Getting the US out of the UN

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Fencer128
How about this - since no one here (from what I can tell) has catagorically stated that the UN is defunct, serves no good purpose and must be dismantled (and I'd take issue if this was said!)- why not stay in the UN and propose some reforms, publically of course so that they may be scrutinised? If they get shot down and you're still not happy as a country then you can justifiably say "the UN is a hinderance and not a help to us - we're out". However, if some reform occurs, or the reasoning of the argument against the proposals is valid, then the US can stay and get on with it, or at the very least propose different reforms.

Cheers,

Andy
I agree, if the UN goes away it will take something Major to bring all of those different countries together in a diplomatic talks.

Improving the UN is the best way to improve diplomatic relations in the world without going 50 years in the bast

In order to move this debate on in a constructive way - why don't people post their reform ideas for the UN? That would give plenty of topic for discussion.

Here are some of mine (off the top of my head, so not particularly well thought out):

1. Keep UNSC permanent members but lose vetoes (ie motion carried by majority vote).

2. Have a UN force that is minimally made up by the current UNSC members, with numbers of personnel relating to GDP/military capability of each country.

3. Set a mandatory maximum complience time for all security related resolutions that are passed.

4. Where military intervention is an option in a resolution - make that intervention obvious, unambiguous and explicit, and set measurable and agreed parameters for which such action could be sanctioned against.

Cheers,

Andy
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: LeadMagnet
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: LeadMagnet
We need to build a great wall around the borders and along the coast including all the islands, and then we could all celebrtate inbreeding like the folks in West Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And don't forget to legalise all forms of weaponry.
With a 250m+ population it'd take a while, but I'd guess by about 2140 ther'd be just 5m people, all called either Cleetus or BobbySue

Thats right we must not forget that the band on assult rifles ends in September. I know I am taking that day off from work (running the still) to go buy a couple machine guns, some land mines , and a grenade launcher - you know for squirel hunting in my onw yard.

wow i hope you're being facetious. if not :Q
 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: LeadMagnet
Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by: LeadMagnet We need to build a great wall around the borders and along the coast including all the islands, and then we could all celebrtate inbreeding like the folks in West Virginia -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And don't forget to legalise all forms of weaponry. With a 250m+ population it'd take a while, but I'd guess by about 2140 ther'd be just 5m people, all called either Cleetus or BobbySue
Thats right we must not forget that the band on assult rifles ends in September. I know I am taking that day off from work (running the still) to go buy a couple machine guns, some land mines , and a grenade launcher - you know for squirel hunting in my onw yard.
wow i hope you're being facetious. if not :Q


"I know that I am taking that day off from work (running the still)" ? I think its pretty obvious he's just being humorous. Made me laugh, at least. :D
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Fencer128
How about this - since no one here (from what I can tell) has catagorically stated that the UN is defunct, serves no good purpose and must be dismantled (and I'd take issue if this was said!)- why not stay in the UN and propose some reforms, publically of course so that they may be scrutinised? If they get shot down and you're still not happy as a country then you can justifiably say "the UN is a hinderance and not a help to us - we're out". However, if some reform occurs, or the reasoning of the argument against the proposals is valid, then the US can stay and get on with it, or at the very least propose different reforms.

Cheers,

Andy
I agree, if the UN goes away it will take something Major to bring all of those different countries together in a diplomatic talks.

Improving the UN is the best way to improve diplomatic relations in the world without going 50 years in the bast

In order to move this debate on in a constructive way - why don't people post their reform ideas for the UN? That would give plenty of topic for discussion.

Here are some of mine (off the top of my head, so not particularly well thought out):

1. Keep UNSC permanent members but lose vetoes (ie motion carried by majority vote).

2. Have a UN force that is minimally made up by the current UNSC members, with numbers of personnel relating to GDP/military capability of each country.

3. Set a mandatory maximum complience time for all security related resolutions that are passed.

4. Where military intervention is an option in a resolution - make that intervention obvious, unambiguous and explicit, and set measurable and agreed parameters for which such action could be sanctioned against.

Cheers,

Andy

OK, first of all exclude all nations that will not follow UN rules, that would be US, UK, Poland and some other countries nobody cares about anyway like spain... if you ever hear about spain you hear about "spanish is what they speak, those damn invading mexicans" so it's next to nada...

Then put up an army, marine, sub-fleet and produce enough nuclear power to meet the only enemy europe has, the US... then we blow the world apart...

That is the future i forsee... i have children, my hope is for them, for them to be smarter than we have all been, because we are heading for ww3 with the us attacking everything they percieve as a threat, next time it might be Sweden, i dunno, they are just stupid enough to do that... thinking nobody would mind...

or norway, they do have lots of oil... and i bet there are a couple of terrorists hanging out there, who knows, if you forge a couple of documents, tell the world that you KNOW they have what you know they do not.. then maybe, just maybe you could attack norway...

Propaganda is all it's about, the germans fell for it, most of the americans have, i have no doubt we will face ww3 in my lifetime, just know this, i will shoot you down, if i have to... so do not spare your bullets... ca-beloved patriot i am ready...
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
OK, first of all exclude all nations that will not follow UN rules, that would be US, UK, Poland and some other countries nobody cares about anyway like spain... if you ever hear about spain you hear about "spanish is what they speak, those damn invading mexicans" so it's next to nada...

Then put up an army, marine, sub-fleet and produce enough nuclear power to meet the only enemy europe has, the US... then we blow the world apart...

That is the future i forsee... i have children, my hope is for them, for them to be smarter than we have all been, because we are heading for ww3 with the us attacking everything they percieve as a threat, next time it might be Sweden, i dunno, they are just stupid enough to do that... thinking nobody would mind...

or norway, they do have lots of oil... and i bet there are a couple of terrorists hanging out there, who knows, if you forge a couple of documents, tell the world that you KNOW they have what you know they do not.. then maybe, just maybe you could attack norway...

Propaganda is all it's about, the germans fell for it, most of the americans have, i have no doubt we will face ww3 in my lifetime, just know this, i will shoot you down, if i have to... so do not spare your bullets... ca-beloved patriot i am ready...

Thanks for that. I was actually trying to be serious for a minute! Do you have any workable suggestions that might lead to an inclusive and meaningful UN?

Cheers,

Andy

 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
What I would like to see in the UN is some automated system.

First create a few basic rules, like the 10 commandments for the world, or what you might call the worlds consitution or whatever. These rules should only apply with country to country relations and not what happens inside a country.

Then comes the automated system, if a country violates one of those rules an automated toll is set on all imports and exports for a certain amount of time on the country. This would prevent politics entering the basic system with all its damn problems.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Originally posted by: Czar
What I would like to see in the UN is some automated system.

First create a few basic rules, like the 10 commandments for the world, or what you might call the worlds consitution or whatever. These rules should only apply with country to country relations and not what happens inside a country.

Then comes the automated system, if a country violates one of those rules an automated toll is set on all imports and exports for a certain amount of time on the country. This would prevent politics entering the basic system with all its damn problems.

I hear what you're saying. If a regimented system for complience/non-complienece is set up, and everyone is subject to that, then everyone knows and suffers the same conseuences for acting in a generally agreed "bad" way.

You were right to add the disclaimer "not what happens inside a country" - as a lot of people are going to read your post and immediately stand up and shout "they're taking control of our lives".

Cheers,

Andy
 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: Czar
What I would like to see in the UN is some automated system. First create a few basic rules, like the 10 commandments for the world, or what you might call the worlds consitution or whatever. These rules should only apply with country to country relations and not what happens inside a country. Then comes the automated system, if a country violates one of those rules an automated toll is set on all imports and exports for a certain amount of time on the country. This would prevent politics entering the basic system with all its damn problems.

A world Bill of Rights and Duties. I like the automated idea too. But surely what goes on inside a country has to be, to some extent at least, the business of the UN too - Repression/torture/civil war/ethnic cleansing etc. And if you were applying those rules between countries you'd probably have to take over the WTO's job too, which would be even more of a headache.

But politics would inevitably intrude - firstly you'd never get anyone to agree to the rules, and then countries would always be finding ways around them.
 

LeadMagnet

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,348
0
0
1. Keep UNSC permanent members but lose vetoes (ie motion carried by majority vote).

2. Have a UN force that is minimally made up by the current UNSC members, with numbers of personnel relating to GDP/military capability of each country.

3. Set a mandatory maximum complience time for all security related resolutions that are passed.

4. Where military intervention is an option in a resolution - make that intervention obvious, unambiguous and explicit, and set measurable and agreed parameters for which such action could be sanctioned against.

I belive that the UN-SC should be made up of ( US / China / Russia / EU / rotated member)





I missed a couple when I pasted them in from Word "UN-SC should be made up of (India / Japan / US / China / Russia / EU / rotated member) "
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
I belive that the UN-SC should be made up of ( US / China / Russia / EU / rotated member)

But I would say that doesn't leave room for much consideration by any countries other than those with big armies. I understand that these countries need to be in the UNSC (not sure I agree on the whole of the EU being necessarily present by default) - but as a matter of inclusiveness I would argue for greater inclusion of other less militarised countries. i.e. there is no representative from Africa there!

