[Mike Irwin]

I know the dream here for many is that the United Nations be ejected from the US, and the US withdraw its membership.

Quite frankly, that should not happen, for one very important reason.

Our veto vote on the Security Council.

With that veto vote the United States effectively protects itself against UN-led economic or other sanctions that could be attempted were the US not there to stop them.

The only way the United States should leave the United Nations is if the entire structure of the UN collapses.

[Bergeron]

Considering the quantity of our support for the UN with money, troops, and sheer political might, is it not plausible to concieve of the UN falling due to a US withdrawl?

[Tag]

without US backing I think the UN would dissolve.

[Mike Irwin]

Berg,

Certainly possible, but given that the UN didn't collapse forthwith when the United States owed them what, almost $1.5 billion in back fees during the Clinton era, the risk is simply too great.

Yes, the UN would be hurt very badly by a US withdrawal, but the overall benefits to our detractor states would virtually ensure that they would find any way possible to ensure the survivability of the body.

While it's piss poor, given the status of the UN, it's also an appropriate analogy to say that if you've got the tiger by the tail, you do not let go, or he will bite you.

Simply put, the risks of not having the veto vote in the Security Council are, especially at this moment, FAR too great contemplate withdrawal.

[Blackhawk]

You're right about that being the biggest reason to stay in. However, I think the plethora of reasons to get out far outweigh it.

Without the U.S., the UN as it now exists is finished. Unless it is substantially restructured, it's not worth keeping, IMO.

[Mike Irwin]

"Without the U.S., the UN as it now exists is finished."

Once again, we simply can't be certain of that.

The relevancy of the UN has been seriously damaged, but I disagree that the withdrawal of the United States would be its deathknell.

[Standing Wolf]

The only way the United States should leave the United Nations is if the entire structure of the UN collapses.

Works for me!

Once upon a time, the U.N. may have been a good idea, but it's become a cesspool of third world hatred. It's time to break it up and throw away the pieces.

[Blackhawk]

The UN as a debating and humanitarian society is its future, if it has one.

The very veto the U.S. has as a reason to stay in as you say, is also possessed by pipsqueak nations (as Lawrence Eagleberger, former Secretary of State, characterized France), which put their government's interests ahead of all other nations in the same way the USSR did during the CW.

Giving the UN any imprimatur of military power over other nations contrary to their own interests is a joke.

The existing UN structure has NEVER worked when it has been able to deploy members' might and money against another member. Of late, it's been trying to get military commitments of men and materiel ahead of any need.

Let the UN be limited to stuff it can do well, but when it comes to military force, make it form a coalition of UN members to contribute those forces. Let the UN 'round up a posse of member nations to exercise power, if it can.... :rolleyes:

[Drizzt]

Mike, under the charter of the U.N., are they even allowed to take action against non-member states? I honestly don't know, but that could easily be the key.

edited to possibly answer my own question....

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. Article 2, Section 6 of the United Nations Charter.

I'm guessing they WOULD try to use that against us....

[Jim March]

Hrrrm.

In other words, you think that without the US veto, France/China/Russia/etc would vote to invade Israel or do something equally stupid?

<scratches head>

Somehow...I doubt that. Because we'd STILL have vetos. Several in fact. They're called "carrier task forces" :neener:.

[Cal4D4]

Even in the darkest days of the Clinton admin didn't we still contribute around 5 billion US annually? I agree there is some benefit to giving the third world a forum to vent, but value is minimal. It would fold like a house of cards. We could do alot better if we spent the money on finding technical solutions to world problems. Biogas, fusion, ethanol or whatnot for energy and an orbiting death ray for ICBMs and petty tyrants. I, of course, am the only one who could be trusted with tasking that little beauty. What is the current distance record for sniping?:D

[Quartus]

It was never a good idea. Its purpose all along has been to eradicate national sovereignty. It should be destroyed.

But I agree with Mike's basic premise. We can't just pull out gracefully and leave that beast roaming. We either have to ride it or kill it.

I suspect that a visit from GW wherein he denounces the anti American and anti freedom nature of the U.N., lays out the evidence of their hypocrisy (like Powell did with Iraq) followed by an announcement that we will not fund another dime of it, that we are out of it, and that we are presenting a bill for all of the past services rendered, and oh by the way you have 60 days to get your slimy butts off our land, would probably do the beast in.

Oh, and any actions by the U.N. which are against U.S. interests will be viewed as an act of war against the United States and will be met with a military response.

That should do it.



<sigh> Keep dreaming. Ain't gonna happen.

[benewton]

The UN is already useless, along the lines of the League of Nations.

Further discourse with them is useless, payment of dues is also a waste of money.

That said, remember the Russians and Korea.

'course then, we had a worthy opponent...

[lapidator]

So if the drug dealer who lives in you condo is put incharge of the condo association's bylaw committee -- wouldn't you leave the condo? This is the situation with Sudan chairing the human rights committee and IRAQ chairing the arms inspection committee.

