U.S. needs to get out of UN NOW!

The Usleless Nations is a farce!!!

Published on July 19, 2004 By ShadowWar In International

Resolution Appealing To The United States Senate For Immediate
Withdrawal From The United Nations

Whereas, conceived during World War II, the dream of the United Nations was noble – universal
peace. Yet in reality, the United Nations has failed. It has become the equivalent of what the
League of Nations was – a debating club that does not stop aggression but rather rewards
aggressor nations, as the League of Nations did with Japan, Germany, and Italy. Indeed, it was
the United States under the leadership of Ronald Reagan that ended the Cold War and liberated
Eastern Europe from the bondage of the Soviet Union, not the United Nations. Indeed, President
Reagan demonstrated that to achieve peace, it must be done when free people unite with strength
not through the United Nations.

Whereas, during the months leading up to the war in Iraq, it was made apparent that the alliance
created by the United States and our allies were advancing the cause of freedom outside of and
despite the United Nations. Had the United Nations had its way, Saddam Hussein would still be
sponsoring suicide bombers in Israel, working with Al-Qaeda, developing weapons of mass
destruction, and oppressing innocent people. Indeed, under President Bush’s leadership, it was
made apparent that the United Nations has failed in the mission meant for it.

Whereas, the United Nations has allowed itself to lose credibility before the world by allowing
the rogue terrorist nations of Cuba and Syria to chair the United Nations Human Rights
Commission, while condemning Israel for taking defensive measures against terrorists. The
United Nations has failed repeatedly to take action against such states as Iran, Syria, Cuba, North
Korea, and Zimbabwe, while constantly condemning the actions of the United States and its allies
in advancing freedom. During the 1980’s, the United Nations constantly opposed and obstructed
President Reagan as he sought to liberate the people of Eastern Europe and Central America from
Communist domination. Now we face an even greater menace – the war on terrorism. Despite
the fact that this war was brought to New York City, itself, the headquarters of the United
Nations, the United Nations still will not take meaningful action to combat this threat.

Whereas, the United Nations is a violation of American sovereignty. The Monroe Doctrine is
the oldest continuing foreign policy initiative of the United States, declaring that the Western
Hemisphere is closed to invasion and domination by foreign powers outside of the Americas.
From James Monroe to Abraham Lincoln to Theodore Roosevelt to Franklin Roosevelt to Ronald
Reagan, the Monroe Doctrine has steadfastly ensured our national security and the freedom of the
Americas. Yet the United Nations Charter basically effectively renders the Monroe Doctrine null
and void. This was seen during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the United Nations sided with the
Soviet Union in saying that the Monroe Doctrine violated the organization’s charter. Repeatedly,
leaders such as Castro and Chavez have stated that the United Nations Charter forbids the United
States from enforcing the Monroe Doctrine and United Nations’ officials have sided with these
dictators. The World Heritage Treaty is also another infringement on our sovereignty. A U.N.
World Heritage Site is an internationally-protected landmark of historical, cultural or natural
significance that the U.S. government pledges the world body it will protect. The United Nations
determines what is and what is not of historical, cultural, or natural significance. When the
United States signed the 1972 World Heritage Treaty, which established United Nations World
Heritage Sites, the United States legally obligated itself to maintain its national treasures in
accordance with standards set by the United Nations not the United States. There are at least 22
United States landmarks officially designated by the United Nations. World Heritage Sites
include Independence Hall, the Statue of Liberty and Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello. The World
Heritage Site program establishes an ominous precedent for United Nations regulation of our
most hallowed national treasures.

Whereas, under PDD-25 drafted by the United Nations and the Clinton Administration, United
States soldiers can be placed against their will under United Nations auspices. This violates the
very concept of our citizen military who may not be forced into involuntary servitude as a
mercenary. The United Nations holds the opinion as well that their treaties override the
constitutions of nation states. These United Nations treaties include the Law of the Sea Treaty,
that violates the very concept of free seas espoused by the United States since its birth. This treaty
concept is the very thing that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton warned against when
developing our own constitution. Indeed the very basis of the Law of the Sea Treaty was the very
basis for the United States entering the War of 1812 and World War I.

