NationStates Jolt Archive

For one it'll probably be a political suicide for the US


Second, the UN would become a place where nations go to comment on how they disagree with the US' actions.

Do I have this correct?

i'm sure it would be more fair. Powerless, because the US reminds me of my little brother. No matter how much he is threatened with punishment, my parents dont reallt feel up to punishing him, and he knows that, so he just continues to be an a**hole.

I'm not putting down the American people, just the retardedly stubborn government. They just don't care, which i find extremely offensive.

LOL. It would probably become a more effective organisation s the U.S would stop Vetoing everything.

It could make descisions quicker since it would have one less vetoer, but then again, the only superpower wouldn't listen to it and it would probably encourage other countries like Isreal to pull out too. Not bad in it's self but it would mean the Us and Isreal would be a law unto themselves, officially.

It would drastically cut off a load of funding too.

All in all, it would probably go the same way as the League of Nations in the 20's and 30's

For one it'll probably be a political suicide for the US



How would it be political suicide? The US spends millions each year on an organization which it doesn't agree with, frequently goes against its allies interests (ex: Israel), and as the recent Oil for Food scandal demonstrated also has a history of corruption and behind-the-scenes dealings. I think that they need us far more than we need them. If anything, the US pulling out would force the UN to reform and/or demand that other nations pay their dues instead of depending on the US and a few nations for revenue. And if it did implode, there would still be plenty of nations and foreign organizations contributing foreign aid/relief.

Not bad in it's self but it would mean the Us and Isreal would be a law unto themselves, officially.

They practically are, anyway. Someone needs to lay the smack down on them.

GW would gain alot more popularity from his conservitive base if he degraded our status to an oberver nation (not nessecarialy pull out all together)

oh, and the UN would become nothing more than diplomat get together, a communist and muslim rallying point and a cool simulation for students

It would be great. I mean, Bush doesn't even follow the UN's guidelines. They voted against the Iraq war and he made his little god damn touching speech about how he wasn't listening to them.

The question should really be: What would the Iraq be if the US pulls out?

The question should really be: What would the Iraq be if the US pulls out?
An Iranian-style constitutional theocracy in the south, and an autonomous Kurdish state in the north.

The question should really be: What would the Iraq be if the US pulls out?

screwed

We may be the UN's worst enemy, but we are also its best friend. They rely on our money for a significant portion of the UN's operation. They rely on the diplomatic prestige the US has always had. And they rely on our troops, especially for missions that require lots of force. The Korean War, for example, was really a UN action. If the US pulled out of the UN, then it'd loose its spine.

It would be pretty much the same, with some differences. It would still be impotent, a waste of Manhattan real estate, an Israel bashing forum, electing states like Sudan, the only country still with slavery, to the human rights commision, bashing the US, and the pawn of the Security Council's national interests. Not exactly that different from today.

Without the U.S., the U.N. would be a toothless, decrepit old man, unable to do anything but complain about the way things should be.

It would be broke financially...no, wait, that's what the Hussein kickbacks were for.

It would be ineffectual...nope, it already is that.

The corruption would be rampant...nevermind, that's already there too.

I guess it wouldn't make much difference, would it? But the US would be better able to defend itself...and make a nice amount of $$ by forcing the UN to pay rent for that piece of land in Manhattan.

In my opinion, it looks like this:
UN: Nice Idea, but filled with Evil and Corruption
US: Bad reputation by the UN, The only hope for peace and security.

Bush needs to get out of the UN right now. Action needs to be taken, Sanctions need to be imposed, and Evil needs to be bound. And I GUARANTEE you that the UN is not the force that will do those things.

Who cares?

It proly won't happen unless the U.S. does something drastic. I wouldn't be opposed though, I hate what the UN is becoming.

Who cares?

It proly won't happen unless the U.S. does something drastic. I wouldn't be opposed though, I hate what the UN is becoming.

Vote Colodia! Out of the UN by '47!

Who cares?

It proly won't happen unless the U.S. does something drastic. I wouldn't be opposed though, I hate what the UN is becoming.

Vote Colodia! Out of the UN by '47!

Ok, have fun with that.

why not just downgrade our status to an observer nation, that way we can still bitch about things, and if there is a good idea we can help and still play the politics game but we won't have to pay, send troops or obey any resolutions passed against us.

