How exactly will the US leaving the UN protect the US?

Handy

Moderator
As in the just closed thread, I'm wondering how the US is less likely to be forced into some UN policy if it doesn't attend the meetings?


Is the UN like a kids at recess, and the US is suseptible to peer pressure?

Have we proved unable to refuse to follow UN (or any other worldwide organization's) guideance?

Would we be in a better position to stop an unwanted UN policy when we no longer have voting rights in the UN?



Aside from leaving the UN purely on principle, what is the mechanism that will free us from possible UN control just because we no longer show up? Thanks.



(For Marko's sake, please don't use the words "socialist" or "Jew" in your response.)
 
I don't think that the UN can force us to comply with any policy. We are the one's that must agree to be bound by any decision they make. Without our agreement, and our willingness to obey, they can't force our compliance.
 
Have we proved unable to refuse to follow UN

When you join an organisation (Like the UN) you agree to abide by it's precepts...

If you refuse to do so... you're out of the club... ;)

The UN would fail in it's own precepts (As it is now doing) and it would either collapse under it's own corruption...

OR become a despotic and dictatorial power entity... :eek:

The US pays about 1/3 of the UN budget... :mad:

The US started the UN, (League of Nations) and the Free World nations are the sole reason for it's continued existence... :(
 
Without U.S. participation, the UN would collapse. Whether that would be good or not is real question that needs to be answered.
 
If you refuse to do so... you're out of the club...
We have already refused, and we're still in. Invading Iraq was a big deal in the eyes of the UN and most member countries. But we are so big and contribute so much that we weren't even sanctioned.
 
"A simpleton's take on the matter at hand"...

One of the, if not THE, biggest fish in the pond, the US did form, or was the major drive behind forming the UN (look up Eleanor Roosevelt, San Francisco UN 1945), and has a seat on the Security Council. Said seat allowing a Veto vote, which might come in handy now and then.

In 1950, Harry Truman committed forces to Korea as a UN Police Action since both China and the USSR (the latter a member of the UN Sec Counc'l) needed to KNOW that the UN had some tooth behind it's bark... unlike Woodrow Wilson's pet League of Nations, which the US never joined (another fascinating story). Said League of nations condemned Mussolini's roll into Ethiopia in '37 but had no bite behind it's bark, thus, no one felt it a problem to roll into Nanking or Poland, etc... Harry felt it wise to provide some tooth.

Since then, at the risk of sounding like a cheerleader for GWB or BJ Clinton, when the UN voted resolutions for a certain un-named middle east "I" nation to cease and desist and turn over all records of their "evil ways", (what was it, 17 resolutions?) one large nation, backed up by a few smaller nations decided to act upon their interpretation of those resolutions... and here we are today.

The US is the target for all the smaller nations to rage and rail against, much as a pack of hyena's will take down a lion. BUT... Spread enough money around to "aid" various small nations world-wide as well as the "world-wide order of hyenas" will keep the hyena's at bay for awhile.

Money talks. Everything else is Bull-shine.

One day soon, perhaps China will be THE nation with deep enough pockets to call the shots.

Might want to maintain the "Veto" voting ability until it's needed in the not so far future... unless the rules change again. And they do. And/or will.

It's kinda like choosing between a Dem, a Repub or a Lib'tn for POTUS. Rarely is there one candidate that is truly right for the job. More often, sadly, we choose the lessor of two (or three) evils and compromise our ideals.

But in Politics, always take the advice of Deep Throat and "Follow the Money".
 
what is the mechanism that will free us from possible UN control

I believe that would be the United States Constitution, No one person or group of people have the right to barter with our Constitution.

kenny b
 
The quoted question was in regards to leaving the UN, Kenny. What about leaving the UN protects us from it?
 
Man this is deep.
Lets see if I don't play on the tracks will the train still hit me?
I usually don't waste my time with things that are gray, I usually think in black or white. My wife is an expert on things like this, she can talk for an hour and I wouldn't have a clue what she's talking about. I'll check with her and get back to ya, that might help you with your question.:confused:

kenny b
 
I recall President Bush had a quick response to the UN gun ban, that was a proud moment in time for me. I could only wonder what Gore's response would have been.

kenny b
 
UN "authority"

The UN has no authority over the US, UNLESS we allow it. The Congress can accept a "treaty" to implement UN directives. IF WE ALLOW IT.

However, other nations feel the same way. Iraq didn't follow UN resolutions, so we (eventually) acted. Unlikely as it may seem, someday the situation could be reversed. This is why I feel that we were wrong to go into Iraq. Until we had clear evidence that they had harmed us. Not that they could, but that they did. Then we should do to them what we did to the AXIS countries.
 
44 AMP: In the 1987, an Iraqi war plane fired on the USS Stark, killing 37 sailors in the process. I would say that they harmed us.
 
