Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: "Get U.S. out of U.N." vote tally  (Read 5264 times)


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1634
  • Act decisively. Without reserve!
    • Liberty Scholarship Fund
Re:"Get U.S. out of U.N." vote tally
« Reply #15 on: July 21, 2003, 08:22:08 am »

Ron Paul managed to get his bill to the House floor. Here is the tally:

This is a fairly significant measure of state political culture, I think. The notion of getting us out of the UN is always going to be marginalized in the mainstream press. Apparently, the voters in ID and WY are not put off by a Rep who will vote to get us out.

This would normally be a significant measure of state political culture.  However, the country has changed a lot in the last few weeks, and now Bush is asking the UN for help in Iraq, so I believe the otherwise large significance of this vote does not apply at this time.

If the vote was taken during the war, the outcome could have been much different.

I agree that we need to relieve our troops in Iraq, and I was once a strong supporter of an international body (NOT the U.N.) to protect life, liberty and property, and to focus almost solely on international disputes.

However, the more I learn about the UN, the more I don't like the idea of an international government.  Then again, look what happened in WW1 because of the idiotic idea of establishing "mutual protection pacts."  One or two countries led the entire world into a war.  This is unacceptable, and there should be a way to facilitate international diplomacy without constantly resorting to World Wars in every single dispute.

Countries should not be allowed to invade other countries except in defense of an armed attack (in which case a vote in the international council is bypassed) OR in the common interest of a council of nations.  This whole garbage about shaky "evidence" being used as justification to invade a country is bullshit, but would have been fine if approved by an council of nations.

But then there's the question of what about veto power?  The answer is that all action should be approved by a majority of nations, EVEN a veto.  If action is approved by a majority then that's it, it's approved.  If a veto is later approved by the majority based on new evidence, then the approval of action is rescinded.

Beyond international disputes, I could only see a council of nations taking a few more responsibilities such as stopping crimes against humanity.  For example, if a leader of a country is massacring their own people, and if certain criminal thresholds are passed, then the international community must stop it.  Then the biggest question is simply "where do we draw the line?"  If the threshold is too low, interventionism will destroy us.  If the threshold is too high, people will get away with massacring MILLIONS of their own people.

Among the worst problems today is US global military welfare and the unfair balance of power.  Global Military Welfare is where we intervene so much that the entire world becomes dependent on our help.  We need to wean the rest of the world from dependence on our military and foreign aid.  A lot of our leaders love the thought of global US military pre-eminence, but these sick bastards are destroying our country and many other countries.

Has anyone here read the PNAC (Project for a New American Century)?  If not, you should read it.  These people believe it's OUR job to police Earth.  And unless we face this issue head-on, they will continue to make it OUR job to police Earth.  But don't take my word for it, read it for yourselves:

And definitely check out their "Statement of Principles":

"American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future
we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values
we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

As you can see, these are very dangerous interventionist policies which they are promoting.  And guess who created these principles?  It lists the names as:

Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, and Paul Wolfowitz.

Remember:  Ambition must be fought with ambition.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2003, 08:25:52 am by LeRuineur6 »
Please donate $5 to $10 per month to the Liberty Scholarship Fund!
"Noncooperation is intended to pave the way to real, honorable, and voluntary cooperation based on mutual respect and trust." -Gandhi


  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:"Get U.S. out of U.N." vote tally
« Reply #16 on: July 21, 2003, 08:46:16 am »

I agree it's not entirely clear if we're better off out of the UN than in, no matter how noxious the institution.

The two reasons given here for staying in, is that it gives us influence in international affairs, and we have the veto for bad UN policies.

On the first, I'm rather doubtful it gives us any more than we'd have, not being a member. Influence has to do with economic and military power, and with the good example of promoting ideas (no, not democracy, but freedom). Somehow I just don't see that membership aids these things.

We certainly do now have a veto on bad UN policies. For example a while back I think we vetoed a treaty having to do with use of the sea and sea-bed, based on its hostility to free-market development of those resources. What if we had not been there, and the treaty had gone through? It does not bind us because we are not signatories. If we start developing the sea bed in violation of it, are they going to stop us, or even try? It seems very doubtful. So I don't know if giving up that veto is such a bad thing. Anyway, if it turned out we'd made a mistake by getting out, it's obvious we would be able to get the veto back by going back in (if they want our money, which they do).

It's an area worth some study before doing it, but I'll bet it will turn out the benefits of leaving exceed the drawbacks.

On foreign policy, I think we should follow the advice of (I think) Jefferson: free trade with all, entangling alliances with none. Much of what we do in the foreign arena is bad, UN or no UN.

Personally, I think we should get out, send the socialist ministers packing, then bulldoze the building and sow the grounds with salt (to borrow a phrase from Vin Suprynowicz).
« Last Edit: July 21, 2003, 08:47:58 am by Zxcv »
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up