Trump just cut funding to the UN

1. 77

   jackclee lmposted 6 years ago

   It is announced that the Trump administration has decided to cut funding to the United Nations. One of the best and bold decisions by an American President.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      jackclee lmposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Here is link to the story...
      http://www.newsweek.com/united-nations- … ing-758849

      replyreport
   2. 80

      emgeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I think a long overdue decision particularly the 60 odd Muslim nations all ganging up against America

      replyreport
   3. 90

      crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      As usual, I don't think you realize what you are saying nor do you understand the history of the U.N.
      
      The U.N. was formed after World War 2 to maintain world peace. Undoubtedly, the cut to U.N. funding is being cheered wildly by the nations that thwart world intent, like Russia and North Korea, so I guess if you want those nations to increase their power, good work.
      
      I think what you actually want the President to do is cut foreign aid funding to those nations that do nothing for our national security interests or do our bidding, as it were. This, I fully support. We shouldn't give a dime to nations who work against our interests. Go check how much foreign aid we provide to some nations.
      
      Cutting funding to the U.N.? Doesn't have the same impact.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Unfortunately the original intent of the U.N. has been fairly nullified by political grandstanding , economic exploitation of the U.S.  and individual nations growth even beyond that of the superpowers WERE  then .    The U.S.  was the  stronger nation then with a couple of close allies . 
         
         Energy exploration and it's incredible economic exploiting , so much economic growth of smaller countries , trade among growing economies ,nuclear proliferation , military transitions etc.......Membership in the U.N . has unfortunately morphed for America into something of a "sugar daddy " for too many other countries .
         
         It is time to cut the ties !

         replyreport
         1. 77

            jackclee lmposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Totally agree. I’ve been an advocate of shutting down the UN for some time. They have not been a positive force for world peace. The scandals just makes it imperative that we start a new world organizatoon. The IPCC is another politicized entity that is used to force income equality in the name of climate change.

            replyreport
      2. 0

         promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Well said, rational and factual.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            jackclee lmposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Disagree. The UN has done little for world peace. In fact, it abused many of the people in places they occupy... The Iraq war was a prime example how a world body failed to stop a tyrant like Saddam and created the atmosphere where we went to war to remove him as a threat. The UN Nuclear agency was suppose to monitor the countries like Iraq and Iran and have done little to assure us they have not bad intentions with their nuclear programs. Every thing the UN was involved with, they failed. Name one thing they did that was positive in the last 40 years?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               Didn't the UN inspectors say Saddam didn't have chemical weapons labs which our Republican president claimed they did, Jack? If we'd listened to them we wouldn't have went to war over the moron president's claims of "weapons of mass destruction." Would that qualify as a good thing, Jack? 

               replyreport
            2. 0

               ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               That's right Jack , For all factual relevance of the UN , The N. should just be replaced by an S .Why , because   it IS the US.  that has been the backbone the guts and brains of the U.N. from it's inception . While all the others stood by doing nothing in times of international strife anyway , gutless , neutral , silent ........kind of like the left during times of war .  Waving draft deferments like battle flags while at the same time actually creating half of the international incidents that we clean up !
               
               $ 5 +  Billion a year ?    What would that change right here in America ?

               replyreport
            3. 0

               promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               When was the last time we had a World War? I'd say that's a big accomplishment.
               
               I get that Fox News and Breitbart hate the UN. But their hatred of the UN must mean the organization is doing something right.

               replyreport
   4. 87

      Sharlee01posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Jackclee, I am in no respect surprised,. He stated when he was campaigning that he was going to stop funding the UN if  he felt it necessary. He felt it was a club that did little of what they were formed to do. he also felt we paid more than we should, and got little cooperation from other countries. He claimed they did not at all enforce much of what they voted on.  I for one am please to see Trump once again keeping his word. I know many find it hard to comprehend a president that does what he promised to do. It's even hard for me to believe Trump is well keeping his word. I am so pleased I can say, I voted  for his strong agenda, and am so pleased I backed him.

      replyreport
2. 0

   ahorsebackposted 6 years ago

   A revenue cut the we the American people have called for for decades !

   replyreport
3. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago

   Even though Dubya screwed up with the Iraq war, our UN allies helped defeat him as they have in several instances. No, the US does not, and must not, act as though we rule the UN even if we contribute more than our fair share. That is a tyrannical attitude which is not necessary for a  country wanting to claim its world leadership role. But then, Trump cares not for appearances....

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Randy , Well exactly , for what good are appearances ? The  Iraq war cannot be made into the Viet-Nam war like all anti-s do with any U.S. conflict ,  Other nations are and always have been slow to involve themselves in any humane requirement needs around the world , Even If Hitler were alive today  there would be no coalition from day one without the most modern forms of 'Lend -Lease' and more than that the "aid " payments to go with their eventual involvements .
      
