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

[B00ne]

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.

That is complete BS. The UN is not placing any law above a law in your country. The UN has international law, which deals with the conduct among countries. Sovereignity has limits, it ends where it infringes on the sovereignity of another country. If that is what you want or see as limiting your sovereignity you should accept what you are: a rogue.

 

[sandorski]

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.

There are no benefits to leaving. There are benefits to staying though.

 

[maluckey]

The League of Nations failed, partly because of virtual inefficacy, and helped along by the squabbling between Great Britain and France. It had many basic flaws, and the fact that it did nothing about Hitler?s annexations, or japans invasion into Manchuria certainly did not help matters. The League of Nations collapsed in 1946, long after the United States (U.S.) pulled out.

How is the United Nations (U.N) any different? I say it's not all that different, other than the fact that we are a member of the U.N, and not of Leaugue of Nations at the time of it's demise.

Problems:

1. The U.N. is mostly supported by the U.S.

2. The U.N continues to have France and Great Britain squabble over everything.

3. The U.N. is not useful versus a First World Country, if that country goes contrary to U.N., or international wishes.

4. The U.N. cannot have command of ANY U.S. troops. It?s U.S. policy.

5. The U.N. has now been accused for years of accepting bribes.

6. The U.N has let Syria become a member of the Security Council.

7. The U.N. hasn?t helped in Israel, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Russia, Chechnya, Poland, Czech Republic (or any former Soviet Republic). They have not been of any use in Cuba, China, or any South American, or Central American conflict or squabble. They are not helping in Africa to end Civil Wars, hunger, or famine.


I say it?s time to go it alone, and dump the U.N by the roadside. We should sponsor twice per year gathering of world leaders to discuss problems, and leave it at that.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: rchiu
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?

when has the UN ever stopped someone "throwning nuclear warheads at each other? what makes you think they can when they cannot even distribute food properly? ROFL!

can you name one instance of someone saying "i better not do this, the UN said so!" without the us being the backup?

Originally posted by: rchiu
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.

no your WAYY out in left field railing against something that is non-existant. there was diplomacy before the UN.

can you name one lasting change the UN has accomplished without britain or the US being the backbone?

again DEMONSTRATE, rants do not do that. i am asking for examples. SHOW how the UN is so great.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

when has the UN ever stopped someone "throwning nuclear warheads at each other? what makes you think they can when they cannot even distribute food properly? ROFL!

can you name one instance of someone saying "i better not do this, the UN said so!" without the us being the backup?

Funny to see how people who doesn't know how UN function and what UN does trying to argue why UN is useless. UN was never designed to interfere with internal politic of any country. The goal of UN is to provide a platform for member countries to negotiate and come up with acceptable solution to all party involved. UN is not there to tell someone to do or not to do something. It is not designed to stop someone from throwing warhead at each other, but it provides a place where country can work out their difference or other countries can intervene and see what they can do to stop the situation.

no your WAYY out in left field railing against something that is non-existant. there was diplomacy before the UN.

can you name one lasting change the UN has accomplished without britain or the US being the backbone?

again DEMONSTRATE, rants do not do that. i am asking for examples. SHOW how the UN is so great.

Yeah, one to one diplomacy maybe but today with globalization everything is complex and involves multiple parties. This war on terror for example. Without UN, there won't be a platform for diplomacy with multiple parties. Without UN, there also won't be a platform where many countries can work together and put together programs that cannot be put together by single country.

If you want to see the lasting change the UN has accomplished or example demonstrating why UN is so great, go to www.un.org and educate yourself.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: rchiu
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?

when has the UN ever stopped someone "throwning nuclear warheads at each other? what makes you think they can when they cannot even distribute food properly? ROFL!

can you name one instance of someone saying "i better not do this, the UN said so!" without the us being the backup?

Originally posted by: rchiu
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.

no your WAYY out in left field railing against something that is non-existant. there was diplomacy before the UN.

can you name one lasting change the UN has accomplished without britain or the US being the backbone?

again DEMONSTRATE, rants do not do that. i am asking for examples. SHOW how the UN is so great.

Cuban Missile Crisis

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 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?

That'd be better than all under the 4th Reich anyway.

 

[Fern]

A little suggestion for your paper/speech. Make it a cost/benefit analysis which would be phrased slightly different: Should the US remain a member of the UN? Cost v Benefit to continue etc. Mostly semantical I agree

 

[Siddhartha]

I thought that the people who are against the US being in the UN are resentful that other countries dare to not kowtow to all US policies. And lets not forget the people who are really concerned about the black helicopters and the UN taking control of the US.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: rchiu
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?

when has the UN ever stopped someone "throwning nuclear warheads at each other? what makes you think they can when they cannot even distribute food properly? ROFL!

can you name one instance of someone saying "i better not do this, the UN said so!" without the us being the backup?

