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: 6
97
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Sorry guys but, has this been confirmed? was this a genuine bill?

Exactly what will it take for this bill to pass?

Pardon my ignorance on US specifics, but on day 1 did Trump really allow a bill into Congress to removed the USA from the UN in its entirety?

Were we correct all along that the UN is as corrupt and useless as we believed?
Or is this a massive right hook to remove the US From all international agreements on peace?

kinda concerned...




posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

Were we correct all along that the UN is as corrupt and useless as we believed?
Or is this a massive right hook to remove the US From all international agreements on peace?



Apparently, we don't try to fix anything anymore. We just eliminate it.

Then throw something else together and claim its better (even though it turns out to be almost the exact same thing).



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   
It would be a huge mistake for the USA to pull out of the United Nations.

Right now, USA has security council veto power, meaning that they can veto anything that isn't seen as in the best interest of the United States.

If they pulled out, they'd lose this veto power and lose the ability to be involved in any discussion involving events of worldwide importance.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

Were we correct all along that the UN is as corrupt and useless as we believed?
Or is this a massive right hook to remove the US From all international agreements on peace?



Apparently, we don't try to fix anything anymore. We just eliminate it.

Then throw something else together and claim its better (even though it turns out to be almost the exact same thing).


Best to eliminate the deadwood.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Godspeed little resolution, Godspeed. America needs you to succeed.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: uncommitted

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.


It actually doesn't suggest anything besides increasing the military budget, which is badly needed. Even at our current strength levels, our current budget simply isn't sufficient to maintain it. I just got out of the Air Force. We're in rough shape. It doesn't look like that to the average person but our military is a poorly maintained mess right now compared to 10 years ago. There are a lot of ways we could save money by cutting wasteful spending, but the budget still needs to be increased. National defense is the #1 job of the government, it's the last thing that should be neglected.


All of which are fair points. So, if the US is to move away from the UN and therefore is saying it will not take part in the defence of another UN country...... why does he need a larger military? Who is going to attack America through conventional means that would require an increased military budget? I base that on geographical reasons, no more than that.


Pulling out of the UN does not mean we won't assist any of our allies if they are attacked. And I don't see how you're still asking that question if you get my previous post, which explains why we need to build up our military. Peace through strength. There's 2 reasons an aggressor will call your bluff: you lack the will, or you lack the means. Russia nabbed Crimea because he knew we lacked the will to do anything to stop him with Obama at the helm. On the other hand we could have a complete hardass leader, but if he lacks the tools nobody is gonna be deterred from crossing him. Intelligence has no doubt let the leadership of other major powers know how our readiness and effectiveness has suffered under these budget constraints. That needs to be fixed. To do that we need more money.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

LOVE that pic...



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies
It would be a huge mistake for the USA to pull out of the United Nations.

Right now, USA has security council veto power, meaning that they can veto anything that isn't seen as in the best interest of the United States.

If they pulled out, they'd lose this veto power and lose the ability to be involved in any discussion involving events of worldwide importance.


We will indeed lose veto power at the UN, however this will not mean we lost the ability to be involved in any discussion involving world events. It's still a world economy and being our friend still has it's perks. Votes at a figurehead body that has no real legal power do not control access to those perks.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Perhaps I missed it, but who said anything about NATO???

Regarding the seat on the Security Council...so what???

Nobody follows UN Security Council resolutions anyway. They're a joke!

The UN is like a bunch of cackling hens all sitting around making resolutions about what the foxes should do. The foxes are going to do whatever they damn well please...despite the cackling.

The UN = UN-effective, UN-wanted, UN-necessary and UN-holy.

The UN is bureaucracy and analysis-paralysis of the highest order on display for the world to see. It's totally worthless!




edit on 1/22/2017 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Noncents

Anglo Co-Dominum
US and Russia,allied Europe,whomever would join.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   
The U.S. isn't pulling out of the UN. At most this was just a little brush back to the UN, letting them know we won't be getting played like we have been for so long.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Oh, and one more thing...the IMF...

Trump will be my hero if he audits the Federal Reserve. I suspect what will come out of this (if it happens) is corruption of the highest order, and as a result stringent controls will be enacted effectively neutering them (which is a good thing).

Then the whole central bank/IMF angle of the UN will become irrelevant...as it should be.

Am I isolationist? Damn straight! Time we started focusing more on issues "inside" our borders rather than issues "outside" them. Twenty years fighting ISIS, ISIL, IS, (or whatever the flavor de jour is today) as well as Iraq, Ass-krackistan, Libya, Syria and countless other places should be a pretty good indicator how successful those missions have been...aka ZERO!!



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I never realised you folks over the pond felt so repressed by the UN.

Good on you, if this is what you really want, I am ignorant of why you want to, but best of luck.

I guess the U.S doesn't mind playing second fiddle to another nation such as ...oh, I don't know...the UK perhaps sometime down the road because you gave up being a super power.

