Benefits of the U.S. leaving the U.N.?

[Capnroy89]

I'm writing a persuasive speech on why the U.S. should leave the U.N. It was easy to figure out what is the problem with the U.N., but i'm having trouble figuring out what the U.S. would benefit with by leaving the U.N.

So far, I have that we wouldn't have to worry about the U.N. standing in our way when trying to defend ourselves in the future, and that hard earned taxpayer money won't be spent towards this body, which does little to benefit us.

What are some other benefits of leaving the U.N.? Anything I'm missing? There has to be more.

 

[conjur]

How does the U.N. stand in our way of defending ourselves now?

It doesn't!

Your speech is quite flawed at the fundamental level.

 

[tnitsuj]

It would do more harm than good to the US.

 

[Bowfinger]

While we're at it, we should have every state secede from the United States, and every county secede from its state, because history has shown time and again that this whole nutty ideal of working together cooperatively to ensure effective diplomacy and open communications, provide a forum for resolving disputes, and generally attempt to support the common good of all mankind, is far inferior to fighting amongst ourselves like rabid animals. Civilization? Who needs it?

 

[preslove]

Uhm... You do understand that FDR called for the creation of the UN in order to preserve US interests???? Right??? US statesmen have used the UN effectively since its creation, but this administration has failed to do so not because of the UN, but because of an ideological agenda.

 

[Perknose]

Anything I'm missing?

Yes.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

How bout: "regaining our national sovereignty" or "not partaking in global tyrannical government"
I'd say those are both plusses

 

[maddogchen]

I think you should change topics, thats much too hard a persuasive speech to write about.

Anyway, you could say we don't have to deal with all the legal crap about war, treaties, and payments

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
How bout: "regaining our national sovereignty" or "not partaking in global tyrannical government"
I'd say those are both plusses

If by saying national sovereignty you mean the freedom to bomb the heck out of anyone as you please, yeah I guess you are right.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
How bout: "regaining our national sovereignty" or "not partaking in global tyrannical government"
I'd say those are both plusses

If by saying national sovereignty you mean the freedom to bomb the heck out of anyone as you please, yeah I guess you are right.

LOL, you mistake me for a neocon, my friend. You know what they say about making assumptions...
Notice I said nothing about the use of military force in my post
I was simply referring to the right to self-governance i.e. without interference from outside forces.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
How bout: "regaining our national sovereignty" or "not partaking in global tyrannical government"
I'd say those are both plusses

If by saying national sovereignty you mean the freedom to bomb the heck out of anyone as you please, yeah I guess you are right.

LOL, you mistake me for a neocon, my friend. You know what they say about making assumptions...
Notice I said nothing about the use of military force in my post
I was simply referring to the right to self-governance i.e. without interference from outside forces.

Ok, that's fine, maybe I jump the gun a little. But maybe you can tell us how UN interfere with the internal affair of member country.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
How bout: "regaining our national sovereignty" or "not partaking in global tyrannical government"
I'd say those are both plusses

If by saying national sovereignty you mean the freedom to bomb the heck out of anyone as you please, yeah I guess you are right.

LOL, you mistake me for a neocon, my friend. You know what they say about making assumptions...
Notice I said nothing about the use of military force in my post
I was simply referring to the right to self-governance i.e. without interference from outside forces.

Ok, that's fine, maybe I jump the gun a little. But maybe you can tell us how UN interfere with the internal affair of member country.

Any organization that places its own laws above that of any sovereign nation has impeached upon the sovereignty of said nation. End of story.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: preslove
Uhm... You do understand that FDR called for the creation of the UN in order to preserve US interests???? Right??? US statesmen have used the UN effectively since its creation, but this administration has failed to do so not because of the UN, but because of an ideological agenda.

*cough*Kosovo*cough*

*cough*FrenchImmunity*cough* ICC*cough*

 

[wkabel23]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
How bout: "regaining our national sovereignty" or "not partaking in global tyrannical government"
I'd say those are both plusses

If by saying national sovereignty you mean the freedom to bomb the heck out of anyone as you please, yeah I guess you are right.

LOL, you mistake me for a neocon, my friend. You know what they say about making assumptions...
Notice I said nothing about the use of military force in my post
I was simply referring to the right to self-governance i.e. without interference from outside forces.

Ok, that's fine, maybe I jump the gun a little. But maybe you can tell us how UN interfere with the internal affair of member country.

Any organization that places its own laws above that of any sovereign nation has impeached upon the sovereignty of said nation. End of story.

Arguably for the better of the whole world. In case you haven't looked at a map or globe recently there are more countries than just the U.S.A. I don't see how getting some consensus on something like...attacking a sovereign country is a harm to the U.S.

