… and Christians the only group of people wi$::W�܎ stand up for the beseiged Jewish state.

apacalyps on January 16, 2009 at 1:32 AM

Sometimes certain words and letters get garbled in my post after I click the “Submit Content” button to send my message. I don’t know why exactly, but the above sentence that got scrambled is supposed to read:

… almost every nation is aligned against Israel except the US and Christians the only group of people willing to stand up for the beseiged Jewish state.

Heh heh. I had to smile when I read about your listing the resolutions, too.

progressoverpeace on January 16, 2009 at 12:37 A

Yeah, I’ve got the stats somewhere written down. I think it’s closer to half of all resolutions past at the UN concern Israel. It’s a staggering number. I know for me anyways, it doesn’t make sense unless the Bible is true. God said that He would make “Jerusalem a burdensome stone,” and that “all the people of the earth be gathered together against it (Israel) ” (Zechariah 12:3). I mean, that is exactly what we see happening today as almost every nation is aligned against Israel except the US and Christians the only group of people wi$::W

Even more effective is not caring about your enemy’s welfare at all, then you can call in the B-52s. But I’m getting ahead of myself, baby steps first.

apacalyps on January 15, 2009 at 11:43 PM

Heh heh. I had to smile when I read about your listing the resolutions, too. With as hard as they push the UN in our schools, you would think we would have known all about that by 4th grade!

We are certainly in agreement on the bulk of this. I just got a forwarded email from an Israeli friend (one who has never been given to forwarding emails before) with a link to a video about Hamas kids playing with guns and talking about killing Jews. The video appeals to the UN to denounce Hamas for child abuse or something like that. I still have to compose a letter to him, explaining why this is the wrong approach. But, at least they’re starting to figure things out … kind of.

I have to say that I’m not generally given to Biblical prophesy, but it is quite a stunning situation we have, all over. Truly stunning.

PizzaIdf.org

It will make you feel better…

Yep. I once listed all the security council resolutions and counted the number that were about Israel. I forget the actual percentage, but it was huge.

progressoverpeace on January 15, 2009 at 10:17 PM

I’ve done that too. Worked out the percentage of UN resolutions against Israel. I think it’s like 33% of all UN resolutions passed are concerning Israel. I think. Don’t hold me to that. It’s sickening though.

That’s why I tell Israeli friends that Israel MUST leave the UN, after which the UN would probably shrivel up and die of its own, since it would really have nothing left to do.

That is right. It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. The UN would literally have nothing to do so much of their time is spent condemning little tiny Israel. I can’t tell you how upset I get when I think of it. But, this was all predicted to happen just like it’s going down now. Israel is prophesied to become an intolerable problem that world leaders think must be eliminated before there can be peace in the Middle East and in the world.

“Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it” (Zechariah 12:2-3).

Do we see a volatile situation today with regard to the modern nation of Israel? The answer is, YES! Just like God predicted approx. 2500 years ago. There is an ending too, but you gotta read the Bible to find out. Here’s a hint though: We win! That is, believers/Christians win!

Again, I don’t blame the UN for their anti-Israel stance.

I do. I blame demonic forces as well. Satan is the enemy here. But, I understand your point that Israel needs to be much bolder and vocal and confident in the opposition to this shoddy treatment from their enemies. You make an important point which Israel should adopt.

Well, it wasn’t really designed to do much of anything.

progressoverpeace on January 15, 2009 at 8:32 PM

Uh, I think it was designed for something. I should note I have no interest in debating the reasons for the formation of the United Nations. None whatsoever. That said, my humble view on the matter is that the United Nations was formed after World War II to promote peace, security, and economic cooperation (with probably one world government visions for the future) following the fight against the major Axis powers of Germany, Italy and Japan, and as a result of the collapse of the old League of Nations that started after World World I. By the way, that “one world government” is coming soon to a city near you via antichrist when he rises to power after the rapture. So when I said in my previous comment that America helped form this organization some years ago to keep peace and freedom in the world after WWII, I believe that to be historically correct.

That people take it seriously, nowadays, is just a testament to rampant stupidity.

I 100% agree with that.

Never empower any organization without peers or competition. That will always end up very badly. We have treaties with countries we want to deal with. We don’t need any permanent housing for the useless of the world. If people want a communication channel, then fine. But, frankly, there’s no need for any “organization” for that.

I agree with this too. When I suggested the U.S. should start a new organizaton with like-minded nations similar to the U.N. only different, I am not suggesting another UN, I am thinking of an alliance between free nations to counter forces like Russia, China and the Middle East, and the lesser nations aligned with them. This would include treaties with countries we want to deal with as you correctly suggest. Believe me, I know what’s going to happen in the future as my Bible clearly lays out the path. All of this talk by me about America getting out of the United Nations just represents my strong feelings of dislike for that anti-american, anti-semitic, organization, that’s all.

apacalyps, How are you buddy? I think it’d be better to get rid of the UN and not put anything in its place. If the League of Nations and the United Nations became divorced from their original purpose then why would a League of Deomcracies fare any better? Countries could still hold conferences together but without an artificial bureaucracy overseeing everything.

aengus on January 15, 2009 at 8:24 PM

Hey, aengus. You do have an excellent point here, and this is another option I’d go for.