The problem with the UN is that they promote this MORAL EQUIVILENCY between the West and the 3rd World.

If Bush decided to initiate a vote to leave the UN, and IF congress voted as such, surely 20-30% of the UN membership would follow suit. The UN would loose 50-80% of its funding. It truly be the United 3rd World.

I submit we should no longer use the name UN and just call them what they are... the League of Nations.

(Then when we oust the LN from Manhattan, we can let NATO wither on the vine.)

lapidator

[schild]

www.getusout.org

UN=third world socialists

[Dave Markowitz]

The UN is WORSE than useless. It sucks up billions of taxdollars from US taxpayers, and gives and air of legitimacy to third world bannan republics. Libya on the human rights council?!?! Give me a break.

[telewinz]

The biggest reason to stay in the UN is for a good (but sad)laugh.:barf: What does the US gain from the UN?

[Mike Irwin]

Drizzt,


DING DING DING!!!

You win the prize.

Exactly what I had in mind when I posted this message.


Jim March,

Please go back and reread my original premise.

With no US veto in the Security Council, and with a world with a case of *** towards us, economic and political sanctions could be a distinct possibility.

A carrier task force is fine, IF you have a military enemy to fight.


For all of you who are saying that the UN would fold like a house of cards, WHAT MAKES YOU SO SURE?

Yes, the United States is by FAR the largest supporter of the UN.

But, do you not think that other nations would not attempt to make up at least part of the UN's shortfall of American cash?

Where do you think the United Nations would move to if the United States rolled up the red carpet?

I can think of 4 right off the bat that would be very likely hosts, and likely very HAPPY hosts -- France, Switzerland, The Netherlands, and Belgium.

Of those, I'd lay hard money that France would try VERY hard to be the new host nation for the UN.


Benewton


Not sure which direction you're going with Korea and the Russians, but if it's where I think you're headed, you're right.

The ONLY reason the US was able to get a UN resolution through, and UN military forces committed to the Korean Conflict, was because the Soviets were boycotting the Security Council at that particular moment in time, but I'll be darned if I can remember why.

[Mike Irwin]

Lapidator,

Interesting anaolgy, but not very relevant.

Sure, you can certainly leave that condo, and go live in another one.

But does your OLD condo association, now run by drug dealers, have the power to get other condo associations in your neighborhood to enact economic sanctions against your new condo?

The equivilent of shutting off your water, electricity, and gas?

Not a chance.

[Drizzt]

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.
From Article 2 of the UN Charter

Non-Military measures that can be taken, as per article 41: The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

THe charter also gives the UN the 'right' to also interfere in internal domestic matters of non-member states, if it is determined that it may affect international peace. For an example, think about the last U.S. Presidential election....

[Mike Irwin]

Now you and I are on the same page, Drizzt.

Now you know why I say we have to ride this one until the bitter end.

If we don't, the consequences could be very unpleasant.

[Bergeron]

Gotta admit, I have never read the charter before. I agree that it certainly looks unpleasant.

If we were to stay in until the United Nation fell, what could the US do to ensure that the UN did indeed fall, and that another clone did not come into existence?

[Drizzt]

Bergeron, that's why I held off on agreeing with Mike until I did a little research. I have to admit that I had not read the charter prior to this either.

Of course, once a question comes up, I have a tendency to research it to death.... ;)

Maybe we could remain in the U.N., but limit our involvement to simply vetoing resolutions?

[Bergeron]

I'm embarssed to admit this, but if we stopped or drasticly reduced our payment of UN dues, would we be ejected from the UN, or allowed to stay?

[Drizzt]

Article 19:

A Member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years. The General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a Member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond that of the Member.

It makes no mention of the Security Council vote, and since we are a permanent member, I don't believe that could be taken away...

[ahadams]

we learned after the first World War that this sort of thing doesn't work, but FDR and Truman just *had* to try it again.

Let it fall apart- it is NOT TEOTWAWKI (or even TEOTWAKI for those who can't acronym correctly)! Yeesh. right now the new power groups shaping up are North America, France/Germany and whoever they can cooerce into being their allies, China, and Russia...wow we're right back to either 1890 or 1930, depending on how you want to read it...

[Mike Irwin]

Drizzt,

You're coming up with the exact same things that I'm coming up with.

The way I read the UN charter, there is absolutely NO WAY to touch one of the 5 permanent members of the security council.

You can't strip them of membership in the Security Council, and quite frankly, who gives a damn about the General Assembly.

The true power of the UN is in the Security Council.

The Security Council was set up the way it was largely due to the failure of the League of Nations in its ability to enforce any of its proclamations.

Getting the US out of the United Nations is a nice, and quite frankly attractive, idea.

But it's wrong headed, the biggest reason being sure, we may lose faith in the ability of the UN to take any sort of effective action, but unless there was a mass exodus from the organization, it could turn out to be a blunder of immense proportions.

