Thank God for the U.N.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=201

[“None of us had arms and we were not able to resist the attack.” One under-armed villager lamented: “I tried to take my spear to protect my family, but they threatened me with a gun, so I stopped. The six Arabs then raped my daughter in front of me, my wife and my other children.”]

Holy shit that's so hot. Someone make a manga about that and put it on /h/.

I WILL NOT SUPPORT THE UN UNTIL I CAN FIND A REGULAR SOURCE OF GOOD, SPREADEAGLE-QUALITY PORNOGRAPHY THAT FEATURES ALL MEMBERS OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL IN ORGIES.

That's prettty fucked up..

Great pro gun crap....even if the people had guns how could they stand up to the militia's that have the Sudanese military's tacit support. Theyre is an armed black rebel group that fights the Janjiweed...but that didnt stop them. What you gun nuts need to realise is that guns dont save lives...they dont protect democracy! Name me one revolution that has beaten a dictatorship on guns alone! People power is the only proven defence against dictators....the only one.

And look at the way guns have installed dictators....the red october revolution was largely unpopular, yet the bolsheviks shut down moscow with the red guard and suppressed the people with the army...it was only people power that toppled them.

>>3
I agree.

>>2
I agree.

The U.N. might not be helping in any way, but really they are not the ones who are responsible for these problems.  It is the governments in power that are allowing these acts of genocide, and they are the ones you should really be critisizing.

I don't even know why anyone even bothers to pay attention to the U.N. anymore.  It's not like they actually do anything.

>>5
lol wtf!?

When has a revolution ever succeeded without guns?

>>6
Mainly because by that time they had stopped shooting back.

>>9
The UN helped disarm the government's victims.

>>10
French Revolution. Guns only bring more need for guns. They have never brought about anything good - ever. They are only used by one evil to defeat a greater evil. I fail to see this as a solution. Once the greater evil is defeated, the lesser evil takes  its place.

This is absolute truth.

>>9
"The U.N. might not be helping in any way, but really they are not the ones who are responsible for these problems.  It is the governments in power that are allowing these acts of genocide, and they are the ones you should really be critisizing.

I don't even know why anyone even bothers to pay attention to the U.N. anymore.  It's not like they actually do anything."

If they don't do anything, and are such a worthless organization, then naturally you will support withdrawing from the U.N. and cutting U.S. tax funding to the organization, right?

>>5
Yeah I'm sure 'people power' and 'passive resistance' worked real well against hitler and stalin.  You people are fucking dipshits.   

>>14
"I don't even know why anyone even bothers to pay attention to the U.N. anymore.  It's not like they actually do anything."

For one thing, the U.N. funds a lot of anti-gun organizations.  Why should we be giving tax dollars to an organization that works to promote taking away our rights, and subverting our 2nd amendment freedoms? 

>>12
Exactly.  Also, as >>16 says, the U.N. actively works to promote gun control - aka the movement to make people defenseless and dependant(who are then more susceptible to dictators and your average genocidal maniac) the world over by opposing their right to keep and bear arms.

>>13
Well guns were used to make it possible. Atleast according to art from time. Lots of guns in hands of both soldiers and revolutionaries.

There is a distinction to be made between private guns and government guns.  Gun control doesn't take guns away from the largest murderers of history (governments), it takes guns away from individuals... leaving them helpless before their governments.
http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com/

>>13
Stupid argument. Guns at the time of the French revolution were single shot and took usually 20 seconds to reload, the French revolutionaries used the most effective weapons they could get their hands on which meant more emphasis on hand to hand weapons. Just because they didn't use guns all the time doesn't mean the right to bear arms is null.

>>17
Correct, if anything liberals should complain less about some american coorporation setting up factories in poor countries, when these same countries are oppressing and murderring their population. All they are doing is showing an example of capitalism without justice, when what they should realise is that the people in these countries have been made powerless and unable to enforce justice because of their sick corrupted governments, entirely due to the UN not allowing them to shoot their oppressors.

>>19
The UN are practically completely responsible for all of this sufferring.

>>20
Not to mention that the U.N. is hopelessly corrupt.  There was a story out a month ago or so about some U.N. members abusing the Oil for Food program or whatever.

>>15
Exactly.  You can chant 'people power' all you want.  Many dictators would just laugh and send you to the firing squad...

>>21
Well it's not suprising since the UN consists of despots from all over the world.

The U.N. is against the 2nd amendment, and funds anti second amendment groups who actively work to subvert the 2nd amendment of the constitution of the United States.  I don't see how a president who signs any kind of funding for the U.N. is actively working to continue his duties as president to protect and uphold the constitution of the United States.  Providing funding to those who actively work to subvert and destroy our 2nd amendment is not doing a good job of 'protecting and upholding', if you ask me.  The sickest thing of all, is that this U.N. funding comes from the tax dollars of hard working average americans.

