Get out of UN or stay in?

[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.