NWO Tools

[Damocles]

Acting on behalf of UN directives, in violation of their enlistment agreements.

Bottom Line: THe UN can use military force to achieve it's directives. The fact that soldiers are ON LEASE is irrelevant.

They are not "acting on the behalf of UN directives". They are requested and loaned to support specific action by member states that support the action. Member states often reject lending their troops to actions they don't like. If they were part of a "UN Army" no such rejection would be possible.

 

[Damocles]

I'd agree they are one step away from being a International Army, but they are certainly not one now, nor are they "becoming" one as it has worked this way since the end of WWII.

 

[Litmus]

They are not "acting on the behalf of UN directives". They are requested and loaned to support specific action.

Yes, specific actions meant to achieve the goals of the UN. You're playing word games again. It's lame.

Member states often reject lending their troops to actions they don't like.

And often they do not. And if an individual soldier refuses, he can be court martialed as in the case of Michael New referenced previously on this thread.

 

[Damocles]

Yes, specific actions meant to achieve the goals of the UN. You're playing word games again. It's lame.


And often they do not. And if an individual soldier refuses, he can be court martialed as in the case of Michael New referenced previously on this thread.

Whether they do or do not doesn't change the fact that they are troops of the member state not the UN's troops. That they CAN shows that they are not UN troops.

Just as if your neighbor borrows your axe, it doesn't make it his axe.

Again, the word games are being played by you. The reality is member states can and often do reject lending their troops. If they were "UN Troops" there would be no ability to do that.

 

[Litmus]

Whether they do or do not doesn't change the fact that they are troops of the member state not the UN's troops.

That's just a word game. The UN has access to a military to enforce it's goals and it uses it.

That they CAN shows that they are not UN troops.

Just as if your neighbor borrows your axe, it doesn't make it his axe.

But if he uses to go on a killing spree, it doesn't really matter where he got it.

 

[Damocles]

That's just a word game. The UN has access to a military to enforce it's goals and it uses it.


But if he uses to go on a killing spree, it doesn't really matter where he got it.

It has to go begging because it has no army of its own.

A bum has access to change, all he has to do is ask.

 

[Damocles]

That's just a word game. The UN has access to a military to enforce it's goals and it uses it.


But if he uses to go on a killing spree, it doesn't really matter where he got it.

It does. If he asked to use it in the killing spree and you loaned it to him you supported the killing spree.

It still doesn't make it his axe. The UN has to ask for troops and inform what they will be used for. Members don't give troops unless they support the action to begin with.

 

[Litmus]

It has to go begging because it has no army of its own.

A bum has access to change, all he has to do is ask.

They do ok. Most national leaders are on board with the globalist agenda and are more than willing. Our nation especially.

 

[Damocles]

They do ok. Most national leaders are on board with the globalist agenda and are more than willing. Our nation especially.

That doesn't make it "their" army.

The word games are yours. You pretend that it doesn't "matter" that the troops aren't theirs they are theirs because <insert word game here>...

I am direct, there is no play. If the US doesn't support the action, they don't send the troops. Shoot, for a long time we didn't even pay our dues as members.

 

[Litmus]

That doesn't make it "their" army.

The word games are yours. You pretend that it doesn't "matter" that the troops aren't theirs they are theirs because <insert word game here>...

I am direct, there is no play. If the US doesn't support the action, they don't send the troops. Shoot, for a long time we didn't even pay our dues as members.

The UN still has people with guns enforcing their agenda when they want.

Your fixation on it being "borrowed" is irrelevant.

 

[Damocles]

The UN still has people with guns enforcing their agenda when they want.

Your fixation on it being "borrowed" is irrelevant.

No, it isn't. Hence the hours of fun improving your understanding of how the UN works.

And, the US is almost always willing to "help" because the stuff we don't like, we simply veto as a permanent member. Therefore stuff we do like passes, stuff we don't never does.

The UN is pretty much an extension of the US on other places. Held in check by Russia and China.

 

[Litmus]

No, it isn't.

Yes. IT is.

Hence the hours of fun improving your understanding of how the UN works.