Let's face it. It's one thing to say that a US withdrawal would cause tons of other nations to withdraw, but I sincerely doubt that would be the case at all.

If anything, it could strengthen the resolve of other nations, especially those that don't like us, to remain in the UN, and make it a viable organization outside of US influence.

The biggest reason I don't see many, or even any, other nations withdrawing from the UN in response to a US withdraw is that as it now stands, the US is the largest, most powerful nation on earth.

It's no longer a two-man show, and it won't be for some time to come.

Another reason is that the UN espouses the kind of government that many other nations admire, but which many in the United States abhore -- strong, centralized, and one world.

Hell, you've got most of Europe flocking to the European Union, with a common currency, common laws, common trading regulations, etc.

Even our staunch Eastern European allies are clamoring for admission to the EU.

That should give you a good idea of what's going on right there, and why.

[Mike Irwin]

Ahad,

You need to look at the reasons for why the League of Nations failed after less than 20 years, and why the United Nations is still going relatively strong for over 60 years now.

There are significant, and very important, differences in the structures of the two groups -- the Charter for the League is out on the Web.

The Security Council is the most obvious difference.

Another reason why the UN remains viable is simple -- World War II, the rise of the competing Superpower States, and nuclear weapons.

Face it, folks. The United Nations is here to stay, whether we like it or not, and it is in the best interests of EVERY American for the United States to remain in the UN, with full veto vote power in the Security Council.

[Blackhawk]

Okay, Mike. I reluctantly agree but with massive reservations.

[Mike Irwin]

I have massive reservations about remaining in the UN too, Blackhawk!

But I have even more, and GREATER, reservations about pulling completely out of the UN.

[Blackhawk]

Until the UN's brain is excised and a stake driven through its heart, we'd better stick around and veto stuff, but I hope we don't get another Clinton type controlling our veto.... :what:

[faustulus]

I see what you are saying but I don't think the UN is viable without the U.S. It would be another League of Nations.
Yes other members would try to keep it up, but they simply do no have the resources to hold it together. Russia and China have the military, but not the Money. It comes down to hard dollars and no one is in any econmic shape to lose a member who pays for much of the expenses.
The other nations could use Article 2 against us but that again is econmiclly unfesable. They rely on trade with America as much as we rely on trade with them.
Besides the United Nations doesn't really have that strong of a track record.

[fallingblock]

The U.N. does indeed stand for most of the things those of us at THR would rather avoid.

I.A.N.S.A., the U.N. initiative to ban most civilian possession of small arms worldwide, was narrowly defeated, likely because Bush was in office when it came up for debate.

Had the U.S. not been there to protest blanket civilian disarmament, the proposal would have sailed through:banghead:

As wrongheaded, anti-U.S. and foolish as the U.N. is, unless we can shoot that tiger in the head first, we oughtn't let go of its tail! :scrutiny: :scrutiny:

[NonServiam]

I gotta say guys, the world obviously looks a lot different when seen from a small country on the fringe of the world compared to from the undisputed superpower of the day. "Might is right" sounds ok when your might is that of the United States, but not when living in a country of 4.5 mill outside of the EU. Even with all the silly stuff going on there (the I.A.N.S.A. being only one), I still view the UN as a worthwhile endevour.

[telewinz]

The UN like the League of Nations is/was a good concept but has become "dated" and idealistic. Where else could a small, unknown country be empowered to dictate to the US or any other world power what our policy should be? I did not elect or inpower any UN figure to govern over me. The Constitution does not even mention the UN hence where is the UN's power to rule? It's just like poker, if you don't have the money (military mght)you can't play, "good" ideas are not enough you have to be able to carry a share of the burden.

[igor]

pipsqueak nations (...), which put their government's interests ahead of all other nations in the same way the USSR did during the CW.

Blackhawk, you only need to adjust the word "government's" to something like "the administration's hidden interest groups' " and you've elegantly defined the US as a ... what? :what:

[publius]

The longer we stay, the more powerful this particular tiger grows. We've got to jump off and fight him now, before it gets harder.

The argument here for staying reminds me of the argument for voting Republican: the beast is too powerful, and we can't risk letting those other guys control it. Instead, we must be the ones to feed it and make it more powerful, so that only we may have that control.

The very idea of slaying the beast gets lost in the discussion.

I'll just keep voting Libertarian and advocating that we get out of that anti-American organization, declare it to be hostile, and bring every bit of power we can to bear on friends and enemies alike to join us in departure. They can make things nasty for us? Let's just see who has by far the biggest economy and military in the world, and whether or not we can use those things to persuade a few folks, shall we?

edit for further reading:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20030312.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/11/110420.shtml
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030312-928839.htm
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20030313.shtml

[XLMiguel]

I agree with Mike's basic premise. We need to be there to protect our interests and to keep an eye on the rest of of them (as they're easier to watch when they're all in one place:D ).

