NWO Tools

Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's there when it's needed. It's on loan from member states as needed. You already admitted this.

Your pathetic and desperate denials are becoming quite hilarious. Keep up the good work, Bozo.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's there when it's needed. It's on loan from member states as needed. You already admitted this.

Your pathetic and desperate denials are becoming quite hilarious. Keep up the good work, Bozo.
Click to expand...
Not "as needed" I said as "willing" (member states reject the call very often). And that is only when one of the perm members doesn't veto it to begin with.

Again.

Reality doesn't match your word games. What you fear, isn't real. It is a paper tiger. A false ghost of the Scooby Doo variety. A projection of fear, not of reality... (pick your saying...)
 
Damocles said:
Not "as needed" I said as "willing" (member states reject the call very often). And that is only when one of the perm members doesn't veto it to begin with.

Again.

Reality doesn't match your word games. What you fear, isn't real. It is a paper tiger. A false ghost. A projection of fear, not of reality...
Click to expand...


No. Your word games fail to obscure the reality that the UN has access to military force, and uses it. The veto power is not comforting considering most governments are composed of assholes.
 
And again.

Are you going to pretend that the "new age movement", already dropping in popularity even in California, is some new religion now?

What about my other points. You've already lost this one. At least you are admitting that the troops are loaned when member states find the cause worthy.
 
AssHatZombie said:
No. Your word games fail to obscure the reality that the UN has access to military force, and uses it. The veto power is not comforting considering most governments are composed of assholes.
Click to expand...
LOL.

At least you admit that they don't have an army of their own now. That's the first step.

Now, let's talk about how effective the UN is at actually getting anything at all done that is worth anything or makes any changes.

Let's also begin to talk about my other points. "No world religion" and "no world police force". Both of which are even less existent than the non-existent UN Army.
 
Damocles said:
And again.

Are you going to pretend that the "new age movement", already dropping in popularity even in California, is some new religion now?

What about my other points. You've already lost this one. At least you are admitting that the troops are loaned when member states find the cause worthy.
Click to expand...

Obviously you lost, since you're trying to change the topic.

Again, the fact that it's on loan is irrelevant.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Obviously you lost, since you're trying to change the topic.

Again, the fact that it's on loan is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to change anything. Look at my first post in this thread. It is you who wants to ignore points and keep pretending that an entity with no army has one because sometimes member states lend them troops.

And it is relevant. It is pretense to suggest that the choices of member states to support or to deny isn't relevant. It is very clearly relevant in making the reality that the supposed "International Army" doesn't exist at all. Occasionally member states work together. That's it.
 
Damocles said:
I'm not trying to change anything. Look at my first post in this thread. It is you who wants to ignore points and keep pretending that an entity with no army has one because sometimes member states lend them troops.
Click to expand...

When they are lent, the UN "has them".
 
AssHatZombie said:
When they are lent, the UN "has them".
Click to expand...
No, they don't. Just like you can take back your axe if you found out the neighbor was planning on using it to torture and kill their dog.

They don't "have" it at all. There is no UN executive branch.

And again, are you going to support any of your other things that I pointed out don't exist or are you going to pretend that an Army that doesn't exist, exists because some members work together.
 
LOL.

I love it when the people who break out the game boards attempt to accuse others of playing games.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I guess that explains your malignant self love.
Click to expand...
There is nothing malignant about liking oneself.

It explains why I find your posts amusing accurately though.

You are fun. Mostly because you deny reality in such a humorous fashion.

The UN is something that could be used to make a "NWO" thing, if it had an executive branch. The US is paranoid about that and refuses to allow them standing troops for a reason.

As long as we continue to act that way, the "international army" fear is as baseless as the "international religion" fear.
 
Damocles said:
There is nothing malignant about liking oneself.

It explains why I find your posts amusing accurately though.

You are fun. Mostly because you deny reality in such a humorous fashion.

The UN is something that could be used to make a "NWO" thing, if it had an executive branch. The US is paranoid about that and refuses to allow them standing troops for a reason.

As long as we continue to act that way, the "international army" fear is as baseless as the "international religion" fear.
Click to expand...
It really makes no difference if the army is standing or on loan from project to project. You believe it does make a difference. We'll just have to disagree on that.

I ask you fair reader: Does it matter if the army is permanent or on loan as needed?




Why would the US fear an organization that is an extension of it's own will?
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
It really makes no difference if the army is standing or on loan from project to project. You believe it does make a difference. We'll just have to disagree on that, as will people reading this.

I ask you fair reader: Does it matter if the army is permanent or on loan as needed?




Why would the US fear an organization that is an extension of it's own will?
Click to expand...
Because people here are paranoid that way. Just like we keep guns to make sure we can fight back if the government here gets overbearing.
 
Damocles said:
Because people here are paranoid that way. Just like we keep guns to make sure we can fight back if the government here gets overbearing.
Click to expand...

So it's a token show of respect for sovereignty to mislead the people. Thanks mason. You have served me well in illustrating the truth.
 
AssHatZombie said:
So it's a token show of respect for sovereignty to mislead the people. Thanks mason. You have served me well in illustrating the truth.
Click to expand...
You are a maroon.

The truth is there is no UN Army. I served well in promoting that. Being a Mason has nothing to do with that.

Nor does the paranoid masons who formed our nation ensuring we have guns to fight the government if we need them.

I've always wondered why such a good thing could be created by Masons when they actually did have political power, and now when they don't anymore people think they are EEEeeevilll....

Pointing out that I am a Freemason only serves to show you lost the argument and had to resort to what you perceive as ad hominem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top