Can the United States function without the U.N.?

[Puffnstuff]

You guys do realize that the US provides 22% of the UN's total funding. They need us more than we need them however with the level of corruption present I find it difficult to accept anything they say.

 

[colonel]

The most powerful Nations on Earth don't need the UN.. but the weaker ones do mainly to protect them from the more powerful ones.

those living in the US dont get that, for the small countries, UN is all they got against empires.

 

[mycarisolderthanme]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Threads like this always makes me a little depressed and gives me hope at the same time. Depressed to see people with no clue attacking it without knowing what they are talking about. Hopeful when I realize the same people are just powerless posters whose opinion won't change anything.

Exactly how I felt when I first found this part of the forum. Well said!

 

[Vic]

The problem with the UN is that it is only as enlightened as its most corrupt members. So warmongering nations sit on the security council, brutal totalitarian nations sit on the human rights council, etc. It has become a tool for international political corruption.

 

[XZeroII]

Asking if the US need the UN is like asking if a dog needs tape worms.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: colonel

The most powerful Nations on Earth don't need the UN.. but the weaker ones do mainly to protect them from the more powerful ones.

those living in the US dont get that, for the small countries, UN is all they got against empires.

But that doesn't make sense. Iraq was a small country ruled by a dictator, but the U.N. sure as hell didn't want us or anyone else to liberate it.

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: Puffnstuff
You guys do realize that the US provides 22% of the UN's total funding. They need us more than we need them however with the level of corruption present I find it difficult to accept anything they say.

When the US bothers to pay its dues.

UN dues are assessed on the basis of share of world GDP. US has 25% of world economic output and pays 25% of UN dues.

Seems fair to me especially when one takes in to account the miniscule (relative to GDP) amount of foreign aid the US gives out every year; with much of that going to Israel and Egypt.

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: Vic
The problem with the UN is that it is only as enlightened as its most corrupt members. So warmongering nations sit on the security council, brutal totalitarian nations sit on the human rights council, etc. It has become a tool for international political corruption.

You're right!! The US DOES sit on the Security Council😀

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled

Originally posted by: Vic
The problem with the UN is that it is only as enlightened as its most corrupt members. So warmongering nations sit on the security council, brutal totalitarian nations sit on the human rights council, etc. It has become a tool for international political corruption.

You're right!! The US DOES sit on the Security Council😀

Yep. And China and Russia on the Human Rights Council. That was exactly my point.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: colonel

The most powerful Nations on Earth don't need the UN.. but the weaker ones do mainly to protect them from the more powerful ones.

those living in the US dont get that, for the small countries, UN is all they got against empires.

But that doesn't make sense. Iraq was a small country ruled by a dictator, but the U.N. sure as hell didn't want us or anyone else to liberate it.

No.... it was WMD/Delivery systems and that they were gonna launch in 45 days... unless you mean liberate them of the WMD...

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: makoto00
Rather, don't you mean: "Can the UN function without the United States?"

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Vic
The problem with the UN is that it is only as enlightened as its most corrupt members. So warmongering nations sit on the security council, brutal totalitarian nations sit on the human rights council, etc. It has become a tool for international political corruption.

qft

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Vic
The problem with the UN is that it is only as enlightened as its most corrupt members. So warmongering nations sit on the security council, brutal totalitarian nations sit on the human rights council, etc. It has become a tool for international political corruption.

qft

As the most powerful nation on the planet don't ya think that we could influence the other members to cause the corruption to end? The UN has members by treaty and since we are by treaty in the UN any violation by our executive would be violating that treaty.... probably a high crime or misdemeanor so we should be trying to move the UN to what it was suppose to be in the beginning.

Edit: 'we' being the mouse on my desk and the US.

 

[straightalker]

The United Nations is a scam. Started out as an international forum meeting place for Nations to iron out their differences on a neutral debate floor.

Morphed into a group of hijackers with sights set on no less than themselves ruling the entire World.

Anyone else here see at least some slight mission creep there??? Additionally. Those of you who think inside the box only, ...do you see anything that threatens your freedom to choose your own destiny?

 

[Jaskalas]

do you see anything that threatens your freedom to choose your own destiny?

I don?t need to look as grand as the UN to see big government removing freedoms. It?s a fairly popular trend with all levels of government today.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: straightalker
The United Nations is a scam. Started out as an international forum meeting place for Nations to iron out their differences on a neutral debate floor.

Morphed into a group of hijackers with sights set on no less than themselves ruling the entire World.

Anyone else here see at least some slight mission creep there??? Additionally. Those of you who think inside the box only, ...do you see anything that threatens your freedom to choose your own destiny?

Yeah, people seem to fail to realize that the UN is not meant to be an effective executive body. It's just a debating forum and a place for nations to meet to talk. The UN's role is to prevent WW3. Everything else it does is just extra.

 

[mackle]

The question should be "Can the UN fuction without the United States"??

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

The U.N. represents the World's solution to the situation of the world. I mean, the League of Nations, pwns the U.N. The U.N. has no power and has to use member nations' military forces and relies on other nations to pay for what they do. The U.N. has to be given more power instead of a "Security Council" that sits there and talks about something without getting anything done.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: ChAoTiCpInOy
The U.N. represents the World's solution to the situation of the world. I mean, the League of Nations, pwns the U.N. The U.N. has no power and has to use member nations' military forces and relies on other nations to pay for what they do. The U.N. has to be given more power instead of a "Security Council" that sits there and talks about something without getting anything done.

So, you are suggesting that the U.N. raise its own army navy, air force and marines?

oy.

 

[zendari]

Text

Senator Schumer: Bolton won't face filibuster


A leading Democrat senator said that a filibuster of President Bush's controversial UN Ambassador John Bolton "is unlikely," RAW STORY has learned.

Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Senator, appeared last night on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. During the course of the interview, Schumer explained "I think that if you count the votes, a filibuster is unlikely, but a lot of Democrats are deciding, weighing the positive of Bolton that he's been for Israel and negative that he has almost an antagonistic, "go at it alone" attitude to the nations of the world, which we need with us to fight a war on terror."

Schumer confirmed that he himself was "open-minded" and has yet to make a final decision on the vote.

The New York Senator's remarks stood in contrast to those of Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic Whip, who told an internet radio show last week that the Democrats needed only one more vote to sustain a filibuster against Bolton, according to Steve Clemons at The Washington Note.

RAW STORY earlier reported that Schumer and junior New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton were both rumored to be ready to change their votes on Bolton due to pressure from New York-based Jewish groups who see the senators' votes on Bolton to be a possible litmus test of their support for Israel.



I applaud the Democrats for not playing cheap pandering politics and giving Bolton a fair up or down vote that he deserves.

 

[wiin]

Originally posted by: mugs
Of course the UN can function without the UN, as can every other country on this planet. The UN doesn't exist for the benefit of the United States. It serves a necessary purpose. Its flaw is that it tends to lack a spine, but I think the world would be worse off without the UN.

What necessary purpose is that exactly? lets see...the genocide in Rwanda...oh yes, i got it. the money for oil program which benefited Coffee Anand and his son is a good example

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: adairusmc

Originally posted by: veggz
The UN should develop a nuclear weapons program. Then maybe Georgie would take it more seriously.

A better idea is for the US to withdraw from the UN, kick their headquarters out of the US, and hold all of the diplomats in prison until they pay their parking fines.

We need to stay in the UN if only so we can continue to veto any Security Council actions that may harm us or our interests abroad. Paying the UN's dues are a small price to keep the other nations from doing anything effective.