posted on March 13, 2002 11:30:49 AM newCongressman Ron Paul, Texas, has introduced H.R. 1146, The American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2001. H.R. 1146 would get the United States completely out of the United Nations.
A friend just sent this to me. I would love to hear discussion on this. This is the first I've heard of it.
posted on March 13, 2002 03:59:25 PM new
Not a good idea.
The USSR left the UN Security Council for a short time around 1950. The Korean conflict started, the US backed South Korea and managed to get the UN to back South Korea. Many UN members sent troops to fight on the side of South Korea. If Russia would have stayed in the UN Security Council, they could have vetoed the resolutions that the US submitted on this issue and could have kept the UN out of that conflict.
The US consistently vetoes resolutions that are aimed at Israel. The other Security Council members that have veto power (Great Britain, France, Russia, and China) don't back Israel on most of these issues, or let the US take the brunt of the complaints from those of the opposite viewpoint.
As long as the USA has veto power in the Security Council, it is in our best interest to stay.
posted on March 13, 2002 05:29:28 PM new
oklahomastampman,
Good point.
I wonder if the UN is making some new laws that conflict with the US laws? It seems like something must have happened to make some people desire to drop from the UN. This seems sudden to me. Does anyone have more info that might shed some light on this?
posted on March 13, 2002 11:12:13 PM new
No, Alwaysbroke, the Republicans have been trying to decades to find one way or another to pull out of the UN. You have to realize that that is exactly what they did for the League of Nations - predecessor to the United Nations, and the League collapsed. It collapsed and events that lead to World War II got much graver. This is what Republicans want today: War, non-ending (because it's good money $$). Bush is poising himself to do what Hitler did in 1940, taking over Austria and other countries by sheer bullying. Since they are in it for the economics, they couldn't care less who runs it politically -- just keep their fingers off of the pillaging of the resources!
Remove ourselves fom the UN and it will collapse in a few years - especially as Bush pushes hard against it by demanding that since America isn't in the UN, then get their damned building offa our soil!
Once that happens, it is their hope that war will break out -- a Third World War, if you will. A 'survivable nuclear exchange' to quote Reagan.
I keep saying it, WHO or WHAT is most pleased with WAR, FAMINE, MISERY, LOSS and DEATH? Haven't you Republican voters got it through your too dense heads yet?
posted on March 14, 2002 05:11:58 AM new
Borillar,
I remember studying about the major wars in school. I'll never forget the teacher saying, "What our economy needs is another good war." He then proceeded to explain how it increases industry and produces jobs. Everyone was shocked.
posted on March 14, 2002 07:54:02 AM new
The UN is one step above useless which is kind of OK. I'm mean you can all sit down and have coffee, discuss stuff, etc. What's NOT Ok is that we have to pay the lion's share of the cost to have groups of 3rd world countries try to dictate actions involving us. I would just send a memo to the UN saying starting next year we're paying our fair share and that it's ok, they can have the building rent free.
posted on March 14, 2002 09:45:33 AM new
DeSquirrel, you have to remember that the UN was our idea origionally. And when it was formed, the ONLY economically viable country left was America! Everyone else was devastated by war. So, since it was our idea, to not Dictate to the World what we want and think like Bush is doing, but to include nations in a peaceful way in solving wars before they happen. All too often, that purpose was subverted and the UN did not meet its purpose. But that is no reason to do away with it as some suggest.
I do agree with you that it is time for us to pay only a "fair share" of the costs, rather than a "lion's share."