Because the US supplies the most funds into the UN, the UN will probably fall apart.

I don't like the idea that the US is paying for most of the UN's actions, but yet piddly ass countries smaller than Rhode Island (exaduration) get equal vote to China, UK, Russia, US, Japan, Germany, etc. They mostly vote against us.

Honestly, i would be for ditching the UN and giving them 30 days to evac out of New York (and anywhere else in the United States)

Not pregnant!

:P :lol: :shock: :twisted: :wink: :P :lol: :shock: :twisted: :wink:

Not pregnant!

:P :lol: :shock: :twisted: :wink: :P :lol: :shock: :twisted: :wink:

It would be pretty much the same, with some differences. It would still be impotent, a waste of Manhattan real estate, an Israel bashing forum, electing states like Sudan, the only country still with slavery, to the human rights commision, bashing the US, and the pawn of the Security Council's national interests. Not exactly that different from today.

It would be pretty much the same, with some differences. It would still be impotent, a waste of Manhattan real estate, an Israel bashing forum, electing states like Sudan, the only country still with slavery, to the human rights commision, bashing the US, and the pawn of the Security Council's national interests. Not exactly that different from today.

You just about took the words out of my mouth. It appears that some here believe the UN is some kind of moral overseer or force for good. Not nearly. It is what it is. By and large it is a boy's debating club for the scum who have risen to the top in their countries. It offers a 'possible' last resort for countries with conflicts. Nothing more.

While on the subject, a lot is made of vetoes here. Look at vetoes in the Security Council since it's inception in 1945. Who is the all time record holder? Drum roll........................

SC Member State
Total Vetoes
Vetoes Per Annum (weighted by years of membership)

U.S.S.R. **
119
2.5

U.S.A.
79
1.3

U.K.
34
0.6

France
19
0.3

P.R.C. *
10
0.3

Russia **
3
0.3

*entered UN 11/23/1971
** Russian Federation recognized as USSR successor 1/1992
Figures for both reflect that 12 year difference.

Statistical Source (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm)

:shock:

Because the US supplies the most funds into the UN, the UN will probably fall apart.

I don't like the idea that the US is paying for most of the UN's actions, but yet piddly ass countries smaller than Rhode Island (exaduration) get equal vote to China, UK, Russia, US, Japan, Germany, etc. They mostly vote against us.

Honestly, i would be for ditching the UN and giving them 30 days to evac out of New York (and anywhere else in the United States)

You Americans really dont get it do you. (apologies if you are not american). The rest of the world has figured out that cooperation works better than confrontation and the UN is a vital forum for communication. I also take issue with what you say as the US is in fact the main country that does not pay its dues to the UN. Nor do other countries have the same voting power as the US, remember the veto!, The US is one of only five countries with the capacity to reject any vote in the UN regardless of how many countries support it. That gives the US a lot more influence than say India with its population of over 1 Billion.

Because the US supplies the most funds into the UN, the UN will probably fall apart.

I don't like the idea that the US is paying for most of the UN's actions, but yet piddly ass countries smaller than Rhode Island (exaduration) get equal vote to China, UK, Russia, US, Japan, Germany, etc. They mostly vote against us.

Honestly, i would be for ditching the UN and giving them 30 days to evac out of New York (and anywhere else in the United States)

You Americans really dont get it do you. (apologies if you are not american). The rest of the world has figured out that cooperation works better than confrontation and the UN is a vital forum for communication. I also take issue with what you say as the US is in fact the main country that does not pay its dues to the UN. Nor do other countries have the same voting power as the US, remember the veto!, The US is one of only five countries with the capacity to reject any vote in the UN regardless of how many countries support it. That gives the US a lot more influence than say India with its population of over 1 Billion.

The UN is a filthy joke. Just like the one in this game is full of crooks and does little if any good for the world. I would support (do support) the usa pulling out we can do without them, them without us? not so well. They need us not vice versa. and yes pulling out could also destroy the Un in fact its likely this to do I support!

Because the US supplies the most funds into the UN, the UN will probably fall apart.

I don't like the idea that the US is paying for most of the UN's actions, but yet piddly ass countries smaller than Rhode Island (exaduration) get equal vote to China, UK, Russia, US, Japan, Germany, etc. They mostly vote against us.

