NationStates Jolt Archive

Would you like to see the USA leave the UN. I would.

No, because that would mean they could make resolutions against our wishes. As long as we have that seat on the Security Council, we have the power of veto.

No, because that would mean they could make resolutions against our wishes. As long as we have that seat on the Security Council, we have the power of veto.


but of course there resolutions then would have no effect on us. And we wouldnt have to support there asses with billions a year and prime reality in manhattan

Pulling out of the UN would be horrid for the US's foreign diplomacy.

but of course there resolutions then would have no effect on us. And we wouldnt have to support there asses with billions a year and prime reality in manhattan

Yeah, but that doesn't mean they couldn't enforce them upon us. It's better that we have the inside track on preventing things like that from ever even happening.

Well they really have nothing to enforce with if we werent in it.
And in all likelyhood without American backing the U.N. would collapse within 6 months to a year.

We're america...we do what we want...thats not opinion, its fact.

Well, the idea of The US pulling out of the UN is an interesting one, but a bad idea... Due to our Security Council and Veto powers, stacked on top of our current use of UN troops to help garrison Iraq, it is, at least for the time being, in our best interest... If for no other reason it keeps negotiations open with the Chinese and North Koreans, thereby averting nuclear Armageddon.

It would be a HUGE mistake if we left the UN right now. They may be corrupt, powerless and such but that does not mean we should leave it. We must be on the inside to make sure nothing against the US happenes. Plus you really think we would keep all our allies if we left...no. The UN may not have power without the US but that is good. The UN is not about power but to bring togther nations to work things out. You really want the UN to have a military better then most?

If we left the UN, I bet it would be one of the biggest mistakes in US history.

Yes, leave the UN. They do nothing but cause genocide (Rwanda; they previously disarmed all the citizens the genocide was committed against) and butcher innocent people (Katanga, Somalia, Kosovo), and drain billions of our hard-earned dollars. May the UN die and roast in the hell from which it was spawned!

Death to internationalism!

Death to NAFTA!

Death to NATO!

Death to the WTO!

Death to the EU!

Death to the UN!

Death to every entangling alliance ever conceived!

Death to the New World Order!!!!!!!!

In my ideal worldview, yes but that's because I am an old school isolationist. In my practical worldview, no. It wouldn't have much of an effect on US diplomacy - nations would still have to deal with the US regardless of UN membership, the US is too big. The withdrawl of the US would however doom the UN, because the US is too big and if the US withdrew a large chunk of the UN's legitimacy would go with it. Once the US left, other nations would start asking why they bother with the UN, and the UN would end. I imagine a technical withdrawl with US consultation to the UN and support of the UN could be crafted which would at least make the UN creditable, but even that sort of thing would only slow the end of the UN.

Note that it is not just the US who's withdrawl would cause this sort of thing, the UK or China could also do this and possibly Russia.

Yes, leave the UN. They do nothing but cause genocide (Rwanda; they previously disarmed all the citizens the genocide was committed against) and butcher innocent people (Katanga, Somalia, Kosovo), and drain billions of our hard-earned dollars. May the UN die and roast in the hell from which it was spawned! So just close negotiations then? Tell me, I live in the Minneapolis area too, will you help me build my bomb shelter?

So just close negotiations then? Tell me, I live in the Minneapolis area too, will you help me build my bomb shelter?

Negiotation would be just one on one between nations not in a circus of bickering minor states surrounding the major powers.

That would be profoundly idiotic. The US would lose its allies if it did something as brash and arrogant as that. We helped form it so another world war would not happen. The UN is not functioning as well as it should because the balance of power is so offset by the fact that there is only one superpower, and we don't cooperate very well. If the big kid doesn't obey the rules, what does that say to the little kids?

Besides, we won't be the only superpower forever... China is catching up mighty fast.

Negiotation would be just one on one between nations not in a circus of bickering minor states surrounding the major powers. Yes, but international moderation is the key... it keeps us from glowing in the dark from nuclear fallout, we proved this in the early 60s.

Our biggest allies in Europe would support us with the U.N. or without.

So just close negotiations then? Tell me, I live in the Minneapolis area too, will you help me build my bomb shelter?

No, just negotiate the old fashioned way. Deal with one nation at a time.

Yes, but international moderation is the key... it keeps us from glowing in the dark from nuclear fallout, we proved this in the early 60s.

I assume your refering to the cuban missile crisis. Which the U.N. technically failed to avert. Strong Military posturing stopped that. The U.S. didn't want soviet nuclear weapons in its hemisphere and once the U.S. put a blockade around Cuba and was actually going to fire on Soviet ships the russians backed down, because they weren't going to go war over some backwater in the caribbean.