      If the US has to "pay" for it all anyways we may as well "do" it all too   and even alone , as it always is .

      replyreport
   2. 82

      GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Hi again Randy, leaving out the last sentence. I would agree with your thought. I think the UN serves our purposes more than the imbalance of costs hurts us.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         GA, no matter our differences in political views, we both see the need to avoid being isolationists in the world view. And I stand by my last comment in the former post.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            We agree again Randy. We better be careful. ;-)
            
            I wasn't arguing with your last comment's ending, I was just sticking with my position of avoiding commenting on Pres. Trump or his personal actions.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 0

               promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               I don't see how anyone can avoid commenting on Trump when he is the one slashing the UN budget and creating ill will with our allies. Maybe you can clarify.

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Promisem, I will comment on policies and actions - if I feel comfortable with what I think I know about them, but I think Pres. Trump is such a radical change from what used to be considered normal that I don't feel sure enough about what I think I know to comment on anything personal or ideological. Which pretty much covers almost all Pres. Trump threads.
                  
                  It truly is a case of ... not believing my lying eyes."
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     Sorta like Trump not criticizing Putin, Eh GA.
                     
                     Seriously though GA. you seem to be riding the fence as far as Trump is concerned. I know you said you voted for another candidate, but I think your legs are still hanging on the Trump side of the fence. I believe you are astute enough to realize Trump is a frequent liar and is therefore bad for our reputation in the world. Exactly where are you if I'm wrong about your giving Trump a pass on his obvious character flaws. Or do you care if our president cannot be trusted to tell the truth? Do tell.

                     replyreport
                     1. 82

                        GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        I bet you would be good at fly fishing Randy, but I have to many hook scars to jump at every lure dangled in front of me.
                        
                        You sound like a "perception is everything" kind of guy.  Bait one of your hooks with a policy issue and I would probably nibble at it.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           Ha, GA! I am indeed a fly angler, but down here we have to go for largemouth and bluegill instead of trout. You should be a politician with answers like that.

                           replyreport
               2. 95

                  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  As we have spent a long time buying the good will of allies, perhaps it's time to stop and let our actions stand on their own.  An ally that is an ally solely because we pay them to be isn't much of an ally, and I don't see any of our good ones being that way.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     Would you rather we be one of the countries having to be subsidized, Dan? Is the catbird seat not good enough?

                     replyreport
         2. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            If you take your ball and go home, you're no longer in the game.  The players will simply find someone else with a ball and keep playing, leaving you alone and without any ability to affect the outcome of the game.  If your side loses, then you must live with the consequences.
            
            I was taught this when I was a child.  Apparently, Trumpeters didn't learn this lesson.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               Your talking about a "lesson " outdated  in foreign diplomacy , Isolationists were only able in a world with limited media's of yesterday .  Today , Only a nation like North Korea can be a isolated  and then only directed from outside , America's borders , news media,  economic powers  , political world ,  are all far to open for that naive a term to be applied . 
               
               WE could effectively however leave the UN to the rest of the world , at least financially  and militarily  and they still need America in every way , our consumer market alone is far to important and a must for other nations to even  begin to isolate . It is time for the other nations to step up to the plate that America has been covering  for all , for too long . And ,  America only has to limit it's" financial carrying " of the U.N.
               We don't have to exit .
               
               The left is so intent on only superficially understanding true foreign diplomacy , Look at the disastrous Obama foreign policies ,your party  has never had a foreign policy strong point and it's proven more and more today . Kennedy / Johnson /Viet-Nam for one , Obama / Clinton's /Syria / Libya ,for two ,.........disastrous!

               replyreport
4. 0

   ahorsebackposted 6 years ago

   "At lease 10 other countries considering embassy moves to Jerusalem ", -Israel . ........................Humph ', so there is media representation outside of the bias here in America's Neverland media , Interesting .
   $ 285 million dollars of U.N. money redirected to build a new U.S. embassy there too maybe ?

   replyreport
5. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago

   Iran Contra, Iraq war because of "fake news from Dubya, Afghanistan war, Cons like to ignore these foreign policy debacles for some reason.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Randy , lets face it , Democratic leaders have made collective quagmires of  their foreign diplomacy's for decades .   Now you're going to say Obama/ Clinton/ Kerry team  saved us all from certain terrorist Armageddon ?    Please , I've got a few embassy marine families  that would argue that .
      
      Face it , you believe in a media from another world .

      replyreport
6. 0

   Onusonusposted 6 years ago

   $285 million seems like a lot of money. But not when you realize that we've been giving them $3.3 billion a year.
   http://www.politifact.com/global-news/s … 2-percent/

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      What? And we can now give that money to the billionaires instead, right?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Onusonusposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Or we can let the people keep what they earned. But I'm sure you have a much better way to spend other people's money.

         replyreport
7. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago

   The UN inspectors did a good job monitoring Iraq's WMD programs but Dubya didn't want to believe them. They said there were no such programs and there were never any found after the invasion. In fact, the much touted mobile chemical weapons labs were created by the Dubya admin to support his claims they did indeed exist. I thought Dubya was the most embarrassing buffoon of a president we'd ever had, but Trump makes him look like classy genius! 

   replyreport