I liked Chris Mattews idea of making them relocate to the new WTC when it's finished - it might help keep them focused, let them know what it's like to be in the target zone, and provide a tangible reminder of why they all need to work harder.

[twoblink]

Without the US, I think the League of Nations...er... the UN would fall flat on its face.

[Mike Irwin]

"Without the US, the UN would fall flat on its face."

You HOPE.

I HOPE that there's never another terrorist attack on American soil.

But in both cases, I'm not willing to just hope for something with the expectation that it might come to pass.

As I've repeatedly stated, I have no illusions about the overall necessity of the United States in the ultimate survival of the United Nations. The United Nations would survive -- very likely in a severely altered form -- but nations such as France, Germany, and other pluralist nations would make concerted efforts to fill the void left by the United States.

And has anyone ever stopped to think about the reaction of not our enemies, but our friends, were the United States to unilaterally withdraw from the UN?

With the US pulling out, it would send a very clear message that the US is no longer interested in working with the world community at all.

Many of the ties that have kept us associated with these nations on a political level since the creation of the United Nations would be severed, allowing those nations to worry less about the overall view of the United States and more about the views of their own national and international communities.


Publis,

"The longer we stay, the more powerful this particular tiger grows."

Oh?

With a veto vote in the Security Council, the United States can control the growth of the tiger.

Without a veto vote, the US loses all controls over its growth, and any say in its direction. That, in and of itself, is one of the most compelling reasons for staying IN the UN.

You think the UN is powerful now, even after the rift on Iraq that has many international theorists stating that it's going to take the UN years to recover?

[publius]

I'm far from an isolationist. It's true that many of the things that are currently done through the UN would still need doing, especially as regards our friends and allies. I just think it could and should be done in a context that doesn't elevate the likes of Libya to oversee the world's human rights situation.Much like W's "coalition of the willing," we reinvent the framework. The UN has as much legitimacy as the governments which comprise it, and that isn't much. We need to undermine the UN by stopping the funding, stopping the charade that France is still more important than India or Indonesia, and forming new organizations, making new deals.

We can exclude the Mugabes of the world. Maybe the remnants of the UN will include him. Big deal. Whose club would you want to join?

[Blackhawk]

Igor wrote:Blackhawk, you only need to adjust the word "government's" to something like "the administration's hidden interest groups' " and you've elegantly defined the US as a ... what? Exactly right, Igor! :D

However, you don't need to adjust anything in what I said for it to fit the U.S.

No Security Council member can cause the UN to do anything, but each can prevent the UN from acting.

In effect, SC members' veto power just makes them able to maintain the world power distribution they agree on.

If the UN decides to make Finland into a theme park, why can't Finland veto that? Point is that the power structure of the UN is untenable because it attempts to be some sort of democracy (as in 1 member = 1 vote) even though we all know not all members are equal. Should Finland's 4.5 million people through their one vote be able to tell China's billion+ people how to eat the cabbage?

As a debating society, the UN idea is okay, but giving it military power is foolish.

It may be unpalatable, but might has ruled the world from the beginning, and that's not going to change. The value of the UN as a debating society is that the powerful countries are entreatable by the weak ones.

To start at the totally asinine Treaty of Versailles that virtually guaranteed WWII, a few wise voices would have pointed out the folly of what was imposed on Germany. Unilaterally, the U.S. (due to the influence of General Marshall, inter alia) acted to ensure that western Europe had a viable peace following WWII. If that was under the UN, how many of those semenal events would have been vetoed by the USSR?

[Quartus]

There's an old saying that applies:


Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.



Until there is enough understanding and resolve here at home to thoroughly KILL the beast, we'd better be holding the reins.


That is your position Mike?


Makes sense to me, as much as I dislike it.

[Poodleshooter]

You're ignoring the precedent that will be set today.
If the United States defies the UN and invades Iraq (which we will), what keeps other nations from acting outside of the UN? Nothing.
The point of this is to ask what purpose the UN serves if it can't enforce it's own rules. For example, if several countries ally with one another to fight a US that has left the UN, they will do so even if the UN Security Council votes against taking action. Make no mistake, countries still maintain their own soverignty, even in UN actions. Countries never participate in UN military action just because of "UN obligations". They do so because they have a "dog in the fight"-it is in the interests of their national sovereignty. This idea that if we were to leave the UN, countries who are current allies would suddenly reverse course and follow a UN united against us is ridiculous. Those countries who found it in their better interests not to oppose us would continue to do so regardless of our UN membership.
The points made here in support of maintaining a UN presence assume that the UN would be the sole exerciser of force in a post US-United Nations. That simply isn't true. If nations conspire against us, we will face the exact same enemies whether we are in the UN or not.
Getting out of the UN will not result in any changes for the US so long as we remain a superpower. It's sole purpose is to aid lesser powers and provide nation states with a "moral judge" of international law.

