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: 9
97
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Bull. Iron Dome can, and if it was not being deliberately neutered, would defend against anything from a bullet to a SCUD with outrageous levels of reliability.




posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

The specs on the system say otherwise.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

The current spec of the system is a result of neutering. If it was installed all around the border, with no gaps, with proper support and interlinking with other defence systems, it would render Israel a target beyond assault.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

If this is true this could be a devastating blow to the new world order. The repair damage the globalist would have to do would take thousands of years and perhaps even more
Or hopefully awareness will grow to a point where the events will never repeat itself.

Time to see what the Don is really made off.

edit on rd2017000000Mondayrd000000Mon, 23 Jan 2017 07:43:30 -0600fAmerica/ChicagoMon, 23 Jan 2017 07:43:30 -0600 by SoulSurfer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

What has any of that got to do with the simple fact that this bill has been introduced every year for the past 20?



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

We will agree to disagree then... I dont want to derail the thread any more than we have.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

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.


Actually you are missing the point of the thread because you apparently have some misconceptions about what the UN is and does. The UN does not control treaties. The UN does not control economies. The UN does not control anything really. They have no power. When we agree to something at the UN, it basically has all the authority of a pinkie-swear. We then have to come back here and get Congress to pass a law or some executive action has to be done to make it happen, depending on what it is. That's why the climate agreement was a joke. It's just a piece of paper, everyone knew most of the countries that "agreed" to it wouldn't meet their commitments, and the UN has no authority to hold them to it.

We're not gonna pull out of the UN, but if we did, we have treaties with some countries going back to before the UN existed, and those treaties still stand. If those treaties provide for mutual defense, we would be obliged to honor that if we wanted to maintain ties with said country. The UN is not the end-all, be-all of international relations, and if you aren't a member you're an isolated state. That's not how it works. I've explained this 3 times already, and I'm not sure how else to explain it if people can't understand it by now.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   
To end membership of the United States in the United Nations

I wonder if that ever comes to fruition it will turn out like our civil war did.

Once your in.

You can NEVER LEAVE.

The UN has been an abject failure, and since it's modeled after 'democracy' is just as corrupt.

The world just might have a chance if it went the way of the do do bird.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Xcathdra

The current spec of the system is a result of neutering. If it was installed all around the border, with no gaps, with proper support and interlinking with other defence systems, it would render Israel a target beyond assault.


That is wishful thinking.

No tech is fool proof.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Wow. After working at NATO for several years, and seeing how much money the U.S. gives to the U.N. and NATO, what an amazingly huge budget cut that would be. I know that we fund over $8 Billion to the U.N. and over $650 Billion to NATO. Wow. If I remember correctly, the total NATO budget is only $2.8 trillion and there are 28 countries involved. We pay according to GDP and of course ours is a lot higher than the other countries so we pay more, but they $2.8 trillion budget doesn't include any war or campaign funding either, and we pay for nearly all of those also. Wow, a possible $2.88 trillion budget cut. Wow.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785
Actually, you are right, I'm not too big to deny when I got my facts wrong. Having said that, unless you are looking at pure financials then I cannot see why leaving would be a benefit. Trump obviously doesn't like it, is that because it takes a stance against Israel? He seems to make that point. Climate change because he wants to continue the usage of fossil fuel more as a campaign statement? More than likely.

Having said that, seeing as I messed up with my thinking I'll bow out of that one.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I would be happy as a pig in mud if the US left the UN and told them to move their HQ somewhere else. UN has been obsolete for decades. They can take their Agenda 21 and shove it up their bungholes. Let Trumps kids turn the building into condos for the poor.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   
I don't think this is as much about leaving the UN as it is about restructuring the UN. As it stands now, the UN is a way for other nations to set policy for the US and have the US pay for it. It's time the UN stood on its own feet, and this is a bargaining chip, a 'nuclear option' if you will, to let Trump make it so.

