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: 2
97
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Yes1 They can take their 2030 agenda and shove it! They can get out of our National Parks (mineral rights - back to the USA!). I have been hoping for years that this would happen. I look at this headline as a miracle! True independence doesn't involve global authorities!




posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
oh dear - while it takes a special kind of stupidity to attempt to deny the fact that the UN is in desperate need of major reforms

its beyond the pale to think that they can just throw away the entire UN

the sponsors of this idiocy - clearly have not thought this through - and in an attempt to rid themselves of the flawed portions of UN activity - propose to cot of thier own noses -with a blanket rejection of the entire UN system - 75% of which works near flawlessly - and is pivotal to a sooth running global comunity


Sometimes a mere threat is all it takes to get people talking about change... and anyone who looks at the money we donate to the UN would probably just say "SUCKERS"!

According to a net search:


Each year the United States gives approximately $8 billion in mandatory payments and voluntary contributions to the United Nations and its affiliated organizations. The biggest portion of this money – about $3 billion this year – goes to the U.N.’s regular and peacekeeping budgets....


Who else ponies up that kind of cash ?

Put another way, the U.S. will be assessed more than 176 other member states combined for the regular budget and more than 185 countries combined for the peacekeeping budget. Who says America isn’t exceptional!


America has a 20 trillion dollar debt.. This new administration is a business orientated lot... Who in their right mind would carry on as usual with that kind of debt ?

www.google.com... m%2Fopinion%2F2015%2F06%2F16%2Famerica-pay-way-too-much-for-united-nations.html&usg=AFQjCNH1JQxmS9sYxcpl5unKJF5CYsGM6Q&sig2=Ni3NMBpOVkLzwtPS7zBBeQ



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 07:57 AM
link   
There's no way this will move through the senate and congress but if it did... What a beautiful thing to consider. To remove ourselves from the global government. But what would come after? Do we take up a national stance of supporting Westphalian sovereignty again or make something new?

I think I'm all for this and think we can handle the consequences. Some will fear the change and lash out because that's what they do but really this would be a good thing for our future, at least for a while and hopefully much longer. Let's do this.

What an awesome start to the day. Thanks!



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky




If this goes through there will be a time when another such function will come into being.
Could we be close to the 4 beast arising in end time prophecy of Daniel ? I always wondered how that might come about while looking at the world stage as it has been for awhile . interesting times for tptb and us.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 08:07 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...


World's police!? Don't make me laugh.. more like the world's most war mongering bullies..



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noncents
But what would come after? Do we take up a national stance of supporting Westphalian sovereignty again or make something new?


Good question. It makes me wonder how situations like the South China Sea issue would be resolved. Or Taiwan.

Westphalian sovereignty is a double edged sword, and one that will cut particularly deep into the military industrial complex with no real wars to fight and profit from. But they'll find a way, believe me. With Trump's emphasis on rebuilding and strengthening our military, I don't think they will suffer too bad.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueAmerican

originally posted by: Noncents
But what would come after? Do we take up a national stance of supporting Westphalian sovereignty again or make something new?


Good question. It makes me wonder how situations like the South China Sea issue would be resolved. Or Taiwan.

Westphalian sovereignty is a double edged sword, and one that will cut particularly deep into the military industrial complex with no real wars to fight and profit from. But they'll find a way, believe me. With Trump's emphasis on rebuilding and strengthening our military, I don't think they will suffer too bad.


Actually I can only assume our existing treaties with foreign nations would come into effect if a treaty nation were to be attacked..?



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Simply amazing. A great move that probably nobody thought possible. This is a government putting its own country first.

edit on 22-1-2017 by Trueman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 08:28 AM
link   
I've changed outfits to reflect how I feel about the UN (United Nannies).

This was Obama's last speech to the globalists.


"Despite enormous progress, as people lose trust in institutions, governing becomes more difficult and tensions between nations become more quick to surface. And so I believe that at this moment we all face a choice.

"We can choose to press forward with a better model of cooperation and integration. Or we can retreat into a world sharply divided, and ultimately in conflict, along age-old lines of nation and tribe and race and religion."

Obama urged the world's leaders to "go forward" on the "existing path of global integration," in spite of the challenges, which he blamed on "religious fundamentalism," "aggressive nationalism," and "crude populism." Signifying those were code words for conservatism, he said those who share conservative values are seeking to restore "a better, simpler age free of outside contamination."

