(Get us out of the UN) Ron Paul Sucess! UN Bill HR 1146


PDA






Desertdog
July 15, 2003, 09:33 PM
Ron Paul Sucess! UN Bill HR 1146
By Kent Snyder

Our opportunity is at hand! We wanted a vote on Congressman Ron Paul’s H.R. 1146 (withdrawing the United States from the United Nations) and we got it.
The House will vote late this afternoon or early evening on H.R. 1146 as an amendment to H.R. 1950 – Foreign Relations Authorization Act. The amendment reads: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act, may be obligated or expended to pay any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations."

In plain language, that gets the U.S. out of the U.N. – no money, no membership.

This is not a dress rehearsal – this is your life. Put down your pencils, stop reading The New American and start contacting people...start with your U.S. representative and then spread the word. It’s time to stop talking about how bad the United Nations really is and do something about it: get the U.S. out of the U.N.!

Act now! Go to this site for more information.


Kent Snyder
The Liberty Committee

If you enjoyed reading about "(Get us out of the UN) Ron Paul Sucess! UN Bill HR 1146" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Stickjockey
July 15, 2003, 11:26 PM
What site?? Where??

Desertdog
July 16, 2003, 01:49 AM
Sorry, I forgot to give the URL. Here it is.

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/15/article_ks.htm

Mike Irwin
July 16, 2003, 02:01 AM
Thanks but no thanks.

Sometimes it is truly better to be at the right hand of the devil than in his path.

And if we were to get out of the UN, I don't see anything but trouble for the US once we forfeit that veto vote in the security council.

Quite frankly, there is no way in hell that I want France or Red China to have a security council vote with the US not able to stop them dead in their tracks.

HBK
July 16, 2003, 02:04 AM
How did the vote go? Does anyone know?

Combat-wombat
July 16, 2003, 04:04 AM
http://www.getusout.org

Bainx
July 16, 2003, 11:59 AM
It got defeated something like 350-74 but still, there is hope.

Mike Irwin-I plead you to reconsider your view of us being part of the UN, which is the definition of evil.
Not only is it pro-abortion, pro-environmental/nazi hysteria, anti-gun, but, those jerks are demanding us to pour millions into a renovation of the UN building.

Yet another black hole that WE have been throwing money into and reaping no benefits.

Let them be by themselves and vote whatever they want to vote. We are going to have to fight them sooner or later anyway.

Mike Irwin
July 16, 2003, 01:02 PM
Hey Bain,

Quite frankly, the UN isn't evil. It's an organization, largely controlled by the 5 members who sit in the UN security council and who control the veto votes.

Using your "the UN is evil" logic, then the US is itself evil as it is a controlling influence in the UN.

I beg you to reconsider the horrendous economic impact that could be wreaked on the United States if we were to unilaterally withdraw from the UN, and oh, say, France decided to pay us back for our invasion of Iraq by forcing through economic sanctions, such as shutting off the flow of oil into the US....

Don't think it can happen?

Tell me, how could we stop international sanctions if we're not a member of the security council?

Short answer is....

We can't.

Don't be fooled, and don't be fools, folks.

We're LONG past the point in history where this nation, or really any nation, can simply decide to withdraw from the international scene.

I have absolutely no doubt that there are many in nations around the world PRAYING that a measure like Ron Paul's will be successful, and the US will simply pull out.

Does anyone here think for a second that if the United States were to withdraw from the UN that the rest of the world would forget its deeply held animosities toward our nation?

We've had this this discussion before, and the shortsightedness of such proposals really is frightening.

I would be extremely happy if the UN were to collapse under its own weight. But that's not going to happen any time soon.

And don't, for a second, be naieve enough to think that if the US withdraws from the UN that will force its collapse, either. There are many other nations, such as France, Germany, Red China, and even Britain, that have serious and vested interests in keeping the UN afloat.