I just don’t that accept that if in any given circumstance the US does not get exactly what it wants then that makes it a victim of the UN or “Europeans” or whoever. That is very babyish in a way. It’s impossible to imagine even the poorest Roman Emperor having that reaction.

No argument from me. We created that mess and can leave any time we want. If they screw us over, we have only ourselves to blame. When the UN does stupid stuff, I don’t blame the UN (since I think it is doing what it naturally does) but I blame US politicians for not pulling us out of there.

The UN was a realistic expression of the Cold War nuclear stalemate at one time. The UN no longer has any realistic function except as an OIC cartel engaged in delegitimising Israel with endless “Resolutions”. It should be dismantled. The sooner the better.

aengus on January 15, 2009 at 10:07 PM

Yep. I once listed all the security council resolutions and counted the number that were about Israel. I forget the actual percentage, but it was huge. Even I was surprised. That’s why I tell Israeli friends that Israel MUST leave the UN, after which the UN would probably shrivel up and die of its own, since it would really have nothing left to do. But Israelis are too scared – and they also have some unnatural love for this peerless, competitionless organization. Again, I don’t blame the UN for their anti-Israel stance, since Israel abets it with its own membership. Israel exhibits battered-wife syndrome with the UN and they have no one to blame but themselves.

Point taken. There’s no question that the US used the UN to an advantage at times, a very few times, but I wouldn’t put any of them into the “major” category, not even close.

I wouldn’t disagree. I just don’t that accept that if in any given circumstance the US does not get exactly what it wants then that makes it a victim of the UN or “Europeans” or whoever. That is very babyish in a way. It’s impossible to imagine even the poorest Roman Emperor having that reaction.

On top of that, the UN was always constrained by the Cold War, which kept the institution totally defanged, since in the end it was the two superpowers and the interplay between them that determined any and all of the happenings around the world.

I agree. The UN was a realistic expression of the Cold War nuclear stalemate at one time. The UN no longer has any realistic function except as an OIC cartel engaged in delegitimising Israel with endless “Resolutions”. It should be dismantled. The sooner the better.

And I wonder at how far the mighty have fallen, if Israel continually accepts without question the premise that it is the only country on the planet that isn’t allowed to defend itself, or its people, no matter what its enemies do to it.

Wanderlust on January 15, 2009 at 4:54 PM

Spot on! +100 -

Jones Zemkophill on January 15, 2009 at 9:31 PM

Thanks for the correction and details. I think Executive Decisions was a movie or something. Silly me. :)

aengus on January 15, 2009 at 9:07 PM

Point taken. There’s no question that the US used the UN to an advantage at times, a very few times, but I wouldn’t put any of them into the “major” category, not even close. On top of that, the UN was always constrained by the Cold War, which kept the institution totally defanged, since in the end it was the two superpowers and the interplay between them that determined any and all of the happenings around the world.

As to my Sierra Leone reference with the mercenaries, I wasn’t offering that as a general idea, but just an interesting counter-example. The bill to hire Executive Decisions (I think it was) was only around 10 million a year, so I don’t think funding was a problem. Of course, Sierra Leone wasn’t a real country, in that there wasn’t really anything there, so a few hundred highly skilled mercenaries, and trained locals, were able to quash the rebels for next to nothing. No tank warfare of airforce, etc.

progressoverpeace on January 15, 2009 at 8:52 PM

You mean Executive Outcomes. The History Channel had a phenominal documentary on how they stopped the Genocide, rape and pillaging of the country… before Clinton stepped in and replaced a hundred effective mercinaries with over a thousand UN peacekeepers…..

Of course over 500 of the peacekeeper were shortly taken hostage and the genocide begain anew. !Thank you UN!

Well, it wasn’t really designed to do much of anything.

It did have a very useful purpose for the US as a way for it (a non-imperial power) to get things done on the sly.

Nowadays the UN is rightly bemoaned as an OIC shill but people forget that for at least twenty years the UN benefited the US far more than any other country.

Take the Congo in the ’60s–when the US were looking to offload Patrice Lumumba and embrace the Katangese rebels. The US made a phone call and so the Swedish UN troops quietly looked the other way when Lumumba was captured, assassinated and Mobutu took over.

That event would have been very difficult to arrange without seemingly neutral international troops providing diplomatic cover. The UN was a very handy US tool in multiple instances.

