Graham threatens to cut UN funds if Obama tries "end-around" on Iran...
Posted by MinorLiberator 9 years, 9 months ago to Politics
This seems like an excellent "gauntlet" to thrown down right now. I don't know Congressional procedure well enough to say for sure, but it seems that Graham, along with some additional members, could make this happen. This not only seems right to me, but it's the kind of battle we might possibly win, unlike the war to repeal Obamacare righrt now.
Of course, Obama's a slippery SOB, and who knows exactly what he's going to try and do. In the very article his spokesman Earnest says that lifting sanctions "now" would not be part of any deal. And we can sure trust what he says.
And there's always the possibility of a "cave", but I think this is an issue the American people can readily understand, and I don't think cutting of funds to the UN would be seen as the "mean, nasty" thing that a government shutdown would be.
Of course, Obama's a slippery SOB, and who knows exactly what he's going to try and do. In the very article his spokesman Earnest says that lifting sanctions "now" would not be part of any deal. And we can sure trust what he says.
And there's always the possibility of a "cave", but I think this is an issue the American people can readily understand, and I don't think cutting of funds to the UN would be seen as the "mean, nasty" thing that a government shutdown would be.
Can anyone on these boards explain to me how ANYTHING that the UN has done over, say the last 50 years or so that has produced a lasting benefit to our country?
It seems to me that our sole function at that August body is to provide funding for some new (or old) corrupt, hair-brained scheme. Why shouldn't we just tell the UN that we no longer want to play and that they have to move their headquarters out of New York. Greece might be a good spot...they could use the money. With the money we save, we could convert the present UN complex to the worlds' largest homeless shelter! (How could a liberal NOT like that?)
Because they are a socialist, statist organization who want a one world (camouflaged dictatorship) government and so are the elite who control the fedgov.
That would include forcing out the elite in the Dark Center and NYC.
While I agree with your suggestion, it isn't a practical solution at present.
That's why I decided several years ago that I'd just sit it all out.
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilisations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."
It's really not too hard to discern where we are on this timeline.
Lincoln started the big slide with his unconstitutional actions that caused the War of 1860-1865, but the seeds were planted by Hamilton and Henry (aka "Feetof") Clay.
Around here it's known as The Great War of Northern Aggression.
And while I'd prefer a more market oriented solution than yours of a giant homeless shelter, even that would raise the level of integrity and class well above its current level.
With the exception of actually destroying ISIS, why are we printing money for anyone outside our country?
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Send them to Brussels, where they really belong.
Personally - I would like to see the UN in Cairo - closer to where the real work needs to be done, and not much of a resort...
but anywhere out of the US would be good enough for the near term
There's no need to threaten Obama. He's never listened to the threats before and he shows no signs of doing so in the future. Just deny the money already and let's see what he does.
Now that the Rewpublicans have at least some power, this will be a good test case as to whether they'll actually grow some and take action.
Cut funds to the UN? Make my day.
Like the League of Nations and Congress of Vienna before it, the UN's purpose in being is to freeze in place the result of the World War it was founded after -- and what's left of that result isn't going to last no matter what the UN does now.
There is about to be another World War. And whatever triggers it, I'm not at all confident that the US will win. Most people here no longer "believe in" our country -- and it may not be possible to reverse that, because the country has splintered into so many groups with differing demands. The Middle East has also splintered -- but China has not.
I wish I were not living in a major city right now.
(Next Cave)
As I said I'm not sure of the exact machinations required to cut funds to the UN. If it's anything like approving the XL pipeline or repealing Obamacare, i.e., pass both House and Senate and then override the certain veto, then Graham need not have even opened his mouth. If it's something that can be done at the committee level, or, by a simple majority in Congess, I still think it's possible.
And if it is possible, then I don't see near the political risk that went along with shutting down Homeland Security. In times past (pre-2009 for some reason) there were times we did not pay our UN "dues" and I don't recall it was any big deal to the American people.
But, they may well cave, and we'll be stood up for the prom again.
What the UN gives us in exchange for that funding is the ability to distance ourselves from that process as a country. It is not the "USA" who is sending the peacekeeping mission, it is the "UN". This is important because "USA" is beginning to sound to much of the rest of the world like "HatfieldMacoy".
Unfair? Yes. Should we mend our fractured fences at home before we venture to other folks' fields? Yep. Am I frequently tempted to endorse isolationism...at least until the other countries say, "Pretty please. We love you."? Boy am I! But then I think how things would have turned out if isolation had won during WWII, and I wonder how many lives would have been saved if we had entered the War a couple of years earlier...
Jan
Jan
Jan
We tend to suffer from historical myopia, but if you look at a timeline from the 14th century (first era where there were good data) to the present, you can see there were a lot more wars, deaths-via-warfare, and deaths-from-violence then. The graph bumps an lumps its way downwards over the centuries, and does show a significant decrease when third party peacekeeping forces were introduced in modern times.
Jan
Jan
http://www.amazon.com/The-Better-Angels-...
Jan