ChristiansUnite Forums

I posted my thoughts on the UN/EU in another post just moments ago.   Apparently there are others who feel the same way.

Globalism - Ecumenism
Friday, October 15, 2004
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan gave an interview in the Irish Times in which he told the paper he was 'excited' at the prospect of a possible deal that would make the EU military the defacto military arm of the United Nations.


Annan said of the proposal, "You may not necessarily even have to fight." Speaking from the rarified atmosphere of the UN's Ivory Tower, Annan explained how THAT works, inadvertently giving away a clue as to why the UN prefers John Kerry.

"You sometimes have to show force in order not to use force." Aha! SCARE the enemy to death? No, no,the paper explained helpfully. In some crisis areas, the inhabitants were intimidated by "local bullies" who would not stand up to an international force.

Let's see if I am understanding this correctly. "Local bullies" will ignore the United States, (whose military power dwarfs the EU), but if confronted by an 'international force' (whose default position is to announce in advance it's a bluff), well, they'd just be so terrified they'd flee at the mere prospect of an EU-backed UN intervention threat.

According to the paper, the UN proposed EU battlegroups or "hit squad" concept is in line with 'new thinking on international military action to prevent genocide, avoiding a repetition of the Rwanda tragedy ten years ago.'

Too late. The Rwanda tragedy is being repeated -- right now -- while the Islamic-dominated UN continues to stonewall until the Islamic forces of the Sudan are finished wiping out the mainly Christian black population in the south.

(On the other hand, it will give the UN ANOTHER tragedy it can avoid repeating later. After all, there are 525,948 minutes in a year. That leaves room for 525,947 more 'moments of silence' for the victims of UN imcompetence)

Kofi Annan has already declared the U.S. invasion of Iraq to be "illegal." Panel member Gareth Evans, a former foreign minister of Australia, told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars:

"A central reason for our appointment was concern that the U.N., and indeed the whole multilateral security system, was really at a crossroads with the resurgence of unilateralism from You Know Whom, and increasing willingness to bypass the Security Council."

(Note to the uninitiated: 'You Know Whom' is the United States. Evans presumably believed only international scholars like himself would be able to decipher his clever code and figure it out)

To combat the 'unilateralism' of 'you know who', Annan has appointed a 16-member "High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change" to make recommendations for restructuring the UN Security Council.

The ultimate goal is to expand the U.N. Security Council, and to eliminate P-5 - the permanent member status of the five nations that hold veto power over Security Council actions. Annan's High Level Panel isn't expected to recommend the elimination of the veto system immediately -- instead, they will push for the expansion of the Security Council, first.

Originally, the Security Council consisted of 11 members, five of which were permanent, each with veto power. The remaining six members served two-year terms, rotated among the member nations. The Council was expanded to 15 members in 1965, with no change in the status of the permanent members.

Four nations - Brazil, Germany, India and Japan - have formed a group to lobby for permanent member status. Germany and Japan were denied permanent status in 1945, since the UN was created by the Allies specifically to prevent a repeat of the Axis aggression that spawned the war in the first place.

Annan's High Level Panel has been deliberating in relative secrecy for nearly a year. Their report may also be kept secret - at Kofi Annan's discretion.

In any case, whatever Kofi's Panel recommends, it can't be implemented without US approval. The US still has its veto until it agrees to repeal the P-5 veto status at the Security Council.

That fact could be the United Nations' undoing. Annan's High Level Panel is expected to draft the rules of engagement which will prevent, or at least provide the basis for international condemnation of 'unilateral' action (by 'you know who') in the future.

The rest of the world has drawn a line in the sand over US willingness to circumvent the United Nations when it is in America's best interests.

If the UN can't implement the reforms, then it will be obvious that the UN cannot contain and control the United States. In that case, there is little to be gained by UN membership for smaller states, and therefore, little reason to allow the UN a role in their own internal affairs.

On the other hand, if the United States allows the reform measures to go forward, it is a signal that the US is willing to be governed by the United Nations -- and its proposed EU military force.

Annan's High Panel will not issue its recommendations until after the US general elections, and probably not until early next year.

All concerned recognize the restructuring proposal is a 'make or break' deal. Depending on how the US votes, the restructuring proposal will either empower the UN to the degree it will have true global governing status, (shared with the European Union) or it will mean its impending demise.

The Bible says that, in the last days, a global government will come to power, headed by the antichrist and made up from the nations of the revived Roman Empire.

