Should the US pull out of the UN? Yes, No why do you think so?

[Woodrow]

I personaly feel that the US no longer belongs in the UN. I support the motto "Get the US out of the UN and get the UN out of the US". I actually believe the UN is a very good organization and if used properly is beneficial for all nations. However I believe it has become overly dependent on the US and that the American people are being unintentionaly harmed by it. It the past 4 decades I have seen too many young American lives lost by the US getting involved into conflicts where we were not wanted. Too many times we have supported the wishes of the majority of the nations, became in conflicts we did not want and to only have our initial supporters pull out and leave us sholdering all the responsibility.

The US pays 27% of the UN budget, yet a large number of the member nations are seriously delenquint in paying their share. Too many nations seem to use the UN as a means to have the US come to their aid, with no need to make any commitment to come to the aid of the US.

I think it is time for the US to no longer accept the responsabilty to being the worlds police department. After nearly 60 years of UN membership the only thing the US has acheived is condemnation from the the majority of the members nations. With the exception of 10 or 15 nations most of the member nations have never upheld their commitment to financialy support the UN or to provide any commitment of troops in times of conflict.

That leaves the US being nearly the sole enforcer of any resolutions that are violated. The US unintentional has enabled many of the member nations to have their wishes granted, with the US becoming the principle provider.

I am sick of seeing so many of the worlds nations taking advantage of the US and for us being blamed for the worlds ills.

I say it is time we pulled out and operate as we did on a strictly one to one basis with each nation. It is time we stopped footing the bill for the worlds conflicts.

 

[Keltoi]

My initial reaction was to vote yes, but after thinking about it for a bit, I don't think leaving the U.N. would be good for the U.S. and would certainly not be good for the U.N. Granted, this relationship hasn't done much for the U.S., but I believe the U.N. still has the ability to do good work in the world. Personally, I find Koffi Annan to be part of the problem. I believe when his term is up, which I believe happens this year or the next, a new secretary-general can make some necessary changes. Maybe, just maybe, the U.N. can be taken seriously again someday.

 

[QuranStudy]

No, because the US is the most influential power in the UN. Without the US, there wouldve been no ceasefire in Lebanon.

 

[Woodrow]

No, because the US is the most influential power in the UN. Without the US, there wouldve been no ceasefire in Lebanon.

That may be true. But, at best it is just a temporary ceasefire. It is going to cost the lives of more than a few UN peacekeeping troops. A few USA troops will most likely be deployed as observers. As soon as any real hostilities break out, all of the UN troops except for the US troops will pull and then the US will be backed into full military intervention to protect them and once again we will have another Afghanistan type situation.

It is a win-win situation for Lebannon and Israel but a Loose -loose situation for the US.

 

[QuranStudy]

But, at best it is just a temporary ceasefire. It is going to cost the lives of more than a few UN peacekeeping troops. A few USA troops will most likely be deployed as observers. As soon as any real hostilities break out, all of the UN troops except for the US troops will pull and then the US will be backed into full military intervention to protect them and once again we will have another Afghanistan type situation.

The United States was the only country that took action to stop the war? What did france do? Egypt? Saudi Arabia?? They just gave opinions.

 

[Woodrow]

The United States was the only country that took action to stop the war? What did france do? Egypt? Saudi Arabia?? They just gave opinions.

And the US will be the one footing the bill, loosing young lives and then end up being portrayed as the capitalistic aggressors.

 

[Keltoi]

The United States is the only country Israel finds credible in situations like occurred recently in Lebanon. France and Saudi Arabia aren't going to convince them of anything in regards to their national security. The United States has alot of pull with Israel, for many reasons. This is one of the reasons I think the U.S. should stay in the U.N., but push for major changes in the way the organization operates. Although it would give me secret pleasure to see the reaction from some members of the U.N. if the U.S. suddenly pulled out of it, I still have a fading hope that the U.N. can become a real force for change in the world.

 

[Jayda]

I personaly feel that the US no longer belongs in the UN. I support the motto "Get the US out of the UN and get the UN out of the US". I actually believe the UN is a very good organization and if used properly is beneficial for all nations. However I believe it has become overly dependent on the US and that the American people are being unintentionaly harmed by it. It the past 4 decades I have seen too many young American lives lost by the US getting involved into conflicts where we were not wanted. Too many times we have supported the wishes of the majority of the nations, became in conflicts we did not want and to only have our initial supporters pull out and leave us sholdering all the responsibility.

The US pays 27% of the UN budget, yet a large number of the member nations are seriously delenquint in paying their share. Too many nations seem to use the UN as a means to have the US come to their aid, with no need to make any commitment to come to the aid of the US.

I think it is time for the US to no longer accept the responsabilty to being the worlds police department. After nearly 60 years of UN membership the only thing the US has acheived is condemnation from the the majority of the members nations. With the exception of 10 or 15 nations most of the member nations have never upheld their commitment to financialy support the UN or to provide any commitment of troops in times of conflict.

That leaves the US being nearly the sole enforcer of any resolutions that are violated. The US unintentional has enabled many of the member nations to have their wishes granted, with the US becoming the principle provider.

I am sick of seeing so many of the worlds nations taking advantage of the US and for us being blamed for the worlds ills.

I say it is time we pulled out and operate as we did on a strictly one to one basis with each nation. It is time we stopped footing the bill for the worlds conflicts.

My husband thinks like that too... but I see the U.N. from the other side. The U.N. has done a lot to help smaller third world nations especially those that tend to be forgotten or used for their natural resources then left behind.

I love America but I do not think America will always act generously to fill the gap left behind by the United Nations. Sometimes the damage being done that the U.N. tries to fix, especially in Latin America, is caused indirectly by America or an American presence...

So maybe the U.N. doesn't benefit us as much as it benefits other people, and maybe the U.N. doesn't always do what we would want them to do... but I think even if they do their job poorly it is better than not having it done at all, so I think the U.S. should stay in the U.N...

When I was a little girl I went on a U.N. tour and they had a big presentation about the history of Nicaragua... I was maybe 5 or 6 but I remember that...

 

[brainiac]

Pull out and kick them out. The U.N. is a corrupt and weak institution. Move it to France. While the U.S. may be the most influential country, no matter what we do, everyone is always on our backs. Let someone else play 'world cop', then see how the world turns out. I would love to see the day when the U.S. pulls out and throws the U.N. out. And I also propose the U.S. halt all forgein aid for a period of two years. The world hates us anyway ( and I don't care ), so why give money to a bunch of ingrates ? Then we will see who is friendly, and who just has their hands out. Let some other 'Great Satan' feed them.

 

[Jayda]

The world hates us anyway ( and I don't care ), so why give money to a bunch of ingrates ?

Because we can't let people starve just because we don't feel appreciated enough...

 

[brainiac]

Because we can't let people starve just because we don't feel appreciated enough...

Let someone else do it. We've been shot at and crapped on for trying to help out long enough. Let France or China or Russia give it a try. They always have a lot to say, mostly bad, about the U.S. Let's see if they have any big ideas.+o( +o(

 

[Jayda]

Let someone else do it. We've been shot at and crapped on for trying to help out long enough. Let France or China or Russia give it a try. They always have a lot to say, mostly bad, about the U.S. Let's see if they have any big ideas.+o( +o(

They cannot afford it as well as we can, and I do not think they would do it... or at least not do it as well... if we abandon them then we are responsible for what happens...

 

[brainiac]

... if we abandon them then we are responsible for what happens...

That's a crock.. !!

 

[Woodrow]

I brelieve the US will always play a large role in charitable work and health assistance. I just do not think it is in the best interest of either the UN or the US for the Us to stay in the UN.

I do not believe the US would or should ever cease humanitarian aid. I do not believe that the US can produce the most good by trying to provide aid through UN channals. I think nearly everybody is aware of the UN packaged foods that end up in wharehouses rotting while people are out side the door are starving. It gets tangled up in mountains of red tape which everybody knows country y caused but country z won't allow it to be fixed because the might alienate country x. It would be much more efficient and cheaper for the US to do their share on their own. Get the food in, distrubute it and get out. (or whatever need that may apply)

The UN has become a gigantic boondoogle of confusion. One country doesn't want to do something because it might help/hurt another country then a third country steps in calls the first 2 countries idiots and declares war on a fifth totaly uninvolved country because they don't do anything.

The US is a multi-national corpoartion that is run by a committee of 192 people that can't agree. It is a huge disorganised committee and every body knows that a committee can not design a horse without it end up looking like a girraf.

We can do more good for more people and at less monetary expense and fewer lives lost if we get out of the UN and get the UN out of the US.

 

[Keltoi]

can't design a horse without it looking like a giraffe....that pretty much sums it up.

 

[Woodrow]

can't design a horse without it looking like a giraffe....that pretty much sums it up.

I just notice I must have asked them how to spell giraffe.

I might have just accidently found the biggest thing that causes me to believe the UN is inefficient and ineffective. Big does not mean better. Big committees tend to build bigger problems. It just may be that it has become too big to be managable. As an organization it is more confused than the government of any nation. It is sort of like trying to open a MacDonalds in new Delhi. Have it set up as a Buddhist owned business, under a Christian manager, trying to sell cheesburgers that are prepared by a Muslim with meat bought from a Sikh and served to Hindus by a Jew. An attempt to produce a good end but violating some standards of all the workers and the anticipated customer. Producing a product by workers that don't want to make it and selling it to a customer that dosen't want it.

Although the US is just one member, it provides nearly 1/3 of the upkeep and probably contributes to much larger percentage of the confusion. The remaining 191 member countries could do much better without US involvement and if all pay their far shar They would have a surplus of funds even after loosing the US contribution.

The US could still be an important factor in the world, but it would be by choice and not out of rule. The US would still have one to one treaties with any country they desire. But, this would keep all out in the open and there would be no fear of the US having any hidden Agendas. It would remove the suspicion of hidden favoratism, and allow the UN to do what it was intendended to do.

 

[Islamicboy]

Is this thread a joke?

 

[Woodrow]

Is this thread a joke?

I'm serious about it. I really do believe the US should pull out of the UN. I believe that would be in the best interest of the US and of the UN.

Does it really make much sense to be in an organization compossed of 192 members. Where at least half have done nothing to support the organization, yet the US has to pay an inflated amount to make up for the unreceived money.

Is there any sense in trying to be part of an organization in which
many of the members are opposed of the US's right to exist.

We can provide much more help to countries on an individual as needed basis. Without being in the UN. The UN can be much more productive by not spending most of it's time bickering over what the US should do.

 

[Islamicboy]

Actually there is United States interest being in United Nations. Lets say a country without any excuse were to declare war and went agiasnt UN. Well that country would be under sanctions and UN threat. United States not only defy UN but also could not prove Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But the same laws that go for the world does not go for united states. United States could do anything without being stopped and recently we learned israel too can do anything and cannot be stopped. United States only helps the people that have american interest in. Dafur sistuation had gone bad to worse and united states never took part until United Nations made a big deal. Yet if the same was happening in an oli filled country united states would have had taken action without UN approval. I believe we should take the United Nations group out we do not need such a hypocritical group monitoring the world.

 

[Abdulwaheed]

There is a lot i dont know about the political situation of the world, but that post made a lot of sense to me.
the US cannot be stopped if they want to do anything they want. It doesnt even matter if they are in the UN or not. and I do believe the UN does some good work even if its a jumbled mess.