Bush OKs $606 Million to Fund UN Standing Army

[MarkMcM]

As if kissing every powder-blue hiney thats paraded in front of him isn't bad enough, now it seems (according to the June 28 issue of The New American) President Bush is pushing to spend $606 million (Defense Dept dollars) to help train a UN standing army. More of our tax dollars spent on UN social elite globalists. How lovely. My disenchantment with President Bush all started with his amnesty for illegals scheme and things seem to be going downhill. I wonder... is he trying to make me not vote for him??

[B4Ranch]

The Global Peacekeeping Operations Initiative Act of 2004 (Introduced in Senate)

S 2514 IS1S

The Republican controlled 108th CONGRESS


This is from Republican President GHW Bush !!!


"[The war in Iraq is] a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times...a new world order can emerge."

"My vision of a 'new world order' foresees a United Nations with a revitalized peacekeeping function."

"It is the sacred principles enshrined in the UN Charter to which we will henceforth pledge our allegiance."

Get a grip on your ass because the NWO is coming through the UN Charter!

Texasforever
Interesting article. I don't see where this is any kind of "UN Standing Army". It is training foreign troops to act as peacekeepers instead of ours and focused on Africa.

AND WHO IS OFFERING YOUR MONEY TOP PAY FOR IT? Our globalist President!

[Texasforever]

Yeah,yeah,yeah.

[Alamo-Girl]

Bump!

[B4Ranch]

Some people are terrified of the responsibility that comes with independent thought. They would rather take comfort in leaving it to others to provide guidance -- even if based upon myth, logic, insight, fantasy, greed, power-lust, etc. Such people would typically react to any suggestion of questioning the leaders and their edicts as a threat.

from The Independent Thinker

[Carry_Okie]

Ain't it a bitch when you get the evidence you demand?

[Texasforever]

Ain't it a bitch when you get the evidence you demand?

Ain't it a bitch when the "evidence" says exactly the opposite of what they thought it did? That is nothing new to the JPS they have made turning facts into conspiracies an art form.

[Texasforever]

from The Independent Thinker

LMAO no comment.

[Carry_Okie]

From the Washington Post:

Facing a chronic shortage of foreign troops for peacekeeping missions, President Bush has decided to launch an international drive to boost the supply of available forces — a move that if successful could relieve some of the pressure on U.S. soldiers to join such operations, defense officials said.

A plan approved by Bush earlier this month calls for the United States to commit about $660 million over the next five years to train, equip and provide logistical support to forces in nations willing to participate in peace operations.

The campaign, known as the Global Peace Operations Initiative, will be aimed largely at Africa by expanding the peacekeeping skills of African forces and encouraging international military exercises in the region, where U.S. officials said much of the need exists.

But African forces developed under the program could be used in peace operations anywhere in the world, officials said. And the program also sets aside some assistance for armies in Asia, Latin America and Europe to enlarge their peacekeeping roles as well.

Source link

It is ambiguous as to who will be in command of this force. The Heritage Foundation proposal is to have the troops under US command. The Brookings proposal here and here propose to have the troops under multi-national command. I have found several references indicating that the GPOI is to be under UN command but nothing definitive.

This report by Walter Cronkite is ambiguous about command structure, but clearly states that the G8 agreement was to have the troops available for "United Nations sponsored projects":

Under the U.S. plan, an additional 75,000 troops from countries wishing to contribute to peace missions would receive training, equipment and logistical support from the United States or other G-8 members. These troops would be made available by their home countries for missions sponsored by the United Nations or by regional groups such as the Organization of African States or the European Union. The United States will put up at least the initial funds -- reportedly $660 million.

Snip

Unilateralism was put away, at least for the occasion. The Bush administration, this time, was not the bully, but a needy supplicant. Among other things, it wanted NATO peacekeepers in Iraq who could take some of the load off American forces there. Unfortunately, Bush did not receive any encouragement at Sea Island on that score.

But isn't it amazing? George Bush recently made a 180-degree policy turn regarding the United Nations.

Although it may not be exactly what the JBS said it was, it appears to be a very close approximation. The Bush Administration clearly proposes that American taxpayers fund African replacements for US troops currently on UN peacekeeping missions.

When Cronkite is gloating, you should be gagging.

For an interesting take on a series of issues in Africa, consider this.

[Texasforever]

Where is the part about a "standing UN Army"?

[B4Ranch]

I'm not known for following the crowd.

[Happy2BMe]

"The idea of a UN standing army is dangerous."

What authority is higher and to whom do they owe their allegience when it comes to deploying "UN" troops onto US soil - UN or US?

The United Nations Wants to Take Your Land!
"Private land ownership ... contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable."

- United Nations "Habitat I" Conference Report, 1976

---

The United Nations Wants to Take Your Land!
"Private land ownership ... contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable."

- United Nations "Habitat I" Conference Report, 1976

---

* * * *

The United Nations Wants to TAX you!

"Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali ... urged the [UN] to consider imposing its own taxes to become less dependent on the United States...."

-Washington Times, January 16, 1996

Are you concerned that...
...numerous taxation schemes to finance the UN are being considered?

Economist James Tobin proposed in 1972 that the UN be the recipient of a tax of 0.05% on foreign exchange transactions. In 1993, the Ford Foundation produced Financing an Effective United Nations, a report containing recommendations that the UN tax airline traffic, shipping, and arms sales. In 1995, the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance suggested that the UN collect levies from those who use "flight lanes, sea lanes for ships, ocean fishing areas, and the electromagnetic spectrum." Ultimately, of course, the burden of all taxation falls on consumers.

