Should the US get out of the UN?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Norsefire, Aug 5, 2010.

?

Should the US get out of the UN?

  1. Yes

    38.1%
  2. No

    61.9%
  3. Other

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    I am not quite sure myself, but I suppose I think that the US should get out of the UN.

    Reasons:

    The UN is one step closer to global government
    The UN impedes on the sovereignty of the United States
    The UN is largely made up of socialist, 'progressive', and terrorist nations
    The UN is a parasite that gathers billions from US taxpayers every year
    The UN does absolutely nothing. Some charity, yes; but in regards to international warfare, the UN is nearly useless.
    The UN 'Declaration of Human Rubbish', woops, I mean rights is directly incompatible with the US Constitution; while it [the UN Declaration] starts out fine, it quickly and blatantly proposes 'positive rights' and a progressive agenda as it nears its end, which is something our Founders did not support (they supported the idea of individualism and live and let live)
    The world does not have a global culture in order to warrant a global government
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,707
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,489
    Absolutely not.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    Well let me ask you this Norsefire, what would you put in its place? And why is it so many nations put so much stake in being a member of The United Nations.

    I think this little article really sums it up.

    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...or/why-america-still-needs-the-united-nations

    Since the implementation of The United Nations we have seen a consistent and universal movement towards democracy and human rights around the globe. And as a result, the world is probably more peaceful now that at anytime in human history.

    Additionally, the United Nations has taken a major roll in combating disease. Smallpox was eradicated in no small part because of actions taken by The United Nations. International cooperation and standards are a good thing. And for all of the problems with The United Nations it is still better than the alternatives.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox
     
  8. Echo3Romeo One man wolfpack Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,196
    Even if we all agree these things to be true, I'm not sure what the big deal is. It isn't like "the UN" is capable of forcing the US into doing anything the US doesn't want to do. We have chosen to ignore it in the past, at such times.

    Why not stick around for the times when our membership is useful?
     
  9. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    We should stay in it for one reason and one reason only. So long as we're in it, as a permanent member of the security council, we have veto power. Thus we can be sure it doesn't take any actions inimical to our interests.
     
  10. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    ideally the UN is great as it considers the interests of all nations since they are a part of it.

    once nations and people become more mature, i think we will see a better world.
     
  11. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,631
    I went with "no."

    So is every multilateral treaty. Should trhe U.S get ouyt of NATO? NAFTA? The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? The Geneva Conventions?

    The UN doesn't make the US do anything the US does not want to do...ever, so no it doesn't. Multilateral treaties do make the U.S. do things it might not otherwise do, so this is an argument for abandoning all of those.

    Only to the extent they make up the nations of the earth. Should the U.S. abandon the Earth? Should we become strict isolationists at least?

    It's true that we pay for the place to operate, though "parasite" is a loaded term. Are you against the various international vaccination programs run by the WHO?

    That is true, except that it is a forum in which to conduct talks without having formal meetings or attracting press attention, and in that regard is useful.

    The Declaration is not enforceable law, but just a aspirational description. If you disagree with it, that's fine. The Founders did not suppose that we had no positive rights, and if we were by law to grant such rights, that would not be unconsttutional. The Constitution is not intended to be the maximum limit of our rights, and never would we ever have any additional ones. Quite the opposite, the Constitution describes only some of the righhts we have, and does not in any way preclude our adding new and better rights in the future by statute or otherwise.

    The United States does not have one singular culture. The State of New York does not have one singular culture. The city of New York doe not have one singular culture. The borough of Manhattan does not even have one singular culture. So I suppose that Little Italy and Chinatown need their own "nation" and government?

    There is no rule or reason to suppose that a government rules over one and oly one culture. The Persian Empire, Alexander the Great, the Roman Republic and Empire, the British Empire, all very large governments rule (and frequently rule quite effectively) over multiple cultures. There is no inconsistency with "one government" and "several cultures".

    That is not to say that one world government would be desirable. It would depend on the government, but that there might be multiple cultures involved isn't the criticism.

