Posted on 10/30/2002 3:59:17 AM PST by madfly
That's the point where I have the largest problem...
Everything that I've heard has been about the underlying theme(s) of the Untied Nation's attempts of taking away our soverngnty...et al...
Other than that - I'm fine...
As much as I dislike the UN, New's orders were in compliance with the Constitution...see Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2.
I'm wichew.
If this were legit the lamestream press would have it on 24x7.
I will be waiting.
That is great. I hope he ain't lyin'.
He was/has been convicted for using drugs?
In Afganistan, many of our SOPS personnel were dressed as the Northern Alliance troops, with beards and all.
I would not doubt for a minute that we have US military in Georgia serving as observers and advisors, but I would also bet they are not wearing the baby blue beret nor the uniform of the UN.
Further, I have not heard nor read anywhere where the UN has been authorized to go into Georgia on any kind of peace mission or whatever....My guess is that Georgia has requested US advisors and observers be provided and that being the case our troops would be commanded by a US military commander who takes his direction from the Georgian Military commander.
In the case of Michael New, he was stationed in Germany under a NATO organization which felt that that particular operation called for a UN mandate and the wearing of UN peacekeeper uniforms. A peace keeping mission is not a military operation and they can only return fire if they are first fired upon.
GW Bush promised that US Servicemen would never be put under a foreign nation's command for military operations. Our troops have for decades served under a foreign commander, NATO, as the NATO commander is a General from any of the NATO countries at any given time, since the position is rotated from time to time. But when engaged in a military operation, our troops always serve under a US commander.
REMEMBER THAT PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS ARE NOT MILITARY OPERATIONS, THEY ARE POLICING AND OBSERVATION TYPE MISSIONS WHERE THE UNIFORMS NEED TO BE THE SAME....TO PREVENT ANY MISTAKEN IDENTITIES. Usually peacekeepers wear the white UN helmet.
Have you ever played and been King of the Hill?
Have you ever chaired a committee?
Have you ever been in a military unit and been in command?
Were you always King?
Were you always chairman?
Were you always the CO?
President Ford screwed up the CIA.
President Clinton screwed up NATO
President Bush is working the floor.
We should never be part of any international Peace operation with military forces. We are a target because for too many years we were always King and the chairman and the CO...and we are rich.
Some people think that we should try to be more cooperative with the United Nations. It is dumb but it isn't against the law...unless you think Congress can take away the President's CIC role...New was an ass.
Awww, go ahead an try. This should be fun. If I'm understanding you correctly it seems that it's in violation of his oath because you say it is. Really convenient.
As we should. The author's response to my post (on another thread), portraying it as if I was offering excuses for Bush, betrays his bias rather than mine, and calls to question the integrity of his research. (Sorry madfly, I just broke a fingertip and am having difficulty typing so I have been slow responding).
It is entirely possible in a military command structure consisting of millions of personnel and with many layers of management, for a newly-elected President of an opposing party who can't even get his appointments confirmed, to be unaware of a small, previously authorized, and possibly semi-clandestine operation in a remote country (the Georgian public might not all appreciate our being there after all). In my judgment, to make his lack of attention to this matter an issue of "leadership" is a bit over the top simply because of the scale of the operation. Were there perhaps 1,000 personnel or so involved, then it would be obvious enough to be more of an ethical issue insofar as his campaign promises are concerned.
That is the weakness in the article. It and the subsequent clarifications on this thread clearly substantiate that US troops are are in Georgia under UN command during Bush's presidency. That does not mean that Bush knowingly authorized the action to proceed under UN command in violation of his campaign promise. He may have approved the budget for it, but the information might have been buried in a 1,200 page budget memo for all I know (9/11 has certainly kept Bush preoccupied).
The test will be to see what Bush does now that it has been brought to light.
I too will be waiting to see what he does.
As we should. I give it a week for him to get it checked out and verified and another two weeks for orders to get the matter handled through diplomatic channels (budgets, authorizations, accounts, and all that). Give it a month after the date we are sure he personally knows about it, and we should know our answer. Our intrepid reporter should be more than willing to verify receipt of notification.
Nor would I doubt that either, as we are and have been involved in many different types of operations through many countries and organizations for many years. Although I do remember, reading something over the last few days saying that we have some troops in Georgia for several different reasons, none of the least to see if we can stem the flow of opium being ported through that part of the world.
What I get tired of seeing is these articles about how our troops are being placed directly under UN command, usually implying all of our troops, and of course the NWO is on the verge of taking over and the black helicopters will be swooping in followed by the tanks who can read the code on the back sides of road signs that tell them where to go. Those stories have been going around for years and years and are a load of crap.
Now can an argument be made that we have too close of an involvement with the UN or that we should not be involved with the UN in the first place? Absolutely and I would certainly be the first to support that position. Our military was not designed to be a meal on wheels program, it was designed to provide for the security and defense of our country.
However one of the things that I have found interesting in many of GWB's speeches recently, concerning the impending war with Iraq, is that he is directly calling into question the validity of the UN and basically asking if it really has a reason for its existence. In addition, I am not really seeing a lot of comment in the press about that, nor have I really seen much of a comment on FR concerning it. Could GWB be posturing us to have cause to get out of the UN? One could only hope. Of course, if we did withdraw from the UN it would shortly collapse, as we are the primary funding source of it.
This sounds like ratsht.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.