UN-Approved

[Flanders]

Yesterday was the tragic anniversary of the 241 Americans killed in Lebanon in 1982. The military men killed were 220 marines, 18 sailors, and 3 soldiers. Since 1982 very little mention was made of the fact that our military people in Lebanon were part of a UN-approved peacekeeping force —— whatever the hell that is.

To this day I cannot find out if our people were wearing UN insignias and blue caps. Nor can I find out how much control United Nations bureaucrats have over American military people ORDERED to serve in “UN-approved” peacekeeping missions.

The remembrance I saw yesterday on a news show did not mention the United Nations. The impression was given that those men died for their country. Sad to say they died thinking they were serving their country in the US military. In truth, they died for the United Nations.

Not much has changed since 1982. UN-loving traitors would still send Americans out to die in foreign lands for the United Nations.

Incidentally, the UN’s annual budget for peacekeeping is over 7 billion dollars of which American taxpayers pay 28 percent.

Here’s the straight of it. The minute Muslims see themselves losing their war because of “peacekeeping missions” every Muslim country will walk out of the United Nations. That will be a good thing for America and the world. It is just a pity that more Americans might die serving the UN before it happens.

 

[Peterf]

Yesterday was the tragic anniversary of the 241 Americans killed in Lebanon in 1982. The military men killed were 220 marines, 18 sailors, and 3 soldiers. Since 1982 very little mention was made of the fact that our military people in Lebanon were part of a UN-approved peacekeeping force —— whatever the hell that is.

To this day I cannot find out if our people were wearing UN insignias and blue caps. Nor can I find out how much control United Nations bureaucrats have over American military people ORDERED to serve in “UN-approved” peacekeeping missions.

The remembrance I saw yesterday on a news show did not mention the United Nations. The impression was given that those men died for their country. Sad to say they died thinking they were serving their country in the US military. In truth, they died for the United Nations.

Not much has changed since 1982. UN-loving traitors would still send Americans out to die in foreign lands for the United Nations.

Incidentally, the UN’s annual budget for peacekeeping is over 7 billion dollars of which American taxpayers pay 28 percent.

Here’s the straight of it. The minute Muslims see themselves losing their war because of “peacekeeping missions” every Muslim country will walk out of the United Nations. That will be a good thing for America and the world. It is just a pity that more Americans might die serving the UN before it happens.

Alas! The Muslim countries will never abandon an organisation which serves them so well. A good idea would be for the US, and every other civilised country to leave the corrupt and wasteful UN and save themselves a lot of money and aggravation.

 

[Sallow]

I wonder if any Democrats called for investigation after investigation, had public hearings where the people doing the inquiries called Reagan a liar and put the blame on him..

Oh lookie:

American, French, British and Italian troops had been deployed to Lebanon to try stabilizing the country bloodied by a civil war between Christians allied with Israel and Muslims.

President Ronald Reagan ordered the battleship USS New Jersey, stationed off the Lebanese coast, to bombard the hills near Beirut in retaliation. Months later, the Marines were ordered out of Lebanon.

A U.S. investigation found the barracks bombing occurred because of lax security.
Oct. 23,1983, Beirut Marine bombing: early chapter in war on terrorism | Nation & World | The Seattle Times

 

[Flanders]

Alas! The Muslim countries will never abandon an organisation which serves them so well. A good idea would be for the US, and every other civilised country to leave the corrupt and wasteful UN and save themselves a lot of money and aggravation.

To Peterf: Right on.

Some Americans always saw the United Nations for what it is. Ron Paul and his co-sponsors first introduced HR 1146 in 1999, but it went nowhere under Democrats or Republicans. He reintroduced it time after time. I wonder if anyone will introduce it now that Ron Paul has left the House?

H.R.1146 -- American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009 (Introduced in House - IH)

HR 1146 IH

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1146​

To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 17, 2011​

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

A BILL​

To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009'.​

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS PARTICIPATION ACT.