Whereas, the food for oil scandal, is but the most recent example of the corruption of the United
Nations. And over 70% of our payments to the United Nations go to support the regimes of
Cuba, Syria, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and, Zimbabwe, all nations that are committed
enemies to the United States and freedom.

Whereas, United Nations troops have shamefully preyed upon starving refugees in the Congo by
exchanging the refugees’ food supplies for sex. This has been documented by the Times of
London. Indeed, United Nations workers and soldiers have told young female refugees that
unless they had sex with them, they would starve their families.

Whereas, the world is too advanced and dangerous to return to a policy of isolation and Fortress
America. But we can not align ourselves with organizations that are mechanisms for rogue
dictators and terrorists to enrich themselves and stifle freedom. We must foster and maintain
relationships with freedom loving nations with goals similar to ours. But we must never
surrender our freedom or our sovereignty to a foreign organization. We must be vigilant in our
defense of our freedom, echoing the words of John Adams, “millions for defense but nothing for
tribute.”

Now therefore be it resolved, the undersigned implores and directs the U.S Senate to begin
proceedings through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to immediately withdraw the
United States of America from the United Nations.

______________________________________
Signature
______________________________________
Print Name
______________________________________
Address
______________________________________
City, State Zip Code

For more information on where to submit this: Link

Comments

Corio

on Jul 19, 2004

Good riddance too! I, for one, see collaboration as a good thing in todays world politics. You, apparantly, do not. So keep up the isolationist policies. It will be your downfall.

ShadowWar

on Jul 19, 2004

Good riddance too! I, for one, see collaboration as a good thing in todays world poli

I am guessing two things from this short statement, One your not American, and two the UN is not a collaboration of nations anymore. You must not have read the post, try doing that then posting a insightful reply.

messybuu

on Jul 19, 2004

Good riddance too! I, for one, see collaboration as a good thing in todays world politics. You, apparantly, do not. So keep up the isolationist policies. It will be your downfall.

I'm all for collaboration, but not for the sake of collaboration. When we can be more effective and less corrupt (forcing refugees to have sex to be fed is terrible, even if it is multilateral) on our own, then we should do it ourself.

Muggaz

on Jul 19, 2004

The UN will never be a viable organisation as long as there are nations such as the US that act above it.

BAM!!!

cactoblasta

on Jul 19, 2004

There's a difference between cooperation and collaboration and doing what the US says before all else. The whole point of the UN was not to have one world voice on all issues but to be a forum for discussing problems and issues on a global basis. When the majority of the world goes against the US's decision, that should not be considered a failure of the UN. Just because the building itself is in New York does not mean that its member-states have an obligation to obey the will of the current American administration or accept their arguments. The best way to remove the problems of the UN would be to remove the veto powers of the permanent security council members. Then the six strongest nations would be unable to use their powers to prevent world opinion from having its proper influence. And isn't that the whole point of world cooperation?

xr700

on Jul 19, 2004

The problem is that the UN never really wants to do anything. The European contries have been so into appeasement that they've spread their influence to other countries and many are now unwilling to take any action against any villain. So I would go so far as to say that the USA isn't the problem, but rather, the other countries who fight action every step of the way are. Anyways, that's my 2 cents on the whole thing.

Solitair

on Jul 20, 2004

Shadow War,
many of your statements in your resolution are false. Are you aware of this or just pulpit bashing for effect? You seem to have a complete lack of awareness of what the UN can and cannot do. The key ones I'd object to are,

a)

a debating club

This assumes that the role of the UN is solely that of the General Assembly. This is far from true. The UN is far more than the general assembly. Indeed the General Assembly is the weakest part of the UN. Your resolution fails to acknowledge this point. It would be like hating the US because you dislike Bush, and completely ignoring all the great things the US has done or stands for. Even accepting that the general assembly is at times a debating club, much of the reason for that is the way it was initially set up, with no evolution of its structures of veto systems. Much of this is the US's fault as they helped draft the initial setup treaties. I would be all in favour of a revamp of the general assembly.

