• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Out of the U.N.?

Should the U.S. get out of the U.N.?

  • yes

    Votes: 4 33.3%
  • no

    Votes: 7 58.3%
  • not sure

    Votes: 1 8.3%

  • Total voters
    12

conserv.pat15

Banned
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
647
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Should the U.S. get out of the U.N.?
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
No. It's a good forum for countries to negotiate with each other. The problem is when it undertakes a larger role than that.
 

conserv.pat15

Banned
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
647
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
talloulou said:
What would be the benefit of getting out of the U.N.?

I think that the U.S. spends too much money on the U.N. and we are not getting our moneys worth. We pay over 20% of the money that goes to the U.N.(I'm not sure of the exact percentage, it might be more).

Not to mention the whole Iraq situation and how they did not enforce their own rules/resolutions.
 

talloulou

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
15,998
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Tiamat's better half
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
conserv.pat15 said:
I think that the U.S. spends too much money on the U.N. and we are not getting our moneys worth. We pay over 20% of the money that goes to the U.N.(I'm not sure of the exact percentage, it might be more).
Well considering that we are one of the most powerful nations I don't consider that too much.

Not to mention the whole Iraq situation and how they did not enforce their own rules/resolutions.
Yes they definitely showed their weakness in that situation, I agree. But we also showed them we don't abide by the UN when it comes to decision making. Since we don't view the UN as an authority that most be obeyed....what's the problem? At least remaining a UN member shows that we are open to cooperating with other nations, doesn't it?
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Definitely, the UN is a paper tiger and it is corrupt......

U.S. out of UN.........UN out of U.S.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
and the UN should get out of the US. The UN has served no useful purpose. It doesn't serve US interests, so why shouldn't we give it up as a bad deal?

It's prevented which conflict?

None.
 

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The original "united nations" were the democracies (and the soviet union) that defeated the fascists in WWII. After that, it was expanded to include all kinds of dictatorships and theocracies. It's "Human Rights Commission" members has included such as Cuba, China, and Zimbabwe. It's farcical head, Kofi Annan, walks around like some kind of potentate with an entourage, seemingly oblivious to the corruption that has occurred on his watch. It serves as a forum for the representatives of dictators of toilet bowl countries to attack the U.S., all of whom would be now working in nazi slave camps except for the U.S. It did nothing to solve the cold war, is doing nothing to solve the islamofascist war. The U.S. needs to get out of this ridiculous organization, and form a new United Democratic Nations, to which only democratic nations are admitted.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
alphamale said:
The original "united nations" were the democracies (and the soviet union) that defeated the fascists in WWII. After that, it was expanded to include all kinds of dictatorships and theocracies. It's "Human Rights Commission" members has included such as Cuba, China, and Zimbabwe. It's farcical head, Kofi Annan, walks around like some kind of potentate with an entourage, seemingly oblivious to the corruption that has occurred on his watch. It serves as a forum for the representatives of dictators of toilet bowl countries to attack the U.S., all of whom would be now working in nazi slave camps except for the U.S. It did nothing to solve the cold war, is doing nothing to solve the islamofascist war. The U.S. needs to get out of this ridiculous organization, and form a new United Democratic Nations, to which only democratic nations are admitted.

While I like the idea of a United Democratic Nations, there's no reason to abandon the UN. It's still a good forum for nations to communicate and negotiate with one another. The problem is that it claims legitimacy it should not have, and claims authority over a broad range of topics that it should not be involved in.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
There was a thread on this a few months ago...started with this post...

Tashah said:
Established in 1945, the United Nations is the stepchild of the failed League of Nations. Initially, the United Nations only accepted membership from the Allied Alliance nations who had declared war on the Axis Powers. This caveat meant that the original UN members shared a basic common cause and moral clarity. UN membership was eventually opened to all nations of the international community... regardless of political or moral stance.

In its current formulation, the United Nations majority is composed of Third World nations ruled by dictators and authoritarian regimes. This majority has formed a resolution/voting bloc which has resulted in the organizational marginalization of democratic nations.

