US exit from United Nations could become reality with fresh bill

[bryant.coleman]

According to new reports, The US wants to reduce funding to the UN, because it says that as the Largest contributor of funds to the UN, the UN  are not as supportive to the US as it should be.

The contribution should be directly proportional to the voting rights. If the US and Nauru are having the same number of votes, then both of them should contribute equally to the UN. Hmm.... I forgot about the veto power. The five nations holding veto power must contribute an additional amount to the United Nations. This amount also should be divided equally among the five.

[1714947815]

1714947815

[1714947815]

1714947815

[1714947815]

1714947815

[bra4our]

According to new reports, The US wants to reduce funding to the UN, because it says that as the Largest contributor of funds to the UN, the UN  are not as supportive to the US as it should be.

The contribution should be directly proportional to the voting rights. If the US and Nauru are having the same number of votes, then both of them should contribute equally to the UN. Hmm.... I forgot about the veto power. The five nations holding veto power must contribute an additional amount to the United Nations. This amount also should be divided equally among the five.

I totally agree why should  veto member be paying more than another veto powered member. but in any sense if funding to the UN determines the power a member should wield, it would be totally unfair to other countries without the wealth and power like the G 20. I think the UN should be accountable in its actions. And the veto should be scrapped completely. Its not fair at all.

[bryant.coleman]

According to new reports, The US wants to reduce funding to the UN, because it says that as the Largest contributor of funds to the UN, the UN  are not as supportive to the US as it should be.

The contribution should be directly proportional to the voting rights. If the US and Nauru are having the same number of votes, then both of them should contribute equally to the UN. Hmm.... I forgot about the veto power. The five nations holding veto power must contribute an additional amount to the United Nations. This amount also should be divided equally among the five.

I totally agree why should  veto member be paying more than another veto powered member. but in any sense if funding to the UN determines the power a member should wield, it would be totally unfair to other countries without the wealth and power like the G 20. I think the UN should be accountable in its actions. And the veto should be scrapped completely. Its not fair at all.

It is not going to happen. Even previously, there were attempts to scrap the veto. But the five super-powers united to reject this proposal. Also one of the negative aspects about dumping the veto is that if the proposal is accepted, then the US will have the same voting right as Vatican city or Monaco. Do you think that they will be happy with this?

[youdamushi]

According to new reports, The US wants to reduce funding to the UN, because it says that as the Largest contributor of funds to the UN, the UN  are not as supportive to the US as it should be.

The contribution should be directly proportional to the voting rights. If the US and Nauru are having the same number of votes, then both of them should contribute equally to the UN. Hmm.... I forgot about the veto power. The five nations holding veto power must contribute an additional amount to the United Nations. This amount also should be divided equally among the five.

Ahahahahah xD

Do you even understand that what you're saying is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of an equalitarian democracy?
Last time I checked USA was still priding themselves as being the main country spreading democracy and freedom around the world.
Thank you for confirming again that it is not true.

[bra4our]

I highly doubt the USA is spreading democracy and freedom around the world. The people of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya will say otherwise. The USA have thrown all these countries in a state of turmoil and destruction all in the name of promoting Freedom. With the case of Afghanistan, The USA made the taliban rulers just because they wanted the Soviets out of the country and in the case of Iraq and Libya, they toppled dictators only to thrust the country in the hands of terrorist organizatons who they were not ready to fight.

[bryant.coleman]

Last time I checked USA was still priding themselves as being the main country spreading democracy and freedom around the world.

They are spreading democracy by bombing the hospitals and overthrowing the democratically elected governments? I really doubt whether that is going to work. But then, the topic is about the UN membership of the United States. Why should they contribute so much money to the organization and its splinter wings, if they get nothing in return?

[grermezter]

Its still a shame how a nation founded on the principle of freedom has completely turned around on its principles and are just doing what it like without a care to the consequences of their actions. Hopefully Trump will bring back the Glory of the USA i know and i love.

[youdamushi]

Last time I checked USA was still priding themselves as being the main country spreading democracy and freedom around the world.

