United Nations

[CulpeperMM]

What I read is that membership in the U.N. comes with a lot of rules and no teeth for enforcement. What I know is that the U.N. is an impotent organization with absolutely no real power to exert its influence because each and every player chooses to put it second over their own interests. Hello, France. It's a dummy corporation at best. No real purpose but created to give things an air of legitimacy. It's existence serves no other purpose but creating a facade of cooperation so that nations that might otherwise never put themselves in a position to interact with other nations may do so at their benefit without taking the risks of walking out on the limb. And on some occasions, for the purpose of making it appear like the rest of the world is bigger than it is. Think puffer fish of international politics.

What do you think would happen if the U.S. decided not to comply? What exists on paper is not always an accurate representation of what happens in real life. The U.N. doesn't bother me.

I'm not saying we shouldn't get out. Well, yeah, actually, I am. Semper's post convinced me our membership is valuable enough to deal with the drawbacks. I would argue that the U.N. needs to cease to exist. But as long as it does, I'm all for membership on our terms*. If they don't like it, they can kick us out. Because that's really all they have in their little bag of tricks. And as things stand right now, that ain't never gonna happen as long as we're providing posh headquarters and footing a majority of the bills and other liabilities. We keep the rest of them afloat and they know it. THeir petty tyrants have far less power than they think they do.


*Our terms should include a significant reduction in funds allotted, but I'd settle for a quid pro quo benefits package if it came down to it.

you are confused. i cannot help you.

 

[steveh_131]

I don't think she's confused. Sounds like she's saying we should agree to their terms (lie), gather intel, and then simply break the terms of membership whenever it becomes convenient.

Is that about it?

 

[CulpeperMM]

I don't think she's confused. Sounds like she's saying we should agree to their terms (lie), gather intel, and then simply break the terms of membership whenever it becomes convenient.

Is that about it?

We can gather intel and have diplomatic relations without being in a communist organization that uses our own military as its enforcement tool.

 

[88GT]

you are confused. i cannot help you.

What a smashing bit of logic you've employed there. Does that translate into "I don't agree with you but can't formulate an argument that rebuts it, so I'm going to deflect by casting doubt on her frame of mind instead?"

Let me help. What part of my analysis do you find fault with and why? What real world example can you provide that proves what I've said to be incorrect?

There is no confusion. I'm quite prepared to meet your arguments and discuss this like rational adults. Disagreement is not an indication of ignorance.

We can gather intel and have diplomatic relations without being in a communist organization that uses our own military as its enforcement tool.

Sure, but you can do it better when your enemies act like your friends under the umbrella of international cooperation.

Membership has its privileges. It doesn't just apply to AmEx.

 

[88GT]

I don't think she's confused. Sounds like she's saying we should agree to their terms (lie), gather intel, and then simply break the terms of membership whenever it becomes convenient.

Is that about it?

Geez, when you put it that way it sounds so mean and dishonest.


But yeah. That's pretty much it. I know of no nation that operates any differently. Why should we?

Canada flipped the U.N. the bird on Kyoto and said they were disengaging. Britain told the EU to go to hell when it was being dragged down with the sinking ship. Hell, China and Russia do it daily. It's only lip service from their end. They still do whatever the heck they want. I mean, when was the last time you saw China brought up on charges of human rights violations?

Milk it for the benefits. That doesn't mean it has to remain a status quo relationship in terms of our financial and other investment. I'd be perfectly thrilled to change those terms. But as long as it's there, let's get something for our investment. We sure didn't get the oil. (I'm still pissed about that.)

 

[CulpeperMM]

What a smashing bit of logic you've employed there. Does that translate into "I don't agree with you but can't formulate an argument that rebuts it, so I'm going to deflect by casting doubt on her frame of mind instead?"

Let me help. What part of my analysis do you find fault with and why? What real world example can you provide that proves what I've said to be incorrect?

There is no confusion. I'm quite prepared to meet your arguments and discuss this like rational adults. Disagreement is not an indication of ignorance.




Sure, but you can do it better when your enemies act like your friends under the umbrella of international cooperation.

Membership has its privileges. It doesn't just apply to AmEx.

I am not concerned about the other member nations of the U.N. I am only concerned about the U.S.A. I do not think any country in the world is a threat to us. Our military is the best in the world, and can overwhelm in other nation if permitted to fight to win (like MacArthur or Patton).
My concern is the motive of our OWN government using the U.N. for cover to establish a One World Government. George HW Bush's New World Order.

The so called reasons for being in the U.N. are redundant to things we do outside of it. We don't need it and its existence poses security threats to the United States.

Your confusion is based on your acceptance of the premise of the organization's purpose. You take them at their word. I do not. I cannot reconcile that for you. You have Faith that Hillary as Secretary of State will do the right things. I do not.

 

[steveh_131]

Interesting discussion.

CuppeperMM is basically saying the U.N. is influencing our policy and a drain on our resources and therefore we should remove ourselves.

88GT is saying, instead, that we should just stop letting them influence our policy and drain our resources, but stay in.

I can see both sides, in theory. The problem with staying in is that you're basically advocating the status quo. As long as we are members, politicians will use it as an excuse to remove liberties and spend our money. It's what they've done all along and it isn't going to change.

But in practical terms, what real chance do we have of convincing anyone to get us out of it completely?

 

[88GT]

I am not concerned about the other member nations of the U.N. I am only concerned about the U.S.A. I do not think any country in the world is a threat to us. Our military is the best in the world, and can overwhelm in other nation if permitted to fight to win (like MacArthur or Patton).
My concern is the motive of our OWN government using the U.N. for cover to establish a One World Government. George HW Bush's New World Order.

Well, this is the first time you mentioned that. You sure you aren't changing your story?