Originally posted by: rchiu
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.

no your WAYY out in left field railing against something that is non-existant. there was diplomacy before the UN.

can you name one lasting change the UN has accomplished without britain or the US being the backbone?

again DEMONSTRATE, rants do not do that. i am asking for examples. SHOW how the UN is so great.

Cuban Missile Crisis

WRONG! you do not win a jellybean! a confrontation occured at the UN but it was not "UN" that resolved the disagreement but US navy ships that blockaded cuba...forcing a compromise.

 

[Romans828]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 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?

That'd be better than all under the 4th Reich anyway.

That'd be better than all under the 4th Reich anyway.

what is the 4th Reich?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: rchiu
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?

when has the UN ever stopped someone "throwning nuclear warheads at each other? what makes you think they can when they cannot even distribute food properly? ROFL!

can you name one instance of someone saying "i better not do this, the UN said so!" without the us being the backup?

Originally posted by: rchiu
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.

no your WAYY out in left field railing against something that is non-existant. there was diplomacy before the UN.

can you name one lasting change the UN has accomplished without britain or the US being the backbone?

again DEMONSTRATE, rants do not do that. i am asking for examples. SHOW how the UN is so great.

Cuban Missile Crisis

WRONG! you do not win a jellybean! a confrontation occured at the UN but it was not "UN" that resolved the disagreement but US navy ships that blockaded cuba...forcing a compromise.

That fact, which I agree, is exactly what makes the UN so valuable. It is a place for Nations to meet, discuss, and solve issues. That's all that it was meant to be, that's all that it is.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: sandorski
that fact, which I agree, is exactly what makes the UN so valuable. It is a place for Nations to meet, discuss, and solve issues. That's all that it was meant to be, that's all that it is.

so the fact that the UN did not do actually DO anything but serve as a debate forum where nothing was actually solved makes it "invaluable"

riiiggghhhttt.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: sandorski
that fact, which I agree, is exactly what makes the UN so valuable. It is a place for Nations to meet, discuss, and solve issues. That's all that it was meant to be, that's all that it is.

so the fact that the UN did not do actually DO anything but serve as a debate forum where nothing was actually solved makes it "invaluable"

riiiggghhhttt.

Yes, without that venue war likely would have happened. The Soviet Union had no choice but to back down as the whole World saw what usually goes on behind closed doors. International pressure caused the Soviet Union to back down, International Pressure existed because the UN exposed the Soviets to the eye of the International Community. You have no clue what the UN is, it seems, the UN has limited Power to do things, yet it makes a huge difference in International Affairs.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Seems to me we'd gain a prime piece of Realestate if the US left the UN. I'm sure their HQ would move to a "less dangerous" location

CkG

 

[maluckey]

The U.N. prevented the Soviets from using Cuba as a missile base???

The facts are simple. The Russians missile guidance systems were abysmal, so they likely would have used bomber/fighter combos to ensure at least some nukes were delivered to the enemy. They had 36 or so functioning low-yeild nukes being installed in Cuba, along with misc. aircraft and support. The United States had close to 5000 nuclear weapons in the arsenal versus around 300 total for the Russians. We could have blanketed Cuba, Russia, and a few other countries. They saw that they would lose, and lose big time. They bluffed, we called their bluff, and they left.

A quote from someone in the know:

"During that very critical time, in my mind there wasn't a chance that we would have gone to war with Russia because we had overwhelming strategic capability and the Russians knew it."

Air Force General, Curtis LeMay

International pressure had nothing to do but to talk some sense into the Russians. Pee Wee Herman versus Buster Douglas.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: maluckey
The U.N. prevented the Soviets from using Cuba as a missile base???

The facts are simple. The Russians missile guidance systems were abysmal, so they likely would have used bomber/fighter combos to ensure at least some nukes were delivered to the enemy. They had 36 or so functioning low-yeild nukes being installed in Cuba, along with misc. aircraft and support. The United States had close to 5000 nuclear weapons in the arsenal versus around 300 total for the Russians. We could have blanketed Cuba, Russia, and a few other countries. They saw that they would lose, and lose big time. They bluffed, we called their bluff, and they left.

A quote from someone in the know:

"During that very critical time, in my mind there wasn't a chance that we would have gone to war with Russia because we had overwhelming strategic capability and the Russians knew it."

Air Force General, Curtis LeMay

International pressure had nothing to do but to talk some sense into the Russians. Pee Wee Herman versus Buster Douglas.

Learn to read.

 

[GoPackGo]

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.

The millions in payoffs by Saddam had nothing to do with it either? Did it?

