Thread: Hey Bubba, How are ya doin ??!

2nd:

You are right!!! How can someone supposedly in charge of the UN turn their backs on the people of Africa? Send "peacekeepers" down there without the power to truly help.

Because that portion of Africa didn't have aything that was of value to the UN.

American, on the other hand, aaahhh, that's a different story.

Originally Posted by CheyenneWoman

2nd:

You are right!!! How can someone supposedly in charge of the UN turn their backs on the people of Africa? Send "peacekeepers" down there without the power to truly help.

Because that portion of Africa didn't have aything that was of value to the UN.

American, on the other hand, aaahhh, that's a different story.

Ahhh, but CHEYENNE
they did have power. The POWER TO RAPE the innocents. That's all they're good for.

did you know that we have a Soldier still in prison for refusing to wear the BLUE HELMET? Does anyone know this? We jailed a Soldier for refusing to go under a UN commander and wear the blue helmet!!!
But we won't jail ILLEGALS for breaking AMERICAN LAWS? For DOCUMENT FRAUD? They get away with document fraud! A felony!!

Really, Sis ?

We jailed a Soldier for refusing to go under a UN commander and wear the blue helmet!!!

Bless a man with integrity

As for the felony (now hang on to your bloodpressure) didn't you hear chicano explain that it was just a misdemeanor? :P

It does seem really screwy, doesn't it? A soldier who took his oath seriously is in jail, and a bunch of illegals who steal documents and identities, are considered for amnesty.

This is just plain wrong

Originally Posted by LegalUSCitizen

Really, Sis ?

Yes, LEGAL.

Many Vets are fuming about this. This guy's been in jail for several years so far. Maybe 4 or 5 at least. I'd have to check to be certain the dates.

CHEYENNE
the theft of legal documents is a felony. That flea said not?

the theft of legal documents is a felony. That flea said not?

I'm trying to think back - I know he kept running on and on and on about it was all just a misdemenor.

I'm not sure he acually said that, though. It's hard to tell with some of his ramblings.

Hi y'all, Thought I'd post this one here since it's an old article, but goes to the thread. When I searched there were a number of articles about refusal to fight, not all about the UN.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42102


THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
GIs can be forced
to wear U.N. beret
Federal judge upholds court martial of soldier who refused orders

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 25, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

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.

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.


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.

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."

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.

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.

New's father told the paper an appeal is likely.

"We're disappointed," Daniel New said. "It's not printable what I want to say."

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.

Friedman, dismissing New's claims, said he could have pursued his legal points without defying his commanders.

"Petitioner had numerous avenues, besides direct disobedience, by which to challenge that order," he wrote.

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.

"The Congress should have done more, but Friedman should have overturned the illegal order and New's bad conduct discharge," Kincaid said.

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.

"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."

Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution, contended the president's authority to defend America would be weakened if New prevailed.

"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.

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.

New's father, however, believes the case has given the Pentagon a "bloody nose," causing it to look elsewhere to staff U.N. missions.

"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.

CheyenneWoman wrote:

2nd:

You are right!!! How can someone supposedly in charge of the UN turn their backs on the people of Africa? Send "peacekeepers" down there without the power to truly help.

Because that portion of Africa didn't have aything that was of value to the UN.

IMHO, only, and I don't know if this is way over-thinking the ramifications of globalism.....isn't part of their plans to massively depopulate the world? If, in Biblical terms, the UN lets "tribe against tribe" assist through war and the resulting death by famine & disease (all this assisted by nature...drought, etc.), wouldn't that be working toward depopulation, no matter in which continent or country that it happened ?

What do y'all think?