Are you concerned that...
...a State Department study specifically proposed giving the UN taxing power and, ultimately, control of the world?

In 1962, the State Department financed a study entitled "A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations." The report outlined what would be needed for such a total world government: "a mandatory universal membership," an ability to use "physical force," and "compulsory jurisdiction" of its courts. One of the UN's "principle features," stated the report, would be "enforceable taxing powers." (Emphasis added.)

Are you concerned that...
...no matter how much our nation gives, the UN will never be satisfied?

In addition to hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in foreign aid, our nation has provided the UN with tens of billions more for its programs since 1945. Currently, U.S. contributions make up 25% of the UN's annual budget. But, in his May 2001 speech at Notre Dame University, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan complained with a typical anit-American attitude, "It is shameful that the United States ... should be one of the least generous in terms of helping the world's poor."

Are you concerned that...
...taxing authority would fuel an unaccountable UN Superstate?

Former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali said of a UN tax: "We would no be under the daily financial will of member states who are unwilling to pay up." UN Founder Harlan Cleveland made the same point in Futures: Rather than relying on "the worn-out policy of year-to-year decisions by individual governments" (about how much to give the UN), "what's needed is a flow of funds for development which are generated automatically under international control." And there would be no Congress to limit the UN's appetite for your tax dollars!

The United Nations Wants to Take Your Land!
"Private land ownership ... contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable."

- United Nations "Habitat I" Conference Report, 1976

[Mudboy Slim]

"President Bush is pushing to spend $606 million (Defense Dept dollars) to help train a UN standing army."

Where's a link to the evidence of this?! If true, this is a very bad thing. Our defense spending should be fer OUR guys only!!

Git the US Outta the UN!!
Git the UN Outta the US!!

FReegards...MUD

[Happy2BMe]

ping on #52.

How long will it be once we begin direct funding of a UN standing army the our individual state national guard units are turned over to the UN? Then the reserves. Then your local law enforcement.

Perhaps then we will get our border patrol working right?

[B4Ranch]

If a Republican President agrees with and promotes the idea then we'll be safe and secure, right?

[Carry_Okie]

If it turns out to be under UN command or direction, one could legitimately call it that.

[FBD]

???


This is just rumor, right?

[Carry_Okie]

Where's a link to the evidence of this?!

Try post 48 on this thread.

[madfly]

Hi guys! :)

There is mention of this in this from Voice of America News.
Sorry, I have lost my html cheat sheet and can't remember how to make hyperlink. Been awhile (sigh).

I just noticed that this is in chat? Things haven't changed, it appears.

http://www.voanews.com/EnglishtoAfrica/article.cfm?objectID=30C6E799-D712-423D-ABB97DEA456C576E

Will The G8 Peacekeeping Plan Succeed?
Joe De Capua
Washington
16 Jun 2004, 15:52 UTC

Snip:

At the recent Sea Island Summit G-8 leaders proposed expanding global peacekeeping capabilities, with a particular focus on Africa. The plan calls for training and equipping 75-thousand troops by the year 2010. However, a top military analyst says the plan faces a number of problems.

G-8 leaders say while “the number of peace support operations continues to grow…there is a lack of well-trained and equipped units able to respond to these increased demands.” As a result, they announced an “action plan to bring stability and security to troubled regions.”

Besides additional troops, the plan calls for a “clearinghouse to exchange information and coordinate efforts to enhance peace operations; developing transportation and logistics support; and establishing a Gendarme Center of Excellence in Italy” for training.

Snip:

Mr. Heyman says the first problem is a lack of money.

"The United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations is always under the most terrible financial pressures. And there is never enough money because the Department of Peacekeeping Operations is always dependent upon donor contributions. Now, the second major problem is the quality and the standard of the troops that are assigned to UN peacekeeping operations. Now, it’s very, very difficult for people in America or in the West just to realize the low standard of some of the contingents that appear for United Nations peacekeeping operations. We have seen in the past soldiers arriving with no weapons and no uniforms, with only a minimal standard of training. With the pay for those soldiers going into the coffers of corrupt politicians at home. Now there are some very, very good nations of course who can always be relied upon to produce troops for United Nations operations and literally at the drop of a hat. You think of Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, India. But they are the mainstay of UN operations and there just aren’t enough of those good troops around," he says.

As for the problem of a lack of funding, the Bush Administration will ask Congress for $660 million over the next five years to help fund the project. But Mr. Heyman says much more money is needed for the plan to succeed.

"I mean we’re talking there about $110 million a year. Generally speaking, deploying a United Nations soldier on the ground is going to cost you at least $60,000 a year. Now I haven’t worked out the figure that probably is necessary because that would take some time, but we’re talking about billions of dollars being required here. In the low billions, but we’re talking about billions, not millions," he says.

[Carry_Okie]

According to the VOA article, Charles Heyman is with Jane’s Consultancy Group in Surrey, England:

"I mean we’re talking there about $110 million a year. Generally speaking, deploying a United Nations soldier on the ground is going to cost you at least $60,000 a year.

Nice post madfly, I think that about ices it, but who knows... maybe there's some other explanation... maybe Texasforever can tell us how this doesn't constitute a standing UN army.

[madfly]

Nice post madfly,

Well thank you, kind sir. And thanks for finessing my post and adding a link for the folks who've been yappin' about this not being "real news"!! lol

You were a good teacher on all things UN!!