If I could take Obama's words and transform them into a blunt, physical object, I would gladly beat him into submission, revoke his Player's Club card and then sentence him to death by a thousand paper cuts (using the ACA and UN Charter, of course).




posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis
If I could take Obama's words and transform them into a blunt, physical object, I would gladly beat him into submission, revoke his Player's Club card and then sentence him to death by a thousand paper cuts (using the ACA and UN Charter, of course).



That's just... mean.

I will lend you my paper shredder though.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Well I am not going to say this action would come without consequences. It might embolden North Korea, for example. But screw it. Let China deal with them. And if they won't or don't, then maybe we will have to. On OUR terms. Trump has already said as much.


It would certainly embolden Russia...............hmmmm, makes you think doesn't it?

Anyhow, if this does go through, why is Trump building up the military? So America can go and fight and kill under the assumption that no one is allowed to tell them not to?

You live in a fantasy world. BTW, the other day you posted a weird one about the UK and London saying we were 'warned about the rain' - what was that supposed to mean? Anyway, at the inauguration, one of the many religious folk who took part in that secular ceremony said that 'in the bible rain is seen as God's blessing' (don't ask me for a link, I'm pretty sure you watched it), so does that mean London and the UK are more especially blessed?



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted
Anyhow, if this does go through, why is Trump building up the military? So America can go and fight and kill under the assumption that no one is allowed to tell them not to?


You just really don't understand what's happening in the world, do you? Globalization had its run, and failed. Miserably. Forced integration always will fail. It is a very bad idea. And no, Trump is strengthening our military to protect the United States. Period.



You live in a fantasy world.


This is no fantasy. The bill is real and I gave you the official link in the OP. It is your sorry ass fantasy that is over. And it will be a joy watching it unravel at the seams.

edit on Sun Jan 22nd 2017 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   
There could easily be unforseen, negative consequences to this. I do agree though that we shouldn't be paying more than everyone else put together.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Playing the game of jenga like we did in the middle east. But now, we will do it to ourselves. The United Nations did not make us invade Iraq and Afghanistan, that was our doing.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Good , hope it passes .
U.N has long outlived its usefulness .



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   
USA chooses isolationism, right wing nationalism on the rise in several European countries. I get this funny feeling that I've read about this in history class. My gut tells me this would cause more problems than solve, at least long term. What will Russia and China do if this is passed?



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
Playing the game of jenga like we did in the middle east. But now, we will do it to ourselves. The United Nations did not make us invade Iraq and Afghanistan, that was our doing.


Nobody forced a bunch of our UN allies to support the wars either. Far fewer supported Iraq but it wasn't a solely US effort. I don't think this bill will go anywhere, but if it did and we pulled out of the UN, that doesn't mean our alliances and treaties with individual nations just dissolve. We would still have allies and support in certain ventures, including military ones, if they feel like it's a just cause and worth their commitment of men, money and/or materiel. The UN was a great idea, but its been bastardized to the point where it may not even be fixable at this point.

For me it boils down to this. Is it essential for our survival? No. It's a luxury. Luxuries are for when you have extra money to blow. We don't.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

While I agree the UN has been a pretty corrupt and mismanaged organization, it has helped nations come together and could still be useful as long as it solely stayed on its main mission for maintaining peace.

The US has been in the nation building and nation welfare business for a long time and it would be not wise to completely stop overnight.

Many countries don't already like us despite billions given in foreign support , now imagine what would happen if we just stopped. It would be US against most of the world and despite whether we could win or not , is that something we really want?

Now I agree that the US needs the US to work on its internal issues and help out Americans during this time and make Americans priority one, but we also need to proceed with caution and not only think short term.

We not go Full retard.


edit on 16131America/ChicagoSun, 22 Jan 2017 09:16:24 -0600000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
There could easily be unforseen, negative consequences to this. I do agree though that we shouldn't be paying more than everyone else put together.


We're actually not paying more than everyone else put together, although I would agree we probably pay more than our fair share. The only fair way to do it would be to agree on a percentage of GDP that each country contributes, but how do you get all those countries to agree on what that number should be? Especially when we don't even all have the same type of economy. You could argue that the permanent Security Council members should pay extra for that perk. It's complicated.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Good. We should have dumped them years ago. I hope Trump kicks their a**es straight out of the US.



new topics

top topics



 
97
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join