Honestly, i would be for ditching the UN and giving them 30 days to evac out of New York (and anywhere else in the United States)

You Americans really dont get it do you. (apologies if you are not american). The rest of the world has figured out that cooperation works better than confrontation and the UN is a vital forum for communication. I also take issue with what you say as the US is in fact the main country that does not pay its dues to the UN. Nor do other countries have the same voting power as the US, remember the veto!, The US is one of only five countries with the capacity to reject any vote in the UN regardless of how many countries support it. That gives the US a lot more influence than say India with its population of over 1 Billion.
Mmm, yes, the world is great at cooperating. Pakistan and India only have nukes pointed at eachother to induce greater cooperation. The Russian/French schemes to buy up Iraq's oil in illegal deals show a huge degree of their cooperation with the rest of the world. Get over yourself, the rest of the world has hands as dirty as those of the U.S., moreso for most European countries, considering they created the anarchy the third world suffers through now.

For one it'll probably be a political suicide for the US


Second, the UN would become a place where nations go to comment on how they disagree with the US' actions.

Do I have this correct?
You are right, but the US will still have its ties with NATO (an organization that actually enforces what it passes). The UN is already a joke, so if the US pulled out if would eventually fall the way of the League of Nations and become an absolute non-factor in international issues.

Because the US supplies the most funds into the UN, the UN will probably fall apart.

I don't like the idea that the US is paying for most of the UN's actions, but yet piddly ass countries smaller than Rhode Island (exaduration) get equal vote to China, UK, Russia, US, Japan, Germany, etc. They mostly vote against us.

Honestly, i would be for ditching the UN and giving them 30 days to evac out of New York (and anywhere else in the United States)

You Americans really dont get it do you. (apologies if you are not american). The rest of the world has figured out that cooperation works better than confrontation and the UN is a vital forum for communication. I also take issue with what you say as the US is in fact the main country that does not pay its dues to the UN. Nor do other countries have the same voting power as the US, remember the veto!, The US is one of only five countries with the capacity to reject any vote in the UN regardless of how many countries support it. That gives the US a lot more influence than say India with its population of over 1 Billion.

Now who is being dense? Of course the US tries to use diplomacy not only as a means to resolve differences but to avoid conflict whenever possible. What we are discussing is the efficacy of the UN in that regard.

Do try to keep up.

:shock:

For one it'll probably be a political suicide for the US


Second, the UN would become a place where nations go to comment on how they disagree with the US' actions.

Do I have this correct?

I thought we already did pull out. Lol. Dear non existent Jesus, I hate those conservative wackjobs in office. They need to read and learn to cooperate with others. I say the UN bombs the hell out of US.
Well at least the bible belt.
Or the midwest.
Or anywhere that common sense isn't common.

*rambling*stupidwackjobnazichristiansevangelicalracists

Now who is being dense? Of course the US tries to use diplomacy not only as a means to resolve differences but to avoid conflict whenever possible. What we are discussing is the efficacy of the UN in that regard.

Do try to keep up.

:shock:

You narrow minded idiot. Am i the only person of intelligence in this country? America was the only one not to sign the land mine treaty. We also didn't sign a whole bunch of other disarmamnet treaties, despite are opposite trend in past [less corrupt and nazi ruled] years. [nazi=neocon]

You people put too much stock into the word "republican" or "democrat" that when your own parties start acting like bullies and dictators, you don't even notice it.

Diplomacy? Diplomacy was when Bush was pandering peace talks between Israel and Palestine. No, that was Clinton, never mind.

Diplomacy? Was that when nobody else thought the right justifications were made to attack two different countries, beat the crap out of their citizens, lie about it, and put the nation into a whopping 7 trillion deficit that our own grandchildren will have to be paying for in lack of education?

What the hell are you talking about. Dogmatic imbecile.

“There is no margin for error about a monstrosity that was created for the alleged purpose of preventing wars by uniting the world against any aggressor, but proceeded to unite it against any victim of aggression. The expulsion of a charter member, the Republic of China [Taiwan]—an action forbidden by the U.N.'s own Charter—was a 'moment of truth,' a naked display of the United Nations' soul.

