It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

H.R. 193- Bill To end membership of the United States in the United Nations

page: 10
97
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Sorry but Trump is a massive supporter of Israel.....his only downfall IMO.....and the money won't stop flowing to them....this I guarantee.




posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:20 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785
I'm not sure you can really compare the UN to the EU to be honest, they aren't there to fulfil the same criteria. Comparing it to Brexit isn't really appropriate. NAFTA and TPP are probably closer to the EU piece, but even then it's not the same as neither of those involve EU pieces such as the European Court for human justice.

Whatever you may think about the UN I'd argue it helps hold countries/states to account and its work in areas of disaster and war are, while not perfect, hugely significant. You say the US would get along fine without UN membership. Well, I'm sure it would. You would lose a significant part of your voice and any kind of moral authority in the world though. The fact that on his first day Trump signed in executive orders to prohibit federal funds being used by international groups that provide information on abortion has kind of dealt that a bit of a blow though anyway.


I guess the question that really drives this is should America look outwards or inwards? You can actually do both without shutting the door.

Anyhow, as several have said, it's unlikely this will actually go anywhere.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 05:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: TrueAmerican the US is the worlds only superpower and offers better protection than the brainchild of the Elites.


Go tell that to the families of the thousands that were slaughtered on American soil on 9/11.
edit on 24-1-2017 by ForteanOrg because: he made typos



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueAmerican

The American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017



Ohhhh.... what a nice ring to it it has! I likes it!

We've been the world's police for far too damn long. Regroup, reset, build the wall, concentrate on the USA for a while. And don't screw with us while we make America great again!!! Or else...



Although I agree with you, you say 'policing the world' almost as if you've been doing everyone a favour up until now? (Ignore me if this isn't the case).

Hopefully I'm not breaking any bubbles of illusion by saying that I think the majority of the world wants you to stop 'policing' them too.

Also, my God ATS has become unbearable for us non-Americans. For one year straight every single thread is full of snide digs and remarks from the 'right' to 'left' and vice versa.

Does no one see the searing irony of a system that encourages approximately half the country to essentially bully the other half based on 'who wins'? It's like a football match to some people lol.

Not that I'm particularly pro or anti Trump - but it's fascinating that the overarching psyche of a nation has been reduced to either "yep, this guy is going to sort every single issue I perceive America to have" or "omg, this guy is the end of my country as I know it", and further more this divide seems to be ENJOYED by all the people involved. I'm seeing a mirror situation in the UK over Brexit, and quite amazingly within this smoke of divide the actual important topics of discussions are disappearing once again (in terms of the average joe).

Or in others words; our western society seems to be currently operating in a more emotionally influenced than logical manner. This tends to happen following periods of hardship and general social decohesion. We begin to want to entertain the ancient tribal centres in our brain and form ever smaller groups we feel we can belong to and defend. We want to have our heads filled with positive dreams rather than deal with the truth of the matter. Even if you look at the comment I quoted; it's all about the emotional concepts that the words 'restoration' and 'sovereignty' conjure in the human, rather than the 'cold' logic of the technical proposal behind it. It's partly only human nature, isn't it?

I don't think I'm a pessimist when I say humans open the doors to many dangers when they choose to operate emotionally over logic, but at the same time I'm not commenting on the future outlook because in reality I really don't know. Maybe we need this period as a race right now, although I have faith that there's got to be a better way than what I currently see.
edit on 24-1-2017 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-1-2017 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: TrueAmerican

We could see the emergence of a different type of New World Order... the brainchild of the Elites.

The UN...

Who do you think is really pulling the strings?

May I suggest you might be overlooking something?



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   
I'm sure if this bill goes through, then the UN will relocate their headquarters to somewhere like Paris or Geneva. All those workers will likewise move out. This might put a slight dent in the property market.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: face23785
I'm not sure you can really compare the UN to the EU to be honest, they aren't there to fulfil the same criteria. Comparing it to Brexit isn't really appropriate. NAFTA and TPP are probably closer to the EU piece, but even then it's not the same as neither of those involve EU pieces such as the European Court for human justice.

