US to leave the UN?
 

I'll preface by stating that I'm not all that current on world politics. This may sound like a dumb question.

While traveling in the car over the holiday a saw a couple signs advocating the US ceasing participation with the United Nations. I'm curious. Why would anyone want the US to leave the UN? Was it some certain event (or specific series of events)? Or, is it just general disdain for the UN.

Is there anyone out there that thinks the US should depart from the UN or knows why someone would want us to? Please explain this to me.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'll preface by stating that I'm not all that current on world politics. This may sound like a dumb question.

While traveling in the car over the holiday a saw a couple signs advocating the US ceasing participation with the United Nations. I'm curious. Why would anyone want the US to leave the UN? Was it some certain event (or specific series of events)? Or, is it just general disdain for the UN.

Is there anyone out there that thinks the US should depart from the UN or knows why someone would want us to? Please explain this to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever take a bunch of guests out to dinner, insult you continuously, then foot you the bill? The UN is a joke. Oh no! We will write you a letter to tell you how angry we are!

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

The main reason given for the US withdrawing from the UN is that the UN is seen as a hinderance to US foreign policy objectives. The Bush Administration and neo-conservatives want a free hand to control and invade countries they deem a threat to America and the UN is one of the major reasons why we can't. The first instance I recall of this is Kosovo, but it reallly ramped up with the opposition to the Iraq war. Also, the UN is perceived as anti-Israel.

Another reason is that the UN is perceived as incompetent (failure to stop Iran's nuclear program) and corrupt (oil for food scandal).

Personally, I think this is all a bunch of bunk. The UN has an important stabilizing influence on the world and its charitable tasks like UNICEF and the WHO are important for improving the lives of billions of people.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

Most of those that want to leave the UN are upset because the UN had the gall to disagree with the US invading Iraq. Some might be because of the Mike New situation. But Almost everyone against the UN are against it because they think the American government knows best in every circumstance. They are also (legitameantly) scared of internationalism, which is the only reason I'm against the UN and other world bodies.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The main reason given for the US withdrawing from the UN is that the UN is seen as a hinderance to US foreign policy objectives.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm taking this answer to mean general disdain for the UN.

Follow-up question:
Did this sentiment surface during the current administration or has this been brewing for a while?

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
They are also (legitameantly) scared of internationalism, which is the only reason I'm against the UN and other world bodies.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please explain the term, "internationalism."

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

Its been around for a while. Remember people yelling about "black helicopters"? The helicopters were operated by the UN.

Internationalism is the shifting of power from national and local governments to international organizations like the UN and the WTO.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Its been around for a while. Remember people yelling about "black helicopters"? The helicopters were operated by the UN.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't recall this. Can you elaborate?

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

There was a fear among far right wing elements in America that the American government was being weakened and taken over by the UN. Foreigners were going to start dictating American policy and arresting American citizens.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They are also (legitameantly) scared of internationalism, which is the only reason I'm against the UN and other world bodies.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please explain the term, "internationalism."

[/ QUOTE ]
Dictionary
[ QUOTE ]
in·ter·na·tion·al·ism /ˌɪntərˈnæ& #643;ənlˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-ter-nash-uh-nl-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the principle of cooperation among nations, for the promotion of their common good, sometimes as contrasted with nationalism, or devotion to the interests of a particular nation.
2. international character, relations, cooperation, or control.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles or methods of a communist or socialist International.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1850–55; international + -ism]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source in·ter·na·tion·al·ism (ĭn'tər-nāsh'ə-nə-lĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
The condition or quality of being international in character, principles, concern, or attitude.
A policy or practice of cooperation among nations, especially in politics and economic matters.

in'ter·na'tion·al·ist n.

(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
WordNet - Cite This Source internationalism

noun
1. the doctrine that nations should cooperate because their common interests are more important than their differences [ant: nationalism]
2. quality of being international in scope; "he applauded the internationality of scientific terminology" [syn: internationality]

WordNet® 2.1, © 2005 Princeton University
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source
internationalism


The view that nations should cooperate in international organizations, such as the United Nations, to settle disputes.


[Chapter:] World Politics

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

Thanks, that helps clear that up. And I found a wiki entry on black helicopters that was fairly detailed.

My wife and I both noticed these signs the other day and were like, WTF?

One homemade sign near Cotton, MN has a hand painted dog pissing on the UN flag/symbol. This particular property has a history of inflammatory signs. Some past gems have included, "Our governor is a bigger cry-baby than your governor (criticizing former governor Jesse Ventura) and "punt the poodles" (criticizing the French).