Although the United Nations boasts of an international legitimacy and claims a moral high ground, it is now viewed by many democratic nations as an irrelevant tower of Babel that has substituted moral equivalence for moral clarity. The track record of the UN in addressing moral crisis is on the whole quite appalling... Israel/Palestine, the Uganda of Idi Amin, Cambodia, Eritrea, Bosnia/Kosovo, Rwanda, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Iraq, and now Sudan. It is failing in efforts to address the critical issue of nuclear prolifferation with India, Pakistan, Libya, North Korea, and Iran as prominent examples. Criminal activity such as child prostitution by UN troops in areas under its juristiction has been reported, and organizational corruption such as the Iraq Oil For Food Program is being investigated. Authoritative and despotic regimes such as Syria and Sudan have been promoted to the UN Security Council and the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Has the time now come for the democracies of the world to disengage from the United Nations and form a new international agency such as the Community of Democracies?


Here was my response...

cnredd said:
Although I believe the UN should be disbanded, how about this for a compromise...Every two years, the UN delegates have a vote on where the most pressing need is in the world(currently, I'd go with Sudan)...

Here comes the fun part...The UN packs up, gathers the airline tickets...and GOES there!

No more mid-afternoon tea breaks and immunity status...Watch the genocide firsthand from the shack-view...

Maybe that will get them to do a little problem-solving...
 

GarzaUK

British, Irish and everything in-between.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,688
Reaction score
631
Location
Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The purpose of the UN was stop another world war happening after the devestation of WW2. In that respects it has been sucessful.
The UN was vital during the Cold War as a mediator between the two superpowers.
Also it was the UN that is helping the reconstruction effort in Iraq and is also responsible for providing elecions there. So America even now still uses the UN.

I'm voting not sure, because I couldn't give a **** what America does anymore.
 

Willoughby

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
411
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Although the United Nations boasts of an international legitimacy and claims a moral high ground, it is now viewed by many democratic nations as an irrelevant tower of Babel that has substituted moral equivalence for moral clarity. The track record of the UN in addressing moral crisis is on the whole quite appalling... Israel/Palestine, the Uganda of Idi Amin, Cambodia, Eritrea, Bosnia/Kosovo, Rwanda, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Iraq, and now Sudan. It is failing in efforts to address the critical issue of nuclear prolifferation with India, Pakistan, Libya, North Korea, and Iran as prominent examples. Criminal activity such as child prostitution by UN troops in areas under its juristiction has been reported, and organizational corruption such as the Iraq Oil For Food Program is being investigated. Authoritative and despotic regimes such as Syria and Sudan have been promoted to the UN Security Council and the UN Commission on Human Rights.

i see things like this and i just think that rather than disband or pull out of the UN it should be strengthened and given more power
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,352
Reaction score
2,436
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Willoughby said:
i see things like this and i just think that rather than disband or pull out of the UN it should be strengthened and given more power

Meh. They need reform way more than strength or power.
 

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
GarzaUK said:
The purpose of the UN was stop another world war happening after the devestation of WW2. In that respects it has been sucessful.
The UN was vital during the Cold War as a mediator between the two superpowers.
Also it was the UN that is helping the reconstruction effort in Iraq and is also responsible for providing elecions there. So America even now still uses the UN.

I'm voting not sure, because I couldn't give a **** what America does anymore.

The UN didn't prevent a world war after WWII. The two possible principal antagonists in such a war, the u.s. and the soviet union, were stopped by the mutual assured destruction capabilities of their nuclear arsenals, not the U.N. The U.N. has failed time and again to stop the many regional wars since WWII. The U.N. has been entirely feckless in stopping the palestine-israel conflict, involving itself only to make such sporadic idiotic gestures as its "zionism = racism" resolution of the 1970's. The reconstruction of iraq is being shouldered by u.s. taxpayers, not the u.n. Kofi Anan just asked the u.s. to step in and militarily solve the darfur war. Why? because the 7000 troops and the u.n. don't have a chance to do it themselves.

But wait - did Sudan pose any imminent threat to the U.S.? Hmmmm ... consistency doesn't seem to be the U.N.'s strong suit.
 
Top Bottom