If we withdraw and quit funding it and terminate diplomatic immunity for its personnel, it will collapse. For more information see www.getusout.org. The right time to get out was 1945. The second best time is now.
For life and liberty, David Macko ----- Original Message ----- From: "uncoolrabbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 11:14 AM Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Ask your congressman to cosponsor H. R. 1146 to get out of the U. N. > The thing is David, it DOES NOT take away that excusse. IF we are > not a member, the UN will not say to itself, oh well, the US left us > we must dissolve. So, any such 'UN Failures' will continue to > exhist, and Bush may continue to use them, as a real rouge nation > rather than a percieved rouge nation as it is no logner a party to > the international comunity at the UN. > > Ok, so its the right choice, but still the wrong time. Such a move > would only galvinize support for Ahmadinejad at home and among his > neighbors aswell. > > --- In [email protected], "David Macko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Congressman Ron Paul is still promoting it. Remember that Bush used >> the UN's alleged failure to impose its so-called authority on Iraq > as >> an excuse for the invasion. The neocons are following the same > procedure now >> with Iran for the next war. If we get out of the UN, this takes > away one of >> Bush's excuses. Furthermore, it is the right thing to do. >> >> For life and liberty, >> David Macko >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "uncoolrabbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 5:38 AM >> Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Ask your congressman to cosponsor H. R. > 1146 to >> get out of the U. N. >> >> >> > Right idea, wrong time. >> > >> > To leave the UN now would just confirm the US as a rouge nation > and >> > add a sense of confirmation to claims of a war on Islam. If this >> > were to come from the house, more assocaited with the voice of > the >> > American people, rather than an administrative move from the Bush >> > side it would also imply that that war on Islam is supported by > the >> > US populous. Remember, how you are percieved is more real to >> > anouther person than your intentions. >> > >> > This could have been done before Iraq, and it can be done later, > but >> > it is not the appropriate time now to do it, in my opinion. When > we >> > look at recent events regaurding the UN, we can see they backed >> > Afghanistan wich did indeed deal a blow to the Al Qaida network, > and >> > would have been a success had attention not been diverted from it >> > towards Iraq. Then with Iraq, you might recal they opposed that >> > operation. You always have to pick your battles, and there are >> > bigger, more important, and less damaging battles to fight than > this >> > one right now. >> > >> > For those who may be now preparing to respond calling me an > agressor >> > against liberty as you have implied in the past... >> > >> > Remember that a political party and a political philosophy are > two >> > seperate things, and to compromise from a party side is not a >> > compromise of that philosophical idealogy if it is done in the > best >> > intrests of that philosophies ultimate aim. >> > >> > >> > >> > --- In [email protected], John Perna <savefreedom2005@> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Ask your congressman to cosponsor H. R. 1146 to get out of the >> > U. N. >> >> UN Reform Isn't the Answer >> >> by John F. McManus >> >> The proper response to cries for UN reform and restructuring > is >> > for our nation to leave. Even with veto power, the UN remains a >> > constant threat to freedom. >> >> Flag wavers for the United Nations like to point out >> > that nations large and small have a voice in the "world forum." > For >> > instance, Julian Hunte of minuscule Saint Lucia (population: >> > 160,000) currently finds himself as the president of the General >> > Assembly. >> >> But the power in the UN doesn't reside in the General > Assembly; >> > it's located in the Security Council. Originally made up of only > 11 >> > members (four more were added in 1965), only five have ever been >> > designated "permanent" and each of these possesses a veto over >> > Security Council decisions. (Non-permanent members serve for only >> > two years, and their places are then awarded to others.) The >> > language in the UN Charter's Article 27 states that Security > Council >> > decisions must include "the concurring votes of the permanent >> > members." The five permanent members originally named were the >> > Republic of China (Taiwan), France, the Soviet Union, the United >> > Kingdom, and the United States. Two of these memberships were > later >> > transferred to the People's Republic of China and Russia. >> >> Possession of veto power supposedly assures Americans that no >> > Security Council resolution would ever unfavorably impact the > United >> > States. The veto power's very existence persuaded some of the >> > senators in 1945 that there was nothing to fear by approving UN >> > membership. Most surely expected that our nation's leaders would >> > always use the veto to protect America's interests, an > expectation >> > that is by no means realistic today. >> >> Still, because possession of the veto power leaves the door > open >> > for any of the five permanent members especially the United > States >> > to thwart UN designs, a rising number of UN partisans have > suggested >> > that it be abolished. In December 1985, for instance, World >> > Federalist Association Vice President John Logue testified > before a >> > subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He > stridently >> > called for action to "reform, restructure and strengthen the > United >> > Nations." To "be able to make and enforce law on the > individual," he >> > pointedly declared, "the Security Council veto must go." >> >> Though Logue may have been ahead of the pack, the number of >> > those wanting to reform the UN as he suggested has grown. During > a >> > convocation at Notre Dame University in April 1991, retired >> > President Father Theodore Hesburgh called for restructuring the > UN >> > in part by "eliminating the veto possessed by the five permanent >> > Security Council members." An unabashed partisan of the "new > world >> > order," Hesburgh has spent much of his adult life joining and >> > playing an important role in various globalist organizations. >> >> In April 1996, former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev > convened >> > a gathering in Bhurban, Pakistan. Delegates to the affair > produced a >> > 12-plank "Bhurban Statement" urging that the UN "should become > the >> > principal custodian of global human security." To accomplish this >> > goal, stated the document: "There should be no veto power." >> >> Canadian oil billionaire and New Age heavyweight Maurice > Strong >> > has served the UN in a variety of ways, including secretary- > general >> > of the UN's 1992 "Earth Summit" and senior adviser to UN > Secretary- >> > General Kofi Annan. He has frequently called for revising the > UN's >> > structure, including the removal of the Security Council veto. >> >> In 2000, the little-known United Nations University (UNU) >> > produced a study offering the following conclusion: "To respect >> > sovereignty is to be complicit in human rights violations." > Formed >> > in 1973 to assist the UN in resolving "global problems," the UNU >> > produces recommendations such as urging the world body to "remove >> > the Great Power veto" to facilitate its ability to >> > sanction "humanitarian war." >> >> In 2003, David Davenport of the supposedly conservative Hoover >> > Institution suggested that the UN could become a "more effective >> > decision-making body" by limiting the veto power to a requirement >> > that "at least two nations exercise it to be effective." The > Weekly >> > Standard, also a supposedly conservative voice, has called for >> > eliminating the veto power. >> >> Brookings Institution senior research analyst Parag Khanna >> > authored an op-ed piece for the December 6, 2003 New York Times >> > proposing ways to make the world body function more efficiently. >> > Khanna wants the UN to add Japan and India to the roster of > Security >> > Council permanent members, collapse the French and British places >> > into a single seat for the European Union, and further beef up > the >> > permanent membership by awarding slots to the Organization of >> > American States, the League of Arab States and the African >> > Union. "But most importantly," he wrote, "if the United States >> > sincerely wants a more effective Security Council, it will have > to >> > relinquish its veto power in favor of majority voting." >> >> The Brookings Institution is currently led by former Time >> > magazine columnist and former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe >> > Talbott. Perhaps his most revealing utterance is that in the next >> > hundred years "nationhood as we know it will be obsolete." >> >> For an American, the proper response to cries for UN reform > and >> > restructuring is to demand that our nation leave the world body >> > altogether. Even with veto power, a succession of U.S. >> > administrations has shown little interest in using it to protect > our >> > nation's independence. ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