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
There was a fear among far right wing elements in America that the American government was being weakened and taken over by the UN. Foreigners were going to start dictating American policy and arresting American citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that really a "far right" issue? Anyone who is of a Libertarian nature would naturally, by extension, be opposed to every level of government as it extends away from the individual. With some people it might be a "USA all the way!" type of attitude, but I think overall it's a more Libertarian-minded than a neo-con, far right position.


EDIT: I just realized that it looks like you were talking about just the helicopters (and the meaninglessness thereof), and not internationalism in general.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There was a fear among far right wing elements in America that the American government was being weakened and taken over by the UN. Foreigners were going to start dictating American policy and arresting American citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that really a "far right" issue? Anyone who is of a Libertarian nature would naturally, by extension, be opposed to every level of government as it extends away from the individual. With some people it might be a "USA all the way!" type of attitude, but I think overall it's a more Libertarian-minded than a neo-con, far right position.


EDIT: I just realized that it looks like you were talking about just the helicopters (and the meaninglessness thereof), and not internationalism in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think that the neo-cons do not greatly fear the U.N. or globalization or perhaps even global government. Neo-cons generally seem to have a pro-globalist outlook. The Paleo-cons and Traditionalist Conservatives fear such things, as do those who care about national sovereignty. Libertarians may fear such things on the basis that the U.N. is just one more way that government and organizations aim to take away individual rights.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I think that the neo-cons do not greatly fear the U.N. or globalization or perhaps even global government. Neo-cons generally seem to have a pro-globalist outlook.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that the neo-cons are actually pro-globalist, but they want it on their terms with the American government leading the way, rather then the UN.
Project for the new American Century

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The UN has an important stabilizing influence on the world and its charitable tasks like UNICEF and the WHO are important for improving the lives of billions of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, all those places that were unstable before the UN was formed are so peaceful and prosperous now.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The UN has an important stabilizing influence on the world and its charitable tasks like UNICEF and the WHO are important for improving the lives of billions of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, all those places that were unstable before the UN was formed are so peaceful and prosperous now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, we gave the UN a solid half of a century to change the world and establish fully international peace. Man have they failed; time to pack up and go home.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The UN has an important stabilizing influence on the world and its charitable tasks like UNICEF and the WHO are important for improving the lives of billions of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, all those places that were unstable before the UN was formed are so peaceful and prosperous now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, we gave the UN a solid half of a century to change the world and establish fully international peace. Man have they failed; time to pack up and go home.

[/ QUOTE ].

The U.N. failed to prevent all of the largest scale slaughters which humanity suffered through in the second half of the 20th century. It is not currently preventing the worst ongoing slaughters in the world. I see no reason to suppose that the U.N. will succeed at preventing slaughters of similar (or larger) scale in the future, do you? Hope alone does not qualify as a reason but rather as wishful thinking.

If you have any actual reasons why you believe the U.N. should be likely to succeed in the future, in contrast to its proven pattern of consistent failures, I would be interested to hear those reasons.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you have any actual reasons why you believe the U.N. should be likely to succeed in the future, in contrast to its proven pattern of consistent failures, I would be interested to hear those reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends upon what you think the objectives of the UN ought to be. If you think it should be a forum for countries to discuss and attempt to cooperate on an international level, then it does that very nicely. If you think it should be a global police force, then it doesn't do that well (not that it was ever intended to be that.)

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

The UN has succeeded in it's unstated mission: to destabilize various regions and make them susceptible to World Bank and IMF funding and resulting puppet status.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

lol at seeing some anti un signs in a cornfield and translating that into a huge nationwide movement + possible coup

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They are also (legitameantly) scared of internationalism, which is the only reason I'm against the UN and other world bodies.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please explain the term, "internationalism."

[/ QUOTE ]

Internationalism is a political movement which advocates a greater economic and political cooperation between nations for the benefit of all. In today's world, Internationalism is most commonly expressed as an appreciation for the diverse cultures in the world, and a desire for world peace.

While internationalism in the cosmopolitanist context by definition implies cooperation among nations, and therefore the existence of nations, nationalism may focus purely on self-determination, and ignore other nations. When conflicts arise, however, ideological attacks upon the identity and legitimacy of the 'enemy' nationalism may become the focus.

