US House of Representatives introduces bill to leave UN

[Wahrheit]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193

 

How many minutes away from midnight do you all reckon we are at this point?

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193

 

How many minutes away from midnight do you all reckon we are at this point?

51, according to my clock.

 

Regardless, this is very concerning to me.

[Draconus297]

. . . Buy why, though?

 

Really, really bad idea, and we can only hope it doesn't pass. Yes, I get it, Trump is going to try for isolationist politics, but pulling out of the UN means that we're going to be short allies when he does try to pull our resources inward and make ourselves more vulnerable to the inevitable continued attacks by ISIS.

 

You don't abandon your allies when there's an enemy to be fought, and several UN member nations are kept afloat due in part to our money feeding them.

 

In fact, I don't think even Trump would approve of this one. While I know Trump isn't a military man, this is basic knowledge of strategy and economic flow, both of which a businessman should know . . .

 

If he stops such a move himself, he actually might redeem himself for the infuriated liberal front, at least a little.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Good, they funked Israel 

 

It's about time we re-do our alliances all over the world. That being said, it won't pass. Not the senate, not the White House. But it should send a message to the UN that we're not happy

[Wahrheit]

Good, they funked Israel 

 

It's about time we re-do our alliances all over the world. That being said, it won't pass. Not the senate, not the White House. But it should send a message to the UN that we're not happy

Sounds like your analysis could use a bit more nuance.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Sounds like your analysis could use a bit more nuance.

It could, so here goes. We should attempt to fix NAFTA, NATO, and the UN. If they show no inkling of changing, it's time we move on to what's better for America. 

 

The pacific theater is more valuable and a red-scare Atlantic one. The EU is becoming a threat to the US.  

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I felt it absolutely essential that we plant the U.N. flag in Rwanda and plant it in a place of significance to show all the political entities, all the signees of the agreement and the Rwandans... that the international community were here and we're here to stay and we're going to be doing our job. 

 

If there are more haunting things to be read than Romeo Dallaire's Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda, I would not want to read them. I do not know what the U.S. stands to gain and lose by terminating relations with the U.N. today, but I am happy to hear of this bill and hope they do leave.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

 

If there are more haunting things to be read than Romeo Dallaire's Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda, I would not want to read them. I do not know what the U.S. stands to gain and lose by terminating relations with the U.N. today, but I am happy to hear of this bill and hope they do leave.

 

It won't pass the senate, and even if we do strike a deal with Russia. We need to have the veto power on the security council. 

 

We should drop funding for the UN till they undo the Israel resolution, which will likely be the compromise reached from the senate

[Aerion Brightflame]

It won't pass the senate, and even if we do strike a deal with Russia. We need to have the veto power on the security council.

 

But... you do have veto power on the security council? You are one of the 5 perminant members of the Security council, along with the UK, France, China and Russia. All 5 nations always have a veto due to this position.

 

In fact, the only reason the US joined the UN (Because it wasn't apart of the League of Nations which was the precourser to the UN) was because it was given a veto. It demanded one in exchange for joining.

 

Unless you are arguing that the US is the only nation that should have veto powers, which I verminhantly disagree with because the UN should not be held to the whims of one nation and one nation only. The UN is about, and remains about attempting to resolve matters of global significance and dispute without resulting to all out war again like in WW2.

 

Giving all the effective veto power to one nation defeats that goal because it renders the international community at the whim of that one nations priorities.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

But... you do have veto power on the security council? You are one of the 5 perminant members of the Security council, along with the UK, France, China and Russia. All 5 nations always have a veto due to this position.

 

In fact, the only reason the US joined the UN (Because it wasn't apart of the League of Nations which was the precourser to the UN) was because it was given a veto. It demanded one in exchange for joining.

 

Unless you are arguing that the US is the only nation that should have veto powers, which I verminhantly disagree with because the UN should not be held to the whims of one nation and one nation only. The UN is about, and remains about attempting to resolve matters of global significance and dispute without resulting to all out war again like in WW2.

 

Giving all the effective veto power to one nation defeats that goal because it renders the international community at the whim of that one nations priorities.

