Graham threatens to cut UN funds if Obama tries "end-around" on Iran...

Posted by MinorLiberator 10 years, 1 month ago to Politics
56 comments | Share | Flag

This seems like an excellent "gauntlet" to thrown down right now. I don't know Congressional procedure well enough to say for sure, but it seems that Graham, along with some additional members, could make this happen. This not only seems right to me, but it's the kind of battle we might possibly win, unlike the war to repeal Obamacare righrt now.

Of course, Obama's a slippery SOB, and who knows exactly what he's going to try and do. In the very article his spokesman Earnest says that lifting sanctions "now" would not be part of any deal. And we can sure trust what he says.

And there's always the possibility of a "cave", but I think this is an issue the American people can readily understand, and I don't think cutting of funds to the UN would be seen as the "mean, nasty" thing that a government shutdown would be.

All Comments

  • Posted by MinorLiberator 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Absolutely agree. Just to clarify, I know there is no such thing as a "government shutdown", but a lot of the public does not, and that is how the MSM portrays it, causing tremors with the R "leadership". It was just a point of comparison, making the point that I don't think there is even an "imagined" reason to cave on this threat. I think a lot of Americans would applaud it, many would go "ho-hum", and the Left, the Administration (and the UN) would go ape-s**t. So be it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 1 month ago
    First of all there is no such thing as a government shutdown. That's Lie number one. Unfortunately the government never shuts down for all essential services. Military, Law Enforcement, Protective Echelon, IRS, Medicare, Social Security, all payrolls, Intelligence agencies. What they shut down are non-essential services - and not much of those. Might not get a mushroom picking license from the Forest Service but the rest goes on.

    Cut funds to the UN? Make my day.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I would have to reread the pertinent chapters to answer that level of detail. Sorry - I just do not recall that specifically. My general impression was that he made a good case for peacekeeping missions (which surprised the heck outta me).

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    His book was published in 2011, so it does not come right up to the present. I think that his graphs would continue with a big bump for the present turmoil. Nonetheless, it is a compelling overview of the role of civilization and culture to...well...civilize. The general trend is hopeful; our immediate present, not so much!

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Better-Angels-...

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by SaltyDog 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Has this decrease only come since the inception of the UN, or even the League of Nations? In other words can this decrease that you see be directly or indirectly attributable to the UN? Or could the decrease come from the proliferation of thermonuclear weapons for example?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Jan, I will definitely check out your source, it sounds interesting. But just curious where his "present" ends? For example, does it include the past couple of years, Syria, ISIS etc...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I did cite my source: Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of our Nature". He details the statistics of the decrease in warfare due to third party peacekeeping missions. It was surprising to me too - as I had thought that these were a waste of time and money. (Lots of other interesting info in the book too.)

    We tend to suffer from historical myopia, but if you look at a timeline from the 14th century (first era where there were good data) to the present, you can see there were a lot more wars, deaths-via-warfare, and deaths-from-violence then. The graph bumps an lumps its way downwards over the centuries, and does show a significant decrease when third party peacekeeping forces were introduced in modern times.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    See above. It does seem to be working, PickledPup (had to do that!), but like you I often begrudge our paying the bill in dollars and lives.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Your doubts are correct. If you do a little digging on the Net you'll find that Obama was no more a "Professor of Constitutional Law" than Jimmy Carter was a Nuclear Engineer. And yet the latter was able to use those inflated credentials to do great harm to the nuclear industry, as Obama is to the Constitution.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Precisely. The name is what we are buying from the UN. The decrease in world warfare is what we are investing in.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I do't think anyone here will disagree (and if they do we will hear about it, I'm sure). Empty threats without action are worse than just keeping your mouth shut in the first place. Not that I expected better from him, but look at the "good" Obama's "line in the sand" in Syria did.

    Now that the Rewpublicans have at least some power, this will be a good test case as to whether they'll actually grow some and take action.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 1 month ago
    I'm tired of threats from the Republicans. I just want action. They've already caved on specific campaign promises that got them elected.

    There's no need to threaten Obama. He's never listened to the threats before and he shows no signs of doing so in the future. Just deny the money already and let's see what he does.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Serious answer: no, zilch, nada lasting benefit to the US, in fact the direct opposite. The majority of members despise the US, and their primary function seems to inhibit any good the US tries to do, and then make us look like the bad guy in the process. I've been for getting out and throwing them out for years.

    And while I'd prefer a more market oriented solution than yours of a giant homeless shelter, even that would raise the level of integrity and class well above its current level.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by sumitch 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    It may be that the military that goes is under the name of the United Nations, but it's mostly our people and dollars that do the going.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by sumitch 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Maybe some help for the nations that support us. Nothing for the likes of Pakistan, Russia etc.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by sumitch 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    You're wrong about "most people here no longer believe in our country". Cite a proof source for such a comment.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by sumitch 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    The House could just not fund it. I imagine when the free lunch ends they'd pack up and leave. Obama said he's going to the UN and do an end around Congress. I thought he is supposed to be a constitutional scholar. If he is (which I very seriously doubt) then he should know that the UN doesn't have squat to say about how or what the United States does or doesn't do. The Senate might want to send them a letter much like was sent to Iran..
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo