It can move out of new york, manage its expenses better, reduce its various missions and programs, and continue to exhist. It is a mistake to think that our countries withdraw and lack of support could alone would lead to its collapse.
--- In [email protected], "David Macko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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" <dmacko@> 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" <uncoolrabbit@> > >> 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/