But what about all the money that the United States pours into the UN? That would cause its collapse if that were withdrawn, wouldn't it?

Nice theory, predicated on the presumption that the United States is the only economic superpower in the world. Here's a nasty truth. We're not.

Again, don't be naieve. China could cover US expenditures without really burping, but they wouldn't have to go it alone. France? Hey, what's a few hundred million more Euros a year to further France's avowed goal of being the leader of an anti-America coalition?

Think about this logically for a few minutes. Just WHAT does the United States get in return for withdrawing from the UN?

That's where people like the "Get us out of the UN" groups and Mr. Paul start to get really hazy. They're trying to sell us on a concept that's no longer valid, that the United States is self-sufficient and can be isolationist if it chooses to be.

That's simply a lie.

Once again, by maintaining membership in the UN, the United States maintains the ability to control its direction.

Withdraw from the UN?

No control, no true ability to influence other members of the UN in any meaningful way, no ability to counteract retaliatory sanctions, etc.

Only a fool gives his enemies the ability to control and defeat him. And that's exactly what we'd be doing if we unilaterally withdrew from the UN.

Col. Mustard
July 16, 2003, 01:18 PM
Mike-

If the US pulls out of the UN, it's likely that the UN will cease to exist; after all, we pay a substantial load of the UN's freight.

And yes; the UN is evil. Any organization that puts the likes of Cuba and Libya on a human rights commission cannot be trusted.

themic
July 16, 2003, 01:55 PM
i thought we already don't pay our dues to the UN anyways?

Mike Irwin
July 16, 2003, 02:07 PM
"If the US pulls out of the UN, it's likely that the UN will cease to exist; after all, we pay a substantial load of the UN's freight."


Hello?

Already talked about that, Col.

As in...

"And don't, for a second, be naieve enough to think that if the US withdraws from the UN that will force its collapse, either. There are many other nations, such as France, Germany, Red China, and even Britain, that have serious and vested interests in keeping the UN afloat.

But what about all the money that the United States pours into the UN? That would cause its collapse if that were withdrawn, wouldn't it?

Nice theory, predicated on the presumption that the United States is the only economic superpower in the world. Here's a nasty truth. We're not.

Again, don't be naieve. China could cover US expenditures without really burping, but they wouldn't have to go it alone. France? Hey, what's a few hundred million more Euros a year to further France's avowed goal of being the leader of an anti-America coalition?"


Damn, are people REALLY so freaking naieve to believe that the United States is the ONLY nation on the face of the earth with cash?

That we're the only nation on the face of the earth capable of paying for UN operations?

That if the US simply withdrew its money that no other nation, or group of nations, could make make up what the US takes away?

Please.

Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to where this apparently uniquely American fantasy of "we're the only economy in the world with money" came to be?

Yes, the United States is the world's largest economy based on Gross Domestic Product.

But here's a funny little list from Austrialianpolitics.com, which shows where the rest of the world falls economically based on GDP.

http://australianpolitics.com.au/foreign/trade/03-01-07_largest-economies.shtml

Combined, the next 6, ALL staunch supporters of the role of the UN, and including two nations that have a vested interest in seeing the United States pull out of the body -- France and China -- have GDPs larger than the United States.

I'm not certain about this, but I believe the GDP of the European Union combined is very close to that of the United States.

Now, tell me again why you think the UN would implode if the US withdrew its cash support?



Oh, and as the UN as an organization being evil because IT put Libya and Cuba on the human rights board?

Uhm... Pardon my impertence, but the UN did no such things.

The individual member nations that make up the UN body voted those nations onto the commission.

And quite frankly, all that is is window dressing. For all of our screaming about human rights violations and violators, the United States doesn't have much trouble in dealing or even allying closely with some of the worst of the violators.

So, how evil are we, then?

seeker_two
July 16, 2003, 02:19 PM
I've changed my mind...

We should stay in the UN...