[Mike Irwin]

"I just think it could and should be done in a context that
doesn't elevate the likes of Libya to oversee the world's human rights situation."

And a US unilateral withdrawal from the UN would further the goal of preventing states such as Libya from things like this.... how?


"The UN has as much legitimacy as the governments which comprise it, and that isn't much."

Not much and none are completely different things. Obviously we view the legitimacy of the UN as something less than spectacular.

But once again, we're not the only player here. In the rest of the world, including other nations that sit on the Security Council, it's painfully clear that the UN is seen to have significant legitimacy in international affairs.

That's much of what the entire Iraqi dispute has revolved around, whether or not the UN needed to provide a stamp of approval to a final force mandate.

Those nations that claim UN approval is necessary are stating in no uncertain terms that they believe that the UN is relevant and legitimate to world affairs.

We may be the biggest and the strongest player in this business, but we're not the only player, by far.

For far too long the United States has seen itself as being absolutely indespensible to the UN and the world at large.

As I've continually stated, that's a dangerous, and short-sighted view.

The United States is not indespensible in this world, and to believe, and act, in a manner that we are by withdrawing from the UN would serve only to increase the strength of our adversaries.

The United States has often acted as the check valve against the most insane of UN proposals.

To give up that check valve is not short sighted, it's stupid, and counter to American security interests.

[Mike Irwin]

"If the United States defies the UN and invades Iraq (which we will), what keeps other nations from acting outside of the UN? Nothing."

Uh, excuse me, but an American invasion of Iraq will NOT be in defiance of the UN.

No proposal for the use of force was ever presented or voted in the Security Council.

The United States and Britain has claimed authority to act militarily under three previous proposals that WERE adopted by the UN Security Council.

As for what will keep other nations from acting outside of the UN?

Has that ever stopped a truly determined nation before?

Iraq acted outside of the UN when it invaded Kuwait in 1990.

It was through expert use of diplomacy that George Bush was able to assemble a coalition with UN blessing that forced Iraqi troops out of Kuwait.


"The points made here in support of maintaining a UN presence assume that the UN would be the sole exerciser of force in a post US-United Nations."

Absolutely FALSE.

If you go back to my original messages, you'll note that my initial concers focus more on economic issues than on military issues.

A world-wide economic sanction against the United States is too great a possibility to risk simply for the small amount of personal gratification that withdrawal from the UN would give some people in the United States.

Don't think that's possible? Consider the prevailing international mood against the United States right now.

With the United States gone from the Security Council, there would currently be 3 likely votes in favor of economic sanctions -- China, France, and Russia.

With it's strongest ally having deserted the UN, Britain looses a great deal of compunction in remaining America's strongest ally, and a change in government in Britain could easily tip that balance from pro to anti-American.

With no United States on the Security Council, no veto is registered. The non-permanent nations in the security council may or may not be friendly to the United States and its aims, but that doesn't matter. You just need the 4 permanent members and an overall majority.

Say, for example, that the non-permanent members include: Indonesia, Egypt, Jordan, Kenya, and Sudan.

What? Whoops! Hey, that's a majority.

Guess what, the United States is now facing world-wide economic sanctions.

Yes, other nations are hurt during the levying of sanctions. But those sanctions are spread out among many members. The recipient of sanctions, on the other hand? Care to think what economic life in the United States would be like if that happened?

[Mike Irwin]

"If that was under the UN, how many of those semenal events would have been vetoed by the USSR?"

Actually, none.

The United States never would have taken the Marshall plan to the United Nations in this time frame.

Why?

Because it was directed predominantly at areas controlled militarily by the United States in the post war era.

The Marshall Plan was offered to the Soviet Union on behalf of those nations under Soviet control, but was rejected out of hand.

[publius]

Uh, Mike, I don't want to ditch the UN just for a "small amout of personal gratification" any more than you want to remain just to empower tinpot dictators. The fact that those may be the effects of the actions we advocate is notwithstanding. ;)

And a US unilateral withdrawal from the UN would further the goal of preventing states such as Libya from things like this.... how?

It would acknowledge that that's what the UN is going to do, with or without us, as evidenced by reality right now, and it would serve the goal of making fewer people care what the UN did.

I should have answered a previous question of yours: yes, the UN is less powerful now, as a result of our confrontation with them, and our ultimate decision to ignore what the SC wants (what they want now, not what they said they wanted when they signed 1441). I'm very happy about that. Ignoring them a little made them less powerful. Ignoring them a lot would do an even better job. :D

[Poodleshooter]

Uh, excuse me, but an American invasion of Iraq will NOT be in defiance of the UN.
The fact remains that the UN has NOT authorized force and has specifically told the United States not to initiate force. Realize that these UN resolutions are like the wind, the UN changes them at a whim. The fact that the Britain pressed for a resolution authorizing action at this time is clear proof that even our side doesn't believe that the rest of UN is for this.