Whatever you may think about the UN I'd argue it helps hold countries/states to account and its work in areas of disaster and war are, while not perfect, hugely significant. You say the US would get along fine without UN membership. Well, I'm sure it would. You would lose a significant part of your voice and any kind of moral authority in the world though. The fact that on his first day Trump signed in executive orders to prohibit federal funds being used by international groups that provide information on abortion has kind of dealt that a bit of a blow though anyway.


I guess the question that really drives this is should America look outwards or inwards? You can actually do both without shutting the door.

Anyhow, as several have said, it's unlikely this will actually go anywhere.


You are correct, fundamentally, the UN and the EU are very different organizations with different purposes, but I wasn't comparing that. I should have been more clear in that last post but I get rather wordy and sometimes I just cut myself off rather than writing another long paragraph. My comparison to the EU and to Brexit were limited to two areas: 1) that both the EU and the UN were great ideas when they started and turned into contrived cluster#s that are more trouble than they're worth, in my opinion; 2) there was a lot of fearmongering around Brexit that it would somehow have drastic consequences for the UK, mostly through complete misperceptions of what the EU is and what it means to be or not be a member. That's similar to the false views being spread here that leaving the UN would make the US isolated and somehow limit our international relations, limit economic opportunities, etc.

I also agree it's unlikely this will go anywhere. But to your point that America can look inwards as well as outwards if we remained in the UN, we could also do both if we withdrew. That's really been my main point since I started posting in this thread. In and of itself, withdrawing from the UN would not necessarily make us and isolationist nation.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
In and of itself, withdrawing from the UN would not necessarily make us and isolationist nation.


Exactly. It's just more of the bloated fat that we have to trim off the expenditures of my tax dollars. I want to see my tax dollars spent on things that will help the US for a change. And will help me. Yes, I want my friggin tax dollars to help ME. I worked for them, and so I should have a say in how they are spent. Give me tax cuts, roads, bridges, walls where necessary, and a smart government willing to put the American people first for a change. For the next 20 years, at least, I want to see America worry about itself, the most. It does not mean withdrawing into total isolation. It does not mean letting China and/or Russia run amok and do whatever they want.

And while we're at it, since we've tried Muslim and Christian Presidents, when are we going to get an atheist one that will truly separate the church and state?



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Yes i hate this too
a reply to: LightAssassin



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

I agree with you about everything except your last paragraph.

It is freedom OF religion. Not freedom FROM religion.

Separation of state and church only means that the government can not force people to be a specific religion.
It does not mean that the state should force people to have no religion.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

I would not be so quick to jump to the conclusion that this is for everyone's best interests.

The Trump cabinet is full of people w connections to big oil and the Military Industrial Complex. If that's the case, you are talking about guys who are willing to lie to the public and bring untold numbers of people into war and build debt for their own benefit, or to accomplish particular agendas. Its not the sort of people who want to save the world.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican
I don't agree. I guess I'm awkward. I don't fit in with the globalists and I don't fit in with the nationalists. The nationalists are too ingroup and war inclined. The globalists are "Kum ba yah we're equal lets be clones!" I don't feel like I ever fit in, so this isn't new. If I was force to choose a side, I think I'd join the globalists. But I'd want to leave this Earth ASAP before we all become hybrid machine humanimal borg multiculturalist peacemongers. I'd probably fail to escape. I'm like one of those throwaway characters in STar Trek.

When I was yonger I found a copy of PlanetHood. The author argues we need a world government to attain a global peace. I believed it then and still probably believe it now. But age has given me reservations. I look at the environment around me and I see so many centuries before me, with different things and different people. A global people will be different. Out with the old, in with the new. There's good and bad in that. It's not my place to judge what should or shouldn't happen. I suppose I can only support it, but I can never be an activist. I'm so, not amoral, but something else. I believe in right, but I think right changes with the times. I don't want to be trapped and only able to resonate one song. There're many songs. I think rightness is more of a number or logic to me. Yet I feel it just like anybody else. I'm not that different. Still, I'm godless. I have a heart, but I don't seem to have a soul.

Maybe you want to read it? It's not copyrighted, so if you can find a copy online it should be legal to read it without worry.
en.wikipedia.org - PlanetHood...
edit on 1/25/2017 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 05:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: TrueAmerican

The US won't withdraw from the UN. It's a useful political tool to get our way without having to give anything up. Our permanent Security Council position gives the US immense leverage.

