Gunco Forums banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,233 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]THE NEW WORLD DISORDER[/size][/font]
[font=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=+2]GIs can be forced to wear U.N. beret[/size][/font]
[font=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=+1]Federal judge upholds court martial of soldier who refused orders[/size][/font]
[size=-1]Posted: December 25, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
[/size][font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times][/font] [font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times][font=Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif] [size=-1] ? 2004 WorldNetDaily.com [/size] [/font] [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]The U.S. military can force its personnel to wear the blue beret of the United Nations and serve under the world body's command, a federal judge ruled. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]Judge Paul Friedman upheld the military's conviction of former Army specialist Michael New, who refused to don the U.N. cap and shoulder patch and to serve in a peacekeeping mission in Macedonia nearly 10 years ago, the New York Sun reported. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times][/font] [font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]New argued that the Constitution and the law governing U.S. participation in the world body prevent the president from sending American troops into possible combat under U.N. command without express authorization from Congress. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]New, whose defiance became a cause celebre in the mid-1990s among U.N. opponents, launched a website that included his picture with the message, "Michael New was right. ... Real Americans don't wear U.N. blue." [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]He was court-maritialed and convicted in 1996 and given a "bad conduct" discharge from the Army, which later was upheld by military appeals courts. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]Judge Friedman wrote in his 35-page decision that trying to sort out whether the president had ceded too much authority to foreign military officers "would involve policy determinations beyond the competence of the court," the Sun reported. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]New's father told the paper an appeal is likely. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]"We're disappointed," Daniel New said. "It's not printable what I want to say." [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]In addition to appealing to the Constitution and the U.N. Participation Act of 1945, New's lawyers argued that forcing him to serve under an international army he never signed up with abridged the ex-soldier's rights against "involuntary servitude" under the 13th Amendment. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]Friedman, dismissing New's claims, said he could have pursued his legal points without defying his commanders. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]"Petitioner had numerous avenues, besides direct disobedience, by which to challenge that order," he wrote. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]Cliff Kincaid, author of a book about New's crusade -- "Michael New: Mercenary or American Soldier?" -- told the Sun the judge was right to suggest Congress could have stepped in. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]"The Congress should have done more, but Friedman should have overturned the illegal order and New's bad conduct discharge," Kincaid said. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]Kincaid objected to President Clinton's order to American troops to participate in the Macedonia mission and President Bush's unwillingness to change the procedure. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]"U.S. troops deployed on U.S. missions under Bush still wear U.N. markings on their uniforms, including a U.N. shoulder patch and beret," Kincaid told the Sun. "Even though they serve under a foreign U.N. commander, he insists they are still somehow under U.S. command. It doesn't add up." [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution, contended the president's authority to defend America would be weakened if New prevailed. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]"You'd be undercutting our ability to work with our allies. You'd also be weakening the power of the commander in chief of the United States," he said. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]O'Hanlon argued American troops in past wars have been temporarily put under tactical foreign command more than under the U.N., with little objection. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]New's father, however, believes the case has given the Pentagon a "bloody nose," causing it to look elsewhere to staff U.N. missions. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]"Pakistanis and Indians are cheaper than Americans and there's no political fallout if they die. So let's just outsource it all," he said derisively.[/font]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
So what's the problem here?

The UN has no troops of its own. Those blue-helmeted hordes coming to take our guns away are comprised of the troops of UN member nations. Including the US, if the US so decides.

Would folks prefer that the UN had its own autonomous military?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,233 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Dzerzhinsky said:
So what's the problem here?
Would folks prefer that the UN had its own autonomous military?
I would prefer not to have a UN period.:pissed:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
DorGunR said:
I would prefer not to have a UN period.:pissed:
I think the UN is in desperate need of reform, but I think the UN overall is a good idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,233 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Dzerzhinsky said:
I think the UN is in desperate need of reform
Now that's an understatement if I ever heard one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,386 Posts
Screw em, they thought that they could force me to salute a certain RVN colonel, I damn near went to jail, but I never saluted that sorry pig.

