Well, what do ya think?

CP

I personally feel that it would be wuite a stupid move to pull out of the UN simply because they did not give official approval that what we did was correct. In fact, they probably wanted Saddam out of power too, as he was certainly a horrible leader, and had disobeyed the UN in the past. They couldn't give official approval though, because there wasn't enough evidence that Saddam's regime had WMD's in order to invade. We could definitely use the UN's help in the future: for what? We don;t know now, but it never hurts to have some allies around the globe.

Frankly, I don't see the UN functioning well without America, we seem to be the only country that acts on the UN's resolutions. I'm not just talking about Iraq, but also Kosovo as well, and the UN isn't prepared to send troops to Liberia right now also.

CP

I would like to think of the u.n as something natrual to come about in a world of advanced nations. The power struggle that ruined it was spawned from the democratic base it relies upon for dealing with issues that come about. No one nation should think they are they soul running authority of such a body, or its existence becomes null in purpose.
The simple fact is witout such a unit for any kind of stability you get rouge versions of it, or no kind of u.n at all and a world of shadows to say the least. Should the u.s pull from the u.n, i would hope not for the sake of all involved.

The situation in liberia is a touchy one, the last i heard some group planned to defend a city and a related bridge to the death from the other group.

Not being an American, I don't think my opinion is really all that valid to the rest of you. But I have voted; I believe the US (even if the Americans don't like it) really needs the UN if it has any intention of being a world leading power.


Here are two links on the subject;

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/19/internat...3ec0d66a137bdde

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33589

Don't you think the US is a superpower already?

CP

I think the US needs the UN because the US has a hard time re-building a nation. The US is good at taking down the leadership of a nation but it is not equipped to handle the re-building prcoess as shown in Iraq

I think the U.S. should stay in the U.N. but we should move the U.N. out of the U.S.
Any somewhat neutral countries out there willing to take on this burden?
Perhaps it should be treated like the Olympics, every 4 years another country gets to be the host.

I believe the US should pull out of the UN.
What started as a great experiment in global democracy has been corrupted as do all beauracracy's(sp?)

The founding fathers created this nation with a set of ideals that for the most part are still revered and followed to this day by the vast majority of the population.

I would invite everyone who already hasn't to read through papers issued by various UN departments such as Agenda 21, Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, Council for the Protection of Children, and We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century.

The UN does not stand for American values.

What is wrong with any of those programs, they all work towards a better planet. If you want to pull out because you dont want child soldiers, some polluted to the bone planet and i will stop there, i dont see what the major issue is with it at all.

If you want a global government, no right to free speech, no right to own a firearm, and virtually no parental rights, then by all means, your just the world citizen the UN is looking for.

I'll fight it to the bitter end.

I think a period of Splendid Isolation would be dangerous for the United States.

I also think the United Nations gets too much of a bad rap. What is so bad about trying to solve some of the global problems in a basically democratic process. Too blame the UN for being too bureaucratic implies that the federal government of the United States (our largest employer, no?) does not have the same problem.

When I see evidence that the UN is forcing us to act in ways that we do not want to, then I will reevaluate my position about our role in that organization.

It is a useful tool and I think we leveled an unfortunate blow against it this year. This is a setback to world peace and diplomatic solutions to foreign policy crises.

Mrs Pigpen



In the classic sense of the word, then yes I do.

However, just being a superpower does not grant the USA automatic control of the world.

...which is a point which many Americans do not seem able to grasp (please excuse me for being blunt). It seems when I read comments written by Americans here and else where that many US citizens have embraced the notion that, with the USSR out of the picture, America has some sort of right to lead the world.

I do not believe it does. Rather I believe the UN is the only forum which has the backing of the entire world, and the USA must abide by the UN decisions and declerations. Since America was instrumental in creating the UN, then it also a moral obligation for the USA to support the UN, and even, if needed, save it from misuse and corruption.


And I don't hold Americans to a different set of values either. The same audacious attitude is rife in Europe as well, and especially in the EU where many Europhiles seem to take for granted the automatic assumption of power by the EU over all European states.

I don't accept this. For my part, I believe that the people, of all and any nation, have the right of self determination, but in turn with that right comes the duty of protecting those who are weaker than one self.

Or in other words; Might does not make right.

Er...It sounds like something I might say. But, could you remind me where I said it, and in what context?

