UN

[bacpacker]

Here is a question for discussion within the group.

There is lots of discussion right now, and a recently proposed bill that seeks to remove the US from the UN and remove all US funding. At first thought I was and have been all for this. But after reading some other folks thoughts on this, I have some question about going that exact route. Here is some stuff from the other side of things.
1) The US has Veto power over anything going thru the UN. Do we really want to give that up?
2) If we no longer have that power, the other countries will hammer us worse than they already try. We are seriously outnumbered and without Veto, no chance to stop anything. And that includes any support of Isreal.
3)
4) On the plus side, lots more parking in NYC where al the UN losers are booted out.
5) A prime piece of real estate comes open
6) Save billions of dollars in payments to the UN and all the sorry ass programs they support.

Here is my thoughts, Stay in the UN and keep Veto power. Seriously reduce the funding we give and stop all funds to particular programs completely.
What say you?

[eagle326]

I say you're dead on son. Lower the funding and let the other countries pick up their own tabs.

[Stg1swret]

The UN is a pretty toothless organization, and rife with scandals we rarely hear about. Currently the US contributions to their coffers amount to almost 20% of their budget, not to mention the free real estate and security. We have very few friends at the UN. Yes, we have veto power in the security counsel, but that doesn't amount to much as most UN actions are ignored by everyone. We should stop funding them and all their projects, pull our troops from their defense force, and put them on notice we will tolerate no attacks on our way of life. The first time some tin dictator or third world country who restricts their peoples freedoms attacks the way we treat our citizens berates us in the UN, we send them and eviction notice, telling them we will enforce it with federal troops. They can then move their headquarters to some third world paradise.

[Illini Warrior]

you do realize that the US is one of the few countries that are current on the UN funding and has been for decades .... most countries aren't - they are still in the UN .... cutting funding and sending a stern unwritten warning is totally separate from the nuke weapon action you're talking about - the US is not leaving the UN - or NATO for that matter ...

Trump is pulling up US's pants that has been riding an Obammy ghetto butt crack position for years - another "new sheriff" move - the pizz ant 3rd World trash that Obammy allowed to run amok are getting a lesson in the real world ....

[Brownwater Riverrat 13]

Like I said on another thread, "i'm going to sit back and watch" President Trump.............wow, feels good to actually use the word "President" again.........do his thing. So far he keeps the press busy with "chum" on one side, while he takes care of doing what he said he was going to do on the other. So far, so good. It's actually fun to watch, "here y'all feed on this for awhile, I'm busy", "oh, look here's another carrot" He did that during the whole campaign. The guy's good.

[Fidel MD]

There are 193 member states in the UN. The US should pay no more than 1/193 of the total expenditures of the UN and its many cancerous appendages...Not the more than 22% we pay now.

Or to put it another way....if I was a member of say a country club, and I paid 22% of the total expenditures, do you think I'd give a crap what the other 192 members thought? They'd be open when I said, they'd serve what I said, etc...

[bacpacker]

Well guess I ain't too far down a rabbit hole. Totally agree on pulling the funding WAY back, 1/193 sounds about right. And yep, our troops should not be involved in any UN peacekeeping shit. Those almost always end up as a cluster_uck.

[Kesephist]

Feh.

US should leave. Give every one else a week to clear out, and at week plus one minute we take the place, arresting/PNGing anyone still on premises, confiscating anything left. Have Controlled Demolitions Inc in there within 30 days, and implode the thing for New Year's.

Let 'em resettle in Stockholm or Berne.

[Brownwater Riverrat 13]

Well, it used to have a purpose, now it's under corrupt control. Keep an eye on the skinny little shit that just left. He'll probably try running for head of the UN next. Trying not to derail right now with "Chucky" Schummer crying on the tele, this is just too much. I need to go to my safe space now........................

[Fidel MD]

AFAIK, the UN has consistently failed at it's stated role of preventing war, or ensuring peace..... Every time they've tried, its turned into a goat rope.

Continuing to support such an incompetent organization is insanity.

[Willie51]

Here is a question for discussion within the group.

There is lots of discussion right now, and a recently proposed bill that seeks to remove the US from the UN and remove all US funding. At first thought I was and have been all for this. But after reading some other folks thoughts on this, I have some question about going that exact route. Here is some stuff from the other side of things.
1) The US has Veto power over anything going thru the UN. Do we really want to give that up?
2) If we no longer have that power, the other countries will hammer us worse than they already try. We are seriously outnumbered and without Veto, no chance to stop anything. And that includes any support of Isreal.
3)
4) On the plus side, lots more parking in NYC where al the UN losers are booted out.
5) A prime piece of real estate comes open
6) Save billions of dollars in payments to the UN and all the sorry ass programs they support.

Here is my thoughts, Stay in the UN and keep Veto power. Seriously reduce the funding we give and stop all funds to particular programs completely.
What say you?

Agreed 100%!!!