The stated aims of the United Nations are to prevent war, to safeguard human rights, to provide a mechanism for international law, and to promote social and economic progress, improve living standards and fight diseases. It gives the opportunity for countries to balance global interdependence and national interests when addressing international problems.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is not currently preventing the worst ongoing slaughters in the world. I see no reason to suppose that the U.N. will succeed at preventing slaughters of similar (or larger) scale in the future, do you? Hope alone does not qualify as a reason but rather as wishful thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

you didn't have iraq adventure in your mind, right? because UN never gave an authorisation to use force against iraq. hundreds of thousands would be alive today if there wouldn't be one country ignoring UN at least in this case.

let's see the consequences of that mistake:
darfur - one of the worst genocide with over 400.000 dead and 2.5 mio are thought to be displaced. not sure even if you have heard about it very often as it wasn't covered by US media at all. nothing happened, the terror continues. the obvious reason is that US cannot afford another battlefield. not saying that they should send large troops there, but just to make a pressure on sudanese government. but of course they feel safe because of incapability of the greatest.

the same problem is in somalia at the moment.

the same problem is in iran at the moment. if there wouldn't be an iraq adventure, there could be a strong pressure from all five permanent members, the world and US public wouldn't be so much against severe actions as they are now and iran wouldn't feel in such need for nuclear weapon as it is now after iraq. after all nuclear weapon is the only good defence weapon nowadays.

not to mention rising of extreme islamistic groups everywhere in that region which could be a big problem in the future. big problem for those countries, for stability in region and obviously big problem for the US as well.

what counts in today's world is not the size of a gun, but diplomacy and united approach of all big players.

i strongly believe UN couldn't survive without the US and that the US would have big big problems without UN. cannot afford it IMO.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The UN has an important stabilizing influence on the world and its charitable tasks like UNICEF and the WHO are important for improving the lives of billions of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Name one recent issue where they have stabilized anything that wouldnt have happened without the UN. UNICEF has a lower percentage of funds actually reaching the people its intended for (less than 60%) than any legitimate US charity. Give the UNICEF money to the Gates Foundation and let them distribute it.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

The UN is the antagonist in the Left Behind series.

Dont forget, there is no UN vs. the US, its the other governments in the world trying to keep the US and its client nations from bombing them through diplomatic channels...no dice.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

Has anyone mentioned that the UN is just a cabal of dictators and despots, and that's why it sucks?

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

UN lol

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you have any actual reasons why you believe the U.N. should be likely to succeed in the future, in contrast to its proven pattern of consistent failures, I would be interested to hear those reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends upon what you think the objectives of the UN ought to be. If you think it should be a forum for countries to discuss and attempt to cooperate on an international level, then it does that very nicely. If you think it should be a global police force, then it doesn't do that well (not that it was ever intended to be that.)

[/ QUOTE ]

If the U.N. were nothing more than a forum for nations to meet and discuss things, I would agree with you. Let's look at this, however, from the standpoint of not what you or I think the U.N.'s objectives should be, but what they actually are.

The U.N. has a Security Council, and is more than merely a forum for discussion, and it has "some" legal basis for trying to ensure or enforce security for its member nations. Yet the U.N. has failed to prevent every major slaughter or genocide-type of mass killing (that I can think of) in the 20th century. So its goals are not being met even though it has attained some degree of legal enforcement and military power.

The U.N. has attempted to widen its own power over member nations (at the arguable expense of their sovereignties) yet the U.N. accomplishes nothing in the way of meeting its objectives towards peace or human rights. The U.N. also costs a great deal of money, and even provides a vehicle for corruption and graft.

If a forum is needed then let's have an international forum withoput all the quasi-legal associated b.s. and so-called "security" and real-world ineffectiveness. Alternatively, countries could agree to cede their own sovereignties and form a global government (whether that is a good idea or not would be subject for another thread). But the status quo of the U.N. is ineffective, expensive, provides a false sense of security and false hope, and may even do more harm than good.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yet the U.N. has failed to prevent every major slaughter or genocide-type of mass killing (that I can think of) in the 20th century.

[/ QUOTE ]
Second time I've seen this "logic" in this thread. Of course the United Nations failed to prevent the ones that actually happened--if it prevented any, they didn't happen.

Sorry for being snippy, and obviously the rest of your post is well thought out. This is a minor quibble, but for some reason it really bugged me.

Maybe because it's the flip side of the Bush administration bragging about all the terrorist attacks that didn't happen. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yet the U.N. has failed to prevent every major slaughter or genocide-type of mass killing (that I can think of) in the 20th century.

[/ QUOTE ]
Second time I've seen this "logic" in this thread. Of course the United Nations failed to prevent the ones that actually happened--if it prevented any, they didn't happen.

Sorry for being snippy, and obviously the rest of your post is well thought out. This is a minor quibble, but for some reason it really bugged me.

