unwise UN visa ban

Below is a BBC story reporting a bill just passed by Congress and signed by President Obama, which is very unwise and will be harmful to the United States.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27080244

First, the United States has an agreement with the United Nations to allow anyone to be called to the United Nations, and to allow all ambassadors. To break this agreement will contribute to turning the rest of the world further against the United States.

Second, the definition of who is terrorist tends to slip. During the Bush administration, Bush spokespersons at various times said that people who take pictures of police making arrests are terrorists because the terrorize the police, unions are terrorists because they terrorize employers, the American Educational Association is terrorist because it terrorizes school boards. More widely, corporations have sued individuals for libel who have said anything negative about any of the products the corporations produce. It is highly probably that over future years, the United States, under the law, will ban other people from going to the United Nations by calling them terrorists when they really are not. From time to time, that will outrage the world, and one can expect negative consequences from the world being outraged at the United States again and again.

Third, a terrorist ambassador to the United Nations is the very opposite of a danger. If we know someone is a terrorist, we can notice any Americans who come into contact with that terrorist. The dangerous terrorists are those we don't know about.

 

Concerned countries should send US ambassadors back to the US of AIPAC. Collectively, they should start the process of finding a neutral home for the United Nations headquarters.

This is the country which has, in recent years, destroyed three United Nations member states, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. It does not deserve to host the UN.

 

My own view is that the United States should carefully begin rebuilding and building friendships with the world's nations. I am concerned about what is happening. A couple of weeks ago, China and the UK made an agreement to set up a currency exchange for the Yuan, as a first step in replacing the dollar as the world's reserve currency. That means that the UK is no longer our ally. China has been courting the EU nations for some time now.

Even though it is economic, economic ties can turn into political ties. That is the way the EU was born.

There is already an economic alliance called the BRIC nations, Brazil, Russia, India, and China, which seems already to have political overtones. The British economic alliance with China may mean that the EU is on the verge of jumping ship and becoming allied with the BRIC nations against the United States. Whether they go that far or not depends on how the American government acts,

The situation which caused the beginning of the weakening ties of most other nations with the United States was the discovery that America had been torturing people. Before the knowledge became public, a majority in many nations, such as the European ones and others, had a majority favorable view of the United States. By a couple of weeks after the knowledge of American torture became public, the approval rating of the United States dropped below 20% all over the world. When a nation tortures people, that nation can no longer be trusted as a friend. Thus, the American torture of people turned many people against the United States.

We have done some other negative things to foreign nations and their people since, which has helped keep attitudes towards America negative in foreign nations.

We very much need to begin acting as a reliable and friendly nation. Otherwise, we may find ourselves fighting a war against the entire rest of the world.

 

Most Americans would agree with sending the UN elsewhere. We don't want that organization here. Period.

 

We tried bombing these counties into respecting us. And Obama tried diplomatic solutions. Neither worked. It's because most countries oppose what America stands for, and that is equality for all peoples. The US is the most diverse country in the world. Muslims fear that more than anything.

 

please do.

 

Sixty years ago morally retarded Americans were still lynching black people for being black. America won the respect of the world when it got its act together and ceased to be overtly racist. Today, morally retarded Americans kill black people by remote control from the comfort of their office chairs. I ask you seriously, what's to respect ?

 

Our president is black. Your argument is mute.

 

Mute ? If my argument is moot it isn't because of Obama. Obama doesn't slaughter black people by remote-control on his own.

 

I've always opposed the United States membership in the UN. Complete waste of time, resources and money. The only reason I can see for allowing them to base their headquarters in NY is that its good for the economy and nothing else.

 

??????
The International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan was established by the United Nations Security Council in December 2001 by Resolution 1386.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, proposed by France, Lebanon, and the United Kingdom, authorized the use of military force in 2011 in Libya.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483 recognized the US and UK as occupying powers in Iraq and called on other nations to contribute military forces to aid them.

And

In 1981, we informed the United Nations that we could not accept the designation as a representative of Iran a deputy foreign minister who had been involved in the planning and attack on our embassy in Teheran. The United Nations was again informed in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1988 that we would not accept the presence in the United States of individuals with a prominent role in the hostage incident and other acts of aggression against United States citizens which are a clear violation of international law.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/04/the-aboutalebi-visa-denial-u-s-law-and-historical-precedents/

There are 100s of people Iran could appoint to to serve in and further the intent of the united nations. There was only ONE US embassy in Iran

 

Resolution 1386 provided an Internationl Security Assistance Force to " assist in the maintenance of security in Kabul and surrounding areas "
The ' surrounding areas ' were never intended to mean all of Afghanistan and large parts of Pakistan.

NATO violated the terms of Resolution 1973 and became ' the air force of the rebels '

Resolution 1483 was a limp effort to legalise the de facto illegal invasion of Iraq.

The US is not fit to host the headquarters of the UN.

 

Care to suggest the nation you think SHOULD host the UN headquarters?

I'd be willing to help them pack......

 

Most people with your position want the United States to quit the United Nations entirely. That means the United States would give up our seat on the Security Council, where we have a veto over any UN action we find to be negative. Without the United States in the Security Council, the other nations of the world would be able to decide to take any action they wanted against the United States, and America would no longer be able to veto what they decided.

 

How about that they unilaterally declare themselves a State of the United Nations somewhere in California ? The Zionists got away with it in Palestine- with US support.

 

I'm not certain we can apply what happens with individual leadership to leadership by nations. However, I think we probably can.

In history, most top leaders were both head of government and head of the military forces. There is only one kind of leader who has gained the fierce loyalty of his troops and people. That is the leader who gets good things for his followers.

Leaders who just boss people below them around have not been popular nor have they generated much loyalty.

 

Not true. The Zionist homeland for Palestine was established under a League of Nations Mandate in the aftermath of the Ottoman Empires collapse after World War One.

The Palestinians had no nation in that area. It was simply an Ottoman backwater.

Be reasonable everyone, if the U.S. kicked the UN out of the United States and left the UN outright, the UN would die right there. This fantasy about the "A UN Security Council without the United States voting to do what they want to the U.S. states" is an American haters fantasy.

 

Which of course was expanded by later resolutions to all of Afghanistan.

 

The US already has sovereignty over California. The british abandoned their sovereignty over Palestine. The Ottomans had surrendered it before them.

 

Exactly. It's diplomatic immunity, forever. It's a very unfair system, where certain countries are untouchable, while all others must submit. I would understand if people don't want to be among the bottom feeders, but why on Earth would they want to give up their cushy seat?

The UN can be used to bully other countries, while at the same time the US has no need to obey anything the UN say, unless they want to.

Who else would provide the auspices to grant Israel the continued chance to conquer more land? What happens to Israel once they lose the cover of the rogue veto abuse?

 

No, it wasn't. The Mandate was devolved into UNGAR Resolution 181 which was never implemented in 1947. The Zionists unilaterally declared their own State in 1948- much of it on Palestinian-ascribed territory which they had- illegally- taken by force.

 

The declaration didn't specify borders other than to state

"THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel."

And almost all nations were "unilaterally declared".

 

If Israel declared its independence on the back of Resolution 181- which it clearly did- then it declared it according to the Resolution 181 borders. Again- Zionists go home.

Other States were established before the advent of modern international law. Israel wasn't.

 

I say put the whole damned lot of them in the middle of the outback with no roads...... or better yet, move them [UN] right into downtown Sidney.

 

Ah, one of those who believe even 181 partition would be illegal. Drive em into the sea views