2013: H.R. 75: To End Membership of the United States in the United Nations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei

You are still advocating that the US give up its UN veto power. That's a REALLY bad idea. You have not responded to this. The fact is, if you don't like the UN, the best way to keep them in check is to veto everything they do.

---

I have repeatedly responded to it. So we give up our veto power? SO WHAT? You have failed to explain just what it is you expect to prevent the UN from doing with your precious veto power. Stop some silly "resolutions" or "declarations"? What? Please list all the horrible depredations that have been averted because of our veto power in the UN.

On the contrary, there are PLENTY of fiascos that have been committed via the auspices of the UN with the full support of the US. In fact, FAR more often than not, it is the United States leading the charge, rather than exercising it's veto power. The Korean War, that mess in Somalia, and the Gulf War are just a few examples - and that's just off the top of my head. So I ask again: what are your counter-examples? What things like this have been averted because of our veto power?

But what is even more ridiculous is your implicit assumption that the globocrats in Washington D.C. will even WANT to "keep the UN in check." That is an exremely foolish & utterly unfounded assumption. At best, it is wishful thinking and is completely detached from reality. On the one hand, the neo-con types want to use the UN as a rubber stamp to confer the illusion of legitimacy upon their bloody, evil schemes (such as the aforementioned Gulf War). On the other hand, the progressive types want to use the UN to destroy US sovereignty and to plump for their fantasy of "one-world government".

The fact is that the UN is nothing more than a platform for grandstanding globocrats. Whatever power the UN wields derives largely from the participation of the US in the UN. The best way to undermine the UN is NOT to participate in it. The best way to undermine the UN is to destroy it's appearance of legitimacy. If the most powerful empire in the entire history of the world tells the UN to go to hell, what is the UN or its other members going to do about it (other than splutter with useless outrage)?

I asked you before if you remember the League of Nations. Do you? The United States was not a member. It was a toothless flop. There is no reason to think the UN would be any different.

Withdrawing from the UN is a VERY good idea and we should do it. Unfortunately, however, there is not even the slightest chance in hell that it will actually happen any time soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Occam's Banana

I have repeatedly responded to it. So we give up our veto power? SO WHAT? You have failed to explain just what it is you expect to prevent the UN from doing with your precious veto power. Stop some silly "resolutions" or "declarations"? What? Please list all the horrible depredations that have been averted because of our veto power in the UN.

On the contrary, there are PLENTY of fiascos that have been committed via the auspices of the UN with the full support of the US. In fact, FAR more often than not, it is the United States leading the charge, rather than exercising it's veto power. The Korean War, that mess in Somalia, and the Gulf War are just a few examples - and that's just off the top of my head. So I ask again: what are your counter-examples? What things like this have been averted because of our veto power?

But what is even more ridiculous is your implicit assumption that the globocrats in Washington D.C. will even WANT to "keep the UN in check." That is an exremely foolish & utterly unfounded assumption. At best, it is wishful thinking and is completely detached from reality. On the one hand, the neo-con types want to use the UN as a rubber stamp to confer the illusion of legitimacy upon their bloody, evil schemes (such as the aforementioned Gulf War). On the other hand, the progressive types want to use the UN to destroy US sovereignty and to plump for their fantasy of "one-world government".

The fact is that the UN is nothing more than a platform for grandstanding globocrats. Whatever power the UN wields derives largely from the participation of the US in the UN. The best way to undermine the UN is NOT to participate in it. The best way to undermine the UN is to destroy it's appearance of legitimacy. If the most powerful empire in the entire history of the world tells the UN to go to hell, what is the UN or its other members going to do about it (other than splutter with useless outrage)?

I asked you before if you remember the League of Nations. Do you? The United States was not a member. It was a toothless flop. There is no reason to think the UN would be any different.

Withdrawing from the UN is a VERY good idea and we should do it. Unfortunately, however, there is not even the slightest chance in hell that it will actually happen any time soon.

---

The Soviets and Chinese would be frothing at the mouth if they thought the US would throw away its UN veto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei

The Soviets and Chinese would be frothing at the mouth if they thought the US would throw away its UN veto.

---

The United Nations would collapse without United States funding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankRep

The United Nations would collapse without United States funding.

---

totally not true. Funding would go up. Basically Russia and China and maybe France would have to go a cut a deal with Britain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei

The Soviets and Chinese would be frothing at the mouth if they thought the US would throw away its UN veto.

---

I've asked you repeatedly to tell us just what you think the UN is going to be able to do if the US left. And you've got nothing - except some wild-eyed gibberish about "Soviets and Chinese frothing at the mouth" (whatever that's supposed to mean).

And for the second time, there are no Soviets - they don't exist (and haven't for about a quarter of a century). If you can't even get basic facts of international politics straight, then you've got no business expecting anyone to take you seriously on this issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei

totally not true. Funding would go up.

---

You really are living in a fantasy world, aren't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei

Basically Russia and China and maybe France would have to go a cut a deal with Britain.

---

Cut a deal to do what? Declare some date to be "World Cottage Cheese Day"? Announce the latest "International Animal Rights Treaty"? What?

Even if you could come up with something, why couldn't Russia/China/France/Britain/who-the-hell-ever just make those deals together anyway, without the UN (and regardless of any US veto)?

The UN cannot do jack shit to anyone. The UN is nothing more than a PR front for globocrats. US participation in the UN accomplishes nothing but to give the illusion of legitimacy to globocracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Occam's Banana

I've asked you repeatedly to tell us just what you think the UN is going to be able to do if the US left. And you've got nothing - except some wild-eyed gibberish about "Soviets and Chinese frothing at the mouth" (whatever that's supposed to mean).

And for the second time, there are no Soviets - they don't exist (and haven't for about a quarter of a century). If you can't even get basic facts of international politics straight, then you've got no business expecting anyone to take you seriously on this issue.

---

The UN could declare the US a terrorist state or set up a worldwide boycott of US goods. They could order drone strikes into the US.

Ron Paul vs. United Nations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibxffNRjOI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibxffNRjOI

Rand Paul & Paul Broun. Has a nice ring to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei

The UN could declare the US a terrorist state

---

In other words: more empty, pointless and useless "declarations" ... just like I said before.

UN declarations don't mean shit - and they'll mean even less without the US helping to back them up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei

or set up a worldwide boycott of US goods.

---

Yeah, right. The US is the single largest "consumer" nation in the world.

So the Chinese are going to use the UN to boycott our goods ... and then we'll turn right around and boycott Chinese goods ...

Have you been to Walmart lately? Do you really think the Chinese are that stupid? Try again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei

They could order drone strikes into the US.

---

They? Order whom? And with whose drones? And from where? Canada? Mexico? *facepalm*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Occam's Banana

The UN cannot do jack shit to anyone. The UN is nothing more than a PR front for globocrats. US participation in the UN accomplishes nothing but to give the illusion of legitimacy to globocracy.

---

Yup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei

This is a really bad idea. If the US leaves the UN, then they lose their veto power over everything the UN does. That will result in a much bigger and more powerful UN that is hostile to the US.

---

The UN's hostility is irrelevant. The US could flourish even if it was completely isolated. Indeed, total isolation would probably help the US flourish... as much of a shame it would be.

If the UN tried to engage the US... lol... even if the US armed forces stood down, which is unlikely, the would be occupiers would have the insurgency from hell on their hands. "a rifle behind every blade of grass"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei

This is a really bad idea. If the US leaves the UN, then they lose their veto power over everything the UN does. That will result in a much bigger and more powerful UN that is hostile to the US.

---

We need no part in entangling alliances. The United Nations encroaches on our sovereignity and the sovereignty of basically every other country on the Earth. Not to mention we are too broke to pay for it.

Quote:

---

“The U.S. has been the largest financial supporter of the U.N. since the organization’s founding in 1945. The U.S. is currently assessed 22 percent of the U.N. regular budget and more than 27 percent of the U.N. peacekeeping budget. In dollar terms, the Administration’s budget for FY 2011 requested $516.3 million for the U.N. regular budget and more than $2.182 billion for the peacekeeping budget.

“However, the U.S. also provides assessed financial contributions to other U.N. organizations and voluntary contributions to many more U.N. organizations. According to OMB, total U.S. contributions to the U.N. system were more than $6.347 billion in FY 2009. This is more than $1 billion more than total contributions as compiled by OMB for FY 2005, and it is indicative of the rising budgetary trends in the U.N. and the consequential demand on U.S. financial support.”

