He's gonna be so mad about that and act like he's not.
Palestine's ties to terror are undeniable. , I believe at least a fifth of what I hear about the the Israelis pull, but it's sanctimony. Furthermore, there are plenty examples of UN inadequacy out there, tbh.
What's in it for the US is a complicated question. A case could be made that if the UN dissolved, we'd be better off.
That's a pretty lame card you're playing, tbh. It's probably better than any tranny-brained innuendo you would've came up with on your own though.
Came up with something better and more tailored to you. You know it's true too.Why did you edit your post entirely? I saw your OP.re
I guess you probably believe that, given you must feel strength when you go out to your tranny night clubs that you don't feel in your every day closeted life.
Good luck determining that on a message board.
And btw, you are not the great Oz assigned to determine level of conviction.
Mr. Debate Parliamentarian turns "what's your level of conviction concerning world affairs/don't you parlor talk"... Good stuff.
Just stick with the subject, instead of concern for one poster's breakfast.
I don't even know what that means
It's his way of saying he wishes his hands were slimmer.
I don't agree with most of the decisions made in the past 30 years in DC, however Trump ran on a platform of pulling support from these countries. He's moving in that direction, good or bad, and regardless whether or not he's able/willing to stay the course.
"MAGA'ers"
It's not my problem to determine it, but yours. Illustrate to the forum how you're going to lose out in this "new deal".
My guess is that you cannot, and will refuse to with some denial phrase because you're just joining in on the echo chamber chorus.
There Is No ‘United Nations.’ So Let’s Stop Paying For It.
They can come to us and beg.
The worst people in the world gathered in New York on Thursday to condemn the United States for exercising its sovereign right to establish its embassy in Israel at Israel’s capital. The United States, which funds the lion’s share of the United Nations, hosts the organization in its most populous city, and offers $50 billion of taxpayers’ hard-earned money annually in foreign aid to member countries, did not take the condemnation of human rights abusers and terrorists lying down. U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley explained,
When a nation is singled out for an attack in this organization, that nation is disresepected. What's more, that nation is asked to pay for the privilege of being disrespected. In the case of the United States, we are asked to pay more than anyone else for that dubious privilege. Unlike some U.N, member countries, the United States government is answerable to its people, as such we have an obligation to acknowledge when our political and financial capital is being poorly spent. We have an obligation to demand more for our investment, and if our investment fails, we have an obligation to spend our resources in more productive ways. Those are the thoughts that come to mind when we consider the resolution before us today.
Ahead of the vote, both President Trump and Ambassador Haley threatened to withdraw foreign aid to countries that voted to condemn the United States. Nevertheless, representatives from some of the most brutal regimes on earth, including North Korea, Yemen, Turkey, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, and Iran, spoke in support of the measure; and 128 members countries, including many of our alleged allies, voted in lockstep with them. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu had the temerity to whine that his benefactor might withdraw the hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid that it regularly provides to the increasingly hostile regime. “We were all asked to vote no or face consequences,” complained Cavusoglu. “Some even threatened to cut development aid. This is bullying. It is unethical to think that the votes and dignity of member states are for sale.”
The United States pays 28.5% of the $7.3 billion U.N. peacekeeping budget and 22% of its $2.7 billion core budget in addition to hosting the international body in New York. A look back at the U.N.’s record at maintaining peace and the international order show this investment has failed to generate significant returns. Throughout the Cold War, the U.N. largely stayed out of the peacekeeping business. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, peacekeeping efforts have failed in Somalia, Rwanda, and Bosnia. Although more than 98% of military and police personnel deployed in peacekeeping missions have a mandate to protect civilians, the U.N. has only even attempted to intervene and protect civilians in 20% of cases for which it was authorized to do so.
The U.N.’s persistent failure to fulfill its mission may owe to the rampant fraud and corruption it breeds. A 2007 U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services analysis showed that 40% of peacekeeping contracts reviewed contained “significant” corruption schemes to the tune of $619 million. The U.N. mission in Sudan alone squandered tens of millions of dollars on waste, fraud, and abuse. More recently, leaked do ents have shown “peacekeepers’” widespread fraud in Western Sahara and illegal reselling of food in Lebanon and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
In 1975, the U.N. adopted the resolution, “Zionism is racism.” In 2011, the U.N. General Assembly held a moment of silence to honor North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il. In 2017, it condemned the United States for establishing an embassy in a member nation’s capital city. It wasn't always like this. During its founding period, the United Nations possessed greater moral clarity because it limited membership to countries that had declared war against the Axis powers in the Second World War. The modern U.N. bears no resemblance to that body.
