Not a bad thought. Use it like Korea and China did during the Korean War (pardon me-"police action").Zundfolge said:I used to agree that we needed to get out of the UN, but I'm not so sure now.
Its nice to have that veto on the security council ... we leave the UN and the chance of UN lead troops landing on our soil with blood in their eyes becomes a much greater posibility than if we maintain our position of power within the UN.
I would prefer to see Rep. Paul draft a bill that states that the no treaty or agreement with the UN or any other foreign power can be signed by the US government if it lessens the soverignty of the US or runs counter to the US Constitution.
Two things Copper.CopperKnight said:Not a bad thought. Use it like Korea and China did during the Korean War (pardon me-"police action").
The problem is we already have laws that say Congress can't pass legislation that runs counter to the Constitution- the Constitution itself says that. They've been ignoring some of those finer points for the past 150 years or so.
I think we are saying the same thing. Congress hasn't bothered living by the Constitution for a long time.dpesec said:Two things Copper.
First, when did a little thing like the Constitution stop congress from passing laws.
Second, yes look at what happened when the Soviet Union left, the UN got involved in Korea. Same could happen here.