According to Scripture, it will govern the Western world directly, and will indirectly influence the other three spheres of global power that will exist during that time -- Gog Magog, (Russian alliance) the Kings of the East (China, etc.) and the Kings of the South (mainly Islamic North Africa)

(That the government of antichrist exerts only 'indirect' influence (in a similar matter to the UN, for example) is implied by the fact that eventually, each of these entities goes to war against him.)

Which is pretty much EXACTLY what Annan's High Level Panel is setting the stage for.

The UN may well collapse, but politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. The UN's multifaceted global institutions are critical to maintaining the smooth operation of the global economy, human rights, global health issues, international dispute arbitration and so on.

The World Bank, IMF, International Court, etc., etc. just can't disappear without having a devastating effect on international politics. Somebody will have to pick up the pieces.

In inviting the EU 'battlegroups' to take on the role of United Nations' policy enforcer, Kofi Annan has inadvertently (or calculatingly, who knows?) named the UN's successor. The EU already has some 25 individual votes at the UN, plus two vetoes, compared to Russia, China and America's single vote and single veto.

The EU enjoys the confidence of the Arab world, is mending fences with a subdued Russian Federation, has good relations with China and is heavily entrenched, both politically and economically, with Africa.

The United States, with its single vote and single veto, has practically no friends at all in any of these regions. At best, it has 'allies of the moment' -- like Pakistan or some of the Gulf emirates -- allies that would turn on Washington in a heartbeat if it better served their own interests.

America does have important allies and genuine friends, like Australia, or Great Britain -- but these alliances flow through Europe and our shared heritage, much more than through a shared ideology.

America's closest friend and ally, Canada, has already proved that its UN membership trumps US friendship when it comes to the hard questions.

Ideologically, America's only genuine ally is Israel, itself the target of global envy and hatred.

Of America's role in the global government during the Tribulation Period, the Bible is silent. If America does play any role, it will be as a subordinate part of a greater European government, not as an overarching superpower.

Of Israel, the Bible says it will be the target of global genocidal hatred during the Tribulation, and there is no mention of Israel having any allies at all, apart from the Lord God of Israel.

The United Nations is preparing a restructuring system that will stand or fall based on the decisions of whoever is in the White House when Annan's High Level Panel issues its recommendations early next year.

That president will have a full term to decide whether to subordinate America to the UN -- giving the UN a temporary reprieve from self-destruction -- or whether to veto the restructuring effort, which will strip away any illusion of UN relevancy and ultimately result in its collapse as a viable institution, and paving the way for the rise of the antichrist.

It is no coincidence that in this election, to the exclusion of all presidential races in living memory, the two positions of the two sides on the issue of globalism could not be more profound.

In one corner is John Kerry, who is running on the platform that George Bush is a unilateralist who should have subordinated US interests to UN oversight and who pledges that, if elected, he will do so in the future.

In the other corner is George W. Bush, who most certainly will not cede US sovereignty to the UN, no matter how it may be restructured.

Waiting in the wings to see how it all turns out is the European Union.

Buckle up!

*******************************************

Friends we are getting close, very close!

Grace and Peace!

 Scooped!

Great post my friend!

 I'm not surprized. ;D

Bronzesnake

You know, Bronz, I asked my dad (who is a retired minister) not too long ago, why it is that many in the church today seem to ignore what is happening in eschatology.   He told me He wasn't sure, but he thinks many pastors are so busy dealing with marital and family problems we suffer in America, that theres no time for eschatology or prophetic teaching.   I can understand this, but I do find it troubling that a lot of Churches seem to be sleeping at the wheel when it comes to world happenings right before our very eyes.   We are so caught up fighting the all out battle the devil is waging against the family in our country, that we fail to see the nearness of His coming.    Scarry times indeed!

Grace and Peace!

 I agree my friend, but there also seems to be a systematic, concerted effort at the highest levels of some denominations to deny the literal Word of God. Many churches refuse to teach Revelations even though it's the only book we are commanded to read and understand. Other churches are nothing more than social clubs, where any sin can be justified through liberal non literal interpretation of the scriptures.

 The irony is, that Jesus most strongly warns against this apostasy in the opening chapters of the very book that is being ignored...Revelation.

 I love reading your posts my friend, keep 'em' coming my friend.

Bronzesnake

Where do you come up with the idea that Revelatoin is the only book we're supposed to read? Christ said to keep All he taught.

I don't think he meant it was the only book we were to read, but rather, its the one book in scripture where a blessing is promised to those who read it, hear, and keep the words of its prophecy, and a curse to those who add or take away from it.

Rev 1:3  Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

and...

