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

[TheTexan]

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.

 

[bolil]

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"

 

[kcchiefs6465]

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.

“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_does_the_united_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.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

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.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

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.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

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.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

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.

 

[bolil]

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

 

[Galileo Galilei]

'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.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

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.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

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.