No proposal for the use of force was ever presented or voted in the Security Council.
That's because they knew it wouldn't pass. The fact that France, Russia and China vetoed it in the UN building's foyer, instead of the Security Council's chambers is moot.
The United States and Britain has claimed authority to act militarily under three previous proposals that WERE adopted by the UN Security Council.
Yes, but the UN has changed it's position. The UN resolutions aren't immutable, but fickle whims. History shows this to be true.

Has that ever stopped a truly determined nation before? Exactly my point. The UN is useless for actually preventing wars. At best, it is only as strong as the sovereign decisions of it's member states with large militaries.

A world-wide economic sanction against the United States is too great a possibility to risk simply for the small amount of personal gratification that withdrawal from the UN would give some people in the United States.
Granted, I did ignore your economic point. I just don't see an economic boycott of the United States as practical, or economically desirable for any large group of nations in the world. I am considering the mood of the world, but I'm also considering how irrelevant it is to buying decisions in a world in which most corporations are multinational or global. What are they going to do, boycott GM? That's going to suck for GM employees all over the world, isn't it? My point is that the citizens of the world won't sacrifice the goodies they can get from American companies for some vague feeling of dislike towards the US. I feel that the UN is just as powerless in creating economic sanctions as it is in mustering military force. Passing a resolution would result in several large foreign countries levying embargos against us. Followed of course by many more countries ignoring the UN in favor of their own common good.

[publius]

Passing a resolution would result in several large foreign countries levying embargos against us. Followed of course by many more countries ignoring the UN in favor of their own common good.

Mmmmm. My favorite breakfast:

EGGS ACKLEE!

[Blackhawk]

The fact remains that the UN has NOT authorized force and has specifically told the United States not to initiate force.
You've just proven Mike's whole point! :neener:

Your "fact" is not true. The UN can only authorize or withdraw previous authorizations for action through the Security Council. The U.S. would have vetoed any such thing. :neener:

[Blackhawk]

"If that was under the UN, how many of those semenal events would have been vetoed by the USSR?"

Actually, none.

The United States never would have taken the Marshall plan to the United Nations in this time frame.

Mike, you are just no fun to play revisionist hypotheticals with because you only "revise" one historical facet at a time. :D

Given that the UN wants to be in the middle of any nation meddling in the affairs of any other nation as a "Super Government," those adhering to the UN Charter would have insisted that oh-so-many things the U.S. did should have gone through the UN.

The USSR didn't veto what we did because we never gave the UN a chance to be in the loops. Now, and prospectively, the UN wants to be in a meddling position across the board.

I was just transporting the present day UN back to 1945 for discussion purposes.

[Poodleshooter]

You've just proven Mike's whole point!
Hardly
Your "fact" is not true. The UN can only authorize or withdraw previous authorizations for action through the Security Council. The U.S. would have vetoed any such thing.
You're thinking of the UN as if it was a solid organization bound by rules that it followed explicitly. In reality, it's a waffling organization that changes with the wind. If the UN member nations "decide" out of the chamber, that the US should not attack, what difference does it make if the issue never comes to a vote? You're arguing about legitimacy for the actions of a body with no ability in and of itself to act upon its wishes. My point is that there is no functional difference between a vote in the Security Council, and the decisions made by the member nations of the Security Council outside of the UN.
Let me make this simple: The UN can only act if it's member nations wish to act.
The member nations can act on their own, or in alliances, regardless of the UN's existence. The sum total of their actions is identical, regardless of the UN's existence. Therefore, what is the point of staying in the UN if it brings no greater benefit, other than a ridiculous "legitimacy" that has no force behind it?

[Blackhawk]

Poodleshooter, I agree with what you said last. But your "fact" is still not true. The UN has not specifically told the U.S. not to initiate force. That requires a resolution, which the U.S. would have vetoed.

Some UN members have whined, intimated, threatened, and had all kinds of hissies toward that end, but the UN itself has not told the U.S. any such thing. France, Germany, and Russia are not THE UN, and, AFAIK, they never even suggested a resolution telling the U.S. to back off.

At least the U.S., Britain, and Spain suggested a clarifying resolution to 1441, which was never submitted for a vote.

Toying with those turkeys was a vain but noble effort to let the UN legitimatize itself. Instead, the UN and its cast of feckless windbags from Kofi to Hans showed they're much more suited to talking than acting.

Mike's point is that if there is to be a malignant tumor on the earth like the UN, the U.S. needs a veto. He's right, and you did prove his point. :neener:

[telewinz]

The UN was "suckered" by the US into voting for 1441. If permission to wage war was intended, it would have been spelled out....as in any legal document! If resolution 1441 is not understood correctly then under US law their was "no meeting of the minds" and it would not be considered a binding contract. Problem is what court of any merit/worth could or would enforce a ruling against either party? This situation is why the UN is a joke, World opinion has its limits, and who really cares what a second or third country feels. Its what you bring to the table that determines if you will be taken seriously.

