Time to get rid of the US or the UN

[bemildred]

A novel idea ...

But the past is past and we have to move on in a positive way despite the best efforts of the US to dominate the world.
First we had the League of Nations, and it fizzled away, and then we got the UN, and it showed us all too well that it is an
ineffective institution in the area of conflict resolution, and that the UN was in effect a little more than a cover and an
instrument of US foreign policy. The UN in short, and looking at the major conflicts was little more than a stooge for the
US; anything positive about its role in major conflicts, seems to have always been marginal, at best, despite some
people's desire to give a different impression.

The US is not to blame for this. They had the military and economic power and played great defense and offense, and did
well for themselves; and they deserve to be learned from in their effectiveness that outmaneuvered the Soviet Union,
outflanked and still do the Europe Union, and held the levers in critical areas through out the world. Their interest was
their interest -- and not that of the world, even if at times coincided with the world's interests.

---

The UN General Assembly should promptly move to issue a resolution, that "we are going to rent an office complex,
somewhere in the world, and Switzerland, or Belgium are as good as any place to do this, and declare that we are
moving the UN, without the UN Security Council to this location. And start anew. The US can come or stay." It will be a
historic day indeed. From Africa, to the Middle East, to Asia, to South America; problems that have defied solutions, will
have to come to the General Assembly and its courts and melt away under the authority of respected and authoratative
democratic institutions.

In a short period of time, a democratic UN, can impose solutions on the multitude of problems afflicting the world -- the
Irish problem, the India-Pakistan problem, the Arab - Israeli problem, and every other conflict that has and continue to
retard maximum political, economic development and drain the world from great wealth. The effects that democracy and
rule of law have had in revolutionizing political stability and economic development at the domestic level, will do the same
at the international level. Conservatives and liberals alike should understand this much.

Arabic News

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. It's a good idea. The UN without US has potential to do some good

Or a whole new org, even better. No old baggage.

It is not clear why the US has even been in the UN, since the stated principles and the charter are in direct conflict with US foreign policy.

It is time for the world to move on, let the US lie in the bed it has made, alone.

[forgethell]

3. That's an excellent idea

only, if they kick out the US, they kick out the US's money, too. somehow, I don't think they will, but then I don't think any higher of "leaders" in other countries than I do of "leaders" in America. I'm just cynical, I guess.

[LoneStarLiberal]

14. Considering That We "Owe"

Considering our debt to the United Nations' peacekeeping operations accounts for roughly 62% of all United Nations arrears, they're not really kicking out our money...formally.

We have made substantial contributions to United Nations operations over the course of time that we have not paid our formal obligations to the U.N., but none of this satisfies our formal obligations.

The freeper crowd will tell you authoritatively that "we don't owe the U.N. one cent." They are wrong, just as their policy wonks who crafted this propaganda are wrong. Saying we don't owe the U.N. the money we are formally obligated to pay them is about as cheap as Deon Sanders telling his mechanic God told him to pay no more than x amount of dollars for work already done that cost quite a bit more, as he recently did.

[trigz]

23. Money? What money?

The US have combined debt to the UN and affiliated projects and nations of $ loads-of-trillions.

[Jennellist]

2. The U.N, has been merely an extension of the U.S. foreign policy?

That's news to me and a whole lot of other people. Given all we've been through with the U.N. I have to ask; Are you really saying this with a straight face?

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. Who voted 11 years of sanctions on Iraq? Who signed off on the occupation?

Who chose not to exercise authorization of force option to prevent the US from invading Iraq and slaughtering its citizens and seizing its oil?

Who has raised only feeble mewling at Israel's US-taxpayer funded crimes against humanity for 55 years?

[dudeness]

5. its not news to me Jennellist

some further investigation on your part may enlighten you on this matter..may I suggest noam chomsky or john pilger to begin with..

[LastDemInIdaho]

6. Get rid of the US

Not hardly. Anyone suggesting this is beyond suicidal.

[bemildred]

7. How come?

We already told them they are "irrelevant", so why should we care?

[forgethell]

8. The UN

can do nothing without the US. They are not a monolithic entity, but a collection of rabble. They may be united in distste for the US, but they back-stab each other constantly. The UN needs to be discarded and something better put in its place.

[bemildred]

9. I just asked why we should care?

You seem to be saying we shouldn't?

[forgethell]

10. what is the difference between

"why should we care" and "we shouldn't"??

I'm just saying the UN has accomplished very little during its 58-year existence. I think there should be a better organization to replace it. Or it should be reformed. That's all??

[bemildred]

11. One is a question, the other is an answer that responds to it.

Mr. Idaho made a statement that it would be suicidal for the
UN to kick out the US, apparently, and that didn't make sense
to me, as I presumed we would not care what they did, as they
are "irrelevant". I wasn't talking about whether they were
ineffective or not, just the "suicidal" claim and what the US
response would be. Your statement seemed tangential to that, and
I was trying to make sense of it. Sorry, I won't do it again.

[forgethell]

12. No need to apoloize

i was just trying to understand, not argue. As for "suicidal", though, I agree that it would be bad for the UN to kick out the US. They need us more than we, that is the government, need them. and they still wouldn't be able to deploy any force unless the US was at least willing to let them. Who is going up against the US military??

