LE Of All Levels Against Gun Confiscation

[SAMI]

http://www.naturalnews.com/038391_gun_confiscation_executive_orders_cops.html

 

[skiboarder]

Reposting this on other forums!!!!!!!!!!
Good read.

 

[Stephen]

There needs to be a tin-foil hat header for these kinds of posts. All the "news" from this site needs to be taken with a hefty serving of salt, as it always seems to end up as frothing at the mouth right-wing conspiracy. Come on, UN troops on the ground and Obama planning to incite a civil way? Give me a break.

 

[mbryson]

Would the UN really have the balls to come to US to try to do a gun grab? I don't think that'd end well for any party involved (didn't read the link so if it's WAY off base from whatever was discussed, my apologies)

 

[Stephen]

Would the UN really have the balls to come to US to try to do a gun grab? I don't think that'd end well for any party involved (didn't read the link so if it's WAY off base from whatever was discussed, my apologies)

Think of it this way, what major military action has the UN ever taken without the US? Zero. Peackeeping? Sure (Canada usually takes the lead on major peacekeeping missions). The UN has no standing army, it requires a Security Council resolution to enact any military related action. There is no way that the five permanent members of the Security Council would agree to such a thing (rendering the body impotent).
But let’s live in the Alex Jones/Natural News fantasy land for a minute and consider that the Security Council did agree to sending troops into the US. Who supplies them? Europe? Asia? Africa? This would be a MASSIVE undertaking that would likely not have support from the US military (because it’s a civil war, right?). How do they get them here? Not a one has the airlift or sealift capabilities to stage an invasion of US shores. Even if Obama decided to somehow open all our ports to foreign entry, how do THEY get here without our support? The most capable militaries in the world after the US (Britain, France and Germany) rely on US transport to move large numbers of their men and equipment.
You can file this idea in the looney bin along with a war with China.

 

[TJDukit]

This one is much like the other article that was posted the other day in that the first part of reads great and is a good opinion article IMO. Then it turns to the conspiracy garbage a little over halfway through.

 

[mbryson]

Think of it this way, what major military action has the UN ever taken without the US? Zero. Peackeeping? Sure (Canada usually takes the lead on major peacekeeping missions). The UN has no standing army, it requires a Security Council resolution to enact any military related action. There is no way that the five permanent members of the Security Council would agree to such a thing (rendering the body impotent).
But let’s live in the Alex Jones/Natural News fantasy land for a minute and consider that the Security Council did agree to sending troops into the US. Who supplies them? Europe? Asia? Africa? This would be a MASSIVE undertaking that would likely not have support from the US military (because it’s a civil war, right?). How do they get them here? Not a one has the airlift or sealift capabilities to stage an invasion of US shores. Even if Obama decided to somehow open all our ports to foreign entry, how do THEY get here without our support? The most capable militaries in the world after the US (Britain, France and Germany) rely on US transport to move large numbers of their men and equipment.
You can file this idea in the looney bin along with a war with China.

You're totally right on the logistics of UN and that the US does the "heavy lifting" (in a lot of ways). I don't see other country's wanting to take the chance against actual American citizens. To much political risk and they don't have the logistics to get something like that done (mostly--it'd take a very unified effort)

 

[Stephen]

You're totally right on the logistics of UN and that the US does the "heavy lifting" (in a lot of ways). I don't see other country's wanting to take the chance against actual American citizens. To much political risk and they don't have the logistics to get something like that done (mostly--it'd take a very unified effort)

What is the value for them? None. The US is the guarantor of world security. Our number one export is the global security that allows the rest of the world to function in relative safety. We live in the most stable, peaceful and prosperous time in world history right now. And it’s all due to the United States providing a safe world. It’s not a matter of foreign countries worrying about taking on American citizens, it’s simply a matter of what’s the point? You’re average British or French soldier has little to fear in combat capabilities from an average citizen. But their livelihoods and that of their countries are tied to the continued presence of the US as the preeminent military and economic force in the world.

The chain of events that must happen for a UN force to come to the US is along the lines of the TV show Jericho (loved that show) where somehow the majority of the American political and security infrastructure has collapsed due to either massive terrorist strikes, or a huge ecological disaster. This would render the US weak and unable to maintain internal security. As such, the UN, with tacit US support due to the state of the country, would then put peacekeeping and humanitarian support on the ground. The US military would support the movement of troops via bases overseas and still intact bases within the US. Likely, in this scenario, we would welcome Belgium troops rolling through town to hand out food supplies because our entire way of life has collapsed. The possibility of this happening, though, is so low it doesn’t even register on the scale. It’s a fantasy to think this would happen.

 

[mbryson]

...... The possibility of this happening, though, is so low it doesn’t even register on the scale. It’s a fantasy to think this would happen.

this