Ron Paul - Wants the US to end membership in UN

[CessnaFlyer]

Greetings folks.

I first ran across Ron Paul's name a little over a year ago from a link at the site www.getusout.org

Ron Paul introduced legislation (H.R. 1146 - American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2005) to end US membership in the UN, expel all foreign UN personnel, close all UN facilities in the US and eliminate funding to ALL UN agencies.

http://www.theorator.com/bills109/hr1146.html

I'm interested to hear what the supporters of Ron Paul think about this and whether or not they were even aware of it. While I'm not as isolationist as he is, if he still supported us getting out of the UN and could make it happen then he would have my vote! I am all for the dissolution of the UN but if we can't make that happen then the next best thing is for the US to get out of the UN and then get the UN out of New York.

[Kandilynn]

I hate the UN. That's honestly one of my main reasons for being interested in Ron Paul.

[ChristopherJ]

Getting us out of the U.N. is one of the many reasons why people should vote for Ron Paul.

BTW Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he is non interventionist. There is a big difference.

[qednick]

http://screwtheun.blogspot.com/

The UN is nothing but bad news.

[Erazmus]

While I'm not as isolationist as he is...

Welcome to the forums. I'm glad to see so many people coming to Ron Paul's side. However, the quoted statement above bothers me. I know what you're trying to say, but it is flawed terminology and conveys the wrong message. Ron Paul is anything but an isolationist. RP is for trading with all nations and is for free market, however, he is not for intervening in the affairs of foreign nations. This makes him a noninterventionist, not an isolationist.

Also, I think we should’ve never joined the UN.

Once again, welcome.

[TheDuke]

The UN has no real political power, it's just theater, a theater that costs us billions of dollars.

The UN was created "to end all wars", and all it does now is allowing countries to invade others. And if it wants to stop us from invading (Iraq), we do it anyway. When the UN wants to impose a resolution on a country the veto of one of that country's allies stands in the way, so no power there either.

So to hell with the UN... still, I would continue to support UNICEF, UNAIDS and other charities and scientific research programs.

I hope Ron Paul will lead us out of the WTO, UN, NATO ect. and keeps us out of a North-American Union and other violations of our sovereignty.

[AgentSmith]

Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist. That is ridiculous propaganda. Ron simply knows the objectives of the UN is to end national sovereignty and usher in a world government. This is against.... the constitution. Duh.

[CessnaFlyer]

Welcome to the forums. I'm glad to see so many people coming to Ron Paul's side. However, the quoted statement above bothers me. I know what you're trying to say, but it is flawed terminology and conveys the wrong message. Ron Paul is anything but an isolationist. RP is for trading with all nations and is for free market, however, he is not for intervening in the affairs of foreign nations. This makes him a noninterventionist, not an isolationist.

Also, I think we should’ve never joined the UN.

Once again, welcome.

Hi, thanks for the welcome.

Guess I hit a nerve here with the terminology - ok so I'm not as "non-interventionist" as he is. I don't think anybody would say that meddling in the internal affairs of another country is a good idea. But I do think we need to intervene sometimes to oppose tyranny and especially the spread of tyranny because if we don't eventually it will come to us.

I don't see treaties like NATO as a problem the way I do with the UN. NATO is a mutual defense alliance with a narrow purpose whereas the UN is growing into one world government and threatens our sovereignty. If he still supports getting us out of the UN which I think is a totally corrupt cesspool of dictators then he has my support. I wish he would address this during this campaign.

[joenaab]

NATO is designed, long-term, to be the single world army that will only work under the orders of the UN. They do not have a narrow purpose. Only recently they've announced further expansion into Africa and down into Asia. NATO is not your friend.

btw, welcome!

[Gee]

Mostly RP doesn't like the idea of America going to war for the UN. I tend to agree, if the UN wants to go to war, it can get its own damn volunteer army, IMO...

I disagree with you on the tyranny thing. Tyrannical states are typically weaker than free ones, and so rarely spread. Its freedom that is spreading, not the other way around. And attempts to spread freedom by force have, I think, mostly failed. Our polititians have not shown enough judgement on the proper use of military force in our nation's history for me to trust them with interventionalist wars.

[Erazmus]

Hi, thanks for the welcome.

Guess I hit a nerve here with the terminology - ok so I'm not as "non-interventionist" as he is. I don't think anybody would say that meddling in the internal affairs of another country is a good idea. But I do think we need to intervene sometimes to oppose tyranny and especially the spread of tyranny because if we don't eventually it will come to us.

There is tyranny all over the world, and we've already established we cannot police the world. It's too costly in American lives and in money. Basically we have so many problems inside the U.S. at the moment, and we're squandering away resources on an unjust and undeclared war, when all those resources could be utilized on the home front. We are spread too thin militarily. Also, something to remember, nothing creates more blowback than meddling in the affairs of other nations and occupying said nations. So, while your feelings against tyranny are admirable, they really have no practical reality.

Iraq is a perfect example. There was no terrorist activity in Iraq before we invaded. Saddam had eliminated all terrorist threats in Iraq. When we removed him a vacuum occurred and now there is more hated toward the U.S. Terrorist camps arose where there were once none. Yes, Saddam was an evil guy. But when do we decide one nation’s leaders are more evil than another? Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan probably had the most terrorist activity in the world at the time we invaded Iraq – which had none. The Chinese government is oppressive and tyrannical; I don’t see us going to war with them.