Now i'm not saying this is right or wrong, I'm just saying the USA is the 500 pound gorilla around here and everybody else has to take its reactions into account.

[bemildred]

13. OK.

While I agree we must be taken into account, I think
we are far from omnipotent these days, and have not
been so for some time.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. When did the US stop being omnipotent?

I reckon it was back in 1949. The Soviets catching up to them so quickly and developing their own A-bomb must have put the brakes on the omnipotence a bit. And the arse-kicking the US got in Vietnam pretty much spelt out what a lack of omnipotence the US has...

Violet...

[bemildred]

17. Certainly the loss of the nuclear monopoly,

even more important was the advent of ICBMs in the hands
of other nations. Then there was the Korean War, VietNam,
Cuba, and now Iraq. We are at the point now where the entire
World, while not anxious to pick a fight with us, has no qualms
about quietly and politely telling us to bugger off.

But all of this is related to the US' continuing economic decline
and conversion from an agricultural and manufacturing economy of
immense power to a "services" based economy primarily structured
to feed the egos of an ignorant and insular economic oligarchy.

There is also the issue of democratic support of the government,
the willingness of the rabble to join up and fight in the oligarchy's
wars, to pay taxes willingly, to obey in other words. The social
compact developed in the thirties has been abrogated by the
government, which does not wish to govern according to the will of
the people, or to much concern itself with their happiness and
welfare, and in consequence the people don't much care a fig for
the government either.

The political right wing, being ignorant of the true sources or
political power, has actually encouraged this, and what passes for
a political left in this country has done little more than try to
slow it down a bit.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. A collection of rabble?

Hey, here's an idea for something better that I'm sure you'll approve of! Who needs the rabble that makes up all the other nations of the world anyway?

U.S Forms Own U.N


The UN isn't a monolithic entity. It's an international organisation formed to provide collective security to member states. Are you interested in collective security or a world that does what the US tells it to? That many members feel distaste for the way the US has abused its power in the UN shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone...

Are you like everyone else who wants to see the UN discarded? None of them seem capable of coming up with anything realistic to replace it with, apart from ideas that boil down basically to the US doing what it wants and imposing a different set of rules on other nations. Me, I think there needs to be reform at the UN, and one of the obvious reforms has to be of the Security Council and especially the power of veto, which has been so badly abused...

Violet...

[Matilda]

18. Yes, the veto is the big problem

but how can change be brought about when any of the "Big 5" can veto the proposition? Obviously, the UN has to move towards a position
whereby majority decisions must stand. The number of unsuccessful resolutions calling on Israel to return to the pre-1967 borders is
a major case - but suppose a new UN successfully passed such a resolution, who is going to march into Israel to force the issue?
Only full-scale military action could solve that one, as long as
Israel has the backing of the US. We keep coming back to the heart of the problem - the might of the US military, which can thumb its nose at any authority or coalition that doesn't toe the American line, and client states, such as Israel, know they are quite safe in following their own agenda, regardless of perceived rights or wrongs, because "might is right". Perhaps the ultimate good that may come out of the current mess in the Middle East is that we - ordinary citizens who really do want a just world - will demand of our leaders that they put the common good before self-interest. Perhaps ... in my dreams.

Matilda

[kalashnikov]

19. listen up you UN reformists.

Either the powerful countries like the US have the veto formally or informally, no matter what they still have an extraordinarry amount of influence over world affairs. If the UN doesnt listen to the US then the US will ignore the UN. The veto is a way of formally acknowledging this fact and thus an attempt to bring the powerful countries into the UN community. The UN can either give the poweful countries the veto and therby have occasional involvement with such countries when consensus can be reached or the UN can ignore the Powerful alltogether and never get anything done. Ultimatley nothing gets done in the international arena without at the minimum US approval, without the US the UN would be even more impotent than it is now.
In the end the UN is not a place to resolve major conflicts but rather to serve as an international forum for consensus issues (AIDS, poverty, disease, etc.) and an attempt to make it more than it is would be a bad idea.

major change in the world system will only occur gradually and at the behest of the populations of powerful countries such as ours. Thus, if you really want to reform the current state of the world ignore the UN and elect national leaders who will try to make the powerful nationas ethical and fair actors in the international arena.

[Matilda]

20. Everything you say is true,

but all the powerful nations have their own agenda, and so when the UN does act, it's almost always too little, too late. I don't think
anything will ever change, but it's sad, because the ideal is good.
That nations should sit down together and stop trouble before it happens, but to work, it requires that all leaders put aside their own greed and desire for more power in the interests of world peace.
It sounds so simple, but it's probably the hardest thing in the world
to achieve. I just wish it didn't have to be that way.

[Jason600]

22. wow

The only thing I can think to say is, very well said. Thanks

[Jason600]

21. interesting but a pipe dream

Being no fan of the UN, I might assist them in all of their packing. All of their bags and suitcases. I may even help them with the price of the move if asked nicely. Asking the the US to stay or leave, as if the world did not care, is really funny. Check out how the bills are handed out to all of the members and after having done so, lets rethink who needs the UN more, the US, or everybody else. Maybe I'm alittle sick of the USA's attitude as well as the EU's. Both sides appear to be trying to see who the smaller person is. Can someone explain what I'm missing?