ADVERTISEMENT

Meanwhile...the UN and Clinton Foundation working together in Panama to facilitate....

And how did they get it Ray. The land was gifted and we gave them a 65 million dollar loan for the complex.

The land was donated by Rockefeller not the US government...so there is no lease to revoke
No more than Italy can revoke the Vatican

The loan was to build the General Assembly building
 
The land was donated by Rockefeller not the US government...so there is no lease to revoke
No more than Italy can revoke the Vatican

The loan was to build the General Assembly building
Two words Ray. Eminent domain. If they can take my land because reasons, they can take theirs. There would just be more whining about it. Embassies are sovereign soil and we've ejected diplomats before. The UN isn't going to send blue helmets to defend the assembly building. Course we probably wouldn't eject the UN. Point is the UN is toothless.
 
Two words Ray. Eminent domain. If they can take my land because reasons, they can take theirs.

Wrong. That land is not a part of the United States anymore its an international territory

Correct me if I'm wrong but your house isn't a foreign country is it? 😆

There would just be more whining about it. Embassies are sovereign soil and we've ejected diplomats before. The UN isn't going to send blue helmets to defend the assembly building. Course we probably wouldn't eject the UN. Point is the UN is toothless.

The point is you're wrong about "ejecting" the UN...we can't.

The land is a international territory and we have nothing to revoke
We would have to declare war on the UN and take it by force

Now if your point is something else about the UN...fine

But blathering about a hypothetical fantasy because you don't like the UN is what a lot of people here waste their time with. Instead of dealing with reality...they choose to engage in fanatical fantasy
 
Discussions of "revoking" the UN aside...

How funny is that the "esteemed" conservative Hertiage Organization itself argued that the US should maintain a US presence in those Panama bases for non-military humanitarian efforts when the Panama treaty was ending.

Freaking Heritage Organization is nothing but a bunch of treasonous Clinton supporters 🤣


https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-us-still-needs-military-bases-panama
The U.S. Still Needs Military Bases in Panama
August 21, 1995 4 min read

* Efficiency and low cost
The U.S. conducts a number of important non-military missions, including humanitarian
and civil-military programs, throughout Latin America. These missions would benefit materially from the lower transport costs and greater efficiency afforded by centralized logistics bases inside Panama, especially Fort Kobbe, where the Theater Equipment and Maintenance Site (TEAMS) is located. This facility supports disaster relief missions and other civic and humanitarian services.
 
Wrong. That land is not a part of the United States anymore its an international territory

Correct me if I'm wrong but your house isn't a foreign country is it? 😆



The point is you're wrong about "ejecting" the UN...we can't.

The land is a international territory and we have nothing to revoke
We would have to declare war on the UN and take it by force

Now if your point is something else about the UN...fine

But blathering about a hypothetical fantasy because you don't like the UN is what a lot of people here waste their time with. Instead of dealing with reality...they choose to engage in fanatical fantasy
What's your definition of eject then Ray? Are you seriously suggesting we couldn't expel the entire assembly from our soil if we felt like it? Forget the repercussions, yes or no.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BamaFan1137
He's sharing a video made by someone else.

Which you obviously didn't watch. So it appears you are the one that doesn't know what you are talking about. Might want to watch the video first.
Partisan people put partisan BS on the internet all the time. Then, partisan people latch on to it like it's totally legit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EvilWayz
What's your definition of eject then Ray? Are you seriously suggesting we couldn't expel the entire assembly from our soil if we felt like it? Forget the repercussions, yes or no.

We have no legal authority to force them out.

Can we make operating in NYC extremely difficult? Yes

But this per the UN Headqurters Agreement

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 11/volume-11-I-147-English.pdf

Section 23 The seat of the United Nations shall not be removed from the headquarters district unless the United Nations should so decide.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: nail1988
  • Like
Reactions: RayGravesGhost
lol. Secede? League of Nations ring any bells?

If we revoked their lease in New York they wouldn't know what to do.
Insanity is repeating past failures. I snicker when some leftist loon says about the failures of communism, "well, that wasn't real socialism".
 
  • Wow
Reactions: nail1988
No biggie...

What I don't really get is the extreme reaction to the United Nations by conservatives...

Is it the amount of aid $$$ or something else?
This is purely anecdotal but in my experience outside of humanitarian aid the UN is a glorious failure, especially their multi national peacekeeping forces. Plus some of the folks on the human rights commission are some of the worst offenders.
 
I would agree 100% with you...

The UN peacekeeping forces have a lot of structural issues that make them very controversial

How "ineffective"?

I dunno...who would have troops on the ground in Africa or Syria protecting humanitarian aid if the UN didn't exist?

The human rights commission has some terrible actors but where else can coordinated pressure on those countries come from?
 
Partisan people put partisan BS on the internet all the time. Then, partisan people latch on to it like it's totally legit.
You still haven't watched the video. You are just parroting talking points when the truth is right in front of you, but you can't be bothered to check it out.

Just parrot the talking points. Like a good sheep.

Watch the video. Try speaking from a position of knowledge for once.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nail1988
I would agree 100% with you...

The UN peacekeeping forces have a lot of structural issues that make them very controversial

How "ineffective"?
Unlike NATO, they don't train together. That's the biggest problem. Then you have pissing contests involving over or under use of forces.

I dunno...who would have troops on the ground in Africa or Syria protecting humanitarian aid if the UN didn't exist?
I didnt say they were completely useless, just that they really suck at it.

The human rights commission has some terrible actors but where else can coordinated pressure on those countries come from?
That's above my pay grade, I'm a bit of an isolationist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RayGravesGhost
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT