NATO and the UN: should the U.S. get out?

Grayfox

New member
With all that is happening in Kosovo and other parts of the world, do you think the United States should stay in NATO and the United Nations or quit one or both? And why do you feel the way you do?
I do have opinions, but they may be based on feeling rather than facts. I will reserve my own comments until I hear the pros and cons on the issue.
 
I remember when I was very young and my folks and I would travel through the south on vacation, we'd always see the big billboards that said "Get US out of the UN, The John Birch Society." I grew up thinkiing that these people were nuts. I know nothing else about the John Birch Society than their stand on the UN, but I now agree with them on that issue.
The UN and NATO, whatever they once were, are now nothing but a weight on our backs. An albatross. An organization that I believe is Hellbent on dragging us down into the muck and mire with them.
Ask yourself why a country like the Bahamas has a voting voice equal to that of the US?
Is this equality, or is it placing the US in a vastly inferior position.
Everybody talks about UN Military forces. Hell, that's US! Sure, when some crap boils up that the UN decides to send troops in to deal with, countrys send in their token forces, but WE bear the brunt of the load.

I say, if the UN is so great and all these chickensh** little countries are so powerful, fine, let's tell them to go peddle their papers elsewhere. We can auction off the building and let some developer take it "condo."
We can get along fine without them, can they get along without us(US?) I don't care if they can or not, I'm just tired of the pigs telling the Farmer what to do!

------------------
Your mind is your primary weapon.
 
The UN as it is right now vs its original intent should be allowed to shrivel up and die.

The UN originally was meant to be a a diplomatic "advisory" and neutral venue. It has assumed a quasi governmental role without the power to enforce its views.

Go to the UN website and spend time there...they already have written laws, regulations, etc for when there is a world government and under the assumption that it will be them. There are plans for economic and natural resource re-distribution, regional economic controls to favor other regions until parity is reached, etc.

If the UN remains as a diplomatic factor, a charitable influence...cool. As a governing body? My sweet a$$

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
DC,
First of all, I agree with you.
Secondly, I don't think our views stand the chance of a 15 y/o virgin girl at a Clinton family picnic at a winery!
The same arguments we believe in were made by those who opposed state governments taking over county governments, and (of course) the federal government taking over the state governments. Each time, the smaller territory lost.
But the U.S. lowering itself to be ruled by the U.N. - now that gives me a serious case of (censored extensively by Dennis)!!!!!
Grumpily yours, etc.
 
NATO and UN - The USA should have dumped both of these fine organizations years ago. NATO=USA. UN=total BS & hellbent on controlling every human on this earth. The one world gov't is the UN main objective - the only thing standing in its way "is us armed americans".

I say boot the UN out of NYC, along with all the "diplomatic immunity" BS! Let 'em relocate in Belgrade. :)

-bk40
 
The US out of the UN and the UN out of the US.
Dump NATO too. It seems that every time NATO does something it is mostly US forces doing it.
 
I agree with the previous posters' sentiments in spirit. However, I would like to bring up some points for your collective consideration. First, the US voice in the UN is NOT the same as the Bahamas. The US has one of the PERMANENT seats on the UN Security Council along with Russia, China, England, and France. This carries a veto on Security Council resolutions which are different from the UN General Assembly resolutions. UN Security Resolutions can result in action. In 1950, Russia made the mistake of boycotting a Security Council meeting over the Korean Crisis and thus were not present to veto the resulting resolution. They got a present from the UN as a result. Research the issues where the US has exercised its Security Council veto. I'm damn glad we were present to exercise a veto. Destroy the UN-yes. Unilaterally withdraw and leave the organization to go its own way without us? HELL NO!!

Oh, by the way, there is some very dangerous crap going on at the UN in regards to international agreements on gun control. Apparently progun representation is very minimal here and they need help. Canadian Donna Ferolie is one of the progun activists who is fighting at the UN level. She needs help.
 
I agree wholeheartedly with BK40 - we are NATO (like it or not), and the UN is a bunch of power-hungry pissants trying to play with the big boys and pretend they're important. The UN website is truly frightening to anyone who relishes their individual rights.
 
With apologies for the length of this post, this is a copy of an article I came across while surfing through, I believe, either the JohnBirch Society website or "The New American" website a while ago. While the opinions are those of the author (could not find it listed on the article, sorry), they bring up some good background on the UN and interesting topics of discussion.

--------------------------------------------------------------

1. The UN's basic philosophy is both anti-American and pro-totalitarian. Our Declaration of Independence proclaims the "self-evident" truth that "men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." But, in its Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN ignores God's existence, implies that it grants rights, and then repeatedly claims power "as provided by law" to cancel them out of existence. If any government can place restrictions on such fundamental rights as freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, freedoms of the press, association, movement, and religion, soon there will be no such freedoms.


2. The UN was founded by Communists and CFR members whose common goal was a socialist world government. Sixteen key U.S. officials who shaped the policies leading to the creation of the UN were later exposed in sworn testimony as secret Communists. These included Alger Hiss, chief planner of the 1945 founding conference, and the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Harry Dexter White. The Soviet Union under Stalin and the entire Communist Party USA apparatus worked tirelessly to launch the UN. Since its beginning in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has always worked for world government. The key CFR founder, Edward Mandell House, in his book, Philip Dru: Administrator, called for "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx ..." The CFR was an early promoter of the UN, and 43 members of the U.S. delegation at the UN founding conference were or would become CFR members.

3. The UN has always chosen socialist one-worlders for leaders. The Secretary-General at the UN founding conference was Soviet spy Alger Hiss. He was followed as Secretary-General by Norwegian socialist Trygve Lie, Swedish socialist Dag Hammarskjold, Burmese Marxist U Thant, Austrian former Nazi Kurt Waldheim, Peruvian socialist Javier Perez deCuellar, and Egyptian socialist Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Each has consistently used the full resources of the UN to promote Communist and socialist causes around the world. The Socialist International (which proudly traces its origins to the First International headed by Karl Marx) today claims tens of millions of members in 54 countries. At its 1962 Congress, it declared: "The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government ... Membership of the United Nations must be made universal ..." Almost all of the UN's "independent" commissions for the last thirty years have been headed by members of the Socialist International.

4. The UN seeks power to control the environment, population, children ... the world. Both the 1972 UN Environmental Program and the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development laid plans to whip up widespread environmental concerns (some exaggerated, many completely fabricated). These concerns would then be used as justification for increasing UN authority on environmental issues. The statements and publications of these UN programs leave little doubt that their goal is a world government with the power to cancel national sovereignty, regulate economic activity, and control the human race all, of course, under the banner of "protecting the environment." In late 1994, UN planners meeting in Egypt approved a 20-year, $17 billion plan to "stabilize" the world's population. The UN's goal is to reduce population selectively by encouraging abortion, sterilization, and controlled human breeding. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child also claims power not only to grant rights but also to cancel them "as provided by law." It claims that governments must guarantee children "freedom of expression ... freedom to seek, receive, and impart information ... freedom of thought, conscience, and religion," regardless of the wishes of their parents.

5. The UN Charter outlines the path to world tyranny. After giving lip service about not intervening "in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state ...," the UN Charter continues, "but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII." Chapter VII discusses sanctions and boycotts, but if these are decided to "be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." The UN used this broad assertion of authority as the pretext for its armed intervention in the domestic turmoil in Somalia and Haiti.

6. The UN is building its own army to enforce its will. In 1992, UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, fulfilling a directive from the UN Security Council, unveiled An Agenda for Peace, a plan to strengthen UN "peacekeeping" capabilities. The plan calls for armed forces to be made available to the UN "on a permanent basis." It ominously warns, "The time of absolute and exclusive sovereignty has passed" and proceeds to name a long list of "risks for stability" that would be used to justify use of the "permanent" UN army to enforce its will. Incredibly, U.S. leaders are using America's military to pave the way for this UN army. In Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and elsewhere, foreign UN commanders have controlled our troops. When 15 Americans were killed over Iraq in mid-1994, Vice-President Gore extended condolences "to the families of those who died in the service of the United Nations." Even more incredibly, it has been the official policy of the U.S. government since 1961 to disarm America and create a UN army. This policy concludes: "progressive controlled disarmament would proceed to the point where no nation would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN Peace Force." (See State Department publication 7277: Freedom From War.)

7. The UN doesn't settle disputes - it makes them worse! Our ambassador to the UN in 1982, although a UN supporter, admitted, "The UN has become an arena in which countries are drawn into problems they might never have become involved in." Ask yourself: Should Seychelles or Benin or Guyana or Barbados have to take sides in a clash that breaks out on the opposite side of the world? When centuries-old animosities erupt in the former Yugoslavia, why does the UN inject its presence with troops, blockades, bombing, and a parade of speeches? American troops serving as globocops for the UN become targets for criminals and terrorists. In 1983, 241 U.S. Marines were blown to bits at the Beirut airport. Five years later, a U.S. Marine Lieutenant Colonel was kidnapped and eventually murdered by Arab terrorists while in a UN unit in Lebanon (he was unarmed - as required by the UN). The UN "peacekeeping mission" in Somalia cost the lives of another 36 Americans in 1993.

8. The UN ignores Communist atrocities but targets non-Communist nations and leaders. When Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary in the 1950s, when the Chinese Communists were murdering Tibetans in the 1960s, when the Soviets were butchering civilians in Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s, when Chechnya was brutalized by the Russians in the 1990s, the UN did nothing! But the UN declared tiny Rhodesia "a threat to international peace" in the 1960s, enabling pro-communist terrorist Robert Mugabe to seize power. And it was a UN-led campaign that brought self-described Communist and convicted terrorist Nelson Mandela to power in South Africa in the 1990s.

9. The UN embraces Communist China - history's most murderous criminal regime. In 1949, anti-Communist Nationalist China, one of the UN's founding members, was forced from the mainland to Taiwan by the Communists. In 1971, the UN expelled Taiwan and embraced the brutal Red Chinese government - a government responsible for over 35 million murders. When the vote admitting Red China was announced, UN delegates danced in the aisles to show their contempt for America and their joy at the triumph of Red China.

10. The UN is a moral cesspool filled with perverts and fat cats. In 1993, the UN Economic and Social Council granted consultant status to the International Gay and Lesbian Association which includes the North American Man/Boy Love Association (advocates of child molestation) and the Dutch group Vereniging Martijn (which also promotes use of children as sex objects). In 1988, the top Belgian UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) official was one of a group convicted of running a child sex ring. Moral bankruptcy is commonplace in UN operations. In Zimbabwe, UNICEF-donated equipment helped terrorists seize power. In Vietnam, the Communists received $13 million from UNICEF while untold thousands of boat people fled for their lives. Fat cats? UN employees are paid 40% more than comparable U.S. workers and have subsidized rent. An ex-UNICEF official confirmed that "pampered and cosseted staffs" of various aid agencies "absorb 80% of all UN expenditures."

11. America supplies the money, the UN then finances tyrants and assorted enemies of the U.S., and conditions in the nations "aided" grow worse. U.S. taxpayers pay 25% of the UN budget plus 31% of the UN special-agency budgets. Additional billions of our dollars go to the IMF, World Bank, and other UN related lending agencies where they have been used for incredibly wasteful and subversive UN projects. (Not surprising since these agencies were designed by Soviet agent Harry Dexter White and Fabian Socialist John Maynard Keynes.) Socialist International spokesman Hilary Marquand aptly described the IMF as "in essence a Socialist conception." World Bank "aid" funds went to brutal Marxist dictator Mengistu while he was causing large-scale starvation and death in Ethiopia; to Tanzanian dictator Julius Nyerere as he drove peasants off their land and burned their huts; and to the Vietnamese Communists, sending thousands of boat people into the sea. Even Newsweek magazine concluded that the UN's foreign aid programs tend "to prop up incompetent governments or subsidize economies so they can never stand on their own."

