Bill introduced to remove US from United Nations

[shhh]

We do not need the UN to 'rule the world'.

In many ways, the UN was actually a constraint on US rise to global domination. With the UN, the US is just a global hegemony. With the UN, not under the UN, the US had self imposed responsibilities, much of them had to do with taking care of issues that are not of US interests. Take the Security Council, for one example. Just as we veto-ed, so have others veto-ed.

We do not need the UN in order to take care of allies who would be our allies due to shared interests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_of_Democracies
http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/journal/23_1/roundtable/002

US withdrawal from the UN would mean the collapse of the UN.

Am all for this.

UN also gives you lots more power.

Do you not see that with you removed, the power is up for grabs for China and Russia?

How would you protect Israel in UN if you are NOT in UN?

UNSC has its power, NSG has its powers a lot of other stuff has its power that USA gives USA its position.

I dont think its a smart decision.

 

[T-Rex]

That will remove the US's rule from the world.
Why would USA do that?

Why are you so concerned if the US decides to leave the UN? Are you getting any kind of kick backs for having the US in the UN?

 

[shhh]

Why are you so concerned if the US decides to leave the UN? Are you getting any kind of kick backs for having the US in the UN?

HAHAHAHAHA. Good One

Off course not, its out of curiosity.

It doesnt make any sense to me.

 

[T-Rex]

HAHAHAHAHA. Good One

Off course not, its out of curiosity.

It doesnt make any sense to me.

Sometimes it's better to be silent.

 

[$@rJen]

What a load of hogwash, US controls the golden goose called UN, US gets it legitimacy for attacking any nation it wants through UN and basically controls the whole world via UN , and also by leaving UN the authority will shift to either Russia or China. So why would US let that happen.

They don't need UN.. Now US will not care about UN and UN and its Member countries can;t do anything SInce they're not weak.. This is going to be one big bad name for UN anyway

 

[Penguin]

Am all for this.

And a better, attainable alternative would be ....?

Why are you so concerned if the US decides to leave the UN? Are you getting any kind of kick backs for having the US in the UN?

Because any sane person would be. WTF kind of question are you posing? On who'se payroll are YOU?

Sometimes it's better to be silent.

Indeed. [hint: apply to self too]

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

And a better, attainable alternative would be ....?

Better for who?

In geopolitics, countries have a duty to look after their own national interests first. As Trump says, when it comes to US government policy it will be "America first".

Because any sane person would be.

Why would any sane person be so concerned if the USA left the United Nations?

Plenty of people/countries might actually see a a benefit from that. For example, the member you are replying to (T-Rex) is very much opposed to the US using veto power to support Israel.

Other UNSC members like China/Russia/Britain/France would see the relative power of their veto increasing if there are only 4 veto powers instead of 5.

Even the American members on this thread see a benefit to this happening, I guess they are tired of America being the world policeman as well. After all, it is their taxes which pay for it.

 

[SirHatesALot]

From American POV this is good if it happens.
They should dissolve UNSC too

 

[Penguin]

Better for who?

That's avoiding the question. I clearly addressed a specific poster, who made a certain remark. So I would like to hear his answer. More in general, the answer to your 'for who?' would be 'mankind'. Try formulating an answer that is good for all.

Why would any sane person be so concerned if the USA left the United Nations?

If you know the history of the UN and its founding, you don't need to ask that question.

 

[gambit]

And a better, attainable alternative would be ....?

Why must there be an alternative to the UN ?

The problem -- as I see it -- is that the UN have been around long enough and be a factor in every country's foreign affairs often enough that everyone took it that a UN-type organization is necessary.

That kind of mentality is a problem in itself -- as I see it.

So why must there be a better alternative to the UN ? My question is an indictment against that mentality.

There are plenty of countries in the world that do not want democracy. I said countries, not peoples. Functional democracies can create that better alternative as I presented in post 15 pge 1.

Why did the microwave oven came from a democracy ? It is a kitchen appliance that everyone takes for granted, even if all a person does is to use it to make hot water and reheat leftover food.

