The Forum > General Discussion > The arrogance of United Nations 'World Government'
The arrogance of United Nations 'World Government'
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 19 November 2015 11:49:41 AM
| |
Well that'll teach me, won't it? Actually, it's not bad out here in Coventry; and nobody is forced to notice what the UN 'pseudo World Government' is up to, not just on 'refugee', matters, but on just about every matter of our country's sovereignty. You do, however, ignore it at your own peril.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 23 November 2015 1:02:44 PM
| |
Ttbn
Totally agree with you about the United Nations. Western Countries need to pull out of the United Nations the cost to the West and Europe has been far too high. In loss of life, and billions of dollars in wars. We donT need the United Nations, never have. Our membership of the United Nations has been a disaster And is still pulling the West down and down. I remember when a teacher talked in glowing terms about the United Nations over half a century ago when I was at school. I remember thinking deeply about, and I said to myself That won't work And nothing I have seen regarding the United Nations has ever changed my mind. Posted by CHERFUL, Tuesday, 24 November 2015 8:13:56 PM
| |
The United Nations is hardly perfect but that is hardly surprising as it is made up of the World's nations with all their petty and no so petty interests.
However it does a bloody good job at doing what it is supposed to do. The many wars it has stopped or prevented from getting going in the first place are innumerable. The world would be far poorer without its peacekeeping, humanitarian, social and health roles. Those who want to see the back of it are just those who are embarrassed when it holds the spot light up to theirs and their country's failings. This is because it in many ways it represents the best of us. May this organisation which Australia was so instrumental in setting up continue being the conscience of the world. Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 24 November 2015 10:15:41 PM
| |
Cherful,
Yep. A few 'soldiers' in nice blue berets, who stand around watching people being slaughtered in places bike Rawanda and the Balkans, not even allowed to defend themselves. Infested with tyrants and thugs who forced through the "racist" resolution against Israel that was proposed by that truly wonderful bloke, Idi Amin, who spent much his time chopping up his own race and fellow citizens. Good old China was allowed to kick out a founding member of the UN, The Republic of China (Taiwan). And the only countries the UN criticizes are democracies. Steele, What about that. They might have started with good intentions after the war, and they still might get a few things sort of right, but I think saying that they do good job overall is gilding the lily a bit. Anything playing at unelected world goverment is a threat to demcracy and freedom of sovereignty. Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 25 November 2015 4:22:00 PM
| |
They can keep their Sunni Muslims.
There's a tent city in Saudi Arabia many of them can go. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/saudi-arabia-100000-empty-tents-ac-3-million-people-refugees/ Posted by Armchair Critic, Friday, 4 December 2015 8:32:34 AM
|
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
An official (Australian) of the UNHRC says that most of the 600, 000 Syrian 'refugees' waiting in Jordan are not Christian: in fact, 99% are Sunni Muslim. As 12,000 promised by our careless government is 2% of the total in Jordan, we will probably cop some more Muslims. Already, one of the families recently arrived is Muslim. NB that I do not use the Andrew Bolt hyperbole of "50 % of families".
My main point, though, is that the same UN official went on to say that "We do not take too much notice of what politicians anywhere in the world have to say".
Further, he said, that the UN will focus on "vulnerability". The fact that Muslims may one day be able to return to their homeland, but Christians NEVER will (they have always been persecuted by Muslims) doesn't rate consideration by the despotic UN, apparently.
This same official went on: if "other people" want to express "subjective values.. we will
ignore them". Nice, eh? To hell with country's sovereignty and their elected politicians, is
clearly the go for the United Nations, which is so far reported as merely "perplexed" that U.S states are refusing to take any 'refugees'.
Why Australia or any Western country retains membership of the United Nations is beyond my ken.