Handy,

The UN Charter was a treaty acted on in the Senate and signed into law. Treaties, according to the Constitution, become the law of the land. We've interpreted the treaty in the past in ways that the UN leadership, and the vast majority of its representatives, has disagreed with, but we're the big dog and all they can do is whine and yelp. For now. We didn't sign on to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, so we can interpret them however we want.

If ever a US politician is elected who decides to sign us up to all the UN asininity, it depends on how the signing up is effected. A matter such as gun confiscation should appropriately be submitted to the Senate as a regular treaty, because it's a profound constitutional question, and 70 million potential voters own guns.

Additionally, we can extract ourselves from treaties in several ways. Congress can simply pass a law which conflicts with and therefore supersedes the detested treaty provision, and that provision is outta there. Additionally, as Bush recently did with the ABM treaty, the President may simply abrogate the entire treaty and say we ain't playing anymore.

My view is that the UN is a corrupt, toothless waste of money and space. They must remain toothless because they're incapable of discerning good from evil, right from wrong. They place some of the biggest human rights violators on their Human Rights Commission, their "peacekeepers" stood idly by and allowed a genocide in Rwanda, they greedily lapped up Oil for Food kickbacks, etc. Then there's their irrational "good intentions," like a desire for gun confiscation, which will get a lot of law-abiding folks hurt or killed. It's this combination of irrationality, amorality, and corruption that makes the organization less than useless and actually harmful.

I suppose one can make a case that our presence there helps to moderate their lunacy. But overall I don't think it's worth the price we pay to keep that cesspool afloat. And I know of at least one congressman, my own, who would like for the US to be out of the UN, and the UN out of the US.
 
Last edited:
recommended reading: The Grand Chessboard by Zbignew Brzezinski

that's what their plan and the UN agenda is

here is the authors repertoire:

According to his resume Brzezinski, holding a 1953 Ph.D. from Harvard, lists the following achievements:

Counselor, Center for Strategic and International Studies

Professor of American Foreign Policy, Johns Hopkins University

National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter (1977-81)

Trustee and founder of the Trilateral Commission

International advisor of several major US/Global corporations

Associate of Henry Kissinger

Under Ronald Reagan - member of NSC-Defense Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy

Under Ronald Reagan - member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board

Past member, Board of Directors, The Council on Foreign Relations

1988 - Co-chairman of the Bush National Security Advisory Task Force.

Brzezinski is also a past attendee and presenter at several conferences of the Bilderberger group - a non-partisan affiliation of the wealthiest and most powerful families and corporations on the planet.
 
With a debt of several trillion dollars I wonder how the US can even afford to be in the UN?

If nothing else leaving the UN will save my tax dollars from funding local dictators in oil-for-food scandals.
 
but wait there's more...

Before you call me a tin foil hat rack, just do the research for yourself...

UN National parks In The US

OUR NATIONAL PARKS NOW BELONG TO UNITED NATIONS

Across this great land, our national parks, wildlands, forests, and lakes are being turned over to UN control. Joseph Urso, Jr., a friend of the ministry who hails from Knoxville, Tennessee, recently sent me a photograph of the entrance sign of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Notice the telling phrase on the sign: "AN INTERNATIONAL BIOSPHERE RESERVE."

This means that, under the United Nations Biodiversity Treaty, a precious resource owned by American citizens for over 200 years has been turned over to the UN's bureaucrats for control. Yes, you and I will continue to pay taxes for the maintenance and upkeep of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. But we no longer own it. Now, the UN has ultimate jurisdiction. This alone is startling evidence that the once independent nation-state known as the United States of America is going out with a whimper and not a bang. Our sovereignty is coming to an end.

As a consequence, across the U.S.A., our parks and wilderness areas are slowly being closed to the public. Roads inside the parks are being grazed over. Mountain passes and hiking paths are being blockaded. "No fishing," "No hunting," "No trespassing" signs are being erected everywhere on public lands. Entrance fees are being jacked up 100%, even 500% higher, to keep American families out of their own lands.
http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/Rockefeller_UN_National_Parks.html

World Heritage Sites are designated under a treaty to which the United States is a party, entitled the ?Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,? which was adopted at the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in Paris on November 16, 1972. Although the United States no longer participates in UNESCO(1), the U.S. Department of State in conjunction with the National Park Service and other agencies, administers the program. Sites continue to be added to the 22 already-designated parks, buildings and other sites in the United States.
Both ?cultural? and ?natural? Heritage are protected under the treaty. Although national sovereignty is an issue of concern in all designations, the experience of private property owners indicates that it is the resource designations which pose the potentially serious detriment to their private property rights.
Under Article 2 of the Convention, ?natural heritage? is defined
http://www.prfamerica.org/UN-WHS-NPS-Seeks.html

Here is a list of all Propeties.
http://www.prfamerica.org/ExistingTentativeUNWHS.html

UNESCO's WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE ACTIONS: Yellowstone National Park has now been designated as a "World Heritage Site in Danger." Adul Wichiencharoen of Thailand, head of the World Heritage Committee said, "certainly the forest areas around Yellowstone belong to the same ecosystem. All these lands must have protection so their integrity is not threatened."
Wichiencharoen stressed that he respected U.S. sovereignty, however as a signator to the 1972 World Heritage Convention treaty, the U.S. has a duty to preserve the Yellowstone ecosystem across administrative boundaries. Similarly designated were Glacier National Park and Carlsbad Caverns and its minerals.

In a "Bozeman Chronicle" report, Senator Conrad Burns of Montana is reported as stating; "It is astonishing that a group of extreme environmentalists can invite a few folks from the United Nations to circumvent laws that Americans and Montanans have worked hard for and lent their voices to." Burns expressed fears the committee "would also seek to put a halt to activities in the park such as travel by motor vehicles as well as to create a buffer zone around the park that would run roughshod over private property rights.
http://www.iahushua.com/WOI/biosphere.html

1972 Treaty Grants the United Nations Control Over American Historical Landmarks

The Founding Fathers would be shocked to learn that some of their successors have given control of key American sovereign territory to other nations.

Through an international treaty, the United States is allowing the United Nations and its member countries access to and control of American soil - in particular, our historic buildings and treasured wilderness.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA341.html

LAND GRAB here.
http://www.warroom.com/grab.htm

Undeterred by the will of the people, the Clinton administration continues to work closely with the UN to implement its secretive, pantheistic agenda of global governance through a host of additional programs?all designed to strip private property rights from landowners and revert much of the American landscape back to its natural wilderness condition. Only through prayer, factual documentation and direct action by citizens can this agenda be exposed, then stopped.
http://www.discerningtoday.org/members/Digest/1999Digest/September/UN Taking Over.htm

Looks like the UN is a major player.


Here is atleast one more link.for now.

Millions of Americans will flock to the country's national parks this summer. Dazzled by nature and history, will they notice the missing signs, crumbling roads, or disappearance of park rangers? Facing what some people warn is a "crippling" budget shortfall, many national park superintendents are being asked to consider cutting their ranger staffs, services, and visitor center hours?and possibly even closing down completely on certain days.

http://100777.com/node/view/709

Keep the Statue of Liberty Free: An Argument for Congressional Oversight of U.N. Land Designations in the U.S.



by Amy Ridenour



This Independence Day more than most, our Statue of Liberty has special meaning.

With its flame of freedom overlooking the site of the World Trade Center complex, the Statue of Liberty eloquently symbolizes the characteristics for which Americans are most known: our love of freedom; our commitment to self-government, our resistance to foreign threats and oppression.

Too bad the Statue of Liberty itself is under foreign domination.

That's because the Statue of Liberty, like 17 other sites in the United States, has been designated as a U.N. World Heritage Site under the auspices of the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural organization (UNESCO). A U.N. World Heritage Site is a cultural or natural landmark that receives international protection under the terms of the 1972 World Heritage Treaty.1
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA419.html

Last year a United Nations-designated panel, at the behest of the Clinton administration, called for the creation of uninhabited "buffer zones" around several U.S. national parks. Since then roughly two dozen U.S. parks and preserves, covering millions of acres of public land, have been included in the plan.

Now, however, new plans to expand these zones are in the works, and the outrage has reached a near fever pitch among experts who say these U.N.-designated sites are merely attempts to "globalize" huge portions of the United States -- with taxpayers picking up the tab.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15179

There is no longer any doubt that the NWO ( and UN and Third Way) are taking over the United States. This is being done slowly and systematically through such coverts actions as destroying our Constitution through manipulation of Congress and taking control of our public lands. The extent is becoming alarming. Just browsing down the Uhuh Opening Title Page will provide a vivid and alarming scenario.
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/list-nwo.htm
 
Because of MONEY. If we're in it, we're contributing millions upon millions to fund their schemes; for example, global disarmament schemes. I've actually got no problem being IN IT, provided we don't have to pay dues or otherwise give them one red cent. Since that is not possible, we need to LEAVE this corrupt organization.
 
strike-hold

This statement on the World Heritage website, from their very mouths, is all we need to see: http://whc.unesco.org/en/about/

What makes the concept of World Heritage exceptional is its universal application. World Heritage sites belong to all the peoples of the world, irrespective of the territory on which they are located.

Wrong. American lands belong to the American people. Thankfully we can tell them to stuff it, if we have the political will.
 
Wrong. American lands belong to the American people. Thankfully we can tell them to stuff it, if we have the political will.

+1

When have you ever heard about these topics on the nightly news? hmmm...kinda makes me wonder

nominate sites within their national territory for inclusion on the World Heritage List
 
Back
Top