Not at all what I'm saying. US should not leave cause Veto power is important

[Aerion Brightflame]

Not at all what I'm saying. US should not leave cause Veto power is important

 

My bad, I read your post with the wrong inflection, and it read as scorning instead of concerned.

 

But yeah, there's no big reason why the US should leave the UN; every other superpower is apart of it. They'll just suffer from not having a say at the table.

 

There's little reasons because the UN is a flawed insitution, but it's still kinda functioning, so it's worth sticking with.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

My bad, I read your post with the wrong inflection, and it read as scorning instead of concerned.

 

But yeah, there's no big reason why the US should leave the UN; every other superpower is apart of it. They'll just suffer from not having a say at the table.

 

There's little reasons because the UN is a flawed insitution, but it's still kinda functioning, so it's worth sticking with.

Would still support cutting funding until the Israel decision is reversed however. That's gonna end up what the compromise looks like

[Wahrheit]

Would still support cutting funding until the Israel decision is reversed however. That's gonna end up what the compromise looks like

This is a really poor, bad-faith way of engaging in international geopolitics and will only server to further damage our international reputation.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This is a really poor, bad-faith way of engaging in international geopolitics and will only server to further damage our international reputation.

Encouraging Hamas is also a bad-faith way of engaging in international geopolitics and will only server to further damage our closest ally

[Halubaris Maphotika]

Eh, I'm mixed on all of this. On one hand I understand that, at the time, the United Nations was absolutely necessary after WWII and during the Cold War. Nowadays however, it's power is fading and it isn't as strong or "United" as it used to be. Leaving the United Nations doesn't make us isolationist, it causes us to reiterate the importance of our individual sovereignty. That, and I am a dedicated Catholic, and the Bible is clear on the one order that would rule to cause the events in Revelations. As such these types of united coalitions of countries make me suspicious and weary.

[Resident Fascist]

It won't pass the senate, and even if we do strike a deal with Russia. We need to have the veto power on the security council. 

 

We should drop funding for the UN till they undo the Israel resolution, which will likely be the compromise reached from the senate

 

Is this the resolution that declared that Israeli Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip are illegal? As far as I'm concerned, as long as there is at least some good in the world, one country with a shaky history and barely even counting for a legal state should not be able to occupy a neighbours territory and settle citizens there to cement power and cultural influence. There is a reason that Israel is the biggest discussed topic in the UN. Then again, this isn't the Israel topic, so I won't bring my opinions that while a two-state Israeli and Palestinian solution can exist, Palestine is honestly under no real obligation to accept such terms, and more than likely, one is going to end up destroying the other, unfortunately. Despite the two state solution being a balanced result for both parties, it still leaves Palestine divided. 

 

 

Encouraging Hamas is also a bad-faith way of engaging in international geopolitics and will only server to further damage our closest ally

 

??? The situation in the Middle East is almost entirely the fault of Western powers. 

[Flame Dragon]

The bill is a show boat and, as Winter said, isn't going to pass. The government is no where near above creating and backing laws they know will not pass or will not stand up to judicial scrutiny. Its a way to pander to the people who want it and being able to point at the "other side" when it doesn't actually work.

[Wahrheit]

The bill is a show boat and, as Winter said, isn't going to pass. The government is no where near above creating and backing laws they know will not pass or will not stand up to judicial scrutiny. Its a way to pander to the people who want it and being able to point at the "other side" when it doesn't actually work.

Look, I understand this position, but Trump is making serious moves to take similar action on his own, and I am unconvinced that Republicans aren't just totally on board with whatever he says at this point. At the very least, I don't think this is where the line gets drawn.

 

Anyway, I should have been more clear - the most interesting part of this development isn't arguing about whether it'll happen, but thinking about what the geopolitical consequences might be as a result. I think this would be a mistake because it would cede quite a bit of power and diplomatic capital, and I'm not really seeing what the alternative would supposedly be.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Look, I understand this position, but Trump is making serious moves to take similar action on his own, and I am unconvinced that Republicans aren't just totally on board with whatever he says at this point. At the very least, I don't think this is where the line gets drawn.

