fuck the united nations..

There are plenty of other possibilities for said rise in autism rates. There is still no definitive proof either way.

 

Then how come the government has been forced to admit the vaccine-autism link, and just recently a family in Georgia won a settlement on behalf of their daughter who has autism?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/government-concedes-vacci_b_88323.html

http://www.weitzlux.com/autism/lawsuit_1931047.html

 

They conceded that there is evidence for a link between mercury in vaccinations and autism. But, there is no evidence to say that vaccinations themselves cause (or increase risks of developing) autism. The vast majority of people who are vaccinated (mercury containing or otherwise) do not develop autism. Vaccines still save countless lives. What you seem to be implying here is that we should scrap them all together. Which is not a good idea at all.

 

Yes, and most vaccines contain thimerosal, which is a mercury derivative used as a preservative.

 

Yea I saw it on CNN too. Seriously though they prevent millions from being massacred every year and help tremendously the less fortunate people of the world every year in various different ways, and because a couple of them are molesting children/raping women you want to cut off the entire thing? Newsflash if the U.N leaves these country there will still be children molested and women raped just like every other part of the world.

 

Take a xanex, cool off, use your reason. Surely you don't want to cut off all relations to the UN for these crimes anymore than you want to cut all funding for the US military because of some soldier's crimes in Iraq.

 

That's not true at all. They provide the illusion of "helping" when they are also murdering through the WHO, IMF and World Bank (all UN splinter organizations). You need to look beyond face value to understand the role the UN really plays. They were set up to introduce a world governmental structure by overriding the national laws and sovereignty of member nations.

Most people don't even know who Alger Hiss is -- the Secretary-General of the UN's founding 1945 conference in San Francisco, who was outed as a Communist spy/agent. In the 70s, the Secretary-General of the UN was Kurt Waldheim, an intelligence officer for the Nazis during WW II. The UN is nothing more than a trojan horse for international socialism. It was set up by members of the RIIA and CFR to become the eventual world government.

The only thing the average person knows about the UN is what the media has told them. This notion of them being some peaceful, benevolent organization that helps people is a product of the media.

 

yes,, i want ALL our military to come home from ALL bases out of the united states as well as from all occupied territories(is that cutting there funding enough for you?),, and yes i want all funding cut from the united nations for this reason,the reasons rat has stated and a plethora more..

BTW, with those two moves alone you do know we not only could balance the budget,we could wipe out the nations entire debt in only a few years...beyond that the influx of soldiers,the need for new homefront bases etc. would stimulate the economy far better than a 600 dollar check in the mail...

 

The UN is, almost without question, the most life-saving effort of any type ever carried out by human beings. Look at 20th century deaths in all wars before the start of the UN, versus after, and there's not much left to debate. Seventy million in WW2 alone, millions more in the WW, tens to hundreds of millions dead in USSR and Mao's China, and well over a hundred million more dead of related diseases. Certainly a few hundred million dead in just a few decades, while the numbers after that are not even close, though our ability to kill has grown by orders of magnitude.

But it's not perfect, and the war industry has always been uneasy about the UN. So conservatives love to complain about it, as if they're gonna get some sweet kickdowns from Big Daddy War-Machine. Shrug.

 

UN troops are despised by everyone i've ever known who has served. I've heard their stories. In light of such stories the ones on this thread do not seem very farfetched.

 

sun lion.. the united nations could do NOTHING without our funding.. the fact is,we as a nation have been the most "life saving" force on this planet.

so lets quit sending any funding to the united nation and see how many lives they save...
the fact is,if it wasnt for the bureaucracy of the united nations and there rampant corruption over the years,we as a nation could have done far more if we had chose..

as far as the "warmonger"comment,i dont think anyone who has complained about the U.N. in this thread are warmongers. i know i for one am the farthest thing from a warmonger.
my views on our military and its role in the world im sure are even more peace leaning than virtually anyone on these boards. except maybe the few who want to abolish our military completely..

 

The U.S. is estimated to contribute about 22% of the UN's yearly budget.

The USA has done that several times "not pay" the U.N.
We're still in the red with them,

I believe Kim Jong has the same want.

Even if it means several wars would break out, with 100's of thousands lifes put it harms way ?

More like 15 years, best case scenario

And i'm sure i'll be labeled a "warmonger" for pointing out a few facts, sobeit.

 

Which is more than any other country pays into it.

 

Yes, and you also have no clue (nor do most people) how these wars were contrived to create the justification for such a global body. So what I am saying is that the same financial powers behind the funding of these wars were the same financial powers that gave us the UN as the solution to the wars they created in the first place, so people would accept such an international body as the "solution."

 

Then why does the US go to war to fulfil UN resolutions?

The "conservatives" (who are not really conservatives at all) who complain about it only do so because that's part of the dialectic. They need to appear different than the Democrats somehow, so they pretend to be against the UN. Bush isn't against the UN -- him and his daddy LOVE the UN.

 

Does saying that prove this ?

 

From CNN.com

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/18/un.reform/index.html

 

Whaat? The UN cannot override national laws. One of the main problems with the UN is that sovereignty acts as a major blockade towards solving major issues. Thats why the UN couldn't go into Darfur without Sudanese permission.

Alger Hiss is not even remotely close to being an important figure in the creation UN. He helped represented the US on several agreements but thats about. Being SG at the Charter Conference doesn't mean anything outside that he chaired. The only thing that happened at that conference was just the ratification. Most of the work had been done already.

Yes, and that was a nasty affair when it was made open in the 80s. It does not change the fact that the SG of the UN is a relatively powerless position in the first place.

Your kidding me, right? One of the biggest complains about the UN, and other related bodies, is that it is very neoliberal. Its not even remotely close to socialist.

No, it was setup by the victorious powers in WWII to replace the League of Nations, and act as a venue for international complaint. And how the hell would two research institutions control so much power? The CFR isn't even the most influential think tank in the USA.

 

And yes, the UN could NOT exist (not as it does now) without the US funding it. 22% is a lot when you consider the annual UN operating budget.

 

Until the people complain 5 months later about paying for inactive soilders resulting in said soilders losing jobs and putting a bigger strain on the job market.