← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · JoseyWales
Thread ID: 18704 | Posts: 6 | Started: 2005-06-17
2005-06-17 22:39 | User Profile
[url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44856[/url]
Can you imagine the hand-wringing if the US actually carries through ? Somehow i suspect this is being done, not in the best interests of America, but of our kosher puppet masters.
2005-06-18 02:25 | User Profile
Because the UN refuses to do as ordered by the US by stepping away on their charges against the state of Israel now the US will "slash" the money in support of the UN.
I myself really don't care about the UN because they are not doing their job as it should be, they now have (the UN) 67 charges against the state of Israel and have done nothing about it but as soon as a non nuclear country like Haiti breaks one single rule then the UN is all over them.
2005-06-18 02:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Eight former U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations also opposed the legislation, including Madeleine Albright and Jeane Kirkpatrick, who was appointed by President Reagan.[/QUOTE] Along with Newt Gingrich and George W. Bush.
2005-06-18 03:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Because the UN refuses to do as ordered by the US by stepping away on their charges against the state of Israel now the US will "slash" the money in support of the UN.
I myself really don't care about the UN because they are not doing their job as it should be, they now have (the UN) 67 charges against the state of Israel and have done nothing about it but as soon as a non nuclear country like Haiti breaks one single rule then the UN is all over them.[/QUOTE] Two points. One, the US invented the UN, so any US Congress is going to feel justified in being irritated if the UN is being used as a tool against us. But that is minor.
Your second point misses some of the fine wording. Is some of the UN resolutions regarding Israel, the wording calls on BOTH parties to work at blah blah blah. Indeed, when I was looking into this stuff back in early 2003, most of the Israel directed resolutions I read, and I read a bunch of them off the UN web site, called on "both parties" to work toward blah blah blah.
If you want to argue that the Israelis have not been bargaining in good faith for the past few years, no diagreement here. That wall has to go.
2005-06-18 07:21 | User Profile
I support the idea to stop funding the UN. But what a great idea they have since we can apply the exact same principle to the federal government when we as American citizens observe they are doing nothing to stop the invasion of illegals, etc. Taxpayers can simply form a loose union of some kind amongst ourselves (we will need millions of patriots so that it is more than the IRS can handle) in which we do not pay federal taxes until some of the key issues are addressed.
2005-06-18 23:57 | User Profile
The Washington Times [url]www.washingtontimes.com[/url] White House hits bill to hold U.N. dues By David R. Sands
THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published June 17, 2005 The Bush administration warned Congress yesterday to drop a threat to withhold dues to the United Nations as a way to spur reform of the world body, saying the tactic would prove counterproductive.
The dues threat is the centerpiece of a wide-ranging U.N. overhaul bill that the House of Representatives began debating yesterday afternoon.
The bill -- co-sponsored by House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde, Illinois Republican -- would hold up to half of the U.S. annual payment to the world body if more than three dozen administrative and management reforms are not adopted.
Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns called the provision "unacceptable."
"It would diminish our effectiveness and not allow us to play the leading role that we need to play on reform," he said.
The administration stopped short of a veto threat on a bill that faces uncertain prospects, but the White House echoed Mr. Burns, releasing a list of objections to the Hyde bill.
The United States is the largest single contributor to the United Nations, paying nearly a quarter of the world body's $2 billion regular operating budget and 27 percent of its peacekeeping costs.
Supporters of the Hyde bill argued on the House floor yesterday that the dues threat was the only way to get the United Nations' attention in the wake of scandals such as the Iraq oil-for-food program and abuses by U.N. peacekeeping troops.
"Yes, this is radical surgery, but sometimes it is the only way to save the patient," Mr. Hyde said.
Mr. Burns said the administration supported many of the administrative and management reforms in the House bill, despite opposing the dues provision.
Mr. Burns and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday officially endorsed Japan's bid to be a permanent member of the Security Council, although without the veto enjoyed by five other permanent members -- the United States, China, France, Russia and Britain.
Washington could support a second, unnamed permanent member, Miss Rice said, but warned that politicking over Security Council slots should not get in the way of more fundamental reforms.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has been seeking a consensus for his own reform package in time for a September summit of world leaders in New York.
Mr. Annan told reporters in New York that he found U.S. interest in U.N. reform "encouraging," but said it would be better for Washington to work with other member nations.
"You know, this is an organization of member states, large and small. And the way we do business here is to discuss and come to an understanding -- a broad agreement -- and then move forward," Mr. Annan said.
An alternative to the Hyde bill, authored by Rep. Tom Lantos, California Democrat, would let Miss Rice decide whether to withhold the U.S. dues payment. The alternative narrowly failed in committee and will be offered as an amendment again during the House debate expected to conclude today.
Betsy Pisik in New York contributed to this report.
Copyright é 2005 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. [url]http://washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050616-113652-7271r[/url] ================= So much for the nonsense about Bush being some sort of great patriot concerned about American sovereignty. :lol: