I foresee Revolutionary War in the USA with the U.N. forces marching on our soil. What do you think?

Question

Based on the reality of the way Bush has shredded our constitution by, in ONE swipe of the pen, Bush's Military Tribunal Commission law has removed Habeas Corpus as a Constitutional Right for ALL citizens of the USA. And he did remove that right. If you read the actual words of the MTC law, you'll see that a person is in fact, "any person." That "any person" could be you, me or your wife, son, daughter, GRANDMOTHER, etc.

Our constitution has been shredded and I see a war coming and I see the United Nations enforcing it's own brand of law on the USA. And I believe it is and has been the plan for a very long time.

What are your thoughts?

Try thinking a little bit beyond your noses. The USA is the UN, true, but it's the CURRENT USA government, the actual people in our government, who will be calling on the UN for help if there were to be a revolutionary war. Who are they going to call upon? Certainly not our own forces. Our own military will probably NOT fire on USA citizens who are clearly unhappy with the direction our government continues to FORCE upon us.

The only defense our current government has is to call upon the UN for peace keeping, which translates to REPRESSION of the American Way of Life.

Answer 1

YOU ARE STUPID!!!!!! THATS WHAT I THINK.

Answer 2

Well Franklin said in order for a government to stay committed to its people it needs to be dismantled every two hundred years and completely rebuilt. Well, I think he hit the mark pretty much right on the button.
You are right about Rights being stripped one by one. The best way for politions to get what they want is to draw the line well in range of acceptable standards, and slowly push that line closer to their goal and argue continuity all the while. For example: Everyone agrees it is against the law to kill a child, later they push that line to the moment of birth, saying it is wrong to kill babies... later they push that line even further saying that a fetus has the same rights as a human being. The fact of the matter is, there is no clear line, and Laws operate on the fact that a line MUST be drawn.
If you have read 1984 by George Orwell, you would be a bit surprised and probably frightened by the commen aspects of that fictional story, and today's modern government. The book was written by the author George Orwell in 1948. This was his version of what he thought the world would be like in the year 1984.
Call it fear, call it paranoia, call it whatever you want. Fortunately we still have the right to think what we want.

Jeremy

Answer 3

Don't see that happening, the UN can only send its forces somewhere after the UN Security Counsel approves, the US has power of veto over security counsel decisions and I don't see any american president ever asking for foreign troops on US soil. If it ever came to a situation like that, it will probably be american troops against american citizens or a total breakdown in society with every man for himself, the only foreign troops will be the canadians protecting their border. The rest of the world would probably prefer to sit back and see what happens rather than intervene......

Answer 4

First off, the United Nations can't enforce ANYTHING. Hell, they can't even meddle in places the need meddling to save people from terrible fates from psychotic warlords in Africa bent on genocide. The movie Team America aptly summed up the UN with the delivery of "warning" letters. Watch Hotel Rwanda and see how effective the UN was in preventing the SLAUGHTER of moderate Hutu's and Tutsi's. The UN is pointless and should be disbanded. As for a revolutionary war? Oh yes, I see it coming but it won't be at the hands of pacifist uber liberals. It will be at the hands of gun toting moderates, conservatives, crazed survivalists and nutty religious crackpots. Pacifists will be there to hand out doughnuts and hugs.

Answer 5

perhaps we may have UN forces monitor the next election?

Bush, or some future US president, could call in UN forces to enforce his (or her) unjust rule of the country, but only after violence erupts. Very interesting hypothesis though.

Fortunately, we do have a supreme court to protect habeas corpus. They may have some loopy ideas about pornography being protected by freedom of speech, but at least they get listened too. They defended the so-called "right" to burn a flag for crying out loud, of course they'll protect habeas corpus.

What I think was really sick was Bush hiding behind the constitution as an excuse for inaction after the hurricane. Perhaps it was part of a plan to discredit the constitution, so that he could have it ammended to give him more powers.

I don't think the UN is really in on the plan. The Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms is very similar to American values.

Answer 6

I think you are getting way ahead of yourself there, Sparky.

Let's not let your hatred of Bush turn this whole thing into civil war. While I don't agree with the MTC, you are blowing it a little out of proportion.

And without the US, there really is no UN. We fund it, our troops do most of the work, and their home offices are on our soil. If you really think that the French, British, and German troops want to try to come here and take over, you have lost your mind. The French have no backbone and are about to have their hands full in their own country with Muslim extremists. The British are our strongest allies. The Germans have a pretty good sense of history and probably don't want to tangle with us again.

Answer 7

Lmao. The UN? The UN cant deal w/ Baghdad or any other CITY, let alone the 50 states. A handful of Texas citizens could take out the UN hands down by themselves. And thinking that alot of countries in the World's economies depend on the US, I dont think the UN would have the balls to do it. They dont have the balls to do anything except put Sanctions on countries that never amount to anything.

Answer 8

I have read the law, and you need to learn to understand legal terms. There is no shredding for "anyone" unless that "anyone" is a non-uniformed enemy combatant. His act simply states in clear language how the USA will react to non-uniformed enemy combatants and still be consistant with the Geneva Conventions.

Worry more about a run-away judiciary that acts outside its condtitutional bounds and legislates from the bench.

Answer 9

While I think you are looking for another excuse to bash Bush, I do not see our country lasting all that much longer. I imagine it will be civil war and the country breaking into several smaller but better run organizations. But it has more to do with the liberals than anything else. They have been ramming their agenda down our throats and destroying this country for a long time.

Answer 10

I foresee lots of body bags being flown back to the Un's new home.
I concider a Blue Helmet on American soil a reason to shoot.

Answer 11

Hmmm, i might carry out a little greater homework. it truly is not as uncomplicated as that. nonetheless I agree that we are doing greater injury than solid. the difficulty stems from mismanagement. Bush, Rumsfeld and others did no longer do thier homework besides in simple terms before sending troops into Iraq. As you and that i'll completely wager, the conflict in Iraq has no longer something to do with the conflict on terrorism. the subsequent aim is Iran and Iran is conscious this. What do you think of our government might do if the old Soviet Union blustered approximately attacking america? Oh, we already understand that answer in the time of the Cuban missile disaster. could we get out of Iraq? let's imagine credibility. let's imagine how directly Iran might pass into to seize a weakened Iraq. let's imagine here couple of generations in Iraq and what this sort of speedy withdraw could desire to reflect to them. Now as much as now as allowing the Syrians and Saudis to go in and kill off those whom we disagree with, isn't that concept as absurd simply by fact the ideals of Hitler? it truly is like suggesting that destroying Isreal is the respond to the difficulty of the middle east and you and that i understand that that concept is a protracted dream for many. yet while we could desire to help, the answer is to no longer lower back out yet to grow to be lots greater proactive with a society whose ideals are lots, lots diverse than ours. it truly is not our activity to alter the way they stay thier existence yet to permit them the liberty to locate thier very own direction. america created the topics with the attack on Iraq and now that's time for america to step to the plate.