|
The US taxpayers fund more than twenty percent of the annual budget of the United Nations. We house them in New York City, on some of the most valuable real estate in the world. We constantly defer to them on matters of international importance, even at the risk of our own security. Why do we continue to fund this collection of advocates for international criminals and dictators? |
| Thor H. Asgardson September 24, 2006 05:03 PM PDT This is an excellent synopsis of why the U.N. is irrelevant to the advancement of American interests, and global peace. Perhaps we should "downsize" and outsource this drain on our national life. The journey of a thousand miles, begins with the first step, and getting rid of the U.N. will go a long way toward ending the globalization, which threatens our national interest. | ||
| Gull September 24, 2006 09:10 PM PDT Excellent post --- succinct and definitely on target. If only Condi Rice will be allowed to say the same thing to the Security Council and Kofi Annan, giving them the option of mending or ending the UN's free-loading on our goodwill. | ||
| Big Fat Lobster September 25, 2006 09:17 AM PDT You may or may not know, but tomorrow morning the tenure of Japanese Prime Minister Junichirou Koizumi ends and a new PM Shinzo Abe will take over. Abe is a closet nationalist and staunch Japanese conservative who wants to amend Japan's constitution to allow military manuevers and legalize the existing Japanese defense force. One of the issues that will undoubtedly come up in the next year or so is the UN's repeated insistence that despite that fact that Japan is the #2 funding source of the UN, the Chinese in particular repeatedly veto any act to promote Japan to the UN permanent security council. Koizumi threatened, twice if I'm not mistaken, to pull Japan's funding to the UN by nearly 90%. Abe may very well follow up on that threat -- and if he does it will be a massive blow to the UN's credibility and resource pool. Abe has already stated that he believes Japan needs to strengthen its relationship to the USA, and that may very well be a prelude to withdrawing tremendous portions of their UN funding and redirecting that energy and money to exerting Japan's economic influence through the US political and military engine. Time will tell, but I suspect the rising PM is a bolder man than many suspect -- and following on Koizumi's legacy of reform, Abe will need to really stir the pot to avoid becoming another PM Mori. | ||
| Jim September 25, 2006 10:36 AM PDT Forgive my naivete, but just how do us average citizens go about getting our government to pull out? I hear and read so much from <a href="http://mauriceenchelthot.blogspot.com/2006/09/one-world-socialism-equals-tyranny.html">excellent blogs</a> like yours about pulling out, but nobody is really organizing on it. | ||
| CavalierX September 26, 2006 05:27 AM PDT The best thing you can do, really, is write your Senators and Representative, and do what you can to help elect some who won't kowtow to the UN. There are sites like http://www.getusout.org/ that have more information and organisational materials. | ||
| CavalierX September 26, 2006 05:35 AM PDT >despite that fact that Japan is the >#2 funding source of the UN, the >Chinese in particular repeatedly >veto any act to promote Japan to >the UN permanent security council. I hope that the Japanese DO pull their funding. There's no reason they should be excluded. If they do, it might be easier to convince Congress to pull ours. Plus, the frothing anti-Japanese editorials in the NY Times ought to be entertaining. | ||
| Big Fat Lobster September 26, 2006 09:50 AM PDT "I hope that the Japanese DO pull their funding. There's no reason they should be excluded. If they do, it might be easier to convince Congress to pull ours. Plus, the frothing anti-Japanese editorials in the NY Times ought to be entertaining." They'd probably accuse Abe of re-aligning the stars or some other nonsense. But I am entirely in agreement -- when Japan provides 22% of UN funding, it is silly to grant China - who is guilty of chronic humans rights violations and sketchy policies a permanent council seat and deny Japan that right -- especially when China pays less than 5% of the UN's budget. The question is whether Shinzo Abe will have the nuts to stand up to the UN like that, and there isn't any reason why Japan should continue to tolerate such a marginalization of their influence. Abe may attempt first to improve Japan's relations with China in hopes that China will stop vetoing their application to the UN -- but as a traditionalist I find it unlikely that Abe will be willing to take up the ass from China to mend the international relations. | ||
| Denny September 27, 2006 05:43 AM PDT The UN (Under Nemesis) is a pro-Arab, anti-Israeli, anti-American cabal of malevolent state malefactors bent upon establishing a world hegemony of socialism-along with the carnage that ALWAYS follows socialism's tenents. Other than that it is a fine forum for thugs, crooks and murderous dictators. Nuff sed. | ||
| Paladin September 28, 2006 06:22 PM PDT i say we tell all the "losers" that are in the U.N that there is an anti american meeting and they need to be there but keep all our friends out of it. THEN either take them all and show them the door in a very not nice way and tell them they're no longer welcome here and they need to find a diffrent country to support thier hate. Then we could start a new and better group that will actually work to better the world. | ||
| Maureen September 28, 2006 11:00 PM PDT What is it really that we gain for being in the UN?? Just to be in it? It seems to me that we are trying to play nice with the enemy. This is not the enemy that we are used to, we should NOT be a part of the UN, we as Americans stand alone in what we beleive, with very few exceptions. This group is not for us, it's time to break our ties and regain some of the most sought after property in the world. Time to boot these bastards out of or politics and out of the greatist city in the world. They don't belong here. | ||
| Jimbob September 29, 2006 06:05 AM PDT As ever, the views put forward help explain why America, though not the Americans, are hated all over the world. CavalierX: I am moved by your attempt to correct the President's yummy new catchphrase, 'Islamofascists' by adding the world 'theocrats' to it. Despite your blind devotion to the neocons (who are about as close to fascism as you can get in a democratic society), I had noted from prior posts that you, to a certain extent, did respect language and the meaning of words (unlike dubya). Keep up the good work. | ||