Veto power alone has kept us from having to go to war, that makes up for the money we spend on the UN.


and there in one post sums up the reason this bill will never become law. The cost to the US of having no say in either the general assembly or more specifically the security council would far outweigh the cost of contributions to the UN over the past 40/50 years. Do people honestly think that money has been paid out of the goodness of so many administrations hearts? If the US wasn't getting at least parity in terms of influence for those payments they'd have stopped long long ago.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

The globalists are "Kum ba yah..


Kum ba ya?!

They go around the world dropping bombs and overthrowing governments..



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Here's an idea...

Let's just stop all financial contributions to the UN, but retain our seat on the Security council. Replace our representative at the UN with an animatronic doll that smells like it had fish and onions for lunch and just raises it's hand every few minutes and says "NAY!"



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

All fair points. I would say a couple of things though...

The UK has not yet left the EU. Whatever people say now has a 50% chance of being at least partially accurate - we'll know more in about 2 and a half years.

For the UN I was thinking more about involvement of a more humanitarian type at a global level rather than necessarily any financial reward.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Donkey09

The US had alot of influence before th eUN was created. it still can after leaving the UN as well. BEsides look how many times the UN ignored the US.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Donkey09

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: TrueAmerican

The US won't withdraw from the UN. It's a useful political tool to get our way without having to give anything up. Our permanent Security Council position gives the US immense leverage.

Veto power alone has kept us from having to go to war, that makes up for the money we spend on the UN.


and there in one post sums up the reason this bill will never become law. The cost to the US of having no say in either the general assembly or more specifically the security council would far outweigh the cost of contributions to the UN over the past 40/50 years. Do people honestly think that money has been paid out of the goodness of so many administrations hearts? If the US wasn't getting at least parity in terms of influence for those payments they'd have stopped long long ago.


There's a problem with your last assumption there, in that it assumes everyone who works for the government is 100% altruistic and would be appalled at any money being wasted. Having worked for the government, I can tell you this is far from the truth. Not only that but it doesn't take willful malice on the administration's part to continue wasting money on it. It just takes a flawed and overly optimistic worldview. Resolutions going through or being blocked don't start or stop wars. The UN refused to sign off on the Iraq War, and it still happened. There have been dozens of wars since the UN was formed that they have passed resolutions condemning. Know what happened after those resolutions? Nothing, the wars continued.

The UN has told Iran repeatedly to stop working on ballistic missiles, and they refuse. In order to try to get Iran to comply, individual nations pass economic sanctions to try to convince them to abandon the effort. That is done by the individual nations' legislative bodies, not by the UN. The same has been done with North Korea and I could go on and on with examples. The main point is we would still be capable of such influence without UN membership. You're continuing to make the mistake of thinking the UN has actual power. It has none, it is basically a symbolic body.


originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: face23785

All fair points. I would say a couple of things though...

The UK has not yet left the EU. Whatever people say now has a 50% chance of being at least partially accurate - we'll know more in about 2 and a half years.

For the UN I was thinking more about involvement of a more humanitarian type at a global level rather than necessarily any financial reward.


Agreed, I actually meant to point out that the jury is still out on Brexit since it hasn't happened yet. Also, thanks for being able to debate like an adult. Our exchange has been one of the more civil ones I've had on here.

As far as the humanitarian stuff, we can still do that without being in the UN. I was stationed at Fort Bragg when the Haiti earthquake happened. We were airlifting supplies and troops there to help well before the UN was able to hold any votes on what we should do. The UN doesn't make that stuff happen.
edit on 25 1 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Face, can I return your generous compliment on the mature nature of our conversation? In some parts of ATS it's the absolute given that all posters are respected, anything in the political spectrum however seems to sometimes have different rules. Your thoughtful posts are really welcome.

With the humanitarian piece, you are right, of course any and every country can do it's own thing without a governing body being involved. What I do think the UN does (or at least is there to do) is shine a light on particular issues and call for a global response/reaction, whether that's human rights, or any given crisis.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:04 PM
link   
'The UN building? Hmph. What a joke! They turned it into low rent housing. It's a dump!'
edit on 25-1-2017 by TheBadCabbie because: edit



new topics

top topics



 
97
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join