They are spreading democracy by bombing the hospitals and overthrowing the democratically elected governments? I really doubt whether that is going to work. But then, the topic is about the UN membership of the United States. Why should they contribute so much money to the organization and its splinter wings, if they get nothing in return?

That's the basic idea of solidarity...
You give more when you have more...
And the idea is that when you will be in need others will do the same.

I know it sounds really incredible for conservatives but that's actually not such a bad idea.
It's also because if you don't help those in needs they won't be able to bring anything to the world.

[bryant.coleman]

Last time I checked USA was still priding themselves as being the main country spreading democracy and freedom around the world.

They are spreading democracy by bombing the hospitals and overthrowing the democratically elected governments? I really doubt whether that is going to work. But then, the topic is about the UN membership of the United States. Why should they contribute so much money to the organization and its splinter wings, if they get nothing in return?

That's the basic idea of solidarity...
You give more when you have more...
And the idea is that when you will be in need others will do the same.

It is not about solidarity. It is about the merit. If you give the same voting right to the United States (population of 330 million, GDP of $20 trillion) and Nauru (Population of 10,000 and GDP of <$1 million), then naturally the question will arise why you are not giving voting rights to states such as California (population of 39 million, GDP of $2.5 trillion).

[BADecker]

Last time I checked USA was still priding themselves as being the main country spreading democracy and freedom around the world.

They are spreading democracy by bombing the hospitals and overthrowing the democratically elected governments? I really doubt whether that is going to work. But then, the topic is about the UN membership of the United States. Why should they contribute so much money to the organization and its splinter wings, if they get nothing in return?

That's the basic idea of solidarity...
You give more when you have more...
And the idea is that when you will be in need others will do the same.

It is not about solidarity. It is about the merit. If you give the same voting right to the United States (population of 330 million, GDP of $20 trillion) and Nauru (Population of 10,000 and GDP of <$1 million), then naturally the question will arise why you are not giving voting rights to states such as California (population of 39 million, GDP of $2.5 trillion).

It's not about "giving ... rights." You don't give rights. Rights are inherent.

This is the thing that people simply won't accept or understand. People have all the rights. They have any rights. They have the right to freely associate. But they can barely use their rights if they don't get their heads screwed on, and realize that they have them.

State sponsored ballot initiatives are simply methods to determine if people are going to use their rights in whatever initiative is on the ballot. http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/211566-2017-01-27-calexit-state-approves-california-nation-to-collect-signatures.htm

The people don't need the State to do this. They don't have to wait for other people. In fact, using the ballot actually undermines one of the basic rights in America... the right to private property.

As long as you are simply living, if someone else messes with your living conditions, and you haven't obstructed the rights of someone else, he is messing with your property. You have always had the right to protect your private property... a right that people have had since the beginning of time. If you don't stand up and use the jury regarding your rights, but rather wait for a State ballot, you are handing your rights over tho the leaders of the State.

[iluvbitcoins]

That is good news. The United States of America must now stop wasting their resources controlling other countries through the guise of the United Nations. Trump has seen that the previous administration is using the UN activities so the oligarchs can bring our millions of dollars in form of aid to other countries to fund their own greediness. Its time for the UN to be independent of USA and move on for the betterment without the strings pulled by the USA.

The UN was created to prevent war in the world, but each country has its own interests. They try to impose these interests by force. If the UN will fall apart then the world could plunge into chaos.

Yes... the United Nations was the successor to the League of Nations. But after a promising start, the UN became a toothless body from 1980 onward. It was unable to prevent conflicts from happening (such as those in Sudan and Afghanistan) and it couldn't act against human rights abuses perpetrated by various dictatorships and juntas.

Exactly, if it comes to a largel conflict the UN will fail just as the League of Nations did

You also didn't mention the aggression on Croatia and Bosnia&Herzegovina
Where Vukovar and Srebrenica happened while the UNs blue helmets drank coffee while Serbs butchered and tortured people inside the cities

[gabmen]

Its still a shame how a nation founded on the principle of freedom has completely turned around on its principles and are just doing what it like without a care to the consequences of their actions. Hopefully Trump will bring back the Glory of the USA i know and i love.