So, since tyranny isn’t the sole reason our governments go to war, we must look further into why we choose the battles we do. The plans for Iraqi invasion were voted on in congress long before 9/11. Bush just never had the authority or the blind support to wage war on Iraq without the lies they told and 9/11 to fire up blind nationalism. How did we go from hunting Bin Laden in Afghanistan to forgetting about him completely and wound up in the quagmire of Iraq? Reason = Oil and nation building. And nation building makes money for certain corporations with government contracts: think Halliburton.

So, while I disagree with your idea of eliminating tyranny from the world (unachievable), I do agree with your stance on the U.N.

Cheers.

*edit*
One more thing, if you don't think we have tyranny here, read the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. (http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR511542006)

[drinkbleach]

The U.N. is happy to throw money at problems and hope for the best. When it comes to sending military force though, they usually won't do anything meaningful without America leading the way. Even then they still do things in a half-assed fashion. See the UN troop numbers in Afghanistan as proof.

[CessnaFlyer]

NATO is designed, long-term, to be the single world army that will only work under the orders of the UN. They do not have a narrow purpose. Only recently they've announced further expansion into Africa and down into Asia. NATO is not your friend.

btw, welcome!


Well I haven't heard that one and would be totally against it. Is this like a UN originated effort to take over NATO as a way to get an instant army? I could see something like that but I hope that NATO would tell them to forget it.

[CessnaFlyer]

So, while I disagree with your idea of eliminating tyranny from the world (unachievable), I do agree with your stance on the U.N.



I didn't say we could eliminate tyranny or that we should even try. I said we should oppose it and especially oppose the spread of it. Do you think we shouldn't have gotten into WWI and WWII? What about Iraq taking over Kuwait? Should we just let that kind of stuff go? Should we abandon Isreal and let them get wiped out?

Anyway we have had success in intervening sometimes. Look at South Korea, Germany and Japan. Of course Korea is unfinished business but the UN was involved with that one! But anyway they are all prosperous free countries thanks to our intervention and their success benefits us as well.

[ChristopherJ]

If you are curious as to what RP stands for you should check out this link.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/

He has several articles about the U.N. listed among many many other topics. Careful though, once you start reading it is addictive :)

[AgentSmith]

Its not so simple. You have to take a larger view - in many cases, if not MOST, the US has taken part in arming and supporting the tyranny we later have to deal with.

The MIC requires an enemy, if one does not exit, we will make one.

[Erazmus]

I didn't say we could eliminate tyranny or that we should even try. I said we should oppose it and especially oppose the spread of it. Do you think we shouldn't have gotten into WWI and WWII? What about Iraq taking over Kuwait? Should we just let that kind of stuff go? Should we abandon Isreal and let them get wiped out?

Anyway we have had success in intervening sometimes. Look at South Korea, Germany and Japan. Of course Korea is unfinished business but the UN was involved with that one! But anyway they are all prosperous free countries thanks to our intervention and their success benefits us as well.

World War 2 we were attacked first... Kuwait asked for our aid (and we had to protect the oil)... Israel is a whole other can of worms; however, we haven't been involved with military conflict on behalf of Israel (yet). We mainly support them with arms (for money of course) and politically. Germany was all but conquered by the Red Army by the time we got there, and we were already involved in WW2 by this time anyway, same with Japan, they brought us into the war. And Korea was an absolute mess - another undeclared war.

So, I'm still not convinced on your tyranny part.

[4Horsemen]

When they say “isolationist” they’re really talking about our support for the chosen people. It’s about the billions of dollars given to them thru the US taxpayers every year without any interest or repayments. If we stop our involvement in the Middle East, guess who has to start playing fair? The Rockefeller’s and the other the international banksters, and oil mafia created the United Nations for their world government that their great grand-daddies envisioned. Rothschild’s, Morgan’s, Harriman’s, Browns, Rhodes, British Royal family, and other aristocrat families are involved with their financed politicians as the henchmen. Rouge elements of the CIA, NSA FBI, DEA, ATF, FDA, MI6, MI5, Mossod, ISI, and other intelligence agencies including the military industrial complex ( black ops)work for them. Elitist liberal Ivy league professors, BAR Association, labor unions, ADL, NAACP, Neo-Nazi groups, environmental groups, gay rights groups, feminist movements, world counsel of churches, the Vatican, Islamo-fascist terrorist groups, and other groups that divide society are their creations from behind the scenes. “ORDO AB CHAO” is their philosophy, order out of chaos, divide and conquer, keeps the sheep fighting amongst each other without them knowing who really runs the show. The old liberal vs. conservatives arguments keeps the marionettes biased and loyal to issues that mean little, but the psychological barriers with the win at all cost mindset keeps them asleep while the people in the shadows draw the strings.

P.S. Here's a great website with a lot information with good sources. http://www.mega.nu/ampp/

[winston84]

Yes I strongly support RP's stance in leaving the UN. It has no real power and with representatives like the now resigned John Bolton trying to get the world to back up our foreign policy decisions, the UN has served as yet another stage for the world to despise us for.