If it passes... that passage is not a foregone conclusion.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Noncents "There's no way this will move through the senate and congress but if it did..."
First lets look at contributions to the UN budget.
countries contribution NATO budget

That in and of itself speaks for itself. Someone will have to pick up that 22% slack.(Unless we keep funding the UN which would be ludicrous.)
Japan comes in at a distant 2nd with 9% they would have to double that to even come close.
Now what type of Power vacuum would there be.
Would the UN even be able to find the funding to continue as it has? I think that by pulling the 22% funding would cripple the UN in its current iteration. And a lesser world role would result. Possibly even dissolution of the UN might eventually happen.Without a solution the refugee problem currently afflicting Europe would exasperate.
With all the refugees pouring into Europe currently , Many would close their boarders and refuse to take them in as they would not be able to ask the UN for much assistance, and their own countries would be unable to take on the influx in the population. Sent packing, desperation would sink in as millions upon millions of refugees will flee to well nowhere. Leaving many to starve.

There is no easy solution to this. The warmongering and Regime changes in the name of Democracy would have to cease.
No more destabilization as this just creates more refugees and resentment. All in all i see alot of good and alot of bad things happening if this goes through.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: face23785
Actually, you are right, I'm not too big to deny when I got my facts wrong. Having said that, unless you are looking at pure financials then I cannot see why leaving would be a benefit. Trump obviously doesn't like it, is that because it takes a stance against Israel? He seems to make that point. Climate change because he wants to continue the usage of fossil fuel more as a campaign statement? More than likely.

Having said that, seeing as I messed up with my thinking I'll bow out of that one.


It's all a matter of cost/benefit. How much are we putting into it (which isn't necessarily all about finances) and what are we getting out of it, and is it a fair trade off? Obviously everyone is going to have their own opinion about that. From what I've heard from Trump, he sounds more apt to insist on changes than to actually pull out of the UN. He may consider pulling out if he can't get the changes he wants. I guess we'll have to wait and see. If he ends up wanting to do that, I think he'll be hard-pressed to get the support in Congress he needs.

As far as my personal views, I just don't think we get much out of it that we couldn't get by doing individual treaties, so it seems like a big waste of money to me. 90% of the countries that belong to the UN are countries that frankly we could afford to alienate, if that was even required, and it wouldn't require that. We would still maintain various ties with a lot of them even if we pulled out.

There's a lot of gloom and doom about Brexit too, as if the UK was in shambles before it joined the EU and it's a huge mistake to go back to that. It will get along just fine without EU membership. The US would get along just fine without UN membership.
edit on 23 1 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

I read through most of this last night and was greatly taken aback. It would be a disaster for the US to leave the UN.

I read about what we pay, but are actually in arrears about 1.3 billion. We have been a veto power member since 1944.
That power has given the US more influence over the world than we should have had. But have it we do. Dropping it would be madness.

I was further concerned by the large amount of agreement that the US should leave the UN on this site. Hyper Nationalistic at it's finest. Jesus, should we 'repeal and replace' the UN with a league that includes Russia and Israel alone? It appears that it is what many would want on here.

This whole thread has been scary in it's implications.


eta: I can't say I am too surprised, though. I can see where this new administration will lead us. I understand Trump didn't pen the thing. I also understand similar bills have been tried over and over. In this atmosphere, this horrible stench of an atmosphere, it has a chance of going through.
edit on 23-1-2017 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   
With so few co-sponsors and the swamp filled to the brim, it will take Divine intervention for it to pass at this time.
I believe in Divine intervention.

Great thread and great comments.

Noticed it on FB BTW.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

I doubt it will pass, but wow, that would be amazing!

What do we call it? I figure we name it similar to BRexit....

USexit?
Amerxit?
USA-way?

I dunno.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
ohh this is good.

this is why i voted for the Donald.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Winstonian

UN-DONE! That's fine with me!



new topics

top topics



 
97
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join