[publius]

Mike's point is that if there is to be a malignant tumor on the earth like the UN, the U.S. needs a veto. He's right, and you did prove his point.

That's one expensive veto, and i'm not just talking about the billion$ we give them to promote socialism around the world. It's morally expensive as well. When an organization like the UN expects a campaign of genocide against civilians, and puts in place "peacekeepers" (who are nothing of the kind, they're not even peaceseekers) and the soldiers are ordered to just let the genocide happen without intervention that's reprehensible. That's also a pretty good description of some recent UN "interventions."

By staying in (and funding) an organization like that, we agree with and legitimize their actions. We've got a veto. We can veto the whole darn UN if we really want to just by quitting. As PS pointed out, those who are our friends (or enemies) would continue to be, and for the same reasons as they had before.

[publius]

God Bless Dr. Ron Paul, the only Congresscritter who deserves his job.

Time To Renounce the UN (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst031703.htm)?

And Henry Lamb, a tireless advocate for American rights and American sovereignty.

Undoing the UN (http://www.WorldNetDaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31669)

[Blackhawk]

By staying in (and funding) an organization like that, we agree with and legitimize their actions. We've got a veto. True, but we need to SHUT DOWN the UN before we leave it. We can't leave it viable as an organization without having a veto. We screwed up letting any nation except viable WWII Allies have a veto when it was organized. We also screwed up letting China have "Formosa's" seat and veto. We're paying for our mistakes whent he UN was organized.
We can veto the whole darn UN if we really want to just by quitting.Believe you're wrong about that. Germany, France, and some other wannabe nations CAN fund it and bask in the worldwide respect (go figure!) the UN has. Since the US pays willingly, those nations aren't eager to refuse to accept our money.

The UN needs to die, but we can't quit. The question is, how do we kill it? At the least, we need to get it out of the military meddling and world government pretender business.

[Mike Irwin]

Publis,

Disuade yourself of one thing...

There's no morality in politics. None.

There's even less morality in international politics.

This isn't a question of morality.

It's a question of ensuring that the United States doesn't stupidly leverage itself into a corner it can't get out of.

[publius]

1/4 of the UN's bills are paid by U Know Who. Actually, it's probably much more, since that's what they admit to.

Germany and France are going to make that up? Oooooo. Scary.

People are going to be so pissed that we quit their stupid debating society that they cut off their own noses to spite their faces? Ooooo. Scarier.

Look at the bright side: most people aren't that stupid, so the commerce would continue, but it would be in the black market. No taxes! YAY! ;)

Hey, without all that tax money, how are Germany and France going to pay our UN bills anyway? :D

edit: Oh, and Mike, nice dodge, but actions do have a moral dimension, whether you like it or not. When we support an organization which thinks genocide is OK, but capitalism isn't, that's immoral even if we're doing it so we can more easily buy stinky cheese from our former friends across the pond.:banghead:

[publius]

It's not just for extremists any more! :D

Here, former UN bureaucrat Linda Chavez agrees that it's time to leave (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/chavez.html).

[Coronach]

IMO, the best statement thus far:But I agree with Mike's basic premise. We can't just pull out gracefully and leave that beast roaming. We either have to ride it or kill it.Dead on. Right now we're riding it. Simply hopping off is not going to kill it.

Oh? We won't be footing our portion of the bill? Uhm...how far behind were we before? The shortfall caused by our non-participation will certainly hurt the UN, but I doubt it will kill it.

A wise man once said that when you grab a bull by the horns, you need to have a plan for letting go. Well, right now we have the UN by the horns. We can use them as useful tools when we wish to, and ignore them when they get all uppity. They have no teeth whatsoever, since we can flat-out veto any attempt to use force. But as soon as we let go, we run the risk of being gored.

Stay on the bull, and ride it until it dies. Of couse, we make sure we steer it into every wall we can along the way to hasten its demise. ;)

Mike

[publius]

Most people would consider losing 1/4 of their household income to be pretty disastrous. But the real disaster for the UN that I'm advocating is that we withdraw all of our support. I do not mean our financial support, though that's a big part. I mean our membership. I mean our attention. I mean our legitimacy.

As I said before, we ignored them a little in Iraq, and look what's happened. Both sides of the debate in this thread agree: they've become less powerful and look less legitimate. When Bush told them where to shove the Kyoto scam, they became less powerful, looked less legitimate. We should just make it clear that they are the enemy. They are not us, they don't like us, they fight us with our own money, and our presence in the battle lends them legitimacy. We need to just not show up, and make it clear to our friends that we don't like it if they show up. They're a farce now. Imagine the farce they will be revealed to be without our money and the patina of legitimacy that comes from the membership of the USA.

[Coronach]

I disagree, kinda/sorta.

If we pull out and start doing our own thing, yes, they lose beaucoup money, but it provides a venue where France, Russia, China et al can act without fear of our influence or ultimate check. You think the UN is insufferable now, when we can influence the outcome of the debate? Wait until we cannot. This directly sets up an us-vs-them situation.