Advances to make ORDINARY lives better cannot come from dictatorships and ordinary lives are the standard to match. Functional democracies will lead humanity to the stars and create life saving drugs. The Soviet Union and China during the Cold War did zilch to humanity. And did the UN helped create the microwave oven, the airplane, or the Internet ?

 

[Fenrir]

FYI, this bill or a variation of it has been introduced by every new Congress for the past 20 years. That includes Congressional sessions that were redder then a Baboon's *ss, more red then today's Congress. It's always failed, most often before it ever even left the committee stage.

http://jezebel.com/republicans-introduce-bill-proposing-withdrawal-from-un-1791494159

 

[Sugarcane]

UN is useless organization, it should be devolved.

 

[Penguin]

Why must there be an alternative to the UN ?

Then, clearly, you alternative to a UN is every state for itself. And no state answerable to any other (well, except maybe the ones holding a big club).

The problem -- as I see it -- is that the UN have been around long enough and be a factor in every country's foreign affairs often enough that everyone took it that a UN-type organization is necessary.

"Long enough" .... based on what and for what? Why not ten more/fewer years?
That the UN has been a factor in every country's foreign affairs is hardly a disqualifier: that's exactly what the UN was intended to be.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/bill-int...om-united-nations.473868/page-2#ixzz4WbKP763b

Assuming, for the moment, no one has a problem with the purposes of the UN (irrespective of the organisation):

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Then how could states achieve this?

(The discussion is alltogether different if you don't agree with the purposes)

UN is useless organization, it should be devolved.

Could you be more specific?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

That's avoiding the question. I clearly addressed a specific poster, who made a certain remark. So I would like to hear his answer. More in general, the answer to your 'for who?' would be 'mankind'. Try formulating an answer that is good for all.


If you know the history of the UN and its founding, you don't need to ask that question.

For the good of "Mankind"?

I'm sorry, that's not how geopolitics works. In geopolitics, countries work to serve their own national interests. Not for the interests of foreign countries.

Why do you think NASA put a ban on Chinese nationals, forcing us to build our own space station? Was that for the "good of Mankind", or for the good of the USA?

Assuming, for the moment, no one has a problem with the purposes of the UN (irrespective of the organisation):

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

The United Nations failed in its primary objective, to maintain international peace and security.

Have you seen the news lately? ALL of the P5 members are currently fighting wars (in the Middle East for example), many of which never got UN approval to begin with (like the Iraq War).

The only exception is China, and that is only because we are still a developing country. The rest of the P5 members have their military forces actively fighting in the Middle East (including Syria/Iraq) as we speak.

The UN is completely irrelevant when major powers want to make a move, such as America in Iraq, China in the South China Sea, or Russia in Crimea and the Ukraine. Even smaller regional powers actively disregard the UN, such as Israel, North Korea and Iran. Did Israel ask the UN before they continued building settlements?

 

[Penguin]

For the good of "Mankind"?

I'm sorry, that's not how geopolitics works. In geopolitics, countries work to serve their own national interests. Not for the interests of foreign countries.

Why do you think NASA put a ban on Chinese nationals, forcing us to build our own space station? Was that for the "good of Mankind", or for the good of the USA?

Ok, so you just want to ignore mankind as a concept? That's going to go real well, especially as the world population is edging to 8 billion....

The United Nations failed in its primary objective, to maintain international peace and security.

Says you. More botch, bitch, whine, whine about the UN. What is your alternative? How do you propose e.g. a lot of current aid streams develop and development programs proceed? Because that work IS the UN too. Who will do that work? You?

Why do you blame the UN, when - as you indicate - the P5 members are at war. That is their leadership chosing to do so. It is not the UN. And it won't be long untill China is in that basked too. I give it about 3 years.

The UN is the memberstates. If you say the UN failed, you say the membership failed. That's all of our countries. Sp., what are you going to do about it!

It just more bitching an no alternative.