Should the Unites States Withdraw From United Nations ?

[GePap]

Originally posted by 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.

We have three today... but once you destroy the system, don't expect many states to decide to stay non-nuclear or keep their hands of Bio and chemical weapons. And then of course someone might decide that they need long range missiles too, and that the current geenration of chemical and biological weapons don't kill enough people cheaply enough. One destroys the world order at their own risk. There is no reason why the next one should be so nice as the last. The US benefits immensely from the UN, and would be one of the big losers in getting rid of it.

But again, the US will not leave the UN: even if it were to become "irrelevant" in terms of fighting the wars the US wants to fight, all the other bits, such as WHO, WTO, IMF and so forth are simply too valuable. So go on whishing the US leave the UN on its own: Its one wish you won't get (and pray you don't either)

[Lancer]

I disagree. The French won't come in.

The UN is useless. If the US trys to give UN mandates some backbone then the UN wimps out. They are more of a hinderance to the US than anything, and we pay to keep the lights on in the place.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Lancer
I disagree. The French won't come in.

Just wait and see what happens

A lot of that posturing in Europe was purely for domestic consumption.

[DanS]

Even if so, I think the French actions in particular did not serve the cause of peace. They let off the pressure on Iraq at a critical time.

[Shi Huangdi]

Withdrawing from the UN would be a stupid idea. We would be the only country besides the Vatican not to be in it. Withdrawing from the UN would needlessly undermine our diplomatic relations with little benefit. We have the ability to ignore the UN and we can do that if the UN does something we really don't like, but to withdraw from the UN would make no sense.

[Lancer]

US foreign policy should not hinge on a decision of the ****ing French at any rate. If France doesn't come in then everyone who says 'the US should get UN approval' have their reason for flaming the US when the US invades Iraq. Because of a decision of the nations of the world? Hell no, because of the ****ing French.

The UN is powerless to act in support of its own mandates because of the politics of nations on the security council. The US shouldn't support an organization that impedes our foriegn policy. Providing France or Russia or China a stage from which to voice an opinion on whether the US takes out a mass murdering two bit dictator is just too absurd to support.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by DanS
Even if so, I think the French actions in particular did not serve the cause of peace. They let off the pressure on Iraq at a critical time.

Nah - they just gave the Administration a reality check - which many would argue this Administration badly needed.

I think many Americans are taken in by Government spin on the UN. Of course the Administration blames the UN when they claim they aren't getting what they want. Its all part of the politics. But I can tell you that when US really wants something in any international organisation, they get it. The US is the 900 pound gorilla in the UN and everywhere else.

[DanS]

they just gave the Administration a reality check

What was the substance of this reality check?

[Alexander's Horse]

The main problem is Bush Administration unilateralism. What France and Germany are doing is reminding the US they aren't a one man band.

Look at all the hoops they are making the US jump through, the Powell thing and so on, LOL. That's what its about.

[Velociryx]

To my way of thinking, the UN is our best hope at lasting world peace, but ONLY if we don't give up on it.

Instead of not playing ball, we need to give it teeth and a purpose. We need to push reforms through to turn it into more of a positive (as has already been pointed out, the Security Council does not equal the whole of the UN, and there are some things it does well).

Change is needed if it is to become an instrument of peace, however, and we are uniquely positioned to be the instruments OF that change.

Not playing ball is not the answer.

Action from within the UN is the answer.

Leading by example is the answer.

Shouldering the greater weight of UN burdens is the answer.

As it stands right now though, the UN Security Council IS useless. Might as well wipe your arse with the "resoultions" they pass, for all the strength and weight they carry.

But the answer is to change that, not chuck the whole system.

-=Vel=-

[DanS]

I don't buy it. Bush has been multilateral in most of what he has done. It's a convenient thing for others to use as a intellectual crutch when they can't stand on the principle of a position. Just like some anti-UN blathering in the US.

As for the hoops, perhaps so. But we aren't just another EU country that France can be petulant with; they have real interests that we can either protect or not. And Russia vetoed Kosovo, so the possibility is there that they will do the same here. Germany isn't part of the band anyway. We respect Russia's opinion a lot more than Germany's.

[pg]

stay in the un for now. the leaving is worse even if france vetos imo.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by DanS
I don't buy it. Bush has been multilateral in most of what he has done. It's a convenient thing for others to use as a intellectual crutch when they can't stand on the principle of a position. Just like some anti-UN blathering in the US.

Remember - its all just posturing before the UN vote, and the voters at home.

As for the hoops, perhaps so. But we aren't just another EU country that France can be petulant with; they have real interests that we can either protect or not.

The French are petulant with everybody - and that's the point - you are just another country.

And Russia vetoed Kosovo, so the possibility is there that they will do the same here. Germany isn't part of the band anyway. We respect Russia's opinion a lot more than Germany's.

Germany is very important. Ignore them at your peril. But they will fall into line.

Russia needs US economic support and a free hand in Chechnya. They won't be a problem.

[Bereta_Eder]

should the US leave the UN.

short answer: no

long answer: of course not

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The main problem is Bush Administration unilateralism. What France and Germany are doing is reminding the US they aren't a one man band.

Look at all the hoops they are making the US jump through, the Powell thing and so on, LOL. That's what its about.

I actually agree with pretty much everything you've stated, but, look at it from the US POV for a moment...

(a) To "force" the other countries into line they generally have to compromise in something else. Politics again but as most US actions are not generally of direct and immediate benefit to the US (or are of much more of a benefit to other nations than they are to the US) at some point they may just get fed up with the whole thing.

(b) The US then goes ahead and does the lions share of the "work" anyway. Others may contribute but on nowhere near the same scale.

(c) Then they get flamed for not doing it better, or with less casualties inflicted, or for not picking up every piece afterwards.



(c) is pretty much inevitable but if they're doing (b) then why on earth should they bother with (a)?