| Jimbob September 29, 2006 06:19 AM PDT Oh, and please try and remember that people who are elected into office through democratic vote are not dictators. I know it's a bit confusing when a country has an outspoken leader you do not like, and is almost your neighbor. you must feel terribly vulnerable. Perhaps Venezuela and her people should be next to be added to the list of liberated peoples. And don't be surprised that when a man speaks of peace while waging war he doesn't get a standing ovation. Not everyone in the UN is a yesman, corrupt to the core. | ||
| CavalierX September 29, 2006 06:23 AM PDT Nice try, Jimbob, but I've been referring to our terrorist enemies and their supporters as "Islamofascists" and the Iranian government as "theocrats" for years, since that's exactly what they are. It's too bad you don't seem to know what fascism actually means, but only wish to use the word to attack those with whom you disagree like a good little Liberal. And if you think being loved by dictators and admired by appeasers should be our goal, you don't know much about America, either. | ||
| CavalierX September 29, 2006 06:28 AM PDT >Oh, and please try and remember >that people who are elected into >office through democratic vote >are not dictators. I'll bet you really think Saddam got 99.4% of the vote, don't you? If you think Chavez won an honest election, than I truly feel sorry for you. >And don't be surprised that when >a man speaks of peace while >waging war he doesn't get a >standing ovation. But he did. You were referring to Ahmadinejad, were you not? The leader of the government that supports the terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children all over the world in their quest to enslave it? >Not everyone in the UN is a >yesman, corrupt to the core. True. There's John Bolton and Dan Gillerman. | ||
| Jimbob September 29, 2006 10:02 AM PDT I have seen no mention that chavez didn't win an honest election - if there is, please link me up to it. And you gotta admit he is amusing to watch on telly... And he doesn't seem to be too much of a threat to anyone, though I may be wrong - after all, Cuba and El Salvador were a terrible threat too. Your comment that the only people who are honest in the UN are American and Israeli seems vaguely reminiscent of an "you are either with us or against us" situation - which is a blunt and simplistic viewpoint, I'm afraid - and perhaps a tiny bit negative. To say that these peoples, who have a different stand to ours and look for alternative means of solving problems, are all corrupt, is to go just a bit far (in my most humble opinion). By the way, I'm disappointed you left out the brits, I thought they were on our side too. As to the meaning of fascism, the word has suffered a lot of changes and the meaning starts to be lost through overuse in general and wrong usage in particular (my thanks to the President for helping). As I see it, it is similar to corporativism, under non-democratic rule, usually dictatorial, but the exact meaning is hard to pinpoint. I do stand by my statement that the neocons, despite their origins, have been tending towards a system that has several similarities with corporativism and thus fascism. It doesn't mean you can't like it if you want to. I'm just saying what it looks like, not whether it's good or bad - I was objecting to a "the pot calling the kettle black" situation. I prefer to try not to use cheap tricks to inflate opinion and to trigger emotions(underlike dubya). | ||
| CavalierX September 29, 2006 11:33 AM PDT >I have seen no mention that >chavez didn't win an honest >election - if there is, please link >me up to it. http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200409080559 Before the election, Chavez suddenly granted voting rights to hundreds of thousands of recent immigrants, while withdrawing voting rights from Venezuelans living abroad. During the election, pro-Chavez groups patrolled the polling places assaulting members of the opposition party. After the election, the paper ballots were kept by the military, which is pro-Chavez, for several days before being counted. Look around the rest of the site while you're there. And even if he had won legitimately, he is running an authoritarian regime, which is never legitimate. >the only people who are honest in >the UN are American and Israeli No, they're two of the very few "non-yes-men." You could add others to that list, but none are as outspoken and bluntly honest as Bolton and Gillerman. >"you are either with us or against >us" situation - which is a blunt and >simplistic viewpoint, I'm afraid You should be afraid, if you're against us. >As to the meaning of fascism It's a form of collectivism, as are Socialism and Communism. >As I see it, it is similar to >corporativism Then you need new glasses. >I prefer to try not to use cheap >tricks to inflate opinion and to >trigger emotions(underlike >dubya). Yet that's really all you have to offer, it seems. | ||
| Jimbob September 30, 2006 07:29 AM PDT "You should be afraid, if you're against us." Gosh, long time no criticism, huh? "It's a form of collectivism" Yes, but it's much more than that. If you keep the definition to just those words fascism becomes undistinguishable from socialism or communism. "Then you need new glasses" Not really. Calling fascists corporativists does have some background to it - is not a new thing. Thanks for the Chavez links, I'll take a look. And please define "us", so I know who to hide from.... | ||
| CavalierX October 1, 2006 09:38 AM PDT >fascism becomes >undistinguishable from socialism >or communism Their similarities outweigh their differences. Collectivist economies simply do not work, and are not in the best interest of the people. Look at European Socialism, the weakest form of collectivism lately tried. >Calling fascists corporativists does >have some background to it - is >not a new thing. No, it's not new, but that doesn't make it true. Old lies are still lies. | ||
| BIRDZILLA October 1, 2006 03:11 PM PDT We should have absolutly nothing to do with the UN and its devious plans for world goverment a world taxman and a one world religion PAGANISM and world wide gun control we should just move the whole UN off american soil to a more fitting place like TENIMEN SQUARE | ||
| mkultra February 18, 2007 10:53 AM PST are you some kind of.. a neoliberal paranoid patriot? .. | ||
| Leave a Comment: |