Edited to add: Oh, Wait! It was Conservpat's quote, moif (whew! thought I was losing my mind for a minute)

I think we should remain in the UN, but ignore it when it suits our interests. I do not believe the US should lead the world or be subjugated to anything except treaties we have agreed to. Most of the world is more socialist than the US. Certainly many leftists in the US would wish us to subjugate ourselves to the UN.

The u.n is democratic. In that no single nation can lead it. If the u.s or any other nation wants a u.n type thing where it is boss, i dont think you are going to get many nations to play with it at all. Because overall, then it would not be very democratic, and i dont think none of us here would like to be a communist right.

I wasn't going to weigh in on this one, but this statement drew me in. The U.N. is NOT democratic. One key element of a democracy is the enfranchisement of those represented.

We can not vote for our UN representatives. We have delegates that make law that can effect the lives of citizens in this and every country involved in the UN. However, the citizens of this country have no say in who those delegates are (I'm not sure how delegates are chosen in other countries but they are appointed by the President here).

I will never be able to support the UN until the citizens of this nation are enfranchised. Once that happens, come ask me again and I may have a new opinion.

Then i guess you would have to open that to all peoples of the world, or it would not be fair. How you would regulate a system like that is beyond me. Unless the u.n could become some real form of world goverment, something i would vote for even if its not liked to say the least

It would be regulated by the individual nations as it currently is. However, in this nation the current laws on UN representation would need to change.

I gave a better history of this in this thread: Should we ditch the UN?. But, simply put, it was our own Congress that disenfranchised us from the UN in 1945, and it appears to be up to Congress to restore our right to vote for UN representatives.

I will not subject myself to laws in which I had no opportunity to help create them.

Yes, but i dont think many u.n laws attack how much tax you would pay on sales in washington state, or the u.s lobby system. When was the last time you remember u.s power in the u.n telling people how they can live in germany. To me at least, all of the things the u.n works with are "global" in nature, something that may be making the u.s not like it very much.

Jaime, we are indirectly represented in the UN. We elect the person who appoints the UN delegates.
You seem much better informed than I on this topic. How does the UN have the power to bind the United States to a course of action? Is there an example of us being compelled to act against our interests?

...and that makes the UN undemocratic? Wouldn't that also make the Supreme Court undemocratic? The UN is not directly democratic, it is not proportionally democratic, but then neither is the US Senate. The UN does at least follow a democratic model of allowing members to vote on its decisions instead of just having decisions flow from the top.

Take a look at the UN's proposal for global taxes...any takers for this type of imposition?

Link

Do i think this will pass with the u.s, no. Why not, because we are makeing massive tax cuts now, and our leadership, the neo-cons, and pnac are not about something like this. My personal opinion, i think we should(ducks hail of bullets).

That depends a bit on your definitions. Our UN representatives are appointed by elected officials - the same as Cabinet secretaries, foreign ambassadors, federal judges, cultural attaches, etc. Are all of these undemocratic? Well, that depends on your definition.

Until the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, we didn't vote for our Senators - our state legislatures did. As Platypus mentioned, we still cannot vote for our Supreme Court Justices. We have judges that interpret law that can effect the lives of every citizen in the country. Are you supporting the Supreme Court until the citizens of this nation are enfranchised? Heck, we're not even enfranchised to elect our President - we elect electors who, in some states, can do what they darned well please.

Why are all these other NOT democratic things acceptable in our NOT-a-democracy, while the appointment of UN delegates is not??

When the u.n agrees to go into a nations and try to take care of its problems there is a cost attached to such things.
The more money the u.n has to work with the better the operations are. To try and combat some of the reasons the u.n has to do things in the first place, such as go into third world nations and help them, is because of the fact they are mainly third world or part of some giant collapse as in the ussr. To sustain development across the board for nations not only means reduction in such times the u.n is called, by improveing the nations themselves, but the less money in the future any nation has to spend on said endevours/better world overall. To try and limit the black market and or flow of small arms is a great idea, that way when peacekeepers or u.s soldeirs have to go into some third world nations, maybe a 13 year old wont have an ak, or some other type of weapon. Pollution and environmental issues are something the world has to face, it can do this together and or alone. Even when cfc's were banned in the u.s, the releitive cheap nature of it then made it a prime target for other poorer nations to use, this is just one example. To make any one nation try to curb pollution is going to be a tad bit more exspensive then a group effort would be. Also said group efforts on any global issue cost more when you go at it alone, such as the war in iraq.

Sigh...

Poor choice of words on my part, apparently. How about this: "The UN is not democratic enough for my liking because we are disenfranchised."

That still does not alter my position as previously stated.

And while I think my views on the USSC and the voting for US Senators is irrelevant to this debate, I will state that it bothers me also that we have no real say in the appointment of the USSC justices and I prefer that we get to directly chose our Senators. Worried I'm not being consistent?

I voted that the UN needs the US.

The US provides over 1/4 of the resources for the UN.
The UN provides the headquarters for the UN.
Without the US's inclusion, no decision reached by the UN would be the "international will" (since the US's PoV has a lot of input into that international will.)

The UN is not very close to a democracy. Sure, they vote on things, but that is as close as it comes. When so many voters have actual VETO power, the UN doesn't approach a democracy. (Note that in the US, the no voter, ie Congressmen, have veto power. The power of the veto is a "checks and balances" measure. In the UN, disparate groups could use the veto power to create gridlock.) On the other hand, the UN rarely makes executive type decisions, instead relying upon suggestions towards solutions.

Notice that most nations outside the US are extremely slow to act. The intervention in Iraq would not have happened without the US pushing the issue (obviously). The intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo would not have happened without US backing. The Liberia situation is a virtual standstill until the US decides what it's going to do. The peace process in Israel wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the US. The examples of US leadership in world affairs is endless.

Without the US, the UN would be a hopeless quagmire of bureaucratic non-sense (even more than it is currently). The US shouldn't give up on the UN (yet), but that time might be approaching...

And both of these things increase my comfort level about the UN. It should not be able to push countries into war. It should not be an organization best suited to action. It should be an international forum that seeks solutions to wars. Whether by trying to avoid them or help provide stability in war torn regions.

I think the US jumped the gun by far over Iraq. I think the UN and its collective voice were on a more effective course due to the lack of urgency and I think US policy seriously damaged the credibility of the UN.

The problem with your assessment comes when there is a pressing need for action. Granted, the situation in Iraq may not have required that, but some future situation might.

Historically, the reaction to Hitler was glacierally slow. Europe did not react quickly, even while their neighbors were being invaded. It is this type of paralysis, when combined with the natural inertia that comes with so many veto voters that could lead to some serious problems with the UN structure.

What if 5,000 people per day are dying? Would the UN get its act together quickly enough to save the first 50,000 lives? I wouldn't bet on it. Maybe the US wouldn't, either, but I would be willing to bet the US would intervene much quicker than the UN.

The US's position is one of leadership. Leaders must make decisions and take action (by definition). Hand wringing and endless debate are fine in certain situations, but could be catastophic in others.

The UN is not democratic. In the various committees such as the disarment committee have members countries rotated by Alphabetical order (Iraq on the disarmament committee...during the crisis in iraq...give me a break ) and then you have countries in the Human Rights committee like Sudan, North Korea and Cuba being let in.


Donttreadonme:


That's insane. The american people would laugh at that and call the UN crazy & then they will demand the US to pull out of the UN because the UN is starting to do what democrats do and make up taxes.



On a personal note, i think the US needs to pull out of the UN because the UN has gone completley insane. How so you ask? This: Cuba, Sudan, North korea in the Human Rights Committee. Nuff said.

Also, the UN wants the US to pay for the UN building renovation bill

Yes, that same fact it has no democracy is why the u.n is not in iraq right now with the u.s, except for in small amounts, some of which have been attacked.

The u.n cant tell or force anything on anyone. Its an agreed upon body by the participants, the nations dont play you have no u.n, its that simple.

The u.n deals with global issues, it does tell france to pay for africa and the u.s to invade sweden.

all nations get a fair shake, we nuked two citys full of civilians, that does not bar us from anything.

Mrs Pigpen



Oops... my mistake. I do beg your pardon!


Amlord



As opposed to ... say? Saddam Hussein???

I agree move the UN out of this country. I do think we should stay in but only pay no more than the other security council members pay and when providing troops it comes off our bill. In saying that it is extremely difficult to get a group of people to do the right thing as recent events have shown. Either the UN stands behind its resolutions or this matter is moot as there won't be a un to worry about.