House votes to withhold UN dues unless they reform

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/18/un.reform/index.html

 

 

They dont want to listen to a reasoned appeal for reform then, like a bratty child, they're going to get their allowance cut off.

 

 

[samclemens]

FINALLY. god damn, FINALLY!

 

[LowerCaseRepublican]

The State Department has described the threat to withhold dues as "objectionable."

 

"It's wrong on principle. We are a founding member of the United Nations and it hurts our credibility," said a senior State Department official. "While we agree on ends, the disagreement is on means."

[Rex Kickass]

I would be very surprised if this doesn't get killed in the Senate.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I would be very surprised if this doesn't get killed in the Senate.

 

 

If the Republicans have any balls they'll push it through. The UN needs to understand that they cant go on with their corrupt and Anti-American agenda and have us continue to pay for it.

[Rex Kickass]

Yes, but the administration apparently doesn't support the move either. This won't become law. And it shouldn't.

[mr_genius]

long overdue

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/18/un.reform/index.html

They dont want to listen to a reasoned appeal for reform then, like a bratty child, they're going to get their allowance cut off.

Bad idea, and it will only cause a further split between the US and the rest of the world.

 

As I stated in the other UN thread, I'd rather see us get more active in the choice of new leadership in the UN, and start changing the organization from within. Its time to use our influence, instead of bullying and arrogance.

[mr_genius]

Bad idea, and it will only cause a further split between the US and the rest of the world.

 

 

 

i don't really care if things get a little worse before they get better. our standing in Europe is already at an all-time low, perfect time to cut our funding of the UN cause hey, it was evil George Bush that cut the funding... the next president can just give the UN a bunch of lip service and pay about as much to the UN as, lets say, Germany or France.

[KipWellsFan]

Foreign Relations are important.

[minors]

It is about time I think if this doesn't work the US should pull out of the UN they already drew their line in the sand by siding with Germany and France. Those countries most notably France are nothing but scum.

[samclemens]

Foreign Relations are important.

yes, yes they are.

[samclemens]

It is about time I think if this doesn't work the US should pull out of the UN they already drew their line in the sand by siding with Germany and France. Those countries most notably France are nothing but scum.

 

ah but then we would lose our position as one of the big 7, and would lose our power to veto anything passed by the assembly.

[mr_genius]

ah but then we would lose our position as one of the big 7, and would lose our power to veto anything passed by the assembly.

 

we shouldn't completely cut funding, just pay as much as the other big countries.

[Flash Tizzle]

As I stated in the other UN thread, I'd rather see us get more active in the choice of new leadership in the UN, and start changing the organization from within.  Its time to use our influence, instead of bullying and arrogance.

 

Using our influence within the United Nations to appoint new US friendly leadership sounds like bullying and arrogance to me. If we're a part of it, you damn well know they will push for their candidate. Whomever thay may be.

 

It just proves no matter what we do, someone will dislike our country. Withhold dues, it creates further divide. Lend a hand in appointing a successor to Annan and it's, "America deciding what's best for the world again.."

[mac9001]

Didn't Reagan withhlod UN dues? How long did that last?

[NorthSideSox72]

Using our influence within the United Nations to appoint new US friendly leadership sounds like bullying and arrogance to me. If we're a part of it, you damn well know they will push for their candidate. Whomever thay may be.

 

It just proves no matter what we do, someone will dislike our country. Withhold dues, it creates further divide. Lend a hand in appointing a successor to Annan and it's, "America deciding what's best for the world again.."

 

Using our influence is bullying and arrogance? No, sending an anti-UN relic like Bolton to represent your country and wholly ignoring the rest of the world in going to war is arrogance and bullying. I am suggesting working positively, politically, to push things in a different direction. No guarantees there, but its a much better alternative than cutting and running, further opening the divide.

[Flash Tizzle]

Using our influence is bullying and arrogance?  No, sending an anti-UN relic like Bolton to represent your country and wholly ignoring the rest of the world in going to war is arrogance and bullying.  I am suggesting working positively, politically, to push things in a different direction.  No guarantees there, but its a much better alternative than cutting and running, further opening the divide.

Do you suppose their favored nominee would publically voice opposition to the Iraq War? Or express sympathy towards Iran's nuclear program?

 

I'm merely suggesting if the United States uses its position within the United Nations to heavily influence Annan's successor, don't be surprised if the appointee cators to our ambitions--present and future.

[Balta1701]

Do you suppose their favored nominee would publically voice opposition to the Iraq War? Or express sympathy towards Iran's nuclear program?

 

I'm merely suggesting if the United States uses its position within the United Nations to heavily influence Annan's successor, don't be surprised if the appointee cators to our ambitions--present and future.

On the other hand, is it possible that through efforts to bend the U.N. more to our will, we'll wind up splitting ourselves from the people we should be working with, and strengthening those we should be working against?

[Rex Kickass]

Didn't Reagan withhlod UN dues? How long did that last?

 

It wasn't really withheld so much as we never cut the checks. Or we'd only pay a portion...

[Flash Tizzle]

On the other hand, is it possible that through efforts to bend the U.N. more to our will, we'll wind up splitting ourselves from the people we should be working with, and strengthening those we should be working against?

 

Yes, it could possibly split ourselves from allies. Don't know how it would stregthen those we should be working against, though.

 

I just don't believe we can have any significant influence in appointing a new UN leadership, as Northsidesox is suggesting, without problems erupting. It's almost as if for the United Nations to hold any legitimacy in the world, you'll need a leader who doesn't appear to be in our pockets.

 

Everyone wants change--they just don't want reform if it means newly appointed leadership doesn't follow their beliefs. And guess what? With a Republican appointee representing our country in the United Nations, and the obvious importance the United States holds, you can only guess who they would support.

[YASNY]

Foreign Relations are important.

 

Good. You guys can pay it then.

[FlaSoxxJim]

On the other hand, is it possible that through efforts to bend the U.N. more to our will, we'll wind up splitting ourselves from the people we should be working with, and strengthening those we should be working against?

Wait, you're suggesting we can go bullying our way in to impose our will and actually screw things up and make the situation worse?!?

 

INCONCEIVABLE!

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Yes, it could possibly split ourselves from allies. Don't know how it would stregthen those we should be working against, though.

 

I just don't believe we can have any significant influence in appointing a new UN leadership, as Northsidesox is suggesting, without problems erupting. It's almost as if for the United Nations to hold any legitimacy in the world, you'll need a leader who doesn't appear to be in our pockets.

 

Everyone wants change--they just don't want reform if it means newly appointed leadership doesn't follow their beliefs. And guess what? With a Republican appointee representing our country in the United Nations, and the obvious importance the United States holds, you can only guess who they would support.

 

Of course problems will erupt. Change within an organization like the UN is slow, inconsistent and painful. But its necessary.

 

And by influence, I don't mean bending them on the issues (at least not solely). I am more referring to setting up the rules of conduct so as to hinder corruption, and do a lot more to inform the UN why we are doing the things we are doing (and expecting the same of other countries). Let more sunlight in, to morph an analogy in heavy use recently.

[jasonxctf]

i think the biggest problem is here is that many people are forgeting what the United Nations was designed to do. It's not designed to promote American causes around the world. You gotta take the good with the bad. If we start thinking that our opinions, goals, ideals, etc are more important than those of Europe, Asia, etc... we are in for some big problems.