 

Anyway, I should have been more clear - the most interesting part of this development isn't arguing about whether it'll happen, but thinking about what the geopolitical consequences might be as a result. I think this would be a mistake because it would cede quite a bit of power and diplomatic capital, and I'm not really seeing what the alternative would supposedly be.

Citation needed. The house wants to leave, Senate GOP wants to defund until they reverse the UN resolution on settlements. Can you point to exactly where Trump is planning to take serious and similar moves such as this? Disagreeing with the resolution is neither, so I'm wondering if you can point to where he's made similar threats to leave the UN

[Wahrheit]

Citation needed. The house wants to leave, Senate GOP wants to defund until they reverse the UN resolution on settlements. Can you point to exactly where Trump is planning to take serious and similar moves such as this? Disagreeing with the resolution is neither, so I'm wondering if you can point to where he's made similar threats to leave the UN

His orders so far are anti-diplomacy and anti-globalism. Withdrawing from the TPP, insisting on the wall, etc., points to a refusal to engage in international diplomacy. He's said he doesn't like the UN.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

His orders so far are anti-diplomacy and anti-globalism. Withdrawing from the TPP, insisting on the wall, etc., points to a refusal to engage in international diplomacy. He's said he doesn't like the UN.

Ok, so you don't have anything suggesting that he's eager to pull out of the UN. Got it. 

 

I am curious though, as a self-proclaimed "leftist" were you upset when Bernie sanders and other progs wanted out of the TPP? Or is your scrutiny selective where it goes?

[BANZAI!!!!]

Please please please don't let something this stupid pass.

 

The fact that its even in the house at all mortifies me.

[Wahrheit]

Ok, so you don't have anything suggesting that he's eager to pull out of the UN. Got it. 

 

I am curious though, as a self-proclaimed "leftist" were you upset when Bernie sanders and other progs wanted out of the TPP? Or is your scrutiny selective where it goes?

It's one thing to oppose something prior to agreeing to it, and another to wholesale gut it without consideration or discussion. This is a bad comparison and you know it.

 

If you're going to keep making posts like this, could you just not post in my threads? You even ignored the part where I said "let's talk about the implications."

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It's one thing to oppose something prior to agreeing to it, and another to wholesale gut it without consideration or discussion. This is a bad comparison and you know it.

 

If you're going to keep making posts like this, could you just not post in my threads? You even ignored the part where I said "let's talk about the implications."

No, it's really not, seeing that Sanders praised him in a press release for wholesale gutting it. If you wanna bash trump on the TPP, call out your man too. 

 

If you're gonna keep making false allegations full of innuendo, could you just not post in general? You even ignored the part where I said that it would be bad to pull out of the UN since we would no longer have a seat at the table

 

But since I need to spell it out, if we completely pulled out, the UN would operate much like they always have, except now America would not be able to defend Israel like we've traditionally done. There's no benefits from a complete pull out, and it would just embolden the other 4 perma members

[BANZAI!!!!]

No, it's really not, seeing that Sanders praised him in a press release for wholesale gutting it. If you wanna bash trump on the TPP, call out your man too. 

 

If you're gonna keep making false allegations full of innuendo, could you just not post in general? You even ignored the part where I said that it would be bad to pull out of the UN since we would no longer have a seat at the table

 

But since I need to spell it out, if we completely pulled out, the UN would operate much like they always have, except now America would not be able to defend Israel like we've traditionally done. There's no benefits from a complete pull out, and it would just embolden the other 4 perma members

Gentlemen lets keep it civil please.

 

Two things:

 

1. You can be anti-globalist and be on the left or the right. Agreeing or disagreeing with pulling out of the TPP has little to nothing to do with party lines. Furthermore, Sanders and trump likely oppose it for differing reasons, as there are several ways in which it was detrimental. You should really consider what the terms progressive, left, and right actually mean before you start using them to identify blocs.

 

2. There's no way to "partially" pull out of the united nations. You either participate as a part of the security council or you don't. The very notion that anyone would even consider leaving is nonsensical and ill advised for numerous reasons, foremost of which being the deligitimization of the organization as a whole without US. Presence. Its a terrible precident to set and the fact that the bill exists is either farcical (did i spell that right?) or frightening. Either way, bad across the board.