Cheers,

Andy
 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: Fencer128
I belive that the UN-SC should be made up of ( US / China / Russia / EU / rotated member)
But I would say that doesn't leave room for much consideration by any countries other than those with big armies. I understand that these countries need to be in the UNSC (not sure I agree on the whole of the EU being necessarily present by default) - but as a matter of inclusiveness I would argue for greater inclusion of other less militarised countries. i.e. there is no representative from Africa there! Cheers, Andy

I think that he means that the EU should be represented as one country, with one voice/vote.
I'd also love to see some more democratic sort of representation, seeing as we are believe in it so much that we are promoting it to the rest of the world. But the powerful countries would never put up with being told what to do by a coalition of the small. The other problem, of course, is the question of whether a non-democratic country should get a democratic vote.

Perhaps the Security council instead shoudl be made up of very small countries, with no big-stage geo-political ambitions to get in the way. So instead of the powerbloc manoevering of the US and China etc, we'd have the intracies of tiny-powerbloc manoevring between Lichtenstein and Swaziland! :D
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: dpm
Originally posted by: Fencer128
I belive that the UN-SC should be made up of ( US / China / Russia / EU / rotated member)
But I would say that doesn't leave room for much consideration by any countries other than those with big armies. I understand that these countries need to be in the UNSC (not sure I agree on the whole of the EU being necessarily present by default) - but as a matter of inclusiveness I would argue for greater inclusion of other less militarised countries. i.e. there is no representative from Africa there! Cheers, Andy

I think that he means that the EU should be represented as one country, with one voice/vote.
I'd also love to see some more democratic sort of representation, seeing as we are believe in it so much that we are promoting it to the rest of the world. But the powerful countries would never put up with being told what to do by a coalition of the small. The other problem, of course, is the question of whether a non-democratic country should get a democratic vote.

Perhaps the Security council instead shoudl be made up of very small countries, with no big-stage geo-political ambitions to get in the way. So instead of the powerbloc manoevering of the US and China etc, we'd have the intracies of tiny-powerbloc manoevring between Lichtenstein and Swaziland! :D

I agree, when the time comes, but right now or in the next 5-10 years the EU wont be what you could call a country, but definetly when it becomes one country then it should be reprisented by one voice in the UN.

also, I think Iceland is up for the next security council rotation, so the tiny countries do have a say in it :D
 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: Czar
I agree, when the time comes, but right now or in the next 5-10 years the EU wont be what you could call a country, but definetly when it becomes one country then it should be reprisented by one voice in the UN. also, I think Iceland is up for the next security council rotation, so the tiny countries do have a say in it :D

Do you think that the EU can really advance that far inside a decade? I know full well that EU integration progresses in fits and starts, but so far (with the exception of the Euro) the EU has come a long way by mainly focussing on the easy stuff. I know I'm vastly oversimplyifying, and I'm not denigrating the technical aspects of trying to harmonize two completely different systems of law, for example, but despite all that has been achieved so far, actually persuading the people of Europe that they are one country seems as far away, and as hard to do, as ever.

Still, if the Germans can be persuaded to give up the dmark, and the french to give up the frank, then maybe anything can happen...
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
3
76
Originally posted by: charrison
Linkage

H.R.1146
Title: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 3/6/2003) Cosponsors: 12

We need more congressmen like Ron Paul.

Indeed we do..

Last year the United States, a founding member, was denied a seat and a vote on the Human Rights Commission and was replaced by Syria. All manner of explanations were offered to account for this anomaly, but it came down to the fact that not enough members of the commission had voted for a U.S. presence.
Syria

It has become a soapbox for third world countries to bash the free world, humanity and the United States. We should pull out and start our own for free nations. Call it the United Nations for a free world.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
It has become a soapbox for third world countries to bash the free world, humanity and the United States. We should pull out and start our own for free nations. Call it the United Nations for a free world.

I don't agree with your view there. The UN is a forum for everyone to express their views. If you only choose to listen to those who are dissenting so be it. It's kind of like a freedom of speech issue for me. I might not like what I hear - and sometimes might take offense, but at least people are free to express it.

Cheers,

Andy
 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Syria It has become a soapbox for third world countries to bash the free world, humanity and the United States. We should pull out and start our own for free nations. Call it the United Nations for a free world.

What the smegging hell would be the point of it then? The west is currently fighting a war against terrorist - terrorist supported by people who feel disenfranchised and abused by the west. Getting rid of their last chance to be heard (however innefectual it currently is) isn't going to help any, is it? Disagreeing with them is fine, but seeing as we are not always right, and do not always act in the highest moral and disinterested manner, then we cannot refuse to at least listen to them.

by the way, "bash... humanity"? What are they, pro-Martian?
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Linkage

H.R.1146
Title: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 3/6/2003) Cosponsors: 12

We need more congressmen like Ron Paul.