What was Red China's qualification for membership in the U.N.? The fact that her government seized power by force, and has maintained it for twenty-two years by terror. What disqualified Nationalist China [Taiwan]? The fact that she was a friend of the United States. It was against the United States that all those beneficiaries of our foreign aid were voting at the U.N. It was hatred of the United States and the pleasure of spitting in our face that they were celebrating, as well as their liberation from morality—with savages, appropriately, doing jungle dances in the aisles.”

http://www.unisevil.com/

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/FoodforDictators-X.gif

All moral countries should leave the UN, it is a disgrace. Let the terrorist states have a debating arena, but one that they pay for and one that does not have the legitimacy that the free world gives the UN.

Probably pregnant, as it's not a good form of contraception.

EDIT: Dammit! Too good a joke for only my mind to come up with...

The UN is a filthy joke. Just like the one in this game is full of crooks and does little if any good for the world. I would support (do support) the usa pulling out we can do without them, them without us? not so well. They need us not vice versa. and yes pulling out could also destroy the Un in fact its likely this to do I support!


Those sort of sentiments were very similar to those of George Bush concerning Iraq about two years ago, what was it again "we will not ever seek a permission slip to defend ourselves" (or something like that), to name but one quote. And what's happened since: Bush is desperate for more international support in Iraq, wants a UN resolution to legitimise the occupation and wants the UN to play a greater part in rebuilding Iraq. One of the reasons why Iraq is turning into such a mess is that it lacks international support and legal legitimacy leading many Arabs to perceive it as an occupying imperial power. The U.S may be an incredibly powerful nation, but Iraq has demonstrated that it cannot simply "go it alone", perhaps in military terms this is not the case, but to simplify any conflict into who has the superior armed forces is naive in the extreme.

The U.S does and should need the U.N, multilateralism, consensus and internationalism are the way forward in the 21st century and whilst the U.N as it currently stands is a deeply flawed institution that makes the case for reform not disbandment.

BUMP

BUMP

We may be the UN's worst enemy, but we are also its best friend. They rely on our money for a significant portion of the UN's operation. They rely on the diplomatic prestige the US has always had. And they rely on our troops, especially for missions that require lots of force. The Korean War, for example, was really a UN action. If the US pulled out of the UN, then it'd loose its spine.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

The US has been witholding payments to the UN for years. Over 90% of troops based abroad on UN (particularly peace-keeping and humanitarian) missions are non-US. Of course if the US stupidly withdrew from the UN that it had the major part in creating, the UN would be dramatically weakened. The US would then find itself completely isolated, without a say in the geopolitics of the world and would suffer equally. If the US ever became so arrogant that it felt it could completely withdraw from the rest of the world, its current, slow decline would speed up and Europe and or China and or Japan would move in swiftly, politically and economically. If the US hasn't learned the lesson now, in Iraq, that it needs friends, it deserves to falter and fail. History alone tells us that no nation can prosper and survive on its own, no matter how stong its military.

We may be the UN's worst enemy, but we are also its best friend. They rely on our money for a significant portion of the UN's operation. They rely on the diplomatic prestige the US has always had. And they rely on our troops, especially for missions that require lots of force. The Korean War, for example, was really a UN action. If the US pulled out of the UN, then it'd loose its spine.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

The US has been witholding payments to the UN for years. Over 90% of troops based abroad on UN (particularly peace-keeping and humanitarian) missions are non-US. Of course if the US stupidly withdrew from the UN that it had the major part in creating, the UN would be dramatically weakened. The US would then find itself completely isolated, without a say in the geopolitics of the world and would suffer equally. If the US ever became so arrogant that it felt it could completely withdraw from the rest of the world, its current, slow decline would speed up and Europe and or China and or Japan would move in swiftly, politically and economically. If the US hasn't learned the lesson now, in Iraq, that it needs friends, it deserves to falter and fail. History alone tells us that no nation can prosper and survive on its own, no matter how stong its military.
However, the UN does need the US to survive. Only in recent times has the UN's troop base been largely non-American. They rely on the US when the situation hasn't cooled down completely, and the UN needs it to do so fast. That's why US marines are, at the UN's request, in Haiti, and were in Liberia (I believe they are still stationed offshore there). The US has been a very large contributor in the beginning for the Sainai observation missions of the eighties, the DMZ patrols, and both Lebanese interventions. Without the US, militarily the UN would be linquine, and just as effective as the League of Nations.
Economically, the US has withheld some payments. But not all payments have been withheld. About half of the UN's funding base is still drawn from US coffers. I think it's even fair to say that, truthfully, the UN doesn't really need extra money for the US. They're doing perfectly fine in what missions they are in today. If something big happens where the UN needs to be involved, I'm sure the US will give to the UN accordingly.
And there is one teeny, weeny, itsy, bitsy detail that shouldn't be left out. Most organizations that don't recieve US help ultimatly fail. UNESCO has given us nothing these past ten years. No real action, no reports, and I've even barely seen literature from UNESCO. The League of Nations failed, in large part, due to lack of US involvement. And the ICC is doomed to fail as well. Without US involvement, the ICC is nothing more but a highly glorified circus of judges, ripe with idealism from the EU. And it'll have prestige that erodes from its feet. Romania has already pledged not to send Americans it captures to the ICC. Unless the US gets involved, that will also fail.

