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

[Muezzin]

I think you equated questioning with attacking.

Indeed I did. I apologise.

 

[Ghazi]

So nations should only participate if it is "working in there favor"?

Hmm... I see what your saying but the majority of nations involved are in bed with the United States which isn't exactly working to establish Allah's word.

 

[wilberhum]

Hmm... I see what your saying but the majority of nations involved are in bed with the United States which isn't exactly working to establish Allah's word.

I hope not. I'm for total seperation of church and state. But I do realize that you think differently.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Sorry for going off-topic, but I felt I had to respond to this.

I hope not. I'm for total seperation of church and state. But I do realize that you think differently.

I'm not sure , but I take it with seperation of state and "church", you refer to any religion? If that's teh case; I would like to ask why you hold that opinion.

If you do so because you wish a devision in power to minimalise abuse, and you think it is potentially dangerous for a religious body to aquire this power, I can reply that power is dangerous regardless of its origin. Every potential can be used both negatively and positively. A secular governing might just as well be corrupt. Degenerate people in a struggle for power will always use any means necessary. Furthermore you need to realise that this devision in power is not neutral. A seperation of state and religion is anti-religious, as any opinion from a theist can be rejected by an atheist on the ground of it's religious base. But a theist cannot reject the athic opinion for it's atheistic base. So a devision of state and religion favours the atheistic view over the religious view. This happens regardless of which one is the most desirable, or morally righteous!

Should you answer that you feel a person with religous power (=someone respected and followed by believers) is not desirable because of his power. Then know that I will reply that I could argue -with that same logic- that one could reject any given democratic elected statesmen! No matter who is elected! If it's in a democratic system, he is (by defenition of popularity!) elected by the people because he and/or his views are popular.

Another reason one might have is because one for claiming state should be seperated from religion, is out of fear that he will no longer have freedom of religion. However, not every religious power will take away that freedom. If someone in power holds islamic views and is a true believer, he should know that "there should be no compulsion in religion" as it says in the qur'an.
Furthermore it is just as easy for a secular goverment to take away that right as it is for a theistic goverment. Just look at the lack of religious freedom in a clasical communistic state. But even in the west we see hijab bans in France, Belgium, and even turkey, which has a majority of muslims! What does that tell us about the freedom of religion a secular state has to offer?

 

[Jayda]

I think we are a little too quick to forget the lessons we learned in world war II...

 

[KAding]

Actually, the US is not 'footing the bills' any more than any other rich country. The US compromises about 25% of the world economy, as such they also pay about 25% of the UN budget. The European countries actually pay more then the US, footing close to 40% of the bill while collectively having an economy that is just as big as the US economy. Japan pays about 19%, more than the US per capita.

I don't think it would be beneficial for the US to leave the UN. At times it has proven useful to them, while the UN cannot generally be used against US interest because of its veto power.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Actually, the US is not 'footing the bills' any more than any other rich country. The US compromises about 25% of the world economy, as such they also pay about 25% of the UN budget. The European countries actually pay more then the US, footing close to 40% of the bill while collectively having an economy that is just as big as the US economy. Japan pays about 19%, more than the US per capita.

I don't think it would be beneficial for the US to leave the UN. At times it has proven useful to them, while the UN cannot generally be used against US interest because of its veto power.

Actually I thought fees are calculated on the population number of a country, not on it's economy or well-being.

 

[Jayda]

The U.N. is an important place where smaller countries that aren't always heard get to voice their opinion... and it is about resolving problems without war, I do not think the united states should ever be against that... those are good things..

 

[Abdul Fattah]

The U.N. is an important place where smaller countries that aren't always heard get to voice their opinion... and it is about resolving problems without war, I do not think the united states should ever be against that... those are good things..

What's the point of stating their opinion when they're ignored? America does what it wants either way. The only thing this does, is give the counrtys false hope that their diplomacy actually has an effect so that they wouldn't resort to other actions. Throw a dog a bone and it'll be quiet. And you're wrong, the UN is not about resolving problems without war, that's just what they feed the people to believe. It's really about the rest of the world following the USA, and from the very second that the UN doesn't work; that the country in question no longer follows, then the USA completely ignores the UN. So what's the point of their participation?

 

[Jayda]

What's the point of stating their opinion when they're ignored? America does what it wants either way. The only thing this does, is give the counrtys false hope that their diplomacy actually has an effect so that they wouldn't resort to other actions. Throw a dog a bone and it'll be quiet. And you're wrong, the UN is not about resolving problems without war, that's just what they feed the people to believe. It's really about the rest of the world following the USA, and from the very second that the UN doesn't work; that the country in question no longer follows, then the USA completely ignores the UN. So what's the point of their participation?

