[PATH]

Should the US get out of the UN? What is your opinion?

[DeltaElite]

Out, it is as useless as "The League of Nations" was.

[MitchSchaft]

http://www.getusout.com/

[rock jock]

If we leave, we lose a forum for making our case for freedom in the world and reducing the threat of terrorism. We should stay, but continue to make it clear that our sovereignty is not trumped by UN dictates.

[hondo68]

http://www.jpfo.org/un-annan.jpg

[2nd Amendment]

Get out now. Sell the New York real estate for something useful.

We're already showing our sovereignty is trumped by this foot dragging over getting UN support and "consensus". We don't need them, they do need us. They need to figure that out and the best way is to leave them on their own and act in our own best interests as we see fit.

[The Silver Bullet 1719]

I would like to see us leave, and let our "allies" fend for theirselves in the future if they won't help us with Iraq.

[Stephen Ewing]

This may be a little too Clausewitzian, but ISTM that we don't so much achieve our goals in the UN as help other nations achieve theirs.

Out.

Steve

[Hkmp5sd]

Get out. And while we are at it, drop NATO also. Let our so-called "allies" handle Europe themselves.

[Airwolf]

http://flymeaway.net/images/UN%20Logo.jpg

http://flymeaway.net/images/s_redcoats.jpg

Let them go set up shop somewhere else and do it without our dollars. They wouldn't last a year.

[MitchSchaft]

http://home.midsouth.rr.com/schaftlfam/pics/Misc/s_warningtoevil.jpg

[Joe Gunns]

I think the UN is a waste of tax dollars and a standing threat to individual liberty around the world!

IMHO Bush is going the extra 6.8 miles with the UN for two reasons:

1. To defang criticism from the sheeple and their Democratic handlers here at home who, while timid in dealing with life's realities, are bold about stomping their little hoofs in public and bleating incessantly in the press about their dimly understood but strongly held opinions.

2. Perhaps to clearly demonstrate the inadequacy of the United Ninnys in meeting serious world crises. Thereafter having adequate political support to at least steer a separate US course, and perhaps get enough leverage with major players to reform it into an effective instrument of benevolent US policy. Every iron fist can use a velvet glove. If we are gonna be Boss of the World, a compliant UN can be a useful tool.

However, while me may choose to ignore it, I seriously doubt that the prez or the Congress will ever move to pull US out compelely. Too bad.

[geekWithA.45]

Time to disassemble it.

The world will still need a venue for airing grievances, but the UN has lost whatever worthiness it may have had.

[DadOfThree]

Get out now! The UN is finding out that it is about as adept as the League of Nations in controlling the actions of rogue countries. The UN just uses the US ecomony to fund its global objectives while criticizing the US for not doing enough.

[jmbg29]

OUT!:fire: :cuss: :cuss: :fire:

[Khornet]

"keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

I'd love for the US to give the middle digit to the UN, but for now I think it's smart to keep an eye on them.

[Greg L]

Stay in to keep an eye on the twits, but do like most every other country and not fund it.

Greg

[NeverAgain26]

I say out...

.... and take the few friends we do have there and set up a new club...

NA26

[Viking6]

If we did leave the UN, where would they go? I know, who cares?! But just as something to ponder, I wonder if any nation would jockey for the right to host that "august" body.

[MitchSchaft]

They wouldn't go very far without funding from the U.S.

[Waitone]

I say stay in. . . . .with a few changes.

--Dues are strictly proportional to membership. None of this crap of paying fair share.

--Vacate NY property and relocate UN HQ to the Sudan.

Suits me to talk, if that's all that is done.

[MikeK]

Either the U.S. runs the whole organization as a begnign dictator or we get out!

[billfrommich]

I think the time has come to leave the UN, actually I have thought that for quite a few years.

[Hkmp5sd]

Nah, move the UN building to Bagdad. Then the whiners may really care about what Saddam says and does.

[AR-10]

Out.

[Chipper]

Withdraw from the UN. Throw it out of the US. Maybe Robert Mugabe should play host. Tear up all treaties related to the UN. Eliminate all UN heritage sites in the US. Eliminate all UN Biosphere sites in the US. Eliminate any and all other tentacles of UN control or connection in the US. Bring all US troops and materiel back to our shores. Dissolve NATO.

