(Oct. 15, 2014 6:17 AM)BBXcessive Wrote: (Oct. 15, 2014 6:02 AM)Cake Wrote: lol wut
I think this is a pretty good example of how people seem to be throwing their brains by the wayside over the whole Ebola thing
That or the crazies show up more when there's something to panic about, idk.
I'll take that as offensively rude.
I have to agree that I spoke too harshly there. That was unnecessarily insulting of me, and I apologize.
(Oct. 15, 2014 6:17 AM)BBXcessive Wrote: Have you done any research?
...
READ AND EDUCATE YOURSELF BEFORE YOU TYPE ANOTHER WORD.
Done that.
Guess what?
The UN can't actually "disband" countries. It can impose sanctions and even make military actions against them, if necessary, but it can't decide to suddenly "disband" a country, particularly the US. I'm not some sheltered, patriotic idiot that overvalues his country - it's simply because the US is such a huge part of the UN to begin with. 29% of the UN's military funding and 22% of its overall budget comes from the US - over twice that of the second-highest contributor. The UN headquarters is in New York, the US has a permanent seat on the Security Council, and the current Security Council President is an American. For the UN to take such a severe action against the US would be beyond shooting itself in the foot - it would pretty well mutilate its structure.
(Oct. 15, 2014 6:17 AM)BBXcessive Wrote: The point is IF it breaks out, or even if it doesn't but the United Nations "says" it breaks out, they take all lawful control over the United States.
So you are implying that, if a conspiracy within the UN plots to shut down the US by claiming there is an Ebola outbreak rampant throughout the nation
even if no evidence for such an outbreak exists and the "outbreak" is simply a fabrication of said conspiracy, then the UN can suddenly start yanking its own leading member country and the source of a quarter of its resources around? To pass that kind of an action would require a huge majority of countries within the UN to be opposed to the US and allies (many of which also hold high positions within the UN and have a lot of pull themselves) and overcome their votes by a significant margin. In addition, since the UN doesn't have that kind of power in the first place, it's going to require an even more implausible amount of legal and military work to pull off such a scheme. For all intents and purposes, even a well-coordinated widespread conspiracy to take over the US through UN power is impossible.
(Oct. 15, 2014 6:17 AM)BBXcessive Wrote: I hope you know that under these specific circumstances, a UNITED NATIONS MILITARY COMMANDER can join a U.S. military operation and take command instantly. Do you have any clue what that inclines?
Researching this bit led me to a lot of not particularly trustworthy conspiracy blogs, and no real evidence indicating that this is even remotely true.
Unless you are saying that this applies only under the previous UN-takes-over-the-US scenario which I just covered, this statement doesn't hold water either. If the UN plans on messing with a US operation, they won't - and can't - simply redirect the whole thing. If the US is doing something the UN doesn't like, the UN will publicly call out the US first, demanding change, then impose sanctions, then possibly act through military means.
(Oct. 15, 2014 6:17 AM)BBXcessive Wrote: End the "ignorance plea" please. You kids are above that.
I'm not pleading ignorance. I'm pointing out that reality is a lot different from what you think it is.
(Oct. 15, 2014 6:17 AM)BBXcessive Wrote: THE UNITED STATES WILL CEASE TO BE IF UNITED NATIONS SAYS SO.
BASIC AND SIMPLE. THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN, EVEN IF THIS EBOLA BREAKS OUT OR NOT.
The UN has no pre-existing functions to enact such a thing, it has no reason to do so, it has very little actual power to attack its own member countries, since a great deal of its strength comes through cooperation, and it would be committing suicide if it tried to attack a good chunk of itself.