Wanderlust on January 15, 2009 at 8:43 PM

You have to add in the fact that whole generations of Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that the UN is a natural part of the world, when in fact it is the most unnatural organization we’ve ever seen. I am constantly surprised that the same people who promote teaching evolution so vigoprously (to the point of utter hysteria) seem to know nothing about evolutionary theory, themselves, not to mention general common sense.

As to my Sierra Leone reference with the mercenaries, I wasn’t offering that as a general idea, but just an interesting counter-example. The bill to hire Executive Decisions (I think it was) was only around 10 million a year, so I don’t think funding was a problem. Of course, Sierra Leone wasn’t a real country, in that there wasn’t really anything there, so a few hundred highly skilled mercenaries, and trained locals, were able to quash the rebels for next to nothing. No tank warfare of airforce, etc.

Not at all. Never empower any organization without peers or competition. That will always end up very badly. We have treaties with countries we want to deal with. We don’t need any permanent housing for the useless of the world. If people want a communication channel, then fine. But, frankly, there’s no need for any “organization” for that.

progressoverpeace on January 15, 2009 at 8:32 PM

I suspect two entities keep the UN in business, on our end: the spooks (who see a central meeting place, located on US soil, as an eavesdropping bonanza) and Foggy Bottom (who are perpetual political whores in search of their own version of the Chicken Ranch).

The UN at best is designed to be ineffectual, as you said earlier. Bush 41 demonstrated Kennedyesque weakness by ceding legitimacy to the UN after the Cold War, and the Left seized that power shift as a means to leverage something against the US Govt. By comparison, though, Obambi will prostrate us all before Turtle Bay. When that happens, look out…

I prefer the fifty cal..

Johan Klaus on January 15, 2009 at 5:30 PM

Messy. 7.62mm leaves little mess, and presumably has a lower carbon footprint (/sarc).

progressoverpeace on January 15, 2009 at 5:39 PM

IMHO the armed part is only the tip of the iceberg. There are some multinationals that on their own could afford to pull off a mercenary action, but without the admin function that the US would do afterwards, all that results is a far worse power vacuum, of which even more terrorists and thugs would pile in to fill.

Aside from the fact that the US Govt (the saner parts of it, at least) recognises a far greater national security burden than the rest of the world – for better or for worse – there are only two other countries that could pull off a regime change invasion and subsequent occupation. Neither of those countries, however, would act in anyone else’s interests but their own. The last time one of those countries was in their own regime change business, we called it the Cold War and paid a gazillion dollars to fight it.

As for the example you cited, I’d be interested to know who was ultimately paying the invoices for that mercenary force. My bet is that the other end of the money trail terminated in Bejing.

The UN and its vaunted blue hats are nothing more than parasites who feast off the corpses of innocents across the globe. Now that their man will become POTUS next week, every one of those whores will be partying till they drop on the 20th. Ditto with the sellouts in Foggy Bottom.

America helped form this organization some years ago to keep peace and freedom in the world after WWII,

Well, it wasn’t really designed to do much of anything. People were just wed to the idea of the League of Nations (even though it was shown to be an unmitigated disaster) and wanted some continuity after WWII. But no one took the UN seriously for much of anything, and then the Cold War started and made the UN nothing but a small utopian joke. That’s what kept the UN essentially harmless and allowed it to live. If there had been no COld War, the UN would have died back in the 60′s.

but it grew into something different and counterproductive.

Not at all. It grew into what everyone knew it would grow into, as any empowered, peerless, competitionless entity grows. The saving grace was that the UN wasn’t empowered … until Bush Sr. gave up US sovereignty to empower it after the USSR fell. That was one of the dumbest moves in history.

Today, the U.N. is anti-American and anti-Israel. Just a fact, Jack.

No question about that.

It no longer serves a positive purpose.

As I said, it never did. It was never meant to be anything serious. That people take it seriously, nowadays, is just a testament to rampant stupidity.

Reasonable people I think would deduce that it’s time for America to get out and start a new organizaton with like-minded nations similar to the U.N. only different. We just need a leader(s) to spearhead this movement and do it. Thank you.

apacalyps on January 15, 2009 at 8:03 PM

Not at all. Never empower any organization without peers or competition. That will always end up very badly. We have treaties with countries we want to deal with. We don’t need any permanent housing for the useless of the world. If people want a communication channel, then fine. But, frankly, there’s no need for any “organization” for that.

How are you buddy?

Reasonable people I think would deduct that it’s time for America to get out and start a new organizaton with like-minded nations similar to the U.N. only different.

I think it’d be better to get rid of the UN and not put anything in its place. If the League of Nations and the United Nations became divorced from their original purpose then why would a League of Deomcracies fare any better? Countries could still hold conferences together but without an artificial bureaucracy overseeing everything.