Chipper

[one-shot-one]

:fire: get the us out of the un an the un out of the us. now!:scrutiny:

[suvdrvr]

Get Out Yesterday!!!!! They want all small arms confiscated and destroyed! The new leader of the Human Rights is Lybia, the new leader of disarmament is Iraq, thats what I heard on the radio today, and it's nuts enough to be true.

[Sean Smith]

Why would we leave? What is the payoff? We ignore them all the time anyway.

[Standing Wolf]

Out!

[Col. Mustard]

Why would we leave? What is the payoff? We ignore them all the time anyway.

We pay about 25% of their budget. The money could be better spent.

Out.

[Bainx]

Boy, for once there is nothing I can add.
You guys have covered my opinion quite adequately.

[Cal4D4]

Since we are the current reigning world authority, it may be a good idea to keep the UN as a sort of world "complaint department". Let them resolve, debate, pontificate and posture. Don't arm them. Let them examine human rights, global warming and give the alarm when members of their humanitarian wing mass murder their subjects. No real say in world politics anyway. Don't send your sons, daughters or dollars to them. Don't let them operate under our color of authority ever.

[Matthew Courtney]

We need to stay in, not for what they do for us, but to prevent what they could do to us. We need to keep our veto on the security council. We need to reduce our dues by 95%.

[Sean Smith]

Why worry about the dues? We blow off paying them all the time anyway.

[Travis McGee]

OUT!

My bumper sticker idea:

UNamericans put the UN before America!

[Hkmp5sd]

During the Clinton years, 1996-2001, the GAO reports the US directly contributed $3.45 Billion and had indirect contributions of $24.2 Billion.

Of this, $21.8 Billion was for US Military operations and services. This accounts for military personnel and equipment that was transfered from the Pentagon and used by the UN.

Another $5.1 Billion in indirect contributions as "US programs and activities that are located in the same area as an ongoing UN peacekeeping operation, have objectives that help the peacekeeping operation achieve its mandated objectives, and are not an official part of the UN operation."

The UN used to assess the US share of total peacekeeping operations at 30%. In 1994, Congress limited the amount the US could pay to 25% of peacekeeping costs, beginning in 1996.

The UN decided to keep "charging" the US at the 30%. In 2000, the UN was nice enough to lower that rate to 27%.

So not only does the UN "charge" us more than we are willing to officially contribute, they also do not account for all of the actual money we DO contribute and include that in paying our "bill".

[cratz2]

I hate to sound uneducated but in what way, exacly, have we benefitted from our membership? Or the fact that it even exists?

How differently would our history have been if the United Nations was never formed?

It just seems like pretty much a one way street to me. And one way streets are dead ends.

[Cal4D4]

If Hkmp5sd's numbers are dependable that means an average expenditure to arm and administrate the UN to the tune of $5.5 Billion per year. What is the military budget of France or Germany in comparison. Just curious.

[Tom C.]

Withdraw from General Assembly. Maintain observer status only.

Retain seat on Security Council and keep veto.

No longer pay to support anything.

Ask them to leave NY. How about Sudan?

[BenW]

We need to stay in, not for what they do for us, but to prevent what they could do to us.
My first reaction to the above was, "What the hell could the UN do to us?? What spineless president would let them dictate ANY terms to us? Then I remembered how close the last election was and what spineless wanna-be almost won.

I'm all for leaving it, but there would have to be documentation to keep some future president / congress from putting us back in the UN as we know it, or paying any kind of extortion to them.

[CoolBreeze]

1) Stay in the UN. (Keeping your enemies closer....)
2) Maintain our monetary contribution of 25% of the 1998
UN budet. Without adjusting for inflation or budget increases!!
3) Offset our direct annual payments by any in-kind costs to the US, such as utilizing US troops or equipment in support of UN operations.
4) Spend $5-10 billion dollars to build a new UN HQs reservation" on 30,000 acres of well fenced-in federal land upper NE Maine.
This new UN reservation would include:
a) A beautiful new HQ bldg. twice the size of the current one.
b) Beautiful new town with all the things a really nice town
has except bars. To include new modern schools. With
professional management provided by our Homeland
Security Agency via an American Contractor.
c) Beautiful new medical complex,with all staff and operating
costs paid for by the other UN member nations.
d) All the power and water they want to pay for.
e) The most modern sewage and waste/trash systems.
f) Diplomatic compound for each country (10 acres each).
g) The telecommunications /Internet services provided by the
Homeland Security Agency, at highly competive rates.
h) Only one main road in and out.
i) The best parementer security that our Homeland Defense
Agency can provide.
j) Modern Internation airport located just outside and next
to a new Air Force base.
k) US Customs and airport security provided by the new TSA.
l) Any other ideas.....