---

http://acta.us/growls/2010/08/what_d...nations_c.html


We pay 22 percent of the U.N. budget while Russia pays 1.602 percent of the U.N. budget. We damn near pay twice as much as the next leading U.N. financer Japan, who pays 12.530 percent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Funding

That is just the listed budget. There are other endeavors we pay for yearly. We are in no danger to cease membership in the United Nations. We are powerful enough to ward off any enemy. We have weapons the world has yet to really see. No country would dare attack us. A ground campaign would be too costly, and as others have stated, we are armed to the teeth. We are much more likely to be attacked in the U.N. than out of it. My logic for that is as follows: We go to war (humanaterian efforts) on U.N. resolutions, at the behest of very powerful lobbyists from the MIC. This puts our troops in danger's path moreso than if they did not partake in these unconstitutional endeavors. Our bombs do not always hit where they are supposed to and many times (damn near everytime) there is quote on quote, 'collateral damage.' This further breeds enemies when children grow up seeing human limbs and what exactly shrapnel will do to a human body. It is perpetual warfare that we need no part of. They circumvent our Congress with their resolutions, involve us in shit we shouldn't be involved in, cost too much, and encroach upon the sovereignity of non-member states. Please let this bill get some attention. Too many people believe that the U.N. protects us in some way when in reality, they do the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465

The United Nations encroaches on our sovereignity and the sovereignty of basically every other country on the Earth. Not to mention we are too broke to pay for it.

---

not true, the US can veto anything the UN does. If we get out, then the UN can gang up on us and take our sovereignty in WWIII.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465

We need no part in entangling alliances.

---

Being in the UN is not an "alliance" if you merely veto everything the UN wants to do. That's what I advocate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei

not true, the US can veto anything the UN does. If we get out, then the UN can gang up on us and take our sovereignty in WWIII.

---

And if we don't the U.N. will undoubtedly take us into Iran, or Syria, or Libya- again, or (). We need no part in entangling alliances. They circumvent our Congress with this somehow delegated power of declaring war- I mean, humanitarian missions. I would much rather OUR Congress declares war against legitimate aggressors than some pussy UN declaration sending our troops halfway around the world. Hell, I, as well as a host of other Americans, would take up arms voluntarily should your little scenario play out. This isn't the cold war. We spend more money on weaponry than the rest of the world combined. We have yet to even use the best weaponry of our arsenal. I doubt China or Russia wants any part of the receiving end of these largely unseen, weapons from hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei

Being in the UN is not an "alliance" if you merely veto everything the UN wants to do. That's what I advocate.

---

'We' use the U.N. to 'legally' get us involved in these conflicts. We need to take away that option. (explaining to people the ridiculousness of the U.N. taking us to war just doesn't seem to work) You are incredibly naive to think the United States will veto UN resolutions when 'we' (the MIC, powers-that-be, globalists- whatever you wish to call them) fully support them. If it isn't us directly circumventing Congress to go on these wild military adventures (proposing the resolution) it is a NATO country proposing what we want/tell them to. Which brings me to another point, we need to get the hell out of NATO too.

As a member of the security council the UN really just allows the US to play the role of cotyrant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465

'We' use the U.N. to 'legally' get us involved in these conflicts. We need to take away that option. (explaining to people the ridiculousness of the U.N. taking us to war just doesn't seem to work) You are incredibly naive to think the United States will veto UN resolutions when 'we' (the MIC, powers-that-be, globalists- whatever you wish to call them) fully support them. If it isn't us directly circumventing Congress to go on these wild military adventures (proposing the resolution) it is a NATO country proposing what we want/tell them to. Which brings me to another point, we need to get the hell out of NATO too.

---

You are extremely naive if you think Obama will withdraw from the UN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei

You are extremely naive if you think Obama will withdraw from the UN.

---

That does not mean I shouldn't educate people on the problems arising from these organizations. Some people still think it is an advantage to be involved with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465

That does not mean I shouldn't educate people on the problems arising from these organizations. Some people still think it is an advantage to be involved with them.

---

Do that, but do not take the veto power the US currently has over the UN.

How about we compromise, the US makes a deal where they withdraw from the UN, but retain an automatic veto on everything the UN does.