We may be the UN's worst enemy, but we are also its best friend. They rely on our money for a significant portion of the UN's operation. They rely on the diplomatic prestige the US has always had. And they rely on our troops, especially for missions that require lots of force. The Korean War, for example, was really a UN action. If the US pulled out of the UN, then it'd loose its spine.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

The US has been witholding payments to the UN for years. Over 90% of troops based abroad on UN (particularly peace-keeping and humanitarian) missions are non-US. Of course if the US stupidly withdrew from the UN that it had the major part in creating, the UN would be dramatically weakened. The US would then find itself completely isolated, without a say in the geopolitics of the world and would suffer equally. If the US ever became so arrogant that it felt it could completely withdraw from the rest of the world, its current, slow decline would speed up and Europe and or China and or Japan would move in swiftly, politically and economically. If the US hasn't learned the lesson now, in Iraq, that it needs friends, it deserves to falter and fail. History alone tells us that no nation can prosper and survive on its own, no matter how stong its military.
However, the UN does need the US to survive. Only in recent times has the UN's troop base been largely non-American. They rely on the US when the situation hasn't cooled down completely, and the UN needs it to do so fast. That's why US marines are, at the UN's request, in Haiti, and were in Liberia (I believe they are still stationed offshore there). The US has been a very large contributor in the beginning for the Sainai observation missions of the eighties, the DMZ patrols, and both Lebanese interventions. Without the US, militarily the UN would be linquine, and just as effective as the League of Nations.
Economically, the US has withheld some payments. But not all payments have been withheld. About half of the UN's funding base is still drawn from US coffers. I think it's even fair to say that, truthfully, the UN doesn't really need extra money for the US. They're doing perfectly fine in what missions they are in today. If something big happens where the UN needs to be involved, I'm sure the US will give to the UN accordingly.
And there is one teeny, weeny, itsy, bitsy detail that shouldn't be left out. Most organizations that don't recieve US help ultimatly fail. UNESCO has given us nothing these past ten years. No real action, no reports, and I've even barely seen literature from UNESCO. The League of Nations failed, in large part, due to lack of US involvement. And the ICC is doomed to fail as well. Without US involvement, the ICC is nothing more but a highly glorified circus of judges, ripe with idealism from the EU. And it'll have prestige that erodes from its feet. Romania has already pledged not to send Americans it captures to the ICC. Unless the US gets involved, that will also fail.

[

The US has been witholding payments to the UN for years. Over 90% of troops based abroad on UN (particularly peace-keeping and humanitarian) missions are non-US. Of course if the US stupidly withdrew from the UN that it had the major part in creating, the UN would be dramatically weakened. The US would then find itself completely isolated, without a say in the geopolitics of the world and would suffer equally. If the US ever became so arrogant that it felt it could completely withdraw from the rest of the world, its current, slow decline would speed up and Europe and or China and or Japan would move in swiftly, politically and economically. If the US hasn't learned the lesson now, in Iraq, that it needs friends, it deserves to falter and fail. History alone tells us that no nation can prosper and survive on its own, no matter how stong its military.
However, the UN does need the US to survive. Only in recent times has the UN's troop base been largely non-American. They rely on the US when the situation hasn't cooled down completely, and the UN needs it to do so fast. That's why US marines are, at the UN's request, in Haiti, and were in Liberia (I believe they are still stationed offshore there). The US has been a very large contributor in the beginning for the Sainai observation missions of the eighties, the DMZ patrols, and both Lebanese interventions. Without the US, militarily the UN would be linquine, and just as effective as the League of Nations.
Economically, the US has withheld some payments. But not all payments have been withheld. About half of the UN's funding base is still drawn from US coffers. I think it's even fair to say that, truthfully, the UN doesn't really need extra money for the US. They're doing perfectly fine in what missions they are in today. If something big happens where the UN needs to be involved, I'm sure the US will give to the UN accordingly.
And there is one teeny, weeny, itsy, bitsy detail that shouldn't be left out. Most organizations that don't recieve US help ultimatly fail. UNESCO has given us nothing these past ten years. No real action, no reports, and I've even barely seen literature from UNESCO. The League of Nations failed, in large part, due to lack of US involvement. And the ICC is doomed to fail as well. Without US involvement, the ICC is nothing more but a highly glorified circus of judges, ripe with idealism from the EU. And it'll have prestige that erodes from its feet. Romania has already pledged not to send Americans it captures to the ICC. Unless the US gets involved, that will also fail.[/quote]
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