More than 20 years ago, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton explained the relation between the United States and the United Nations with characteristic bluntness. “The League of Nations was a failure because the United States did not participate. The United Nations would be a failure if the United States did not participate,” he observed. “There is no United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that’s the United States, when it suits our interest.”
The image of a United Nations that does not rely for its very survival on the goodwill of the United States is a dangerous fiction that empowers the worst actors on earth and conflates their vicious self-interest with American moral clarity. It’s time to defund the fantasy. When next the ingrate children leading U.N. member states desire our blood and treasure, as they constantly do, they can come to us and beg.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/24999/there-no-united-nations-so-lets-stop-paying-it-michael-j-knowles
Kiss the ring you globalist gots!
We’re in bed with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, tbh, diplomatic arrangements are always about convenience (and to actually avoid wars whenever possible). Heck, it was the U.N. that gave Israel the chunk of land for their country.
The U.N. isn’t going anywhere, with or without US participation. The bigger question is if it’s the right move to diplomatically isolate from the rest of the world.
Considering the butthurtness post vote, I think he didn’t also expect our better/oldest allies to slap him. It was a dumb move (which, again, I don’t even think it was his decision, but bad advice from Bibi’s camp), and the response wasn’t unexpected, tbh.
Escalating the issue doesn’t make sense either. Trump will come and go and the U.N. will still be around.
what part of MAGA don't you understand?
There are ways to project power. Going to the U.N. and getting embarrassed isn’t one of them, tbh.
His base loves this stuff though. He's supposed to anger the global community. So there's no downside for him politically. It might hurt him among swing voters but no one is going to remember this years from now
Ask countries we protect to pay more for joint defense
"I think NATO's great. But it's got to be modernized. And countries that we're protecting have to pay what they're supposed to be paying."
Granted, this was NATO, but he has a very low opinion of the UN.
We'll see. I don't expect much to come from it.
In short, you take no position on this issue.
Basically: chirp.
Jake Tapper Blisters Despotic Regimes For Condemning Trump's Jerusalem Decision
On Thursday, CNN’s Jake Tapper blistered despotic nations around the world that chose to condemn the United States for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
Tapper commenced his assault by saying, “Remember yesterday, how United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said the U.S. would be taking names of countries that supported a resolution critical of the Trump Administration’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital?”
Tapper noted that 128 countries voted against the U.S., many of them U.S. allies, and that only nine countries voted with the U.S., with 35 abstentions.
Tapper continued, “Among the 128 countries that voted to condemn the U.S. on this issue were some countries with some rather questionable records of their own; take Venezuela’s representative today.” He then played a clip of Venezuela’s representative to the U.N. smirking, “The world is not for sale. The world is not for sale, and your threats imperil global peace.”
Tapper then launched his fusillade:
“The U.S. imperils global peace,” says the representative of Venezuela, a country in a humanitarian disaster with violence in the streets, an economy in complete collapse; citizens malnourished and children being turned away from hospitals; starving families joining street gangs to scrounge for food. On what moral platform does the government of Venezuela stand today?”
Not to be outdone, of course, the U.S. got an earful today from — Syria. We’re in the seventh year of the brutal Syrian civil war that has killed half a million people and displaced millions. Syrian president Bashar al Assad has used chemical weapons against his own citizens, including children.
Also feeling a bit preachy today: Yemen, which helped draft the resolution condemning the U.S., seemingly more focused, at least during the speech on where the U.S. puts its embassy in Israel than on the seven million Yemenis on the brink of starvation in that country’s civil war.
Tapper played a clip of the Yemeni ambassador to the U.N. citing “sensitive cir stances that our region is experiencing and which cons ute a threat to international peace and security.”
Tapper commented sarcastically, “Yemen concerned with stability in the region. Interesting.”
Tapper made a brief detour to question whether President Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy would contribute to peace before continuing: “Listening to these countries, including North Korea, and Myanmar, and Turkey, and China, lecturing the United Sates about human rights and peace might seem a bit much.”
Then Tapper got to the meat of his argument:
But here is a bit of context that you might not know: According to U.N. Watch, which monitors the United Nations, the United Nations general Assembly, from 2012 through 2015, has adopted 97 resolutions specifically criticizing an individual country, and of those 97, 83 of them have focused on Israel. That is 86%.
Now certainly Israel is not above criticism, but considering the genocide of the Rohinga people in Myanmar, the lack of basic human rights in North Korea, the children starving in the streets of Venezuela, the citizens of Syria targeted for murder by their own leader using the most grotesque and painful of weapons, you have to ask: Is Israel truly deserving of 86% of the world’s condemnation? Or possibly, is something else afoot at the United Nations, something that allows the representative of the Assad government to lecture the United States for moving its embassy.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/25016/...g-hank-berrien
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