    Also, though, it's inconsistent to refer to the UN as both ineffective and as the first step to one world government. If it is the latter then by definition it is not the former.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2010
  12. soullust Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,380
    us leaves UN, the USA goes to the shits, someone has to keep your half the time retarded government in check or at least try
     
  13. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    And this is based on?
     
  14. soullust Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,380
    based on the fact that every time the USA goes against the UN they get them selves in a shit hole...like several wars, when the UN Backs the USA its usually aVictory with in 1 year and the USA isn't in debt up to there heads..

    Too bad presidents like bush Jr gets in though and says fuck the UN, hence my opinion on the try.
     
  15. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    You mean like the Korean War? Or Vietnam?
     
  16. soullust Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,380
    vietnam, was never backed by the UN,
     
  17. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    Just looked it up, my mistake. However there's still the Korean War.
     
  18. soullust Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,380
    yeah I agree, but at least that war was more spread out between the usa's allies, so the financial difficulties was wide spread, not just dragging on the USA
     
  19. Light Travelling It's a girl O lord in a flatbed Ford Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    I that is how you feel, and if it ever came to the US pulling out of the UN (and I hope it doesnt). But, if it did then the US should from that point on, cease all trade and commerce with the rest of the world, close its borders and not let anyone in or out. If you dont want to contribute or cooperate then stay out the the rest of the world completely. Be an insular country, like North Korea or the old USSR... and good luck with that

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    I frankly don't see how pulling out of the UN means that all trade will cease, and that the U.S. would become insular like North Korea.

    That's bogus. If a country has something to trade or exchange, then it should be able to do so without some international governing force.

    Unless you are implying a trade embargo on the U.S. for withdrawing from the UN Assembly? That wouldn't be too surprising. And not that the U.S. wouldn't have it coming, having played this self-righteousness card until it's maxed out, and doing unto others as it would not have done unto itself.

    And of course, the people responsible for that claim to speak on behalf of Americans, but I don't think they do. Most of them speak for transnational corporate interests, and have no indebtedness to the populace of either this country, or others.

    The U.S. is fast becoming a nation of serfs to feudal lords.

    These so-called international intermediary congresses tend to have their own agendas, and are used as vehicles for such agendas that couldn't gain traction or ground in other avenues.

    Not all bad. But certainly not all good.
     
  21. Light Travelling It's a girl O lord in a flatbed Ford Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    No it wouldn’t, you misunderstand me. I am not saying it ‘would’ but ‘should’.

    Its not so much the governing force, but it’s the willingness to cooperate with other countries on important issues that affect us all; environment; poverty; world trade; human rights; conflict resolution etc.

    The internationally agreed upon mechanism for this co-operation is the UN. If people don’t want to participate in the co-operation part, why should they benefit from the trade part?

    No I am not suggesting any sort of embargo, just a voluntary withdrawal for the reasons stated above.

    I agree. I am not responding to America, or Americans, just to the thread starter and others of similar opinions. Most Americans I have met are very nice open friendly people.
     
  22. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Wasn't the Korean War compromised by the USSR, which was on the UN Security Council, and that abstained from voting? And one of the UN's security/military advisers happened to be a Soviet general?

    And General MacArthur complained about blatant intelligence leaks to the North Korean forces?

    KOREAN WAR Was A Sham

    “The post for ‘Political and Security Affairs’ traditionally has been held by a SOVIET NATIONALS is Senior Advisor to the Secretary-General.” [New York Times, May 22, 1963]


    ESPIONAGE: Russian at the Back Door


    http://www.international.gc.ca/department/history-histoire/dcer/1950/listofpersons-en.asp




    Nope. No intelligence leaks through the UN of any kind. No double crossing. No side playing both sides of the game. Nope. Haven't seen that, and we don't continue seeing that occur. Everything is fine and dandy.

    Nothing to see here. Please move along, citizens.
     
  23. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Kyute. Komsolmoskaya.


    Provided.
     

Share This Page