Now, that said, I'm not saying that we just merrily play along with the whole ghastly farce in the General Assembly and the Security Council. Oh, no no no no. I say we show up, oppose things that need opposing (read: most of the stuff the UN does), thow France-like tantrums at the slightest provocation, and generally turn ourselves into the high-maintenance girlfriend of the United Nations, to the extent that we absolutely paralyze the organization when they are being stupid, and kick, drag, cajole and intimidate them into doing the right thing when we need them to do stuff for us. And, naturally, doing whatever the heck we want if they decide not to stay with the program.

Basically, we need to stay with the organization but completely abandon any pretense of cooperation on things that are not in our interest. And, naturally, we need to keep the Leftists out of office in our own country.

Mike

[Mike Irwin]

"Most people would consider losing 1/4 of their household income to be pretty disastrous."

Right there's the huge problem with your analogy, Publis.

It's few, if any, families that have 100 or so wage earners contributing to the equasion.

You and others have failed to take into account that fact.

The United States is the largest contributor for one reason -- everyone expects us to be.

It's not a question of necessity, it's a question of other nations getting the free ride.

You've also failed to take into account that if you split up the United States' contributions among the world's next richest nations, say Japan, Germany, France, China, Britain, and some of the smaller ones, the cumulative dues of the rest of the nations that comprise the United Nations don't go up by very much at all.

People here seem to think that the United States is the only wealthy nation in a world of pauper nations.

It's not.

If push came to shove and the United States decided to abandon the UN, it's pretty clear that the other nations of the world wouldn't let the body simply dissolve through financial need.

It's also pretty short-sighted of those in the United States to believe that our contributions are so absolutely necessary to the operations of the UN that a US withdrawal would precipitate an immediate collapse.

Don't, for a moment, underestimate the rest of the world's ability to pay for the United Nations out of their own funds, the ability of the United Nations itself to reduce operations to conserve funds if the going gets really tough, or most importantly, the rest of the world's view that the United Nations is a vital part of the world's proper functioning.

As for the "withdrawal of our legitimacy..."

Que?

If we withdraw our "legitimacy," read our "veto vote on the Security Council," it will in fact be the United States that loses legitimacy of action in the ability to block UN actions that are contrary to our national interests.

I've explained it to you every which way I can, but essentially if the US withdraws, it immediately becomes a case of "Us vs. Them."

But with them having the recognized legitimacy of the UN behind them, it's much easier to take sanctionary actions against US actions.

In essence, the United States becomes the rogue nation that operates COMPLETELY outside the fringes of international law and proprietary.

From there it would be a very short, and very easy, step for the United Nations to adopt punative sanctions against the United States.

Why can't people see that?

It baffles me as to why people insist on believing that the United States is so financially indespensible, so functionally critical, and imbues such moral righteousness to the UN that it would immediately implode if this country were to withdraw.

Leaders in France, China, etc., go to bed every night PRAYING that the United States withdraws from the United Nations.

But until the time that this country decides to commit self-international-marginalization, those nations are perfectly willing to allow the United States to kick in roughly 25% of the total UN operations budget.

[publius]

I've explained it to you every which way I can, but essentially if the US withdraws, it immediately becomes a case of "Us vs. Them."



Becomes? It already IS!! Except it's worse than that. It's Us vs Us and Them!

We're helping them gang up on us! If they're going to do it anyway, they should do it without our help.

[publius]

Mike, why do you believe the League of Nations did not succeed? Many say it was because the rest of the world said, if they're not going to bother (meaning the USA), why should we? I say that. What say you?

[Mauserlady]

Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:20 p.m. EST

'U.S. out of U.N.' Movement Gains Momentum

WASHINGTON - The United Nations, which has been infringing on American sovereignty for years while relying on America as its biggest cash cow, may now find that America won’t take it anymore.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has reintroduced his legislation effectively telling that tower of Babel on the East River, "Adios, you’re out of here, and take your Marxist goo-goos with you."

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2003/4/2/222034

[seeker_two]

I wouldn't mind if we maintained a representative in the UN, but in NO WAY should we give support financially or diplomatically (i.e. the UN building in NYC).

I say we give them 30 days to vacate the premises. Any UN representative still on American soil after that time will have their diplomatic immunity status revoked and will be arrested (except for our coalition allies, of course...;) )

Then we should take the money we spend on the UN and use it to help Iraq & the coalition allies to strengthen their economies to where they become countries to be reckoned with by the naysayers...:evil:

[Stillwater]

I am one of the ones, that would do almost anything to get the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the United States.

The first step I would take would to have the United States contributions, be on par with all other nations contributions. All nations contributions, would have to have be on parity, with all other nations contributions.

I would stop having the US, be Uncle Sugar all over the world. I would support out friends, such as the UK, and those like the UK, and to hell with the others.

Bill