Maybe because it's the flip side of the Bush administration bragging about all the terrorist attacks that didn't happen. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Not even close to the flip side. There are specific instances of terrorist attacks being planned and thwarted. Where has the UN had a presence where it can be claimed that they prevented impending genocide/mass slaughter?

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not even close to the flip side. There are specific instances of terrorist attacks being planned and thwarted. Where has the UN had a presence where it can be claimed that they prevented impending genocide/mass slaughter?

[/ QUOTE ]
Bosnia. Yes I'm aware of Srebrenica. However, the Serbs could have easily won that war outright and depopulated Sarajevo without the presence of UN peacekeepers and UN sanctions. UN peacekeepers remain on the job to this day. I was tempted to throw the latest Lebanon war in, but there was little chance of Israel engaging in genocide there.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not even close to the flip side. There are specific instances of terrorist attacks being planned and thwarted. Where has the UN had a presence where it can be claimed that they prevented impending genocide/mass slaughter?

[/ QUOTE ]
Bosnia. Yes I'm aware of Srebrenica. However, the Serbs could have easily won that war outright and depopulated Sarajevo without the presence of UN peacekeepers and UN sanctions. UN peacekeepers remain on the job to this day. I was tempted to throw the latest Lebanon war in, but there was little chance of Israel engaging in genocide there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was it in Bosnia that the the U.S. and NATO acted without the U.N., or did that occur in the other place over there---or was it in both places? Sorry but I get the two mixed up a bit; thanks for any elaboration.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

NATO launched bombing campaigns in both campaigns without UN approval. In Kosovo at least, a UN resolution authorizing bombing was rejected by China. However, while the Peacekeepers and sanctions didn't stop the wars, they did mitigate its effects.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
NATO launched bombing campaigns in both campaigns without UN approval. In Kosovo at least, a UN resolution authorizing bombing was rejected by China. However, while the Peacekeepers and sanctions didn't stop the wars, they did mitigate its effects.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK...so it sounds like the U.N. was not instrumental in stopping the bloodshed when it counted most initially and NATO had to act without U.N. approval, but, once NATO did the heaviest lifting, the U.N. joined in with peacekeeping personnel which helped matters somewhat moving forward.

OK, so there was some value in the U.N. in that scenario (unless perhaps NATO would have done the peacekeeping bit without the U.N. anyway had it come to that, which I guess we'll never know).

Thanks for filling in some gaps in my leaky memory;-)

My biggest problem with such things is that all of the really big mass deaths (like millions murdered in the USSR and China, Pol Pot, etc.) the U.N. did nothing. What could be expected from an organization chiefly comprised of tyrannical regimes, anyway? When the foxes watch the henhouses, "negotiations" and "security" have very limited meaning and application (as should be expected). The concept of all nations working together to create a peaceful world sounds nice in theory, but when interests collide, interests usually determine the final course of action.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The main reason given for the US withdrawing from the UN is that the UN is seen as a hinderance to US foreign policy objectives.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really. My beef is they are corrupt and they have a heavy anti-USA agenda. The last I heard is the USA pays 25% of the budget of the UN. Dump these losers and spend the money elsewhere...

[ QUOTE ]
The Bush Administration and neo-conservatives want a free hand to control and invade countries they deem a threat to America and the UN is one of the major reasons why we can't.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow....several errors here. Next you will be talking about black helicopters, the Illuminati, and the Tri-Lateral Commission.
1st, Bush and "neo conservatives" (aka American Jews who vote republican) can NOT invade anyone without approval of the US congress. Congress must answer to the people that elected them. Before the invasion of Iraq, the MAJORITY of the American people favored invading Iraq.
2nd. The UN is corrupt and largely inpotent. They have ZERO power to prevent the USA from invading anyone. They can pass resolutions which are about as meaningful as soiled toilet paper... Now politically, several US politicians (mostly democrats) have agendas to pressured presidents to go through the UN. Bush chose to try the UN route first before invading Iraq but he did not have to. People like myself thought he was dumb to even involve these losers. Bush finally figured this out and we toppled Saddam without the UN's approval.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the UN is perceived as anti-Israel.


[/ QUOTE ]
Perceived? I think perception has already become reality.

[ QUOTE ]
Another reason is that the UN is perceived as incompetent (failure to stop Iran's nuclear program) and corrupt (oil for food scandal).

[/ QUOTE ]
Bingo!

[ QUOTE ]
The UN has an important stabilizing influence on the world and its charitable tasks like UNICEF and the WHO are important for improving the lives of billions of people.