I agree with most of that. I'm more concerned with the attitude of some Americans that quitting the UN would be only for the good of the US. Remember, globalisation is largely an American 'invention', and America being part of the UN's political process is vital to all nations.
Only idiots assert that the US has not been, in general, a force for good in the 20th century, but I worry that the 21st, which may not be Americas, could easily sink back to the nationalism and xenophobia of former years.

[

The US has been witholding payments to the UN for years. Over 90% of troops based abroad on UN (particularly peace-keeping and humanitarian) missions are non-US. Of course if the US stupidly withdrew from the UN that it had the major part in creating, the UN would be dramatically weakened. The US would then find itself completely isolated, without a say in the geopolitics of the world and would suffer equally. If the US ever became so arrogant that it felt it could completely withdraw from the rest of the world, its current, slow decline would speed up and Europe and or China and or Japan would move in swiftly, politically and economically. If the US hasn't learned the lesson now, in Iraq, that it needs friends, it deserves to falter and fail. History alone tells us that no nation can prosper and survive on its own, no matter how stong its military.
However, the UN does need the US to survive. Only in recent times has the UN's troop base been largely non-American. They rely on the US when the situation hasn't cooled down completely, and the UN needs it to do so fast. That's why US marines are, at the UN's request, in Haiti, and were in Liberia (I believe they are still stationed offshore there). The US has been a very large contributor in the beginning for the Sainai observation missions of the eighties, the DMZ patrols, and both Lebanese interventions. Without the US, militarily the UN would be linquine, and just as effective as the League of Nations.
Economically, the US has withheld some payments. But not all payments have been withheld. About half of the UN's funding base is still drawn from US coffers. I think it's even fair to say that, truthfully, the UN doesn't really need extra money for the US. They're doing perfectly fine in what missions they are in today. If something big happens where the UN needs to be involved, I'm sure the US will give to the UN accordingly.
And there is one teeny, weeny, itsy, bitsy detail that shouldn't be left out. Most organizations that don't recieve US help ultimatly fail. UNESCO has given us nothing these past ten years. No real action, no reports, and I've even barely seen literature from UNESCO. The League of Nations failed, in large part, due to lack of US involvement. And the ICC is doomed to fail as well. Without US involvement, the ICC is nothing more but a highly glorified circus of judges, ripe with idealism from the EU. And it'll have prestige that erodes from its feet. Romania has already pledged not to send Americans it captures to the ICC. Unless the US gets involved, that will also fail.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

I agree with most of that. I'm more concerned with the attitude of some Americans that quitting the UN would be only for the good of the US. Remember, globalisation is largely an American 'invention', and America being part of the UN's political process is vital to all nations.
Only idiots assert that the US has not been, in general, a force for good in the 20th century, but I worry that the 21st, which may not be Americas, could easily sink back to the nationalism and xenophobia of former years.[/quote]
And it's our job to convince them that liberal imperialism (and maybe a smattering of good ol' fashion imperialism) is best for us. I have an entire hypothesis behind that, but I'm tired now, and I'm trying to leave this computer for bed. I'll be in touch. Ciao!

Now who is being dense? Of course the US tries to use diplomacy not only as a means to resolve differences but to avoid conflict whenever possible. What we are discussing is the efficacy of the UN in that regard.

Do try to keep up.

