US to leave the UN?

[boracay]

[ 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.

[boracay]

[ 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.

[Copernicus]

[ 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.

[canis582]

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.

[Borodog]

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

[MoreWineII]

UN lol

[John Kilduff]

[ 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.

[bdk3clash]

[ 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]

[Copernicus]

[ 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?

[iron81]

[ 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.