(a) Repeal- The United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (Public Law 79-264; 22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is repealed.

(b) Termination of Participation in United Nations- The President shall terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations.

(c) Closure of United States Mission to United Nations- The United States Mission to the United Nations is closed. Any remaining functions of such office shall not be carried out.​

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS HEADQUARTERS AGREEMENT ACT.

(a) Repeal- The United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act (Public Law 80-357) is repealed.

(b) Withdrawal- The United States withdraws from the agreement between the United States of America and the United Nations regarding the headquarters of the United Nations (signed at Lake Success, New York, on June 26, 1947, which was brought into effect by the United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act).​

SEC. 4. UNITED STATES ASSESSED AND VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNITED NATIONS.

(a) Termination- No funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for assessed or voluntary contributions of the United States to the United Nations or any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body thereof, except that funds may be appropriated to facilitate withdrawal of United States personnel and equipment. Upon termination of United States membership, no payments shall be made to the United Nations or any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body thereof, out of any funds appropriated prior to such termination or out of any other funds available for such purposes.

(b) Application- The provisions of this section shall apply to all agencies of the United Nations, including independent or voluntary agencies.​

SEC. 5. UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.

(a) Termination- No funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for any United States contribution to any United Nations military operation.

(b) Terminations of United States Participation in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations- No funds may be obligated or expended to support the participation of any member of the Armed Forces of the United States as part of any United Nations military or peacekeeping operation or force. No member of the Armed Forces of the United States may serve under the command of the United Nations.​

SEC. 6. WITHDRAWAL OF UNITED NATIONS PRESENCE IN FACILITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND REPEAL OF DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY.

(a) Withdrawal From United States Government Property- The United Nations (including any affiliated agency of the United Nations) shall not occupy or use any property or facility of the United States Government.

(b) Diplomatic Immunity- No officer or employee of the United Nations or any representative, officer, or employee of any mission to the United Nations of any foreign government shall be entitled to enjoy the privileges and immunities of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961, nor may any such privileges and immunities be extended to any such individual. The privileges, exemptions and immunities provided for in the International Organizations Immunities Act of December 29, 1945 (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288, 288a-f), or in any agreement or treaty to which the United States is a party, including the agreement entitled `Agreement Between the United Nations and the United States of America Regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations', signed June 26, 1947 (22 U.S.C. 287), and the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, entered into force with respect to the United States on April 29, 1970 (21 UST 1418; TIAS 6900; UNTS 16), shall not apply to the United Nations or any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body thereof, to the officers and employees of the United Nations, or any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body thereof, or to the families, suites or servants of such officers or employees.​

SEC. 7. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION ACT.

The joint resolution entitled `A joint resolution providing for membership and participation by the United States in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, and authorizing an appropriation therefor' approved July 30, 1946 (Public Law 79-565, 22 U.S.C. 287m-287t), is repealed.​

SEC. 8. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION ACT OF 1973.

The United Nations Environment Program Participation Act of 1973 (22 U.S.C. 287 note) is repealed.​

SEC. 9. REPEAL OF UNITED STATES PARTICIPATION IN THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION.

The joint resolution entitled `Joint Resolution providing for membership and participation by the United States in the World Health Organization and authorizing an appropriation therefor,' approved June 14, 1948 (22 U.S.C. 290, 290a-e-1) is repealed.​

SEC. 10. REPEAL OF INVOLVEMENT IN UNITED NATIONS CONVENTIONS AND AGREEMENTS.

As of the date of the enactment of this Act, the United States will end any and all participation in any and all conventions and agreements with the United Nations and any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations. Any remaining functions of such conventions and agreements shall not be carried out.​

SEC. 11. REEMPLOYMENT WITH UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AFTER SERVICE WITH AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the rights of employees under subchapter IV of chapter 35 of title 5, United States Code, relating to reemployment after service with an international organization.​

SEC. 12. NOTIFICATION.

Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall notify the United Nations and any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations of the provisions of this Act.​

SEC. 13. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Except as otherwise provided, this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.​

I wonder if any Democrats called for investigation after investigation, had public hearings where the people doing the inquiries called Reagan a liar and put the blame on him..

Oh lookie:

American, French, British and Italian troops had been deployed to Lebanon to try stabilizing the country bloodied by a civil war between Christians allied with Israel and Muslims.

President Ronald Reagan ordered the battleship USS New Jersey, stationed off the Lebanese coast, to bombard the hills near Beirut in retaliation. Months later, the Marines were ordered out of Lebanon.

A U.S. investigation found the barracks bombing occurred because of lax security.
Oct. 23,1983, Beirut Marine bombing: early chapter in war on terrorism | Nation & World | The Seattle Times

To Sallow: Reagan inherited Lebanon from his predecessors; mostly from Jimmy Carter.

Also, in 1982 the United Nations’ anti-America agenda still had far too many Americans fooled. Not so today. Every successful Muslim attack that came after Carter left office can be laid on his failed policies. Now, in his dotage, Carter is appeasing Muslims by turning on Israel as though Muslims will end Islam’s unconcealed jihad against the world that began on his watch.

If you want an interesting comparison notice the difference between President Reagan’s US Ambassador to the UN and Samantha Power:

If this body feels that the United States no longer serves the purposes of the United Nations, then maybe it is time that the United Nations find a new home. I for one will be happy to stand on the pier and wave goodbye as you all sail off into the sunset. Jeanne Kirkpatrick US Ambassador to the UN

Taqiyya’s US Ambassador to the United Nations:

. . . Samantha Power emerges as a patriot’s nightmare — a woman determined to subordinate America’s national sovereignty” to her own vision of how the world ought to work and what global role the US ought to play.

XXXXX​

Samantha Power has refused to give interviews of late, and the White House seems to be downplaying her influence on the intervention in Libya, and on the president generally. Yet numerous press reports indicate that Power “has Obama's ear” and was in fact critical to his decision on Libya. Liberal foreign-policy expert Steve Clemons actually calls Power “the primary architect” of our Libyan intervention. The New York Times has gone so far as to characterize our humanitarian action as “something of a personal triumph” for Power.

XXXXX​

A survey of Power's writings indicates her long preoccupation with a series of issues now associated with Obama's most controversial foreign-policy moves. In a 2003 piece for the New York Times, for example, Power bemoaned the reluctance of American policymakers to apologize to other countries for our supposed past mistakes. While Obama's controversial (and so far unproductive) willingness to engage with the leaders of rogue states was initially attributed to a novice error during a 2007 debate with Hillary Clinton, the need to deal directly with even the worst rogue states is a major theme of Power's second book, Chasing the Flame. That book was written in 2007, while Power was advising Obama's presidential campaign. A 2007 piece by Power in The New York Times Book Review attacked the phrase “War on Terror,” which of course the Obama administration has since dropped.

April 5, 2011 4:00 A.M.
Samantha Power’s Power
On the ideology of an Obama adviser
By STANLEY KURTZ

Samantha Power?s Power - Ethics & Public Policy Center

By all accounts Samantha Power has the president’s ear. Question: What part did the primary architect of our Libyan intervention play in issuing the mysterious stand down order nobody wants to address? See #2 and #3 permalinks in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/military/318954-clinton-caught-a-break-in-benghazi.html

Benghazi and Beirut

Americans fighting for their lives in Benghazi were abandoned. Not so in Lebanon. I believe that the marines in Lebanon were lulled into a false sense of security because they were part of a UN-approved peacekeeping mission; hence, they let their guard down, although there was no way they could have seen the first truck bomb attacks (2) coming.

It boils down to this: America is not the UN’s police force because our allies are considered less important than United Nations’ mandates, resolutions, and peacekeeping missions.