Well that seems to be farfetched if you base it on the recent decisions trump has been making. Although he may have a point in banning citizens from some mideastern countries for security, it doesnt change the fact that racism is not  very humane for a president of one of the most powerful countries. I admire mr. Trudeau of canada for stepping up for humanity where i think trump bungled.

[BADecker]

Its still a shame how a nation founded on the principle of freedom has completely turned around on its principles and are just doing what it like without a care to the consequences of their actions. Hopefully Trump will bring back the Glory of the USA i know and i love.

Well that seems to be farfetched if you base it on the recent decisions trump has been making. Although he may have a point in banning citizens from some mideastern countries for security, it doesnt change the fact that racism is not  very humane for a president of one of the most powerful countries. I admire mr. Trudeau of canada for stepping up for humanity where i think trump bungled.

Trump isn't God. He isn't even a king. Two thirds or three quarters majority in Congress, depending, can overrule anything he does. And people can overrule anything he does that they feel harms them, through the courts, using jury nullification.

[babsalt1975]

Whether the news are credible or not, the fact is there might be a 'UNexit' for US. Considering the facts put across, how can the US provide a lot of funding to a body which does not support its ideals?. The US taxpayer is being made to pay for something he does not like. He is spending his money on someone who is using his money on the enemies. This might come to pass.

[The One]

The UN and other international bodies are a pile of cr@p anyway. Waste of taxpayers' money. They often get together to plan new laws and suddenly similar laws pops up in many countries without the local people having a say or wanting it. The UN was created to prevent wars in the future. Since then we had about 250 wars, thus concluding that the UN as an organisation has failed miserably. Why then do we fund it? Now the UN is encroaching into national sovereignty against the will of the local populace. If the UN were to collapse then i would be cheering.

[Sithara007]

Exactly, if it comes to a largel conflict the UN will fail just as the League of Nations did

You also didn't mention the aggression on Croatia and Bosnia&Herzegovina
Where Vukovar and Srebrenica happened while the UNs blue helmets drank coffee while Serbs butchered and tortured people inside the cities

No one are angels in the Balkans conflict. All the warring sides were engaged in ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Serbs, Croats, Shqips, Bosnian Turks.... all of them used violence. In the end, it was the Croats and the Serbs who lost. Serbs lost Krajina and Kosovo, while the Croats lost their territories in Bosnia.

[iluvbitcoins]

Exactly, if it comes to a largel conflict the UN will fail just as the League of Nations did

You also didn't mention the aggression on Croatia and Bosnia&Herzegovina
Where Vukovar and Srebrenica happened while the UNs blue helmets drank coffee while Serbs butchered and tortured people inside the cities

No one are angels in the Balkans conflict. All the warring sides were engaged in ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Serbs, Croats, Shqips, Bosnian Turks.... all of them used violence. In the end, it was the Croats and the Serbs who lost. Serbs lost Krajina and Kosovo, while the Croats lost their territories in Bosnia.

That is untrue.

Croats didn't have organized ethnic cleansing actions
Every crime that happened was individual and PUNISHED by their own generals
While Serbian generals commanded executions of thousands of people only based on their nationality
Most crimes of the Muslims were comitted by El Mudžahid

Serbs were the only ones with mass civilian murder plans, do not try to change history.
Serbs did not lose Krajina, Krajina was never Serbian.
Since the 7th century, no part, 0% of Croatia was ever a part of Serbia.
Never.

Their "Krajina" plans were actually plans of Ottoman conquests  
And the Serbs won the war in Bosnia since they got their "Republic of Srpska" based on genocide of Croats and Muslims on the territory, which will soon follow the Crimean scenario and descend the region into a new war.

[Sithara007]

And the Serbs won the war in Bosnia since they got their "Republic of Srpska" based on genocide of Croats and Muslims on the territory, which will soon follow the Crimean scenario and descend the region into a new war.

Anyway... the Serbs got the Republic of Srpska and the Muslims got the Federation. What did you got in return? Look at the last census.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_population_census_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Ethnic_groups

The Muslim population is growing, and the Serb population is stable. Only the Croat population is declining.