Hola steve...

...i don't think it is entirely a false hope, and saying something is better than nothing. If there were no U.N. I don't think America would have left South America alone... it also gives smaller nations a little more sense of pride internationally, I look at all the good things that have happened to Mexico because of the U.N. and see how far things have come and I have a lot of hope for the future, so do most mexicans in mexico and many south americans... the U.N. at least lets them speak...

have any of you ever heard of unicef?

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hola steve...

...i don't think it is entirely a false hope, and saying something is better than nothing. If there were no U.N. I don't think America would have left South America alone... it also gives smaller nations a little more sense of pride internationally, I look at all the good things that have happened to Mexico because of the U.N. and see how far things have come and I have a lot of hope for the future, so do most mexicans in mexico and many south americans... the U.N. at least lets them speak...

have any of you ever heard of unicef?

Euhm, I don't like to be the bringer of bad news, but USA hasn't left South America alone. It's even more noticable in Central America. They have interfered every time they had a personal interest. They have seen to it that every elected official is i ntheir favour or else they 've given him hell, and so far Castro is the only one who has been able to stand up against this involvement, and even there I woner if that's not only because the US "alowed " it to hapen. Perhaps involvement is not always in teh open, but their influence was defenitly there. Look at Panama, look at Cuba, look at Chili, look at Venuzuela. CIA knows south america like the back of their hand. Yes these countrys can all speak whereas they couldn't without the UN, but do you think it gives them a single ounce of power? Do you think they can do anything that they couldn't do before?

Yes I know Unicef and what they do is very admirable, but they're a semi-autonomous organisation. They have their own administration and are responsable for their own funding. They are linked to the UN in name, but not in comitment. UN doesn't need unicef and Unicef doesn't need teh UN as far as I know; they work exclusivly with donations.

 

[Jayda]

Euhm, I don't like to be the bringer of bad news, but USA hasn't left South America alone. It's even more noticable in Central America. They have interfered every time they had a personal interest. They have seen to it that every elected official is i ntheir favour or else they 've given him hell, and so far Castro is the only one who has been able to stand up against this involvement, and even there I woner if that's not only because the US "alowed " it to hapen. Perhaps involvement is not always in teh open, but their influence was defenitly there. Look at Panama, look at Cuba, look at Chili, look at Venuzuela. CIA knows south america like the back of their hand. Yes these countrys can all speak whereas they couldn't without the UN, but do you think it gives them a single ounce of power? Do you think they can do anything that they couldn't do before?

The US is not totally uninvolved... but this is not the same as the 70s and 80s when south america was constantly thrown into cia backed civil wars... today there are stable government and dictatorships are far less common... I really think that because they were able to voice themselves through organizations like the U.N. they were able to convince the world to stop ignoring what was happening... so yes I think that gives them an ounce of power...

Yes I know Unicef and what they do is very admirable, but they're a semi-autonomous organisation. They have their own administration and are responsable for their own funding. They are linked to the UN in name, but not in comitment. UN doesn't need unicef and Unicef doesn't need teh UN as far as I know; they work exclusivly with donations.

UNICEF is one example of what can result from the discussion and cooperation encouraged by the U.N. I don't think we should turn our backs on that...

 

[Abdul Fattah]

The US is not totally uninvolved... but this is not the same as the 70s and 80s when south america was constantly thrown into cia backed civil wars... today there are stable government and dictatorships are far less common... I really think that because they were able to voice themselves through organizations like the U.N. they were able to convince the world to stop ignoring what was happening... so yes I think that gives them an ounce of power...

Well the UN already existed in the 70 and 80's. It was founded in 1945.
So if there's a difrenc I'd doubt its thanks to the UN, I just think US is now more succesfull in establishing it's puppet goverments and therefor there's less war as there's no longer a need to start war!

UNICEF is one example of what can result from the discussion and cooperation encouraged by the U.N. I don't think we should turn our backs on that...

Unicef is founded by the UN, but that doesn't make their achievements the result of the UN. Their achievements is the result of all those hard working volunteers and the donators who're willing to support teh cause. It doesn't happen because nations come toghether, it happens because peopel put an effort in it. I'm not saying we shoul turn our backs on Unicef, I'm saying we should face reality and realise that UN is just a big joke.

 

[KAding]

Actually I thought fees are calculated on the population number of a country, not on it's economy or well-being.

That would imply a country like China would be paying 5x as much to the UN as the United States. Clearly thats not true. The 'donations' to the UN are based on tough negotiations which clearly take economic developement as the starting point.