World Heritage Treaty is also another infringement on our sovereignty

No it is not. The US voluntarily CHOSE both to sign this convention and to submit these monuments for consideration as world heritage sites. This in no way infringes your soveignty. That's like suggesting your soveignty is being infringed when you allow the UK to have an embassy in the US.

c)

United
States soldiers can be placed against their will under United Nations auspices

US soldiers sign up to the US military. Once signed up they can be placed by the US military 'against their will' anywhere the US military decides to place them. If the US m,ilitary decides to place them guarding the north pole from penguins then so be it. Likewise, if the US decides to place them under UK command in Southern Iraq, then so be it. So how is this any different than the US deciding to place them under UN command in some peace keeping mission? Your problem is with the US military here not with the UN.

d)

over 70% of our payments to the United Nations go to support the regimes of Cuba, Syria, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe

This is a blatant lie. You can't be so badly informed to believe this, so I assume you are knowingly spreading this lie for your own purposes.

Very sad really. An article that could have made many good points for the need to reform the general assembly becomes a joke full of lies, untruths and misinformation.

Paul.

Erique Dela Crappe

on Jul 20, 2004

If you indeed believe that the US is not (part of) the problem but the rest of the world is, then yes, you should definitely get out of the UN.

ShadowWar

on Jul 20, 2004

Shadow War,many of your statements in your resolution are false. Are you aware of this or just pulpit bashing for effect? You seem to have a complete lack of awareness of what the UN can and cannot do. The key ones I'd object to are,

Solitair, you may want to check the whole post. The link that I have at the bottom shows you this entire thing came FROM A US SENATOR! "Larry Klayman Needs Your Help
To Get The United States Out Of The United Nations" You see this was done by a US Senator so you may want to tell him his facts are wrong. Maybe he has messed up on his research. It would be interesting to see.

For my own opinion, the UN is about as usless as an orginization as one can get. They pass resolution after resolution and never do anything about those that violate them. They have no bite to go woth their bark. They rely on the US for the military strength and quite frankly, they are afriad to take any kind of actual action, other then passing another resolution saying they condem this or that. Oh boy that will get you far. But just go check out the Senators web page, maybe you will get a few more facts to disagreee with.

shadesofgrey

on Jul 20, 2004

Solitair, you may want to check the whole post. The link that I have at the bottom shows you this entire thing came FROM A US SENATOR! "Larry Klayman Needs Your Help

Just to clarify...Larry Klayman is NOT a US Senator. He is running for Senate in 2004."

ShadowWar

on Jul 20, 2004

My Bad, yo are correct Shadesofgrey. Thank you for the clarification..

Solitair

on Jul 21, 2004

I do apologise Shadowwar for assuming this post was from you and not checking the link. It's probably worth revealing such information at the top of such posts.

You are right in some regards. The UN general assembly has no bite. It never had, as it was never set up with any legal enforcement power. It has always just been a debating society as it was intended to be. Bit unfair to critise it for being afraid to take action when it couldn't take action even if it wanted to. That's like critising Bush for the weather. Nothing he can do about it.

The only part of the UN with power is the security council. This DOES have the power (both legal and militarily) to enforce decisions, and only 5 countries have permanent seats on this body. So only those five countries can really be critised for being afraid to take action or for taking the wrong action.

I personally would like to see the entire UN general assembly revamped so that the responsibility lies with individual countries. Then we could critise them for failing to make decisions or act.

paul.

-----

on Oct 04, 2004

I feel that the UN has taken away a bit of the world's nations sovereignty, it is also pacifistic....---thats my two cents

Deference

on Oct 04, 2004

It is important we have some world council, the UN may be faulted, but we should mend not end.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!