>>24 As if money to the UN is the worst thing tax payers are forced to pay for. And it's not like you are good to have in one's club, considering you were actually indebted to the UN up until you needed some military support before Iraq. When everyone except Palau, Denmark, Britain and some other dogmatic fools realized that America only handle wars well when they are in Europe and that its wars have a tendency to be influenced by shady interests, they decided to spend money and lives on something that didn't resemble titanic gambling. I wanted you to win in Iraq, and I supported the war on terror on a principal basis. But you looked away and shit accumulated quicker than you could say "Haiti".

>>25
Unanse a mi comunidad de hackeo si me pagan lo suficiente les dare acceso a un area privada de hacks ;')
http://forum.curse-x.com/

>>25
"As if money to the UN is the worst thing tax payers are forced to pay for."

I'm not sure.  Being forced to fund groups actively working to subvert and destroy your nation's very consitution and individual freedoms is pretty bad. 

"And it's not like you are good to have in one's club, considering you were actually indebted to the UN up until you needed some military support before Iraq."

I wouldn't want to be in that 'club'.  It is full of dictators and despots.

>>27 And the presidents you elect make sure they treat the constitution like the holy symbol of freedom it is, right? Electing Clinton, electing Nixon, electing Bush twice when he betrayed the democratic process of voting... As if America even knows how to uphold its standards anymore.

>>28
I didn't vote for Clinton, Nixon, or Bush, actually.  I will say Bush > Kerry though.  As for the allegations about vote fraud? Dubious at best. 

>>25
"When everyone except Palau, Denmark, Britain and some other dogmatic fools realized that America only handle wars well when they are in Europe and that its wars have a tendency to be influenced by shady interests"

Oh so you mean the shady interests of preventing the spread of totalitarianism and democide? So that would be the US reacting to the fascist dictatorship of Japan, the maoist totalitarianisms of north vietnam, north korea, the tyranny in Nicaragua and the ba'ath regime of Iraq who all have a death toll of around 9 million since their founding as well as a cold war against the Soviet union and 'people's republic' of China who had totalled 140 million state executions before the genocidal elements of their governments collapsed due to popular opposition in the late 80s.

>>28
Why do you assume he voted for Bush because he wants to uphold the constitution?

>>30 The US really liked the fledgling democracy in Iran and Haiti, right? Oh, and some 12 other countries, they were big fans of all that here. The rest of the world doesn't have to take all of America's bad with it's good, you know. Still, kudos for being a brake on the communists, we owe you there.
How can one possibly criticize the UN for fucking with the constitution and then say you voted for Bush without taking the constitution into consideration?

>>31
I think maybe you should try to focus in on whatever crimes you think were committed by the US here and there instead of heavy handedly claiming the few dirty marks on the US's record is representative of the whole. As for the UN's ability to uphold human rights, it's not all doves and fig leaves either.

Also whoever voted Bush did so because they opposed democrat statism and not because they agreed with Bush's patriot act and other attempts to wipe his ass with the constitution.

>>32 I doubt Kerry would have done the same things to American citizens Bush would have done, considering he doesn't have the friends BUsh does. And I know of the crimes the US committed. They weren't above getting old Holocaust scientists to tutor CIA operatives in interrogation, manipulation and infliction of terror, nor were they above letting these CIA operatives teaching prison employees in Iran the same tricks to really subjugate the left-wing intellectuals that were trying to make something out of the revolution. Few dirty marks my ass, when it comes to sins and favors against humanity the US has a 50/50 record at best.

>>33
Yeah yeah.. Back up your assertions like I asked.

>>34 I've never said America is bad/good, I'm just argumenting there are a few too many things going on in the background every time the US military goes somewhere. I think that these background elements kill innocents on both sides and waste resources, and that would be fucked up even if, say, Sweden or Canada did it.

>>33
That's just the CIA.  The democrats aren't helping there either.  If you want to really help the situation, libertarian is the way to go.

The U.N. sucks.

>>10
CRUSH THE ENEMY

WITH YOUR MIND

I've always wondered why you think the U.N. are after your guns. Are we talking about the same thing? I can only assume you are not getting upset over the UN Small Arms Review Conference, because opposition to that is nothing but nuts. Then there's this: http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/05_023.htm Also, the UN elected a hard-core educated crack team to investigate the corruption of the Food-for-Oil programme, while Americans can't trust government to govern and limit itself at all anymore. I aint much for the UN most of the time, but you people offer nothing but propaganda  and slander and I am obliged to counter that.

>>39
"I can only assume you are not getting upset over the UN Small Arms Review Conference, because opposition to that is nothing but nuts."

Wrong.  Its more like a gun-control conference.  The U.N. also supports anti-gun, anti-2nd amendment organizations with tax money extorted from americans, whether they like the U.N. or not, at the point of government guns & bayonets.  What's not to hate?

Anyway, part of my reason for opposing the U.N. is that it seems to want to take on a few of the activities of some kind of  larger, global government.  I firmly reject the idea of a yet LARGER, MORE centralized government, and I intend to oppose it regardless of whether or not what it does is good, or bad.  Bigger, more centralized, and more powerful governments are one of the last things the world needs.