Rev 22:18  For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

No other book in scripture begins or ends in such fashion.  Also no other book is written in such in imagery, which makes obvious its meant to be studied and understood.   At least I believe thats what Bronzsnake means....Bronz, sorry brother don't want to put words in your mouth?

Grace and Peace!

 Should have made myself more clear - you nailed it down for me.

Bronzesnake

Great post, 2T. ;D

Did the U.N. Try and  Manipulate U.S. Election?
by Clifford D. May

On Monday, Oct 28 2004, The New York Times carried a front-page story that could have changed the outcome of the 2004 elections.

According to the Times, a cache of powerful explosives used to "make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons" was missing from an installation where Saddam Hussein had conducted nuclear-weapons research, a facility that "was supposed to be under American military control."

The story was soon all over the television news. Melissa Fleming, the spokeswoman of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), went on CNN to add fuel to the spreading fire over U.S. "responsibility" for the "lost" explosives.

There was only one problem with the story. There was not a shred of evidence that it was true.

The Times quoted unnamed White House and Pentagon officials acknowledging that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year. But named White House and Pentagon officials have said the opposite. And a senior government official told me: "It is very important the world understands that the stuff in Iraq was missing as of April 10, 2003 - the day after Baghdad fell."

The Times story also quoted IAEA experts saying they assumed that it was indeed Saddam who had moved the explosives - before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But, they added, it was possible the explosives were only moved to nearby fields where the Times suggests they would be "ripe for looting."

But how? Looters could not have stuffed 380+ tons of explosives into their pockets and purses. To transport that much material would have required about 38 large trucks - 10 tons per truck. Before the U.S. invasion, such truck convoys moved about Iraq freely. Once the United States was in occupation, that kind of effort could hardly have gone unnoticed. Your avgerage full-size pick-up 1/2 ton, can carry from 3/4 to 1 ton.

So this is a murky story at best, one has to wonder how the Times came to publish it on its front page, just days before the presidential election. The most likely source, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA. Why might he want to plant such a story?

"The U.S. is trying to deny ElBaradei a second term," a high U.S. government official told me. "We have been on his case for missing the Libyan nuclear-weapons program and for weakness on the Iranian nuclear-weapons program."

ElBaradei also opposed the liberation of Iraq and objects to Washington's tough stance regarding Iran's attempts to develop nuclear weapons. He would like nothing better than to see President Bush defeated next week.

In other words, a senior U.N. official may have attempted to influence the outcome of an American election by spreading false information. And major U.S. media outlets allowed themselves to be manipulated in pursuit of that goal. Call it "Bomb-gate," Or "Al Qaqaa-gate." Don't expect the elite media to seriously pursue this or any other scandal in which they themselves may be implicated.

Caught up in the political spin, the major media also have failed to ask this pertinent question: Why did Saddam have the kinds of explosives favored by terrorists? and why was he permitted to keep them? Such explosives, according to the Times, also "are used in standard nuclear-weapons design," and were acquired by Saddam when he "embarked on a crash effort to build an atomic bomb in the late 1980s."

Former federal terrorism prosecutor Andrew McCarthy pointed out that U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, which imposed the terms of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire, required Iraq to "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of ... (a)ll ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers and related major parts, and repair and production facilities(.)"

Yet the IAEA made no attempt to force Saddam to comply with his obligations to destroy these "related major parts" of ballistic missiles.

In addition, McCarthy noted, Iraq was required "not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components" and, to the extent it had such items, present them for "urgent on-site inspection and the destruction, removal or rendering harmless as appropriate of all items specified above."

It doesn't require a rocket scientist to understand that a detonator is a key component of a nuclear bomb. But according to the Times, Saddam persuaded ElBaradei that he wanted to hold onto the explosives in case they were needed "for eventual use in mining and civilian construction" - and ElBaradai agreed.

It gets worse: U.N. weapons inspectors led by Rolf Ekeus asked the IAEA to dispose of these explosives back in 1995. The IAEA did not do so - and between 1998, when Saddam forced U.N. inspectors out of Iraq, and late 2002, when U.S. pressure caused him to allow inspectors to return, 35 tons of HMX went missing. The Iraqis claimed they used it in their cement industry. Sure.

Moreover, we now know that just when ElBaradei was taking Saddam's word, other U.N. officials were taking his money as part of a multibillion-dollar scam, the United Nations' own oil-for-food program.

Knowing all this, are you confident that had Saddam been left in power, some of these dangerous substances would not have disappeared - again? And if they did, are you confident that ElBaradei would have demanded anything more than a stern letter to Saddam in response?