[JPM70535]

Get Out, no I chan ged my mind, throw the UN out. That bunch of clowns couldn't make a decision as to what time of day it is withput calling a meeting of all the watchmakers in Switzerland and then having their opinions verified by a sun dial.

If I had my way the US would rebert to strict isolationist policies, look out for our own interests and let the rest of the world look out for theirs

As an afterthought, if this policy was instituted in about 20 tears give or take a few, we could come out of our holes and pretty much relax, because IMO the rest of the world would have gone to hell without the U.S. to hold their hands.

[2dogs]

More than enough reason to get out, and get them out.




Marching toward oblivion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 1, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


The League of Nations withered on the vine when the United States refused to join the world government. It is time for the U.N. to follow its predecessor into oblivion. This will happen when the United States finally recognizes that the U.N. has become the breeding ground of hate for American values, and pulls the financial plug.

The most avid supporters of the U.N. must now take another – realistic -- look at this institution. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights has elected Libya as its chair. If that doesn't frost your apples, how about this: Iraq will chair the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. Next, we'll hear that Osama bin Laden has been named to head the U.N.'s anti-terror commission.

The nation that for 12 years, has thumbed its nose at U.N. demands to disarm, will now set the agenda for U.N. disarmament talks. Libya, the nation near the top of every list of human-rights violators, will set the agenda for U.N. human-rights programs.

The Human Rights Commission was prepared to elect Libya by acclamation, but the U.S. insisted on a vote to see where the chips fell. Thirty-three nations voted for Libya; Canada and Guatemala joined the U.S.'s "no" vote; and 17 European nations abstained. This vote speaks volumes about the attitude of our so-called "allies" in Europe.

The European nations that condone this U.N. bureaucratic nonsense are among the same nations that have refused to stand up to Saddam Hussein for the last 12 years. Not only are they unwilling to take a stand now, they bad-mouth the United States, and its president, for not submitting to the "international will."

The anti-American attitude, so flagrantly displayed by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, and in the U.N. Security Council, permeates the entire United Nations organization. I've seen it at U.N. meetings in Bonn, in Geneva, in Buenos Aires, in Kyoto and in The Hague. At every U.N. meeting I've ever attended, there is a constant drumbeat of anti-American sentiment.

Despite this anti-American attitude, the U.N. has the audacity to ask the United States for a $1.3 billion interest-free loan to refurbish its New York headquarters. The only money that goes to the U.N. should be to purchase the property, and send the U.N. packing.

There are two ways the U.S. can change this growing anti-American attitude. The shortest route, would be to acquiesce to global governance, and submit to the international scheme to transform the world into a socialist utopia, administered by the United Nations. The rest of the world would love us – instantly. The U.S. would finally be under the control of the U.N.

The other way is to immediately withdraw from the U.N. – lock, stock and barrel. The howls and screams would dominate the international media – and the liberal U.S. press – for a while. For a short while. Individually, outside the U.N. stable, most nations would scramble to establish a relationship with the U.S.

America's strength and prosperity arises from the principles of freedom on which the nation was founded. These same principles offer the same result to all nations that will embrace them. The United States should stop apologizing for our success – and stop compromising the principles of freedom in order to appease the international community. America should assert those principles, in domestic policy, and most definitely, in international policy.

The United Nations has but one, overarching goal: to become the center of global governance through which its socialist philosophy will impose "sustainable development" – the equitable distribution of the earth's resources. What the world needs is not sustainable development, but sustainable freedom. U.S. withdrawal from the U.N. would be a major step in the right direction.

Capitalism cannot survive in a "sustainable" world, nor can individual freedom. Capitalism is the source of evil, according to many U.N. supporters. Individual freedom is characterized as a license to pollute, according to many U.N. supporters. National sovereignty is an obsolete idea held only by xenophobes – according to many U.N. supporters.

Individual freedom, free markets and national sovereignty are the bricks and mortar of the greatest nation the world has ever known. The United Nations is working to replace these values with government control of the economy – and the environment – by controlling every facet of human behavior.