Then again the U.N. isn't perfect and perhaps we might save money by withdrawing or whatnot but I think losing our sovereingty isn't the right argument for leaving the U.N.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
How bout: "regaining our national sovereignty" or "not partaking in global tyrannical government"
I'd say those are both plusses

If by saying national sovereignty you mean the freedom to bomb the heck out of anyone as you please, yeah I guess you are right.

LOL, you mistake me for a neocon, my friend. You know what they say about making assumptions...
Notice I said nothing about the use of military force in my post
I was simply referring to the right to self-governance i.e. without interference from outside forces.

Ok, that's fine, maybe I jump the gun a little. But maybe you can tell us how UN interfere with the internal affair of member country.

Any organization that places its own laws above that of any sovereign nation has impeached upon the sovereignty of said nation. End of story.

Maybe I am missing something. How does UN places its law above US domestic law?

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: wkabel23

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
How bout: "regaining our national sovereignty" or "not partaking in global tyrannical government"
I'd say those are both plusses

If by saying national sovereignty you mean the freedom to bomb the heck out of anyone as you please, yeah I guess you are right.

LOL, you mistake me for a neocon, my friend. You know what they say about making assumptions...
Notice I said nothing about the use of military force in my post
I was simply referring to the right to self-governance i.e. without interference from outside forces.

Ok, that's fine, maybe I jump the gun a little. But maybe you can tell us how UN interfere with the internal affair of member country.

Any organization that places its own laws above that of any sovereign nation has impeached upon the sovereignty of said nation. End of story.

Arguably for the better of the whole world. In case you haven't looked at a map or globe recently there are more countries than just the U.S.A. I don't see how getting some consensus on something like...attacking a sovereign country is a harm to the U.S.

Then again the U.N. isn't perfect and perhaps we might save money by withdrawing or whatnot but I think losing our sovereingty isn't the right argument for leaving the U.N.

Please don't make this about the U.S.... I have avoided doing so thus far, and have instead used generic terms such as "a sovereign nation". I'm not talking about the U.S. only, so please stop assuming so.
One world government is NOT a good thing. If you believe otherwise then I shall pray for you. Massive, centralized, global government is not the way to "peace and security". Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The less power those in charge have, the better off the common man is.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
How bout: "regaining our national sovereignty" or "not partaking in global tyrannical government"
I'd say those are both plusses

If by saying national sovereignty you mean the freedom to bomb the heck out of anyone as you please, yeah I guess you are right.

LOL, you mistake me for a neocon, my friend. You know what they say about making assumptions...
Notice I said nothing about the use of military force in my post
I was simply referring to the right to self-governance i.e. without interference from outside forces.

Ok, that's fine, maybe I jump the gun a little. But maybe you can tell us how UN interfere with the internal affair of member country.

Any organization that places its own laws above that of any sovereign nation has impeached upon the sovereignty of said nation. End of story.

Maybe I am missing something. How does UN places its law above US domestic law?

You're kidding, right? U.N. officials have made statements in the past referring to "International" (U.N.) laws superceding those of member nations.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Please don't make this about the U.S.... I have avoided doing so thus far, and have instead used generic terms such as "a sovereign nation". I'm not talking about the U.S. only, so please stop assuming so.
One world government is NOT a good thing. If you believe otherwise then I shall pray for you. Massive, centralized, global government is not the way to "peace and security". Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The less power those in charge have, the better off the common man is.

What I am curious about is how do you get the idea of UN interfere with the DOMESTIC policy of ANY of its member country. The only time UN enforces sanction against a member country is when that country violated an agreed upon resolution. And even that sanction has to pass the vote of UN members. It was never the intention of UN to force policy upon member countries. UN is suppose to be a place to resolve international conflicts using diplomacy with inputs from all member countries. It is not a global government. It has not jurisdiction over any country, it is not ruled by any governing body and it doesn't not have any military force of its own.

And of course UN interpretation of international Law supercede any country's interpretation. Since when an individual country has the freedom to define its own INTERNATIONAL law? What legitimacy does that law has if it is not supported by all participants involved.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Please don't make this about the U.S.... I have avoided doing so thus far, and have instead used generic terms such as "a sovereign nation". I'm not talking about the U.S. only, so please stop assuming so.
One world government is NOT a good thing. If you believe otherwise then I shall pray for you. Massive, centralized, global government is not the way to "peace and security". Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The less power those in charge have, the better off the common man is.

What I am curious about is how do you get the idea of UN interfere with the DOMESTIC policy of ANY of its member country. The only time UN enforces sanction against a member country is when that country violated an agreed upon resolution. And even that sanction has to pass the vote of UN members. It was never the intention of UN to force policy upon member countries. UN is suppose to be a place to resolve international conflicts using diplomacy with inputs from all member countries. It is not a global government. It has not jurisdiction over any country, it is not ruled by any governing body and it doesn't not have any military force of its own.