 

[AnImuS]

the UN is garbage. We dont have any use for it. The fact that countries like china,syria,libya, etc are part of the UN is hilarious.
Of course one of the biggest reasons we won't leave is so we can Veto any resolution that deals negatively with israel.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Glad to see that anti UN people have just as much power as sense, which is to say none.

Sandorski has the correct answer. If it were not for the UN, there is an excellent chance most of you would not be here. Dead people do not have children. Well, maybe they do and that would explain a few things. Of course there are those who feel the US was all powerful, and invulnerable. Some feel we would have "won" Who the hell can win a nuclear war under such circumstances. They wipe out our biggest hundred cities, and we their largest 200? People have been playing too many vid games.

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Glad to see that anti UN people have just as much power as sense, which is to say none.

Sandorski has the correct answer. If it were not for the UN, there is an excellent chance most of you would not be here. Dead people do not have children. Well, maybe they do and that would explain a few things. Of course there are those who feel the US was all powerful, and invulnerable. Some feel we would have "won" Who the hell can win a nuclear war under such circumstances. They wipe out our biggest hundred cities, and we their largest 200? People have been playing too many vid games.

Indeed. And it's all linked to that "The US is all powerful and doesn't need anyone" mentality. They seem to think the US can do everything alone and that everyone should obey the US no matter what. It's arrogance, plain and simple.

 

[DoubleL]

If the U.S. left the U.N. it would dry up and in time they wouldn't be a UN, The UN put sanction on Iraq so what did Russia, France and Germany do, So how many other countries break UN laws just as soon as they are passed, The ideal of the UN is a good one, Problem is with the countries, Now when UN countries broke the law if the others did more than turn their heads, Then again a lot of countries in the UN think that laws were meant to be broken and most hate the US

 

[maluckey]

Sandorski,

General LeMay was an American Legend in his day. He would know for sure what happened better than you or I. The facts of the overwhelming nuclear superiority are not contestable. The numbers are for all to see. 5000 versus 300 is not good odds. It is not contestable that the Russian missile guidance systems were abyssmal when compared to our own. The U.N. did little, if anything, though they would claim otherwise. They (the U.N.) also claim that after 12 years of stealing from the Iraqi people that inspections were working.

The point is that the Soviets could not win a war if they started it, and knew it. They were only hoping that we (the U.S.) would bow to international (read U.N.) pressure until they could narrow the gap. At that point, it would be too late to start anything. We caught them with their pants down, and they had no rational choice but to leave. U.N.???? No paper I have ever read leads to a conclusion that U.N. pressure had anything to do with the Russian retreat from Cuba. Please provide us all with such documentation. I for one would be truly interested to read it.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Sandorski,

General LeMay was an American Legend in his day. He would know for sure what happened better than you or I. The facts of the overwhelming nuclear superiority are not contestable. The numbers are for all to see. 5000 versus 300 is not good odds. It is not contestable that the Russian missile guidance systems were abyssmal when compared to our own. The U.N. did little, if anything, though they would claim otherwise. They (the U.N.) also claim that after 12 years of stealing from the Iraqi people that inspections were working.

The point is that the Soviets could not win a war if they started it, and knew it. They were only hoping that we (the U.S.) would bow to international (read U.N.) pressure until they could narrow the gap. At that point, it would be too late to start anything. We caught them with their pants down, and they had no rational choice but to leave. U.N.???? No paper I have ever read leads to a conclusion that U.N. pressure had anything to do with the Russian retreat from Cuba. Please provide us all with such documentation. I for one would be truly interested to read it.

Superiority/Inferiority had nothing to do with it. The Soviets lied, the US exposed that lie. Up to that point the Soviets Ranted and Raved that the charges were false, if they were afraid or scared they'd have silently pulled out and not made a fuss.

BTW, 300 nukes is plenty to ruin someones day, 5000 is pointless.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Yes, without that venue war likely would have happened. The Soviet Union had no choice but to back down as the whole World saw what usually goes on behind closed doors. International pressure caused the Soviet Union to back down, International Pressure existed because the UN exposed the Soviets to the eye of the International Community. You have no clue what the UN is, it seems, the UN has limited Power to do things, yet it makes a huge difference in International Affairs.

the reason the soviets backed down had nothing to do with the UN. they backed down BECAUSE WE DID NOT. if the blockade had not been in place, if the US had not directly confronted the USSR with a show of strength, it would have turned out VERY different.


the UN is a farce without the uS to be it' strength.

besides you never answered the question "can you name one lasting change the UN has accomplished without britain or the US being the backbone?" in the cuban missile crisis it was all the US.

and since we are on that subject here is the famous quote by a. stevenson that i find very fitting...

"I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over, if that's your decision."