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: 4
97
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: stosh64

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
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.


Amazing time to live in isn't it.

Please allow me to echo that sentiment.

Based on the number of flags this thread has garnered, I'd say this bill has a good chance of becoming law by the end of the week. Even better if it is the first one he's offered.


As much as I'd like to see it, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. It would be newsworthy if this even made it out of committee.




posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Syphone
Instead of this they should have had end up the NATO, not the U.N.US was the very first country to sign up the treaty to control the international conflicts.



The US was the host country at the time, and it was China who signed first, after that was U.S.S.R., the United Kingdom and France. From then on the order was alphabetical, so in fact the US was last, not that it matters, The US was there at the get go.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I called it! I said in another thread that Trump will isolate the US. The UN is a bottomless money pit and changes do need to be made but I'm not sure this is the right change.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
If we lost Governor Haley for nothing, I'm gonna be pissed.
Now we'll have McMaster (booooo).

I don't envy her position- even if she's the UN Ambassador for the next 2 years, Trump has made her job infinitely harder.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook
I called it! I said in another thread that Trump will isolate the US. The UN is a bottomless money pit and changes do need to be made but I'm not sure this is the right change.


Jumping the gun a little aren't you? Thousands of bills are introduced in committee every year and die there.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

We'll have to see ... I agree. I think everyone is waiting to see what's going to 'happen' ... because things are going to happen. If Trump can push the country and build momentum, we can rise up out of the funk we've been in since the end of the Eisenhower administration and the full-on take over of the country by corporatists.

Considering who's who (come tomorrow), it would be wise to breathe softly. I'm damn sure not gonna hold my breath.

Everyone says Trump's not a politician. I say everyone's a politician. There's an awful lot at political stake everywhere I look.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook
I called it! I said in another thread that Trump will isolate the US. The UN is a bottomless money pit and changes do need to be made but I'm not sure this is the right change.


Leaving the UN does not mean that the US will be isolated.

The US will be free to make our own deals and treaties with allies.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

We can do that while we're in the UN though. And as members of the UN we have veto power. If we were to leave, and we wanted something in the UN vetoed (because we would still have to pay attention to what's going on there), we would have to rely on convincing another nation with veto power to do so.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   
We should go Isolationist and get our house in order, repair infrastructure, etc.

Trump said it in his speech - "America First".



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: BlueAjah

We can do that while we're in the UN though. And as members of the UN we have veto power. If we were to leave, and we wanted something in the UN vetoed (because we would still have to pay attention to what's going on there), we would have to rely on convincing another nation with veto power to do so.


Why?
Why should the US be telling other countries what to do?



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   
One word...

"YEAH!!"



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: uncommitted
Are you expecting an invasion any time soon?

We've already been invaded.

Were you blind to the last several years, or what?


Yes, what invasion for which significantly spending more on your military if America is no longer to go out bombing other countries are you referring to? Mexicans? Surely the wall will put paid to that, surely, you have been told that by Donald and if Donald says it's right then any other opinion is fake news.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: uncommitted
Are you expecting an invasion any time soon?

We've already been invaded.

Were you blind to the last several years, or what?


Yes, what invasion for which significantly spending more on your military if America is no longer to go out bombing other countries are you referring to? Mexicans? Surely the wall will put paid to that, surely, you have been told that by Donald and if Donald says it's right then any other opinion is fake news.


I'm not taking sides here, but what kind of strategy would you suggest? Do you think we could maintain a small force and then when someone is actually invading ask them for a timeout while we raise and equip a big enough military to defend ourselves?



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lolliek
If we lost Governor Haley for nothing, I'm gonna be pissed.
Now we'll have McMaster (booooo).

I don't envy her position- even if she's the UN Ambassador for the next 2 years, Trump has made her job infinitely harder.


During her confirmation hearings she stated it would be helpful if Congress took actions that supported her position in the UN to give leverage. This might be what she was referring to. What better way to support and provide leverage while letting the UN know your serious about UN change than introducing a bill that would end US participation in it.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785



I'm not taking sides here, but what kind of strategy would you suggest? Do you think we could maintain a small force and then when someone is actually invading ask them for a timeout while we raise and equip a big enough military to defend ourselves?


Isn't that more NATO related?
Since when does the UN send anything meaningful militarily?

I hope Trump backs off the whole leaving NATO thing.
Other countries are not paying for their own defense. True, and they need to step up...

But it's also obvious the only power in Europe big enough to go against Russia is the USA..


I honestly don't know how to feel about all of this.
edit on 22-1-2017 by Reverbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra


During her confirmation hearings she stated it would be helpful if Congress took actions that supported her position in the UN to give leverage. This might be what she was referring to. What better way to support and provide leverage while letting the UN know your serious about UN change than introducing a bill that would end US participation in it.


I think that makes the most sense.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I'm all for leaving the UN. It's a farce! It's a money sucker! It's a corrupt bunch of globalists! It has no place on our soil. Please please please....leave!!



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
#UNEXIT

What would we do with all that property?



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: uncommitted
Are you expecting an invasion any time soon?

We've already been invaded.

Were you blind to the last several years, or what?


Yes, what invasion for which significantly spending more on your military if America is no longer to go out bombing other countries are you referring to? Mexicans? Surely the wall will put paid to that, surely, you have been told that by Donald and if Donald says it's right then any other opinion is fake news.


I'm not taking sides here, but what kind of strategy would you suggest? Do you think we could maintain a small force and then when someone is actually invading ask them for a timeout while we raise and equip a big enough military to defend ourselves?


I wasn't suggesting it should be shrunk, Trump suggested a large growth in military spending during the inauguration. That suggests it will need to be used over and above what the current military could deal with, while at the same time talking about becoming more internal facing and moving away from the UN. Those appear to be two opposing viewpoints, unless he just wants to go down the North Korea path I guess.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Good point! I didn't connect the two. Gov. Haley is a smart woman. It wouldn't surprise me in the least.



new topics

top topics



 
97
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join