[/ QUOTE ]
The UN can't stabilize crap. UN peacekeepers ran away in Rwanda when thousands got killed. In the Sudan genocide still continues.

As for UNICEF and WHO, we would be better off funding private charities. When you go through the UN, they UN 'leaders' steal millions through corruption and what they fail to steal goes to the people targeted for help. UNICEF and WHO and wasted BILLIONS of dollars and their results are lackluster considering the budgets they had.


Bottom Line:
We don't need the UN. The UN is filled with murderous thugs who have an anti-US agenda. Not suprisingly, these same thugs choose to pursue an anti-USA agenda through the UN. With regard to Iraq, the UN passed several resolutions against Iraq and the could not(would not) enforce any of these resolutions. Also, too many world leaders have a fantasy of having a 1-world government and they see the UN as a catlyst to make this happen. I think the majority of the American Democrat party support this fantasy.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bush chose to try the UN route first before invading Iraq but he did not have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heil mr. President.

[ QUOTE ]
The UN is filled with murderous thugs who have an anti-US agenda. With regard to Iraq, the UN passed several resolutions against Iraq and the could not(would not) enforce any of these resolutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the reason for attacking another sovereign country? was it found? So, was the attack justified? From your words it seems this war was one of the best things the US ever made...

the next thing will be blaming UN for about 400.000 deaths (and how many more?), destabilizing the whole region for a longer period, arising extremism in whole region (and destabilizing nowadays US friendly regimes), rising of iran and several problems in africa today.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
the next thing will be blaming UN for about 400.000 deaths (and how many more?),

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact the most current and credible estimates (The Lancet) are suggesting that there has been 650,000 deaths in excess of those that would have happened under Saddam, due to the US intervention.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What was the reason for attacking another sovereign country? was it found? So, was the attack justified? From your words it seems this war was one of the best things the US ever made...

[/ QUOTE ]
The reasons why we needed to invade Iraq were:
1. The 1992 foiled assassination attempt on Bush41 in Kuwait in 1992.
2. Failure to abide by the terms of the armistice from the first Gulf War.
3. Any other reasons are tertiary to me.
*We found about 500 rounds of chemical weapons there might be more but if we don't find anymore then it won't matter to me.

[ QUOTE ]
So, was the attack justified?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, when you try to kill an ex US-president then there needs to be consequences. If you sign an armistice then violate it, then there needs to be consequences.

[ QUOTE ]
From your words it seems this war was one of the best things the US ever made...

[/ QUOTE ]
The invasion was the correct play. The execution of the war has BEEN LOUSY. Some blame Rumsfeld but I think Bush43 is to blame... The running of post-war IRAQ was terrible. If it were me I would have:
a. Establish public works projects to improve unemployment.
b. Either establish a Kurdish dictactorship over Iraq or partition Iraq into 3 different countries giving the Kurds a generous partition of the country.
c. Fired Gen Garner after 1-day. That man was terrible. He was a total incompentant in the running of post-war Iraq.
d. Arrest Sadr and his followers army the day they enter Iraq carryinng AK47 and RPGs and detain them for the duration of the occupation. What did Garner do? He disarmed them and let them go. Within the first week Sadr and his followers began assassinating pro-Western Imans. Later we indicted Sadr for murder but we couldn't find him. Then Bush made the decision to drop the indictment hoping the new govt would tame Sadr. Bad decision....
e. Establish martial law and shoot looters on sight. As the Arabs say, better 100 years of tyranny than one day of anarchy.
f. Bomb Syria and Iran when it became clear they were providing arms, agents, and money to kill US soldiers...

[ QUOTE ]
Heil mr. President.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow! Using the Nazi comparison 'argument'. I'm so impreseed....NOT!
I think Bush43 is an idiot on many issues but I think Bush43 is a GENIUS compared to the people that call him a Nazi... I wish we could ship eveyone who calls Bush a Nazi to Syria for 10 years so they could learn the meaning of that word.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
f. Bomb Syria and Iran when it became clear they were providing arms, agents, and money to kill US soldiers...

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of that post disturbed me, but my jaw dropped when I saw this one. You really think it's time to try to spark a full on Middle East war right now?

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the next thing will be blaming UN for about 400.000 deaths (and how many more?),

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact the most current and credible estimates (The Lancet) are suggesting that there has been 650,000 deaths in excess of those that would have happened under Saddam, due to the US intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that 650,000 is credible you either didnt read their data gathering techniques or have no clue how demographic statistics are properly done.

Re: US to leave the UN?
 

Man, why isn't the president seeking Felix_Nietsche to run the war? He clearly has every answer.