I agree, I just don't like the timming. --- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Pulling out of the UN would be a great move for the US because it > would no longer be associated directly with all the World goverence > goals of the UN. Of course the UN is not going to go away but the US > could make other multinational alliance with nations that are liberal > democracies and actually respect individual rights.--- In > [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@> wrote: > > > > 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/