And of course UN interpretation of international Law supercede any country's interpretation. Since when an individual country has the freedom to define its own INTERNATIONAL law? What legitimacy does that law has if it is not supported by all participants involved.

If "if's" and "buts" were candy and nuts...
Woulda, shoulda, coulda. The reality is quite different from the fairy tale.
Who said anything about countries defining their own international law? You keep making assumptions that are way off-base. Who says there even needs to be international law? Why not let countries sort out their own messes *on their own*?

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: preslove
Uhm... You do understand that FDR called for the creation of the UN in order to preserve US interests???? Right??? US statesmen have used the UN effectively since its creation, but this administration has failed to do so not because of the UN, but because of an ideological agenda.

you mean the same FDR that though stalin was a socialist in the same mold as himself?

 

[AEB]

FDR was a horrible president so dont bring him into this. He was going to flood the supreme court with justicies because he didnt get his way with his social programs.

THe UN is no good. They pass resolutions that say one thing while they do another. And the UN is always questioning us. we should be able to have foreign policy with the leader of the country not with the beauracrats in the UN.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Capnroy89
I'm writing a persuasive speech on why the U.S. should leave the U.N. It was easy to figure out what is the problem with the U.N., but i'm having trouble figuring out what the U.S. would benefit with by leaving the U.N.

So far, I have that we wouldn't have to worry about the U.N. standing in our way when trying to defend ourselves in the future, and that hard earned taxpayer money won't be spent towards this body, which does little to benefit us.

What are some other benefits of leaving the U.N.? Anything I'm missing? There has to be more.

here is an article you might enjoy.


both would benefit.

we would not have europeans trying to tell us what to do(a big reason our ancestors left europe)

the UN is impotent in everything even perhaps as an humanitarian organization. the food they send always winds up in the warehouses of the regimes oppressing the people.

the UN is more a vehicle for european interests than american interests.

China, Brazil, India, Russia and Saudi Arabia want the internet to bein UN(or member nation other than the US) control

any organization that names libya..LIBYA as head of the human rights commission is quite franky a farce.

the UN would not have to worry about the bothersome detail of actually enforcing it's decisions.

france would actually be more important in something with the US gone.

the UN would remain mostly unchanged, it would still be nothing more than an international debate society that accomplishes little in a lasting way.


now maybe some of our internationalist friends can demonstrate how the UN is actually Good for the US? what reasons do we have for staying in the UN?

 

[Dragnov]

Er, you could make a much better argument with NATO instead of the UN.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: AEB
FDR was a horrible president so dont bring him into this. He was going to flood the supreme court with justicies because he didnt get his way with his social programs.

THe UN is no good. They pass resolutions that say one thing while they do another. And the UN is always questioning us. we should be able to have foreign policy with the leader of the country not with the beauracrats in the UN.

yes... FDR tried to pull off some cr@p with the courts and that was not right. but believe it or not, if FDR didn't push his social programs we'd probably be a commie country toady.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Capnroy89
I'm writing a persuasive speech on why the U.S. should leave the U.N. It was easy to figure out what is the problem with the U.N., but i'm having trouble figuring out what the U.S. would benefit with by leaving the U.N.

So far, I have that we wouldn't have to worry about the U.N. standing in our way when trying to defend ourselves in the future, and that hard earned taxpayer money won't be spent towards this body, which does little to benefit us.

What are some other benefits of leaving the U.N.? Anything I'm missing? There has to be more.

here is an article you might enjoy.


both would benefit.

we would not have europeans trying to tell us what to do(a big reason our ancestors left europe)

the UN is impotent in everything even perhaps as an humanitarian organization. the food they send always winds up in the warehouses of the regimes oppressing the people.

the UN is more a vehicle for european interests than american interests.

China, Brazil, India, Russia and Saudi Arabia want the internet to bein UN(or member nation other than the US) control

any organization that names libya..LIBYA as head of the human rights commission is quite franky a farce.

the UN would not have to worry about the bothersome detail of actually enforcing it's decisions.

france would actually be more important in something with the US gone.

the UN would remain mostly unchanged, it would still be nothing more than an international debate society that accomplishes little in a lasting way.


now maybe some of our internationalist friends can demonstrate how the UN is actually Good for the US? what reasons do we have for staying in the UN?

naa, we internationalist can't think of how UN can be good for the US. After all, we can all stay in our little town, read our local news and buy local products. Let everyone else in the world kill each other, throw nuclear warheads at each other, commit genocide and pollute the earth big time. That's not gonna have any impact on us, right?

Or better yet, let's screw diplomacy or any dialogs with other country. They either become the big capitalist like us and give us access to their market, follow us and bomb Muslim country of our choosing in the name of fighting terrorim, or face our nuclear warheads. It's must be nice to live in a world where there is only American view and American voice.