Insert Russia, or China for that matter in place of the UK if you feel the need, still doesn't change the fact that if the U.S withdraws from the world stage, they may just find themselves a little irrelevant.

Of course I could well be wrong, I could agree with you folks out of ignorance, but where would be the fun in that?

Sincerely hope it works out for you, but I have my reservations.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: solargeddon

I don't feel "repressed" by the UN, quite the contrary!

They're irrelevant!

Completely irrelevant!

So, there's that.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I fully support this.......

I would be curious if any of my liberal friends are against this and hear their thoughts.

(Sorry haven't had time to read the whole thread)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
Sorry guys but, has this been confirmed? was this a genuine bill?

Exactly what will it take for this bill to pass?

Pardon my ignorance on US specifics, but on day 1 did Trump really allow a bill into Congress to removed the USA from the UN in its entirety?

Were we correct all along that the UN is as corrupt and useless as we believed?
Or is this a massive right hook to remove the US From all international agreements on peace?

kinda concerned...


The president of the US does not introduce bills to Congress. Only members of Congress can do that.
The bill then goes to a committee for discussion and study to see if it should go further.
There are different committees that have jurisdiction over different types of things.
If the bill passes committee, it goes to the House for a vote.
If it passes the House vote, then it goes to Senate for a vote.
If it passes the Senate vote, then it goes to the President.
THEN the President has his first say over the bill - he can pass or veto.
Even if the President vetoes, Congress can override the veto if enough members disagree with the President.

So as you see, the President would have nothing to do with "allowing" it to be introduced.
Although I guess he could encourage members of Congress to introduce a bill, but it would be up to them to do it or not.
But the President could certainly not disallow a bill from being introduced.

A bill could move quickly, or can take a very long time, while it goes around the process, being amended, etc.
So, this new bill is not nearly approved at this time, but it is real.

The bill was introduced on January 3 by 6 Republicans in Congress.
www.congress.gov...


edit on 1/22/17 by BlueAjah because: eta

edit on 1/22/17 by BlueAjah because: eta



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
And give up the security council seat?

Pull out of NATO?

Lose their relationship with the IMF and other central banking organizations?

Lol.

Oh I love congressmen and women who write bills ( or dictate they be written) while knowing little to nothing about what the consequences of their actions are.

~Tenth


They probably know the consequences, but write them anyways because it makes it look like they're making a good faith effort on insane campaign promises.

There's no way this passes, it probably won't even go for a vote. Actually, I'm pretty sure everyone involved would prefer it doesn't go for a vote so that they don't have to go on record with it.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Hi, I'm a leftie
...my 2p worth is a couple of posts up.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: solargeddon

I don't feel "repressed" by the UN, quite the contrary!

They're irrelevant!

Completely irrelevant!

So, there's that.




Although back in the 1940's the UN was thought to have relevance....to prevent a further world war ever.

So there's that.




edit on 342017SundaypmSun, 22 Jan 2017 18:18:34 -06006America/Chicago222017 by solargeddon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: uncommitted

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.


It actually doesn't suggest anything besides increasing the military budget, which is badly needed. Even at our current strength levels, our current budget simply isn't sufficient to maintain it. I just got out of the Air Force. We're in rough shape. It doesn't look like that to the average person but our military is a poorly maintained mess right now compared to 10 years ago. There are a lot of ways we could save money by cutting wasteful spending, but the budget still needs to be increased. National defense is the #1 job of the government, it's the last thing that should be neglected.


All of which are fair points. So, if the US is to move away from the UN and therefore is saying it will not take part in the defence of another UN country...... why does he need a larger military? Who is going to attack America through conventional means that would require an increased military budget? I base that on geographical reasons, no more than that.


Pulling out of the UN does not mean we won't assist any of our allies if they are attacked. And I don't see how you're still asking that question if you get my previous post, which explains why we need to build up our military. Peace through strength. There's 2 reasons an aggressor will call your bluff: you lack the will, or you lack the means. Russia nabbed Crimea because he knew we lacked the will to do anything to stop him with Obama at the helm. On the other hand we could have a complete hardass leader, but if he lacks the tools nobody is gonna be deterred from crossing him. Intelligence has no doubt let the leadership of other major powers know how our readiness and effectiveness has suffered under these budget constraints. That needs to be fixed. To do that we need more money.


You are missing the point of this thread I think. If you leave the UN (and I'm going to leave NATO aside for the moment as that is a much smaller group), then why would other countries assume you are their allies from a military perspective? Trump said in the campaign that UN countries shouldn't assume America would come to their defence if he didn't think they were paying what they should..... or are you saying America wouldn't do what Trump said America would do? Slippery slope it seems these days.

BTW, I'm trying to remember the lightbulb moment when Trump stopped denying that Russia had annexed the Crimea, took quite a few interviews/tweets before he came to admit to that.



new topics

top topics



 
97
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join