Give enough people chisles and sledgehammers and free reign and many of them will drive them through the skulls of neighbors.
Okay, so it’s not literally true, but try for symbolism.
Yeah, let’s get the hell out of the U.N., send 'em all overseas to one of them Socialist countries.
It’ll be just like with the League of Nations. We stayed the heck out of THAT Bolshevik organization, and look how good the world turned out by 1938.
– Henry Cabot Lodge, cheerfully channelled by your own Ukulele Ike
Ummmmmm…
I think chisels and sledgehammers are pretty common, and I don’t see many people putting through anyone’s skull.
You are not suggesting that we need the government to regulate EVERY SINGLE thing we do because we can not be trusted are you?
Well, if you were, I can understand why you support the UN.
Not to get all GQ on you and all, but here’s the straight dope on the land upon which the UN headquarters sits.
It belonged to the Rockerfellers. When the UN was getting underway, they deeded it to the United States on the condition that it be used for the UN (I don’t know the exact wording of the conveyance). If we kick the UN out and send them to Wilmington, NC or somewhere, the land presumably goes back to the various family trusts that deeded it over in the first place.
Then the family could use some of the profits they made selling Rockerfeller Center to that Japanese trading company and then buying it back to build a new center of commerce.
Sounds good to me.
Livin’ on Tums, vitamin E and Rogaine
Being North Carolina born and bred…I can remember sitting in front of the TV every evening after the 5:00 news with my parents and listening to Jesse give his nightly 5 minute editorial for years. Even then at that young age I can remember shock and disbief from both my parents and myself over some of his comments. I’m sure they are on archieve. It would be a blast to view them again. He was big on tobacco issues at one time and that’s how and why he’s still in Washington.
That was way off the subject. Send the UN to North Carolina…Wilmington would be fine. That is an avenue of quick escape. I doubt you would find many southerners that would know about “international immunity”
“Do or do not, there is no try” - Yoda
John Corrado, responding to somebody who said “Get the US out of the UN.” said:
Ah, I see. So the downside would be that we couldn’t get rid of all of NYC, right?
I’m not a big fan of jesse Helms on most things…but on this one I say-he is RIGHT!! I am sick of paying ofr the antics of the UN-mostly controlled by third-world idiots. WE PAY the lion’s share of its bloated budget, WE endure their “diplomats” in NY. I say, get out of the thing and re-establish the League of Nations!
David B said:
Err… was that a sarcastic addition to my sarcastic reply, or an angry response to my misinterpreted statement?
Sorry; I just don’t want David B. going around thinking that I’m some sort of #(&^# who wants to get rid of New York.
As far as the OP goes, though- I say, definitely get rid of the UN. Lord knows we spend an incredible part of our budget upon it; we are absolutely beholden to do everything it says and have never once ignored it; and we have never been able to persuade it to do good things for mankind. It’s just eeeevil.
Sarcasm completely intended. This post has not been modified for the sarcasm impaired.
JMCJ
Just confirming that my ass is, in fact, the wisest part of my body.
I can completely understand the sentiment of ‘Get the US out of the UN’, i’m not sure i’d want to be paying billions of dollars for an organisation which helps the US in no obvious way whatsoever (I understand because these are my exact sentiments with regard to the EU, but that’s a different story). However, as has been amply demonstrated, the Europeans are incapable of spending sufficient money efficiently enough to provide for a reliable defence or intervention type force to cope with situations such as Iraq/Bosnia/(FR) Yugoslavia etc. So, the question is, would US intervention in such conflicts cease upon withdrawal from the UN? Would the US really be able to stand idly by as hundreds, thousands or even millions are killed in ethnic or other conflicts? Or would the US be prepared to act in isolation to quell such conflicts? Or should the US say screw you to the rest of the world, let them fight and kill among themselves and concern itself more with domestic problems which are of greater importance (presumably) to the average voting American.