Every dime we give to the U.N. advances the cause of global governance. When we withdraw our support, and stop paying their bills, the U.N. will fade into oblivion, just like the League of Nations.




http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30814

[Waitone]

Every dime we give to the U.N. advances the cause of global governance. When we withdraw our support, and stop paying their bills, the U.N. will fade into oblivion, just like the League of Nations.. . . . .and that is the single best reason for packing up the UN and sending it off the the Sudan.

[jimpeel]

Out!

[Mr. James]

More than enough reason to get out, and get them out.

Absolutely. Give those leeches, socialists (I repeat myself), and one-worlders (again, a repetition) a week to pack and go home, then drive any stragglers into the East River at the point of a bayonet.

[Delmar]

then drive any stragglers into the East River at the point of a bayonet.
It would take a super fund to clean up the river if you do this-kind of like the Love canal being the new source of Evian drinking water. Hey wait-lets move them to the Love canal!

[BigG]

I agree with Khornet. Wise to keep an eye on the little rodents.

I think all should pay their own way, not the US pay for all the badmouthing we get from said rats, er diplomats. :rolleyes:

It could be they are following the old advice, give em enough rope and they'll hang themselves. At least we know who our enemies are.

[Ed N.]

It's best to keep all your nuts in one basket. If we withdraw, the UN will collapse. Therefore, in order to maintain a basket in which to contain the nuts, we should stay in.

We should, however, ignore the UN whenever it seeks to violate the rights of US citizens (arms control, World Court, etc.).

As near as I can tell, this seems to be exactly the approach the Bush administration is taking. I approve.

[atek3]

I think we should kick the UN out. Not give them a dime. Use their 'resolutions' as toilet paper if they conflict with private property, individual liberty, or the right to keep and bear arms (WHICH SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE FIRST TWO!)

atek3

[Feanaro]

Why back out when we can just make what is reality official? We (The US) become the only ones who get a vote since we do 90% of the work? Or what about changing it to the "U.S.N."? United State's Nations. :)

[Meow]

As much I dislike SOME of the UN members actions, I have to say that we should stay in. Please remember that the UN isn't France, Russia and all them, but also Estonia, and the like, which gave us important support such as letting our ships and aircraft through their country in exchange for mucho money;) The UN is made up of members, The United States of America is one, we still have a veto, and that gives us mucho control over what the UN does. I say stay.

[Waitone]

The UN is no longer a forum to air political differences. It is now an instrument of coersion designed to loot successful, western republican institutions. There is no longer a good and compeling reason for the US to maintain membership. We provide the bulk of its financial support and we are the target of its one world plans.

The UN want to believe it is an instrument of collective security. We now clearly see it as a hinderance to justifiable action. On the one had it spouts the words of human rights and on the other it sponsors the world's worst human rights abusers. Its hypocracy is breathtaking.

It is time for the UN to be dismantled and reformed in another forum. A place of meeting for countries that democratically elect republican forms of government. The price of admission is a government build around democratic ideals. Despots, tyrants and dictators need not apply.

The sooner we bust up the UN the better off a lot of oppressed people will be.

[Mike Irwin]

Stay in.

The United States holds a veto vote in the Security Council.

If we willingly give up that vote while the UN still sits, it would be child's play for the rest of the world to bring crushing sanctions against the US.

Think the UN would collapse the second the US pulled out?

Nice fantasy. The UN would restructure and out of necessity drop some programs, other nations would kick in more money, and the UN would continue on as it has, only without the US able to exert any influence on it what so ever.

China and India alone could handily replace the US' share of funding, and to think that China, especially, wouldn't?

France would also work very hard to ensure the continuity of the UN absent the US. Given stated French desires to act not in concert with the United States in world affairs, but largely contrary to the US, why should we give them an opening as huge as this?

I brought up this very topic some months ago.

Getting out of the UN seems like a lovely idea. But to unilaterally pull out would, in the long run, likely have devastating consequences economically and politically.

Face it folks. We may not like the UN, but we need to stay in the UN.

The possibly consequences of withdrawing could be very severe in the long term.

[Safety First]

Airwolf and Mitchshat, I especially like your posts... If the u.s. pulled out of the UN it would collapse unless the other countries ponied up $$$ to keep it running. Some others may know a little more detail than I do about the % other countries contribute to the cost of running the UN..But all I have ever heard is that we contribute by far the most $$ to the UN...and oh Lord,don't get me started on my France rant again....Well anyway my vote is get out and wait for them to beg for us to come back...Long Live the
U.S.A, not perfect but by far, but still the Best ( don't think so?, then what other country has more people immigrating to it than the U.S?)

[Coronach]

Stay in.

We gain nothing by pulling out. The organization will not collapse on its own, and we will lose the (powerful) influence we have within it, by dint of our veto in the security council. Oh, we save some money by not paying dues? We can, and should, stay in and still not pay them. What are they gonna do, demand them?

UN: "Pay us."

US: "No.

UN: ...

UN: "pay us."

US: "make us."

UN: ...

UN: "please?"

And so on. It should be pretty amusing.

Pulling out, OTOH, holds some pretty bad possibilities. Right now we have a stranglehold on the organization with our security council veto. They generally can't issue a resolution without our acquiescence anyway, but even if they could, they are just issuing empty proclaimations unless they have security council approval to use force to back them up. I'm not too keen on relaxing our grip around the monster's throat.

If we're not in the UN, however, there is the possibility of them become what the EU is trying to become now, a counterbalance to US power and influence. Now, I won't pretend that this will happen overnight, but it could happen over the course of years. Why should we allow that to even be possible? To save a few dollars? Stay in and save the bucks anyway. To get a real feel good "take that!" in at their expense? That will seem petty if we pull out and the UN does't collapse, and over 3 decades turn into a really dangerous loose cannon on the world stage.

The only good argument for pulling out is that by staying in we give the 'world government' idea credibility and we offer support to their agenda. Well, I suggest the 3rd way. Stay in, don't pay the dues, and become the biggest undermining obstructionist pains in the neck we can possibly be. We actually have that reputation already, so we might as well really live up to it. :)

Win-win.

Mike

[Mike Irwin]

Safety,

We DO pony up the most money to the UN.

But it's not such a tremendous figure that it can't be made up by increased contributions from other nations, or a streamlining and restructuring of UN operations.

We're not the only economic/financial power on the block. We never were, and we never will be.

There are other nations that are economic/financial powers in their own rights, and more than enough of them to handily make up the US contribution, and then some.


The article by World News Daily is interesting.

And it's also not a good and convincing argument of why the League of Nations collapsed.

The League had functioned for nearly 20 years before it collapsed, and had actually had several successful "interventions," including helping prevent a war between Greece and Bulgaria, not to mention the participation of the League in the naval arms reduction treaties of the 1920 and 1930s.

In those 20 years lack of US involvement really have meant virtually nothing. The United States was deeply ingrained in itself -- almost wholely inward looking economically, socially, and politically. By choice, isolationism was the mantra of the day. The United States wasn't even a truly credible military threat during most of that period.

The league collapsed because two of its member nations -- Italy and Japan -- embarked on agress campaigns of empire building. When the Emperor of Ethopia addressed the League, asking for intervention after Italy opened its campaigns, he was ignored, and soundly booed by supporters of Italy.

When the Japanese were castigated for their campaigns in China, they simply walked out.

Finally, there was the problem of the Germans. The Germans were never members of the League, but the League was never given any sort of mechanism to deal with Germany and enforcement of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, or any other international treaty, for that matter.

The rise of Fascism was immediate cause of the League's failure.

What, however, was the TRUE reason for the League's failure?

Simple.

The individual foreign policies of most, if not all, of the League's members was just that -- individual.

There was no wide-scale buy in to the League or its goals.

That's where the United Nations is fundamentally different, and that's why the UN has suceeded where the League failed.

After two catastrophic wars in a quarter century, punctuated by the rise of the two dominant super powers, and the final punctuation of the atomic age, the European and Asian players, and to a lesser extent the Western Hemisphere players, finally came to the realization that if there was a third World War, it wasn't going to be the same old kind of war and that no longer could nations really afford to pretend that isolationism was an effective barrier against the world.

In the 1950s the foreign policies of the member nations were sufficiently altered to recognize these new facts.

Isolationism is a wonderful, wonderful theory. Safe in our own little caccoon, with no one in the world wanting to bother us, and us not wanting to bother anyone else.

Sorry, folks, it simply doesn't work that way anymore.