12. The UN is a war organization, NOT a peace organization. Article 42 of the UN Charter claims authority to "take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." But the UN definition of "peace" is never given. Tyrannical regimes throughout history have defined "peace" as the absence of all opposition. To achieve "peace" in Katanga in 1961, UN planes bombed hospitals, schools, administrative buildings, and private homes. Katanga was an anti-Communist province of the Belgian Congo seeking freedom from the Communist-controlled central government. The UN is not now, and has never been, a peace organization. It will use whatever military power it is given to force all nations of the world to submit.

---------------------------------------------------------------

------------------
Don LeHue

The surest sign of poor craftsmanship is wrinkles in the duct tape.
 
Looks like DonL has done his homework. Nice job!

I started this so now I'll put my two cents in. I think the problem with the US and the Un and Nato is one of philosophy. What Americans hold dear and call the Bill of Rights, most members of the UN call crimes against the state. In most of these member nations there is no free speech, no restrictions on search and seizure and certainly no RKBA. I do not see how we could support any organization whose policies are in direct opposition to our Constitution. My original opinion was to drop them both like a hot rock.

After reading the excellent posts here, I have reconsidered and now think that the US should stay in both organizations for one reason only. The United States is in the unique position of being the only nation on Earth who can keep these a**h***s in check.

Hopefully, after the next election we will have an American president who will appoint a strong UN ambassador who will explain to these pissants that we ain't playing their games anymore.

In the meantime, the best way to watch your enemy is from within.
 
Just a little facts for you guy the United States put less than 3% of our GNP into UN programs all these programs come from other countries out there that are tryin to dictate policy. We pay little or no attention to the UN if you don't believe that think about in the 80 when we shot down an IRANIAN Pass. Plan. They wanted to inpose sanctions on us and shortly there after that was just dust in the wind.. I know that we would like to believe that the Un is the ONE WORLD GOVT but anyone who has done at least a little traveling knows that the US international policies and not the UN dictates much of the worlds policies.. Don't believe me ask Saudi Arabia why they didn't side with their next door Muslim companion during the GULF WAR. Merely because of the role the US DOLLAR plys in the economy in that area. THe dollar is the only currency OPEC takes therefore you had a couple of pissed off Arabain leaders but no one who really wanted to react to our invasion of IRAQ. Please feel free to check me on all of this. I am more than open to a challenge.
 
These organizations are action working groups, and thats fine.
The problem is when such a working group becomes an independent quasi-gov't or authority. There is no direct representation. I'll admit to ignorance...how is the Secretary General selected? What is the limit of term? (as far as I know, these old farts stay til they die). What is the process of accountability to members and to the everyday citizen? (I've never had an opportunity to vote or voice my opinion to the UN). Thus as far as I know, the UN is only subject to member countries willingness to pony up the money.
Bottomline, there doesn't seem to be a way of keeping them under control...it appears to be a pure comittee dictatorship.

It seems that we (all countries) are just giving the farm away to a tyrant and doing it gladly. I don't understand this

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Grayfox, you bring up a very good point for the US's continued involvement in the UN and NATO. Who was it that said, "Keep thine friends close, and thine enemies closer."?

------------------
Don LeHue

The surest sign of poor craftsmanship is wrinkles in the duct tape.
 
Please name three policies of the UN that we didn't first try to initialize. You will be hard pressed to find them because they are none. Try me.
 
First of all has anyone read George Washington's Farewell Address? He spends something like 4 pages advising us on entangling alliances and how bad they are. All the Founders in their writings talk about only having temporary alliances in a time of war or emergency. Second, has anyone read the U.N. Charter? All the power lies in the security council. In other words in the hands of 5 people. The general assembly only has the power to advise in certain things. If we don't do something then soon they will be making laws for the U.S. citizens. If I were to get drafted into the military for some reason I want to wear a U.S. military uniform not a U.N. uniform. I'd say get away from both NATO and the U.N. The Founding Fathers told us not to touch them in the first place.
 
Back
Top