But we shouldn't give them a single dime or a single soldier...

WE should be the leech for awhile...:evil:

Drizzt
July 16, 2003, 03:42 PM
We hashed a lot of this out here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14245&highlight=United+Nations

Honestly, before I read the UN Charter, I was a proponent of us just leaving them high and dry, but now....

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article 2, Section 6 of the United Nations Charter.

I'm guessing they WOULD try to use that against us....


and that's just an example.

Col. Mustard
July 17, 2003, 04:01 AM
"And don't, for a second, be naieve enough to think that if the US withdraws from the UN that will force its collapse, either. There are many other nations, such as France, Germany, Red China, and even Britain, that have serious and vested interests in keeping the UN afloat.

But what about all the money that the United States pours into the UN? That would cause its collapse if that were withdrawn, wouldn't it?

Nice theory, predicated on the presumption that the United States is the only economic superpower in the world. Here's a nasty truth. We're not.

So what? By the time all those economic superpowers quit bickering about who's going to fill the economic void left by the withdrawal of the US (not to mention finding a new home for the body) the UN will likely just rot on the vine.

Again, don't be naieve. China could cover US expenditures without really burping, but they wouldn't have to go it alone. France? Hey, what's a few hundred million more Euros a year to further France's avowed goal of being the leader of an anti-America coalition?"


Damn, are people REALLY so freaking naieve to believe that the United States is the ONLY nation on the face of the earth with cash?

That we're the only nation on the face of the earth capable of paying for UN operations?

That if the US simply withdrew its money that no other nation, or group of nations, could make make up what the US takes away?

Please.

If these other countries are so flush with cash, why are they not bankrolling their own adequate military forces? These people might have swell GDP numbers, but they also tax the hell out of their people, and those people just might be loath to ante up more money to pay their fair share of UN dues.

Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to where this apparently uniquely American fantasy of "we're the only economy in the world with money" came to be?
I'm not certain about this, but I believe the GDP of the European Union combined is very close to that of the United States.

Now, tell me again why you think the UN would implode if the US withdrew its cash support?

Perhaps it wouldn't implode. Perhaps all these rich economies will step up to pay their fair share. That, by itself, would be a good thing. I'm still puzzled at what we're getting in return for our disproportionate investment in this organization.


Oh, and as the UN as an organization being evil because IT put Libya and Cuba on the human rights board?

Uhm... Pardon my impertence, but the UN did no such things.

The individual member nations that make up the UN body voted those nations onto the commission.

Your point being what; that the UN is not a reflection of its member states? This is a crock. If the US is so out of step with the other 189 member states of the UN, than obviously we're just wasting our time and money (and real estate) on the UN.

And quite frankly, all that is is window dressing. For all of our screaming about human rights violations and violators, the United States doesn't have much trouble in dealing or even allying closely with some of the worst of the violators.

So, how evil are we, then?

Yup, that's us. Evil, loathesome, despicable, violators of basic human rights.

HBK
July 17, 2003, 04:38 AM
I think the UN should be broken up and eliminated.

stevelyn
July 17, 2003, 09:33 AM
The UN's goals are to eliminate the sovereignty of member nations, rendering their constitutions null and void. The UN wants to create a world government and have the ability to enter any country as if it were just another political sub-division of the UN itself.
Who cares what what they vote on on the Security Council? I certainly don't. Our guns are bigger than any of their's. If anyone wants to press the issue, the U.S. has the ability to vaporize any point on the planet within 30 minutes or less.
Do we want to have good relations with other countries? Of course. Our economies benefit from it. Being a member of the UN is not necessary to good foreign relations. But as one of the founding fathers quoted, we should avoid entangling alliances.
While we're at it, we should probably leave NATO too. NATO has long outlived it's usefulness since the fall of the Red Menace and is nothing more than an expanding military welfare program for European leeches. They need to learn to pay their own way. IIRC, NATO member countries opposed our invasion of Iraq.
:fire:

Mike Irwin
July 17, 2003, 01:34 PM
"By the time all those economic superpowers quit bickering about who's going to fill the economic void left by the withdrawal of the US (not to mention finding a new home for the body) the UN will likely just rot on the vine."