You can thank me, I voted for him.

 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
3
76
Originally posted by: dpm
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Syria It has become a soapbox for third world countries to bash the free world, humanity and the United States. We should pull out and start our own for free nations. Call it the United Nations for a free world.

What the smegging hell would be the point of it then? The west is currently fighting a war against terrorist - terrorist supported by people who feel disenfranchised and abused by the west. Getting rid of their last chance to be heard (however innefectual it currently is) isn't going to help any, is it? Disagreeing with them is fine, but seeing as we are not always right, and do not always act in the highest moral and disinterested manner, then we cannot refuse to at least listen to them.

by the way, "bash... humanity"? What are they, pro-Martian?

Let them kill each other then and not kill Americans then, Don't they want us out anyways?
 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: dpm
Originally posted by: Nitemare Syria It has become a soapbox for third world countries to bash the free world, humanity and the United States. We should pull out and start our own for free nations. Call it the United Nations for a free world.
What the smegging hell would be the point of it then? The west is currently fighting a war against terrorist - terrorist supported by people who feel disenfranchised and abused by the west. Getting rid of their last chance to be heard (however innefectual it currently is) isn't going to help any, is it? Disagreeing with them is fine, but seeing as we are not always right, and do not always act in the highest moral and disinterested manner, then we cannot refuse to at least listen to them. by the way, "bash... humanity"? What are they, pro-Martian?
Let them kill each other then and not kill Americans then, Don't they want us out anyways?

What does that mean? I don't understand your logic. Do you mean that you think that if America leaves the UN they'll forget about it?
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
3
76
Originally posted by: dpm
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: dpm
Originally posted by: Nitemare Syria It has become a soapbox for third world countries to bash the free world, humanity and the United States. We should pull out and start our own for free nations. Call it the United Nations for a free world.
What the smegging hell would be the point of it then? The west is currently fighting a war against terrorist - terrorist supported by people who feel disenfranchised and abused by the west. Getting rid of their last chance to be heard (however innefectual it currently is) isn't going to help any, is it? Disagreeing with them is fine, but seeing as we are not always right, and do not always act in the highest moral and disinterested manner, then we cannot refuse to at least listen to them. by the way, "bash... humanity"? What are they, pro-Martian?
Let them kill each other then and not kill Americans then, Don't they want us out anyways?

What does that mean? I don't understand your logic. Do you mean that you think that if America leaves the UN they'll forget about it?

(Simplified for you) We are the Great Satan because our western influence is causing the muslim dictatorships too crumble because people can see how sh!tty their country is. Plus, we are the Great Satan because we try and make them stop killing each other....

Why not do as they request, leave them alone, let them kill each other, then when they realize how backward they are and that God does not want them to kill each other...or they stupidly kill each other until one entity remains, then the US can deal with this problem. Hell, as small as Palestine is they cannot control the country long enough to have peace talks without some hamas mofo blowing up some Israeli's. How can we deal with multiple countries who hate us for the mere reason that we exist and are a standing rreminder of their failures? Hell, let Israel take them all over. It is after all the only country over there not spitting out terrorists left and right and the only one that has less than 80% of the population approving of 9-11 and any future terroist attacks in which americans are killed.
 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: Nitemare
(Simplified for you) We are the Great Satan because our western influence is causing the muslim dictatorships too crumble because people can see how sh!tty their country is. Plus, we are the Great Satan because we try and make them stop killing each other.... Why not do as they request, leave them alone, let them kill each other, then when they realize how backward they are and that God does not want them to kill each other...or they stupidly kill each other until one entity remains, then the US can deal with this problem. Hell, as small as Palestine is they cannot control the country long enough to have peace talks without some hamas mofo blowing up some Israeli's. How can we deal with multiple countries who hate us for the mere reason that we exist and are a standing rreminder of their failures? Hell, let Israel take them all over. It is after all the only country over there not spitting out terrorists left and right and the only one that has less than 80% of the population approving of 9-11 and any future terroist attacks in which americans are killed.

I see. Well, the reason why not is because it wouldn't work.
As the US has discovered more than once before, you can't partially pursue a policy of Isolationism. Either you can afford to totally disconnect the world outside your borders or you must engage with it. America has not become the great country it has by ignoring the rest of the world - it has grown and prospered on massive imports and exports of capital, goods, knowledge and people. True, some in the middle east do hate america. But some do not. As long as America needs the Middle East's oil it must try to encourage the latter and persuade the former.

Or of course, it could invade the whole of the middle east and carve out a vast new empire for itself. But if it did this then it would no longer be the same America that both you and I like so much.