:shock:

You narrow minded idiot. Am i the only person of intelligence in this country?

UH, that would be which country? The Rabid Knee Jerk Hate America Fire Breathers Who Are Cranky Because Mama Didn't Nurse Them Till They Were 21? Diplomacy is apparently doing things your way with no room for a difference of opinion.

Take a mint will ya?


:shock:

There are changes that need to be made in the UN to make it more effective in todays political climate. I am not qualified to make pertinent suggestions on how to do this, I would only have opinion.

Neither the U.S. or the other nations of the world would benefit from having the U.S. pull out of the UN.

What is difficult for some to accept/understand is the response of the U.S. to recent direct attacks. It is best viewed as a rush of nationalism that will always come forth when a direct threat is identified (see Pearl Harbor). Many Americans view the lack of UN support to what was viewed as a response to a threat as a negative. A number of other nations viewed the withholding of UN support not being sufficient to deter the U.S. as a negative.

The U.S. will not become overly nationalistic or xenophobic (isolationist) in the long term unless pushed into it. That would be unfortunate.

There are changes that need to be made in the UN to make it more effective in todays political climate. I am not qualified to make pertinent suggestions on how to do this, I would only have opinion.

Neither the U.S. or the other nations of the world would benefit from having the U.S. pull out of the UN.

What is difficult for some to accept/understand is the response of the U.S. to recent direct attacks. It is best viewed as a rush of nationalism that will always come forth when a direct threat is identified (see Pearl Harbor). Many Americans view the lack of UN support to what was viewed as a response to a threat as a negative. A number of other nations viewed the withholding of UN support not being sufficient to deter the U.S. as a negative.

The U.S. will not become overly nationalistic or xenophobic (isolationist) in the long term unless pushed into it. That would be unfortunate.

It seems that the U.S is quite capable of pushing itself in that direction, the perception of a world which is irrationally hostile to the U.S regardless of how it acts already has a predominant place in mainstream politics in the U.S. The view is perpetuated by a significant section of the American right which also argues that international institutions such as the U.N are weak and pointless, that the U.S does not need allies and that it should be free to act as it sees fit irrespective of law and opinion.

Whilst events such as 9/11 and the Iraq war exasperate existing trends I believe that it would be wrong to state that those trends were not initially in existence. For one thing, over-emphasising the threats and hostility many feel towards the U.S serve to advance their own agenda of a nationalist, isolationist, U.S world hegemony.

There are changes that need to be made in the UN to make it more effective in todays political climate. I am not qualified to make pertinent suggestions on how to do this, I would only have opinion.

Neither the U.S. or the other nations of the world would benefit from having the U.S. pull out of the UN.

What is difficult for some to accept/understand is the response of the U.S. to recent direct attacks. It is best viewed as a rush of nationalism that will always come forth when a direct threat is identified (see Pearl Harbor). Many Americans view the lack of UN support to what was viewed as a response to a threat as a negative. A number of other nations viewed the withholding of UN support not being sufficient to deter the U.S. as a negative.

The U.S. will not become overly nationalistic or xenophobic (isolationist) in the long term unless pushed into it. That would be unfortunate.

It seems that the U.S is quite capable of pushing itself in that direction, the perception of a world which is irrationally hostile to the U.S regardless of how it acts already has a predominant place in mainstream politics in the U.S. The view is perpetuated by a significant section of the American right which also argues that international institutions such as the U.N are weak and pointless, that the U.S does not need allies and that it should be free to act as it sees fit irrespective of law and opinion.

Whilst events such as 9/11 and the Iraq war exasperate existing trends I believe that it would be wrong to state that those trends were not initially in existence. For one thing, over-emphasising the threats and hostility many feel towards the U.S serve to advance their own agenda of a nationalist, isolationist, U.S world hegemony.
Are you arguing that the UN is not weak? As to pointless, that is an extreme position. A forum always has the potential for being useful for the exchange of ideas. However, to place one's soverignity below the UN, or other "world institutions", would be submitting to a world government. That is anathema to the principles that the United States was founded on and the identity of it's citizens. Despite the statements of those on the left, that is as unlikely to happen as the sun rising in the west.

As for overemphasizing hostility, if the views expressed on this forum are any indication of what passes for moderation, then it is hardly being imprudent to judge our threat level as greater than perceived by others.