Should the Unites States Withdraw From United Nations ?

[Bosh]

*ahem*





we are missing something....

[Lancer]

GePap, the constitution of the US protects your right to advocate its overthrow.

[GePap]

Lancer: huh ??

All I said is that I think the "hang all the libertarians" project can easily go ahead prior to any revolution. After all, it is the sensible thing to do.

Hang 'em high!

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by GePap
Thankfully though, such abjectly moronic notions will always fail: after all, as Che would say, the government is run by corporate business interests, and most rich business men know how much a stable world means to their pocket book.

Good point. So let's talk about something all Americans understand - money.

If we didn't have the UN it would inevitablly fall to the United States to play the role of global policeman and particularly to safeguard global commerce and trade.

You say the outside world can go to hell? Corporate America doesn't see it like that. The expenses involved in playing this role would make the costs of the war on Iraq look like child's play. Imagine 3 or 4 Iraqs going on at any one time - US forces deployed on every continent, the US navy engaged at every trouble spot, drawn into every international conflict. By contrast, the UN system isn't perfect but it keeps order in the world on the cheap - and every UN Member contributes to the costs.

The last Great Power to play this global policeman role was Britain and it pretty much bankrupted the country over time. Britain's place as the world's leading economic power declined rapidly once it moved from global mercantilism to global empire. Britain was almost continuously at war during the 18th and 19th century, from colonial wars to big wars with the other Great Powers. Everyone was trying to knock them off. In every corner of the globe Britain was engaged, and governments in Westminster found themselves powerless to avoid engagement even when they tried hard to stay out.

And what thanks did the Brits get for keeping order in the world and making the world's oceans safe for commerce and trade? Zip.

[DanS]

Britain's place as the world's leading economic power declined rapidly once it moved from global mercantilism to global empire.

To be fair, the US is declining in relative terms as well, with or without the UN, with or without empire.

[Alexander's Horse]

Right - and you will decline must faster without the UN system.

And this is the real concern behind the war in Iraq - maintaining US global dominance. The Administration has said so publicly.

But you conservative Republicans out there should really think about unilateralism means in terms of your hip pocket nerve i.e. more government debt or more taxes. Choose your poison.

Britain faced countless Iraqs. The arguments for British intervention were almost exactly the same.

[DanS]

Iraq isn't going to hurt the United States in the pocket book too badly. And I don't think we're after "countless" Iraqs. We've got a list of three, with at least one that won't cost much (Iran). True, NK does have a high risk level.

[Alexander's Horse]

famous last words..............look at the budget deficit Bush is running just to fund this war!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DanS]

You're silly. It's nothing like the deficits Reagan ran to win the Cold War.

[Alexander's Horse]

Its only the beginning. If you want to use a Cold War analogy, think of 9/11 as 1948 and start counting. Meanwhile the Euros forge ahead without the burden of these costs.

And its going to cost you a fortune. UN mediation is slow and sometimes annoying but so much more cost effective.

[Lancer]

AH, I just don't see how the UN is having that great an effect. France is going to veto...

[DanS]

UN mediation is slow and sometimes annoying but so much more cost effective.

I don't dispute this. It's their job to stop situations from becoming the Iraqs of the next decade. The US can pick the highlights.

If you want to use a Cold War analogy

It wasn't an analogy. It was a contrast.

[Alexander's Horse]

I was the one using the analogy, smart arse

[Kontiki]

I can't believe the level of whining here. The US is having some trouble getting UN approval for one bloody thing it wants to do, and suddenly it's time to just pull out, let the whole damn thing collapse. I'll be the first to admit that the system is far from perfect, but if you think that just throwing up your hands and saying "that's it, screw the UN" is the optimal response to resistance for invading Iraq, then you have your heads too far up your asses to listen to reason.

Or, perhaps some of you UN haters can suggest how not having/creating a new UN would magically make things better?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Lancer
AH, I just don't see how the UN is having that great an effect. France is going to veto...

I doubt it - a lot of the debate here has been premature. At the end of the day I think the US will get Security Council support. So chill out boys