The so called reasons for being in the U.N. are redundant to things we do outside of it. We don't need it and its existence poses security threats to the United States.

Your confusion is based on your acceptance of the premise of the organization's purpose. You take them at their word. I do not. I cannot reconcile that for you. You have Faith that Hillary as Secretary of State will do the right things. I do not.

OMG. Now I am convinced the confusion belongs with you. Nothing of what I wrote even intimates such a position on my part. You are conjuring it out of thin air and assuming facts not in evidence.

No, we don't need it. I don't need the biggest passenger truck on the road either. But I have one. (Okay, I sorta do need it. But I'd drive it even if I didn't. ) Usefulness isn't limited strictly to need. It's there. Let's own it. Besides, the U.S. doesn't need the U.N. to establish OWG. Ask Rambone. He's convinced we're doing that all by ourselves.

 

[88GT]

I

I can see both sides, in theory. The problem with staying in is that you're basically advocating the status quo. As long as we are members, politicians will use it as an excuse to remove liberties and spend our money. It's what they've done all along and it isn't going to change.

It's a convenient excuse. They'd find another way around that hurdle with or without it. Besides, most of our liberty-crushing legislation has been entirely within the boundaries of our own nation.

But it's there and we're in. We've given and given and given, and I don't have a problem with getting a little ROI from it at this point. We could take a page or two from some of the other members in how to extort some sweet bennies out of it.

 

[CulpeperMM]

Well, this is the first time you mentioned that. You sure you aren't changing your story?

no. i hope that you read each and every post of mine in this thread. they create a mosaic of the pieces of this puzzle. bits of evidence that support this conclusion.

how many hundereds of billions of dollars have we pissed away in the U.N. to get the "priveledge" of membership in this communistic cartel?

 

[steveh_131]

I'm curious to know what valuable intel we gain from being a member of the U.N. that we wouldn't easily gain without it.

SemperFi, since you made the claim, do you have any ideas on this?

 

[88GT]

Alger Hiss. U.S. State Department Official that was involved in the establishment of the United Nations. He was convicted of perjury in trial related to espionage for the Soviet Union. He was likely a member of the Communist Party U.S.A.

Alger Hiss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harry White. U.S. Treasury official responsible for the creation of the IMF (International Monetary Fund), the finance arm of the U.N. Suspected of being a Soviet spy. He died 3 days after testifying to the House Un-American Activities Committee. (Officially heart-attack, some guess suicide or murder)
Harry Dexter White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rather shady start to "our last, best hope".

Why wasn't this thing (the U.N.) dismantled after it was apparent to all that it was a creation of communist?

American taxpayers have provided hundreds of billions of dollars to the IMF over the last few yew years. The IMF is asking the U.S. for another $200Billion to bail out Europe now. Of course president obama agrees Americans need to do our share to help Europe.

We need out of the U.N. and the IMF.

Rio Treaty definition of Rio Treaty in the Free Online Encyclopedia.

This was the beginning of the GLOBAL WARMING hysteria. it was created as a means of forcing world government.

Much of the environmental non-sense spouted out from of the media, our government, and the school system is derived from this. Mr. Gorbachev is still a communist.

Agenda 21 - encyclopedia article about Agenda 21.

According to the definitions of Agenda 21 property rights effect the environment, thus property rights are not fixed. Agenda 21 seeks to regulate every facet of every persons life. Much of the environmental legislation we see coming from Congress is simply the codification of the terms of the treaties into U.S. law. Where they can not pass it in congress, cities and counties have partnered with the U.N. through ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives).

The U.N. sees itself as the sovereign, and all the nations as simply "states". Many U.S. politicians (George H.W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Bill-&-Hillary Clinton, Bush the younger, B.H. Obama) see it that way as well. They are cosmopolitans, citizens of the world.

They will not invade wearing Powder Blue. They are here. In the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court. In our city councils and county commissions. (I have no idea how many in our government are on board with this. 1%, 20%, 50% who knows?)

We need to elect people to Washington that will shut it down or at least withdraw us from the U.N.

These are the closest you come to such. In hindsight, knowing after the fact, your point is visible. But not clear. Mosaics don't make for good discussions. Nobody wants to have to decipher your meaning because you couldn't put it together coherently the first time.

And you still haven't answered any of my questions.

 

[88GT]

I'm curious to know what valuable intel we gain from being a member of the U.N. that we wouldn't easily gain without it.

SemperFi, since you made the claim, do you have any ideas on this?

I think the issue is "how" not "what." Relationships foster information sharing.

 

[CulpeperMM]

And you still haven't answered any of my questions.

great.

i'll put you down for moving to france when we exit the U.N.

 

[rambone]

Is this real life?

The UN is a leaking sieve of information. Disbanding or removing ourselves from the UN would be an immense loss of access to information we need about both our friends and foes.

The U.N. doesn't bother me. I'm not saying we shouldn't get out. Well, yeah, actually, I am.

Paying billions of dollars per year in support of global gun control, global carbon taxes, global police forces, global banking structure, population control, eugenics, war...

Count me out.

 

[88GT]

great.

i'll put you down for moving to france when we exit the U.N.

LOL, taking deflection lessons from Ram, I see.

Note to self: Culpeper can't discuss. Don't engage.

 

[MilitaryArms]

I think the issue is "how" not "what." Relationships foster information sharing.

We can, and do, have diplomatic relationships outside of the UN.

 

[J_Wales]

To Hell with the UN.

 

[88GT]

We can, and do, have diplomatic relationships outside of the UN.

Did I say we didn't? No. But then we don't get all our intel from our diplomatic relations either, do we?

 

[PAMom]

While I can see both pros and cons to our membership; I am curious as to what would happen to the UN if we were to withdraw our funding.