EDIT: Nothing to do with the UN, just an example of trying to force anything on a stubborn sailor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
There's a good article in the New Yorker this month on some of the reforms necessary. What they outline I think falls within "necessary but not sufficient". First off would be restructuring the composition of the Security Council.

The United Nations got off to a good start. Defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan counts. Folks tend to forget that the final victory was a UN effort.

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

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,233 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Dzerzhinsky said:
There's a good article in the New Yorker this month on some of the reforms necessary. What they outline I think falls within "necessary but not sufficient". First off would be restructuring the composition of the Security Council.

The United Nations got off to a good start. Defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan counts. Folks tend to forget that the final victory was a UN effort.

http://www.un.org/Overview/origin.html
The UN (as we know it) was not formed until 1945 AFTER WWll.

[font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]n 1945, representatives of 50 countries met in San Francisco at the United Nations Conference on International Organization to draw up the United Nations Charter. Those delegates deliberated on the basis of proposals worked out by the representatives of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States at Dumbarton Oaks, United States in August-October 1944. The Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by the representatives of the 50 countries. Poland, which was not represented at the Conference, signed it later and became one of the original 51 Member States.

EDIT: I should have said "after the defeat of
[/font]Nazi Germany" as Japan did not surrender until August 14th 1945.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Well, we're quibbling over semantics. Term UN first used by Roosevelt in reference to the 26 nations united to defeat the Axis powers, as you note formal charter not signed until June 1945.

And flawed from the very beginning: Note the reference to Poland. The reason why Poland didn't sign on at the beginning was that as of June 1945 it had not yet been settled that Poland would be a vassal state to the USSR and the Polish government-in-exile in Great Britain was still maneuvering for a return to power.

The only thing worse than the United Nations would be that there were no United Nations. Without the United Nations, I don't know how many of us would have survived past October of '62.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,233 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Dzerzhinsky said:
The only thing worse than the United Nations would be that there were no United Nations. Without the United Nations, I don't know how many of us would have survived past October of '62.
Are refering to the Cuban missile crisis????
 

·
Mystic Knight of the Sea
Joined
·
13,384 Posts
Dzerzhinsky said:
The only thing worse than the United Nations would be that there were no United Nations. Without the United Nations, I don't know how many of us would have survived past October of '62.

The UN didn't help Rudolph Anderson survive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,386 Posts
And I thought the US Navy not the UN navy handled that missle thingy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,233 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Lupeloff said:
And I thought the US Navy not the UN navy handled that missle thingy.
Yeah.......I was in the Army at Fort Rucker, Alabama when that went down and I don't recall the UN doing anything but sit on their ass.
 

·
Mystic Knight of the Sea
Joined
·
13,384 Posts
DorGunR said:
Yeah.......I was in the Army at Fort Rucker, Alabama when that went down and I don't recall the UN doing anything but sit on their ass.
I was at Ft Sill Oklahoma, getting ready for a 30 day leave in just a couple of more days. Then all of a sudden all leaves were cancelled. Never will forget that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,233 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Pogo said:
I was at Ft Sill Oklahoma, getting ready for a 30 day leave in just a couple of more days. Then all of a sudden all leaves were cancelled. Never will forget that.
Yep...........Ft. Rucker went to "Red Alert" and several choppers and their crews was moved to Homestead, AFB, FL. I really thought we were going to war with Russia.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Pogo said:
I was at Ft Sill Oklahoma, getting ready for a 30 day leave in just a couple of more days. Then all of a sudden all leaves were cancelled. Never will forget that.
I was a kid and my Dad, who is a very even keeled guy was very, very worried. I did not understand the implications all that well but I sure knew when he was upset it was not something insignificant.

It was very similar to his reaction to the killing of JFK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Custer said:
...It was very similar to his reaction to the killing of JFK.
My dad was an arch-conservative, convinced that the last good president was Benjamin Harrison and that FDR was the Antichrist. Yet one of the three times I saw him cry was when JFK was assassinated. He was crying not for JFK, but for our country.

Another of those three times was when Nixon resigned. He had been a staunch Nixon supporter and felt completely betrayed.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top