We need the un to ONLY promote whats best for the US! Which is of course means whats best for the white republican conservative christian evangelical citizens. THEN AND ONLY THEN should we fund them. Its Jesus' way or the hiway to hell after all.
De-Fund the U.N. - NOW!
- Thread starter Nuk'EM Heels
- Start date
I don't care what the UN promotes as long as it doesn't run COUNTER to our interests.
Which "our" is that? You make it sound like the UN is comprised of the USA and Everyone Else. Sometimes "our interests" run counter to the rest of the world. So, the UN is set up to settle disputes and conflicts of interests in a more civilized manner. If you're going to be obsessed with "If I don't get my way, fvck'em" then you're showing just how devolved you are, or WE are (depending on which pronoun applies).
"Our" equals US. What else could it mean?
And if our interests run counter to the rest of the world, then I want our interests to prevail. And if another country's interests are going to detract from our interests, then I don't want that country to prevail. Why in the world would anyone of sane mind think differently?
However, I am not obsessed with it at all. Sometimes it is of little relevance- a line in the sand doesn't need to be drawn each and every time there is a disagreement, although I expect that concept is foreign to you.
So, without question, under any and every circumstance "Our" interests are always the correct interests? Whatever we say we want, and we need, and demand, we should get it? An objective mind would see the whole picture and consider everyone... not just "us."
It really depends on the issue or situation at hand. But, if you and your leadership are a bunch of stubborn "my-way-or-the-highway" types, then your interests are probably coming from the most selfish source. In which case, the term "sane" becomes cloudy.
You make more assumptions than any message board poaster ever. It gets boring- please stop.
First of all, there can be plenty of disagreement among "us" about what is in "our" best interests in many situations. That's why we have elections. But once it is determined as to what is in our best interests, then I always want our best interests to prevail.
Would you prefer that other nations best interests prevail at our expense? Surely that's not what you are saying, is it?
Sometimes "our" interest are just wrong, slavery being an example
No, I'm saying we kept a lot of what the British handed down to us in the sense of our laws, governance, traditions, etc. And, we WON our independence, that was a GOOD THING. If everything the British touched were really as bad as you portray, then the US probably shouldn't exist at all... Which I'm sure some hard lefties on this board would be cool with...
Last edited:
You still stuck in 1861? Please step into the 21st century.
Having been involved in a number of UN "peace and security" missions, I think the US and the rest of the world would do well without them...
We took some land from a few of the indigenous people as well, I believe. No one is advocating either of those things ITT.
Please limit your examples to the period during which the UN has been in existence given that this is a thread about the UN.
Our dear tolerant lefties are not so nearly tolerant when their boy is not in power.
OK we have a president who wants to ban people entering this country based on their religion. That is against our constitution and everything else this country stands for. When we start down that road we become like Russia. Is that recent enough for you?
What does this have to do with the UN? Should the UN be able to dictate US Immigration Policy?
As an aside, you need to turn off CNN and quit reading the New York Times and start checking into things for yourself.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/immigration/
You ARE advocating for them! When you say "our interests"... who are you referring to? Yours? Mine? The people in Washington DC? The people on the east coast, the west coast? The people in New York City? Which people???
And, when you blanket your identification as "ours", you open up the possibilities to just about any potential disgraceful action or behavior being put toward ANOTHER group of people that is not "us."
The UN is about empathy. Human beings are not very empathetic. Especially if they are "us."
You keep trying to convince me and others that Trump is not the person that he has told us over and over that he is. I, for one, am going to take the man at his word.One of my favorites from this past November.
We are discussing the UN, particularly since the cold war. My position regarding 19th century history is not germane to this conversation, nor is it being discussed.
Our interests = the interests of the majority of voting Americans. (and before you try to get cute Lyles and talk about the popular vote for president, note that Congress ratifies treaties such as UN membership as well as funding.)
The UN is now about wealth distribution. If that equals empathy to you, then you should send all of your disposable money/income to someone who doesn't have as much.
CNN has nothing to do with it other than reporting verbatim what come out of that idiot's mouth.
His views have changed, which is a good characteristic of a successful leader. His view is spelled out clearly in the link just poasted.
I will give you a break here because I realize this has been lacking for 8 years, so you probably don't recognize it for what it is.
If it allows for a forum where leaders of the world can solve disputes with civility and words, rather than war, then it's worth it.
The problem is our president elect telling us one thing and then people like you telling us he didn't really mean what come out of the idiot' mouth. Trump tells us the moon is made of green cheese and you try to convince us that he meant he wants to expand space exploration
You are right- the UN has done a great job of eliminating wars. I can't remember a single one since 46.
That would be a reply just like your hero would make. God you really are just like them. I kept holding out hope......
So, in your view slavery is the same thing as not allowing refugees into the country that are from regions that are terrorist hotbeds? Really? Doesn't that cheapen the atrocity that was slavery?
Last edited:
Well, the US has made sure to keep their thunder rolling. Soviets, too. The "powerful" nations can't keep their needle dicks in their pants. And, God forbid the nations getting shit on retaliate with terrorism or whatever means they can.
But what about all the wars? And the Earth is still warming. And human rights violations remain atrocious. And genocide continues around the globe.
What has the UN actually accomplished?
Reread your post. I have no problem keeping people out from certain regions or countries. The US has done that all along but we have never blocked people from a certain religion. Small differences like this is what Trump and others fail to see. That is against out constitution, and Trump should know that, but he doesn't. That scares a lot of people, the fact that he doesn't know things like this
It is absolutely NOT against the US Constitution. In fact, it is the POTUS job to administer the immigration policy of this nation in order to protect and defend the people and the US CONSTITUTION from attack. Suspending immigration from those regions that are terrorist hotbeds may offend your liberal sensibilities, but it is NOT unconstitutional. Look it up.
All the wars?
Worldwide, it's been fairly quiet compared to 1914-1946. Especially when we start adding up the number of bodies and cost of loss in that 30 year span compared to the 70 year span since.
First of all I'm in no way a liberal in any sense of the word, second the constitution has no protection against countries or regions but it does have protection against religion. Real conservatives hold the constitution dear not like Trump and his followers
Similar threads