And, the US is almost always willing to "help" because the stuff we don't like, we simply veto as a permanent member. Therefore stuff we do like passes, stuff we don't never does.

The UN is pretty much an extension of the US on other places. Held in check by Russia and China.

And our leadership is pretty much a bunch internationalist assholes. This offers no succor, sucker.

 

[Damocles]

Yes. IT is.


And our leadership is pretty much a bunch internationalist assholes. This offers no succor, sucker.

Oh noees. The US are jerks so that means you are still wrong.. wait... Yep. Still wrong.

The reality is your excuse, "We send troops" is meaningless when the UN pretty much is an extension of our will, if we don't like what they want to do we simply veto it.

The root of your argument is fallacious, therefore all that extends from it is the fruit of the poisoned tree.

 

[Litmus]

Oh noees. The US are jerks so that means you are still wrong.. wait... Yep. Still wrong.

The reality is your excuse, "We send troops" is meaningless when the UN pretty much is an extension of our will, if we don't like what they want to do we simply veto it.

You mean the elite of the nation's will.

ENlisted men who don't want to serve are court martialed.

Bottom Line: The UN has military force when it wants it and we agree to it, which is most of the time, considering the UN is an extension of the will of the globalist elites of our nation.

First it was weak, and we hardly ever pay our dues. Now it's a direct extension of our will. Are we weak or strong damo? Make up your mind.

 

[Damocles]

You mean the elite of the nation's will.

ENlisted men who don't want to serve are court martialed.

Bottom Line: The UN has military force when it wants it and we agree to it, which is most of the time, considering the UN is an extension of the will of the globalist elites of our nation.

First it was weak, and we hardly ever pay our dues. Now it's a direct extension of our will. Are we weak or strong damo? Make up your mind.

LOL.

Enlisted men who refuse orders are Article 15 and booted. That happens regardless of the order, including where to go and what to do when they get there.

The "strong/weak" thing is not my argument, that is a classic strawman fallacy.

Bottom line: The UN can't send troops to places the US doesn't want them to because the US vetoes it. They don't have troops whenever they want and they must have the approval of all members of the Security council to even get to send troops anywhere.

Of course if the US wants to send troops somewhere that China doesn't like China vetoes it.

 

[Damocles]

The real bottom line: The UN has no army. You know it, you attempt to play word games to make members' armies into the UN's. Even when you know that they are not.

 

[Litmus]

The real bottom line: The UN has no army. You know it, you attempt to play word games to make members' armies into the UN's. Even when you know that they are not.

THe real real bottom line:

The UN does have access to armies to enforce it's agenda. If they are permanent or ON LOAN makes no difference.

IF the UN is merely an extension of our will, why not just do things in our own name? To get around that pesky Posse Comitatus law?

 

[Damocles]

THe real real bottom line:

The UN does have access to armies to enforce it's agenda. If they are permanent or ON LOAN makes no difference.

IF the UN is merely an extension of our will, why not just do things in our own name? To get around that pesky Posse Comitatus law?

We often do. Bosnia was one of those. Well, we used NATO, but not the UN...

Look. I agree, International Army = Bad. Where I disagree is in the reality. There is no international army, no dedicated UN troops.

 

[Litmus]

We often do. Bosnia was one of those. Well, we used NATO, but not the UN...

Look. I agree, International Army = Bad. Where I disagree is in the reality. There is no international army, no dedicated UN troops.

So their on loan for specific projects. Look, Your word games don't change the reality that The UN has access to military force and uses it to achieve it's agenda.

 

[Damocles]

So their on loan for specific projects. Look, Your word games don't change the reality that The UN has access to military force and uses it to achieve it's agenda.

Again, the fact is there is no such thing as a UN army, which was just "one thing that isn't happening" that you asked for. I gave three, and this was the one that had your "best argument" that still failed.

You were wrong. Now you attempt to say things like, "Well, even though they aren't an International Army, and aren't really UN forces they really 'kinda' are because see, when the Security council votes some people lend some troops...."

Your twist and spin and silly wordgames notwithstanding.

Reality = No UN Army. It doesn't exist. Not there. Isn't real.