Its simply a way for the rich to unify the world for their own profits. The principals of peace keeping are good, but as long as the UN is under their control and is being used to help only the wealthy, I will consider it my enemy. The unification of the world will happen naturally, it cannot be sped up through conquests.

UN

Gravel

Cunning Linguist

New Member

Evil Bastard

Active Member

Active Member

Tama-chan says, "aurf aurf aurf!"

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

Cunning Linguist

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

Tama-chan says, "aurf aurf aurf!"

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

Tama-chan says, "aurf aurf aurf!"

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

Gravel

Tama-chan says, "aurf aurf aurf!"

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

Tama-chan says, "aurf aurf aurf!"

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

Tama-chan says, "aurf aurf aurf!"