Funny Anti-UN Shirt: Don't shoot until you can see the blue of their helmets

Status
Not open for further replies.

Muppet

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
186
Hi, CPF... sorry you haven't seen me, I've been off saving the world...

Anyway, I saw this shirt and thought of the more, er, politically inclined CPFers

2289861.jpg


http://www.cafepress.com/killallhippies

Not *quite* my cup of tea but I know quality when I see it.
 

BB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
2,129
Location
SF Bay Area
I am realtivily politically inclined--Sorry, even though I believe that the UN should be dump into NY Harbor as an institution--Shooting at blue helmets (I guess that may include US Troops--weren't/aren't they forced to were UN colors at times) is just not funny.

-Bill

PS: I did not even bother following a link named "kill.all.hippies" either...:awman:

PPS: From 1995:

SPECIALIST MICHAEL NEW, A MEDIC with the 3rd Infantry Division in Germany, has refused to wear a UN-blue beret or insignia in October when his unit is deployed to Macedonia to conduct a UN "peacekeeping mission" there. New says, "I took an oath to the Constitution for the United States, and I can find no reference to the United Nations in it anywhere". The army says, "You took an oath to obey legal orders and you WILL comply, or you will face possible court martial, possible imprisonment, and at the least, a less-than-honorable discharge". New asks, "By what authority can you transfer my loyalty without my permission?" On Monday, 28 August, ('95) New met with a JAG (Judge Advocate General) attorney to review his legal options. We're told New does face possible court martial for his position. According to Will Grigg of the New American, who had personal conversation with New, the military was attempting to construe his refusal to wear UN BLUE as an indication that New is a Conscientious Objector. New says he is not. New is quoted as saying there are many officers and non-coms who privately agree with his stance. Publicly, they all have family, careers and retirement to consider. The Army has issued a statement saying that New hasn't disobeyed an order until the UN insignias are handed out and he directly refuses to sew them to his uniform. New is standing firm. We assert: this is an attempt to defuse/cover-up a volatile situation which could escalate when other like-minded pro-American military personnel discover someone has the courage to stand up for his principles and his Constitutional rights.

And now, the $64,000 question: BY WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY can any one entity in this country or this world - including Clinton, or the US Congress or ANY COURT - order Michael New, an American soldier who is a sovereign citizen of the united sovereign States of America, to wear the insignia of a Global Corporate Army (UN - or NATO for that matter) which was created from the diabolical minds of self-proclaimed "world policy makers"? Perhaps the answer to this question can be found in Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s article titled "Back to the Womb?", from the July/August '95 edition of "Foreign Affairs"

In his article, Schlesinger laments the isolationist stance of Americans throughout history. He says the obstacles to the "commitment of troops to combat" in a world army are both political and constitutional.

"Political - How to explain to the American people why their husbands, fathers, brothers, or sons should die in conflicts in remote lands where the local outcome makes no direct difference to the United States? and... Constitutional - If a president favored US participation in a UN collective security action, must he go to Congress for specific authorization? Or could the UN Charter supersede the US Constitution?"
The answer is "NO", and obviously the answer to that question was understood even in Roosevelt's administration. Schlesinger says,

"The UN Participation Act of 1945 came up with an ingenious solution. It authorized the US to commit limited force through congressionally approved special agreements as provided for in Article 43 of the UN Charter... This formula offered a convincing way to reconcile the charter and the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Article 43 special agreement procedure soon withered on the vine."
 
Last edited:

Muppet

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
186
Oh, it's just a gag. The US isn't anywhere near having UN peacekeepers *to* shoot at.

Really, just a state of mind, nobody in the US is ever going to act on it. No real conflict, just bad attitude.

And I kind of like the UN in some ways... boiled, fried, sauteed... j/k
 

BB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
2,129
Location
SF Bay Area
This is not a "US Only" forum...

-Bill

PS: And, I was making the point that those could be US Troops wearing the Blue Helmet.

-BB
 

Muppet

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
186
Look, it's a US flag, with a US rifle. Clearly whoever made the thing is concerned about infringement of US soverignty by the UN or some equivalent thing because it's a very flag waving slogan. But given that there are no UN peacekeepers in the states, I think the thing is fairly clearly a joke, rather than incitement to actually shoot somebody.
 

chrisse242

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
899
Location
Germany
Well, I wonder if you would consider it funny if I posted the same with "don't shoot until you can see stars and stripes on their uniform"?

Even if it doesn't mean that "whoever made it" wants UN peacekeepers to be shot, it's simply disgusting. :thumbsdow :thumbsdow

Chrisse
 

BB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
2,129
Location
SF Bay Area
And, almost all of those "blue helmet" folks have been placed into service through the affirmative vote (or at least the absence of a US veto in the UN) of the US Ambassador.

Sorry--taking pot shots at people placed in harm's way by their own (and others') governments (and possibly even against their own desires) still does not strike my funny bone.

Want to lock or deep six this thread?

-Bill
 

ABTOMAT

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
2,873
Location
MA, USA
Muppet said:
Hi, CPF... sorry you haven't seen me, I've been off saving the world...

Anyway, I saw this shirt and thought of the more, er, politically inclined CPFers

2289861.jpg


http://www.cafepress.com/killallhippies

Not *quite* my cup of tea but I know quality when I see it.


Is this the first time you've heard that line? Probably been around for 10+ years.

And I think stuff like that has its place in a heated political or social discussion, but keep in mind the UN hasn't invaded the US. Very poor taste until then. This is CPF, not a political board.
 
Last edited:

BIGIRON

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Messages
1,879
Location
South Texas
There is another read to it.

The UN is very actively seeking to stop possession of "small arms" in the world. Including the US.

There's a possibility that this could be the product of a pro-gun/RTKB individual or group. Who aren't getting very good PR advice.
 

Empath

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 11, 2001
Messages
8,508
Location
Oregon
The inability to discuss the matters of this thread without hostility and regard for others makes it unsuitable for a multinational membership. Thread closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top