Well, at least it's refreshing to see that hope springs eternal, even sadly misplaced hope.

Once again, you speak wonderful words of hope without any sense of what might happen if your hopes are dashed.

That's like walking onto a highway with your eyes closed and thinking "I HOPE I don't get hit by a car."

Once again, the stakes are simply too high to attempt to play a game of "We're the biggest boy on the block, we're indespensible, we're going home and the rest of you can go to hell."

In a playground setting that childish.

In an international affairs setting like the United Nations, that's an open avenue to disaster.

Why are so many people so blind as to not be able to see this?


"If these other countries are so flush with cash, why are they not bankrolling their own adequate military forces?"

OK, two questions.

1. Have you looked at the stats on the size of China's standing army lately, and

2. That's sequitor to this conversation how?

"That, by itself, would be a good thing. I'm still puzzled at what we're getting in return for our disproportionate investment in this organization."

I agree, we're not getting a lot. But what would we get, and more importantly, what would we LOSE, if the US were to simply walk away from the all-powerful veto vote in the Security Council? Most importantly, we'd lose the ability to stop punatitive economic sanctions against the United States.

But, obviously, that's not a big deal, we're the biggest, the baddest, boy on the block. EVERYONE needs the United States, right? We're absolutely indespensible to the operation of the rest of the world, right?

Wrong.


"Yup, that's us. Evil, loathesome, despicable, violators of basic human rights."

Your attempt to take the high moral ground for the United States is demolished by this nation's long standing support for any number of regiems that are thoroughly hostile to human rights.

Somehow I don't think we'd hear the same sort of squawking if one of our erswhile allies were given a seat on the human rights council...

In fact, I know we wouldn't. I believe that in the 1970s Iran served a term on the council, and the Shah's government was certainly no friend to human rights, but he was our friend, so that made it all spiffy, I guess.




"The UN's goals are to eliminate the sovereignty of member nations, rendering their constitutions null and void. The UN wants to create a world government and have the ability to enter any country as if it were just another political sub-division of the UN itself."

Yep, it would certain appear that that is the long-term direction of the UN, as pushed by many of its member nations.

"Who cares what what they vote on on the Security Council?"

Well, since issues of international soverignty pass through the security council, where they can be killed by a single veto from any of the permanent members, I'd suggest that you've answered your own question. WE should care what passes through the security council.

jimpeel
July 17, 2003, 05:03 PM
Color me stupid; but where does a 350-74 defeat of this measure qualify as a success on the success chart?

PATH
July 18, 2003, 01:59 AM
It's a long, long road, with many a winding turn........

Col. Mustard
July 18, 2003, 03:30 AM
But, obviously, that's not a big deal, we're the biggest, the baddest, boy on the block. EVERYONE needs the United States, right? We're absolutely indespensible to the operation of the rest of the world, right?

Wrong.

"we're the biggest, the baddest, boy on the block. "

We are.

" EVERYONE needs the United States, right? "

They do not. I think we only provide foreign aid to about 143 of the 189 other member nations of the UN.

"We're absolutely indespensible to the operation of the rest of the world, right? "

I think it's safe to say that the operation of the rest of the world would be significantly different if the United States was not the lone superpower.

I'm not suggesting that the Earth will cease to exist if we pull out of the UN; I'm predicting that it will result in one of those "be careful what you wish for, it just might come true" scenarios. The UN, as a body and as individual member states, need us a lot more than we need them.

Mute
July 18, 2003, 12:48 PM
I don't know. Remember. Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.

If you enjoyed reading about "(Get us out of the UN) Ron Paul Sucess! UN Bill HR 1146" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!