Posted on 01/22/2017 7:12:58 AM PST by Fennie
I think the U.N. needs to die.
The U.S. Needs to wage an effort to highlight it’s disgusting actions and tactics.
Start drawing down the funding and encourage our allies to do the same.
Any agency that loses one third of it’s funding will start to draw down it’s operations. 1/3 less U.N. is a great thing to contemplate.
Further, all aid that we give to the U.N. And it then hands out as if it was their largess, needs to stop.
We must give these things out directly from us. We must be seen as the benefactors we are.
There’s a lot we can do to reign in the U.N. without pulling out.
I have plenty more in mind, but this addresses the pullout.
We can heavily influence in the shrinking of the U.N, as a member.
The UN’s Agenda 21 is enough to warrant pulling out. It is the most vicious document regarding private property I’ve ever seen. It also proposes “forcing” citizens to abandon rural areas in favor of living in urban centers. Let’s take our basketball and go home.
Submitted by whom? I wish, but don’t see that happening. I think the best approach is to first cut half of US funding.
Wonder if our White House website is still doing the petitions?
Winning Yuge!
Will the last muslim out of the UN building use your skills and blow the dump up.
“I have plenty more in mind, but this addresses the pullout.”
I would be interested in seeing your other ideas. At any rate, so long as there is a Security Council on which we have a veto, I think it would be very dangerous to pull out at this time.
The organization cannot create or maintain the very thing it was created to facilitate: Global Peace. The organization is specifically anti Israel. Israel has been criticized or sanctioned over 28 times by the Security Council but the Council has never condemned any Arab state or the PLO even once.
It's known as the dictator's club for a reason. The majority of the countries that belong are led by dictators or monarchs or even war lords. The organization has failed to stop numerous instances of genocide while it blithely continues to censure Israel for simply trying to stay alive.
The UN ignored the Genocide in Rwanda. It ignored the Genocide in the Sudan and in the Nigerian controlled area of Biafra where two million Christians were murdered in the 1960's. The UN was wholly ineffectual in Somalia during the famed Blackhawk Down deployments.
Yet wherever the UN "Peace Keepers" are called to "action" the levels of rape and corruption go up by a seeming geometric progression. Calling them "Peace Keepers" is a little bit like referring to the gangs pillaging New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina the civil militia.
Unfortunately I have to agree with a lot of what you say here. I have always thought it was crazy for the World Bank and IMF to give big loans to dictatorships and then when the tyrant is overthrown expect the country to repay the loan. My position, you lend money to a dishonest government, you collect from THEM, not the unfortunate people stuck with the cleanup.
Seems to me that you can’t just stiff the banks.
No matter the status of the Chief Executive of a nation, those funds are loaned out on the premise they will be used for the good of the nation.
The banks aren’t a criminal enterprise for making the loan.
Sometimes those loans prevent financial meltdowns in the nations. They give more time for the nation to get back on track and pay down their loans.
This puts the banks in the position of not giving loans and hurting a nation, or making the loans and hurting a nation.
Who pays those loans if the nation doesn’t? Well, you guessed it. We do. Our interest rates are affected by these types of defaults.
Do we deserve to pick up the tabs to keep banks solvent?
I think your post on not stiffing the banks has some misperceptions.
No matter the status of the Chief Executive of a nation, those funds are loaned out on the premise they will be used for the good of the nation.
No, those loans were made in order to reap as much profit for the BANK as possible. After all, that is the reason for the very existence of the bank. In doing so, the banks would rather NOT have the principal repaid. EVER. so long as the interest payments are made in a timely and regular fashion. That is bank PROFIT and it will quickly outstrip the principal balance many times over.
The banks aren’t a criminal enterprise for making the loan.
No, they're a PRIVATE enterprise with the purpose of generating huge profits for the owners and shareholders of the bank. Sometimes they enter into criminal enterprises for this purpose as when they get caught in the money laundering of drug money and other mob pursuits.
This puts the banks in the position of not giving loans and hurting a nation the Bank, or making the loans and hurting a nation benefiting the BANK.
There, fixed it.
Who pays those loans if the nation doesn’t?
The bank doesn't care if the loans are NEVER repaid, especially if it's a nation doing the borrowing. They'll be happy to extend the life of the loan over and over and over. So long as the INTEREST is paid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.