Our biggest allies in Europe would support us with the U.N. or without. Yes, making the Chinese feel cornered.... LAst I checked, paranoid cornered communists was a dangerous thing

We're america...we do what we want...thats not opinion, its fact.

True, but American dissent grows every day. How long could we keep ourselves afloat while acting like a renegade nation? We're not so big that we can take on the entire world by ourselves...

Pulling out from the UN would hurt the US since it is a giant leap towards isolationism which we know doesn't work. It would also hurt us economically because we would most likely face economic pull-outs by most other nations in the UN. Third, the UN could make resolutions that may not be directed at us primarily, but would hurt us. Things like being able to place trade restrictions on the US for anything its companies do abroad, or favoring EU trade markets and so on.

True, but American dissent grows every day. How long could we keep ourselves afloat while acting like a renegade nation? We're not so big that we can take on the entire world by ourselves...

Actually military wise we could when you consider the amount of nations that actually have worldwide reach with there armies is limited to only the major European powers. England, France, Italy and Germany are the only nations that are capable of actualy having a conflict abroad. But most of them just barely.

Our biggest allies in Europe would support us with the U.N. or without.

Stop deluding yourself, I just visited Europe, and no, they wouldn't support us.

Pulling out from the UN would hurt the US since it is a giant leap towards isolationism which we know doesn't work. It would also hurt us economically because we would most likely face economic pull-outs by most other nations in the UN. Third, the UN could make resolutions that may not be directed at us primarily, but would hurt us. Things like being able to place trade restrictions on the US for anything its companies do abroad, or favoring EU trade markets and so on.

Of course that would also hurt alot of other nations that rely on American trade. Economically its proven that if the U.S. ceased all foreign trade by importing and exporting there would be a massive worldwide recessions with many countries completely going bankrupt.
Japan would be a third world nation in a few years since they would lose over 70% of there market.
Most European countries would be put into a 1930s style depression.
Latin American and Caribbean nations that previously relied on American food products would suffer massive shortages.

Economically the U.S. is capable of being self sustaining, but prices would go up alot on most products(except basically food products which are almost exclusively domestically produced.) Things like cloths would go up to U.S. production prices. So spending 20-30 dollars on a shirt would actualy be because the company has to charge that much.

Of course that would also hurt alot of other nations that rely on American trade. Economically its proven that if the U.S. ceased all foreign trade by importing and exporting there would be a massive worldwide recessions with many countries completely going bankrupt.
Japan would be a third world nation in a few years since they would lose over 70% of there market.
Most European countries would be put into a 1930s style depression.
Latin American and Caribbean nations that previously relied on American food products would suffer massive shortages.

Economically the U.S. is capable of being self sustaining, but prices would go up alot on most products(except basically food products which are almost exclusively domestically produced.) Things like cloths would go up to U.S. production prices. So spending 20-30 dollars on a shirt would actualy be because the company has to charge that much.

Most of that is true, I'll grant you that. The United States has a massive trade empire, and that is why organizations such as the EU are starting up and developing. I don't think Japan would flop because there is a massivly growing IT sector in Europe, India, China, and Oceana.

As for Europe going 1930's, I don't think it would be that bad. With the EU, growing use of fair trade, and the fact that they already have trade restrictions with the US, they still seem to be doing okay. Last time I checked, the Euro was worth about 1.28 US dollars. or .72 euros to the US dollar. I think Europe would continue on fine after a short (few years) slow down.

Actually military wise we could when you consider the amount of nations that actually have worldwide reach with there armies is limited to only the major European powers. England, France, Italy and Germany are the only nations that are capable of actualy having a conflict abroad. But most of them just barely.

Japan, Korea, Russia, and China don't have far-reaching military power?

Japan, Korea, Russia, and China don't have far-reaching military power?

Japan has restrictions placed on the size of there military and there range. They have a small navy and its not invasion capable.

by Korea Im assuming North Korea. Though North Korea has lots of troops they dont have any navy to speak of making there military reach only across land borders. The same is true for China they have no way to transport large numbers of troops across the ocean since the Chinese Navy is the smallest branch of there service.

Russia Theoritically has global reach with there military. But Russia's navy and military is in very very bad condition. Most of there submarine force is stuck in drydock. There Naval Airwing consists of less then a squadron and there only carrier cant leave port. On land they have 40 thousand tanks on Paper but 10 thousand in practice since only 10 thousand batteries for the engines work.

True, but American dissent grows every day. How long could we keep ourselves afloat while acting like a renegade nation? We're not so big that we can take on the entire world by ourselves...
People feel like you already do i say give it a crack.you guys dont really pay UN subs do you because of your high peacekeeping commitments?did anyone here of an email last year where the us was going to invade Kiribati? it really scared the kiribatians when they heard about it.

Japan has restrictions placed on the size of there military and there range. They have a small navy and its not invasion capable.

by Korea Im assuming North Korea. Though North Korea has lots of troops they dont have any navy to speak of making there military reach only across land borders. The same is true for China they have no way to transport large numbers of troops across the ocean since the Chinese Navy is the smallest branch of there service.

Russia Theoritically has global reach with there military. But Russia's navy and military is in very very bad condition. Most of there submarine force is stuck in drydock. There Naval Airwing consists of less then a squadron and there only carrier cant leave port. On land they have 40 thousand tanks on Paper but 10 thousand in practice since only 10 thousand batteries for the engines work.

Interesting... Oh, and by the way, we should also take Italy off the list. Italians and the French will never fight well, according to Machiavelli's The Prince. ;)

Interesting... Oh, and by the way, we should also take Italy off the list. Italians and the French will never fight well, according to Machiavelli's The Prince. ;)

Shoot. Or was it The Republic?

Japan has restrictions placed on the size of there military and there range. They have a small navy and its not invasion capable.

by Korea Im assuming North Korea. Though North Korea has lots of troops they dont have any navy to speak of making there military reach only across land borders. The same is true for China they have no way to transport large numbers of troops across the ocean since the Chinese Navy is the smallest branch of there service.

Russia Theoritically has global reach with there military. But Russia's navy and military is in very very bad condition. Most of there submarine force is stuck in drydock. There Naval Airwing consists of less then a squadron and there only carrier cant leave port. On land they have 40 thousand tanks on Paper but 10 thousand in practice since only 10 thousand batteries for the engines work.
the chinese are actually building about 100 large transport vessels and are expected to be finished within the next few years invasion of taiwan is on the cards probably after the biejing olympics

the chinese are actually building about 100 large transport vessels and are expected to be finished within the next few years invasion of taiwan is on the cards probably after the biejing olympics

If China had its way, it would invade Taiwan in a heartbeat. Why after the beijing olympics? Why not earlier or later?

Well, the whole idea behind the UN was to talk instead of waging war to solve problems between nations. The moment the world saw how America tried to use the UN for their own agenda, the UN itself became a mockery.
The reality is, that one superpower is on the loose, and no nation can do anything to stop them. Now guess why people in the world don't like Americans!

Death to internationalism!

Death to NAFTA!

Death to NATO!

Death to the WTO!

Death to the EU!

Death to the UN!

Death to every entangling alliance ever conceived!

Death to the New World Order!!!!!!!!

:) Im glad someone agrees with me.

For those who think the US should abolish all ties to the UN:

What would you do when the UN weapons inspectors come in and the world community demands the US dismantle its weapons of mass destruction?

Say no?

Didn't work for anyone else ...

But, hey, yeah ... let's pull out ... super smart idea there.

Actually military wise we could when you consider the amount of nations that actually have worldwide reach with there armies is limited to only the major European powers. England, France, Italy and Germany are the only nations that are capable of actualy having a conflict abroad. But most of them just barely.
Ummmm you forgot China, and Russia?

Economically the U.S. is capable of being self sustaining, but prices would go up alot on most products(except basically food products which are almost exclusively domestically produced.) Things like cloths would go up to U.S. production prices. So spending 20-30 dollars on a shirt would actualy be because the company has to charge that much.
The US is not capable of self sufficiency. Start with US oil imports and work out from there.

The US is not capable of self sufficiency. Start with US oil imports and work out from there.

And let's not forget the USA's gigantic trade deficit (http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html), either.

Stop deluding yourself, I just visited Europe, and no, they wouldn't support us.

You're absolutely correct, if the USA withdrew from the UN your foreign policy would lose any last remaining shreds of credibility amongst most Europeans.

Well, the idea of The US pulling out of the UN is an interesting one, but a bad idea... Due to our Security Council and Veto powers, stacked on top of our current use of UN troops to help garrison Iraq, it is, at least for the time being, in our best interest... If for no other reason it keeps negotiations open with the Chinese and North Koreans, thereby averting nuclear Armageddon.

Ummm... Were not using un troops, and if we were it would just be americans with un uniforms.

I say we leave the UN. Im tired of the UN trying to stop genocide but when push comes to shove they depend on the us to dispacth troops.

Shoot. Or was it The Republic?

Nope. The Republic is by Plato. You were right the first time - Niccolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince.

I assume your refering to the cuban missile crisis. Which the U.N. technically failed to avert. Strong Military posturing stopped that. The U.S. didn't want soviet nuclear weapons in its hemisphere and once the U.S. put a blockade around Cuba and was actually going to fire on Soviet ships the russians backed down, because they weren't going to go war over some backwater in the caribbean.

Russia backed down after Kennedy promised to remove its long-range missiles from Turkey and not to invade Cuba, not for the reason you provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/28/newsid_2621000/2621915.stm

For those who think the US should abolish all ties to the UN:

What would you do when the UN weapons inspectors come in and the world community demands the US dismantle its weapons of mass destruction?

Say no?

Didn't work for anyone else ...

But, hey, yeah ... let's pull out ... super smart idea there.But unless the UN massively changes its nature then the US can say no and the UN cannot do anything about it. Actually saying "no" has worked for everyone else. Under Un doctrine nations have the right to create and have WMDs to their little hearts' content unless and until they give up that right. Further the UN doesn't have power over non-UN nations, unless they invade UN nations.

Japan, Korea, Russia, and China don't have far-reaching military power?


Japan does not have a far reaching military as Japan is not allowed to have a true military in the sense of the word. Only a defense force. Which I'm sure even the Rhode Island National Guard could take care of.

If China had its way, it would invade Taiwan in a heartbeat. Why after the beijing olympics? Why not earlier or later?


A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would cost them dearly as Taiwan has been preparing for just such a threat for decades. They just got done with a scenario of a Chinese invasion just a few short weeks ago. Yes China would take the country but not without a steep price.

No, I wouldn't like to see America pull out of the U.N.

That would mean we have nobody on the "Don't bomb" list. We'd probably start Armageddon by firing off all of our nukes the next time someone said something resembling the truth. Such as, "America is full of pig-dog swines and their government is corrupt."

Yes, I am American. No, I have no faith in the government and no pride in this country.

Flame if you want. I won't reply anyway.

Perhaps if we get strong enough, we could leave. But remember, out of two hundred sovereign entities at the UN, only five have veto power. We're one. Why do we want to forfeit so much power?

But unless the UN massively changes its nature then the US can say no and the UN cannot do anything about it. Actually saying "no" has worked for everyone else. Under Un doctrine nations have the right to create and have WMDs to their little hearts' content unless and until they give up that right. Further the UN doesn't have power over non-UN nations, unless they invade UN nations.

I am personally of the belief that the next nation the world should focus on disarming is the United States of America, as the US is the country that has killed more people with nuclear weapons than all other nuclear nations combined. The idea of a world superpower with more nuclear might than any other should scare the hell out of the rest of the world, and they should get off their asses and insist on the US disarming. Plus, if the US refuses to allow weapon inspectors in, as in your example, there are other methods to deal with a situation like that. I would suggest the Iraq method, bombarding them with heavy political and economic sanctions. Many people believe that the US can be completly self-sufficient, so let's see how that works out.

I think every nation should pull out of the UN. Am I proposing isolationism? Not at all. Trade and friendly relations between nations is a good thing. I propose non-interventionism. No meddling in other nations' affairs, no more 'police actions,' or 'regime change,' or 'New World Order,' blah blah blah.

I am personally of the belief that the next nation the world should focus on disarming is the United States of America, as the US is the country that has killed more people with nuclear weapons than all other nuclear nations combined. The idea of a world superpower with more nuclear might than any other should scare the hell out of the rest of the world, and they should get off their asses and insist on the US disarming. Plus, if the US refuses to allow weapon inspectors in, as in your example, there are other methods to deal with a situation like that. I would suggest the Iraq method, bombarding them with heavy political and economic sanctions. Many people believe that the US can be completly self-sufficient, so let's see how that works out.
The world could try economic sanctions against the US if it wants to, but the UN has neither the authority or any precedent for expanfing its power this way. How exactly would the UN justify forcing the US to disarm?

President Speech Wish (http://s3.invisionfree.com/Elysian_Isles/index.php?showtopic=201)

Another Country in my region posted this. I think that this is what President Bush should do. It would definitely be interesting, if nothing else.

I am personally of the belief that the next nation the world should focus on disarming is the United States of America, as the US is the country that has killed more people with nuclear weapons than all other nuclear nations combined. The idea of a world superpower with more nuclear might than any other should scare the hell out of the rest of the world, and they should get off their asses and insist on the US disarming. Plus, if the US refuses to allow weapon inspectors in, as in your example, there are other methods to deal with a situation like that. I would suggest the Iraq method, bombarding them with heavy political and economic sanctions. Many people believe that the US can be completly self-sufficient, so let's see how that works out.


Lol nice ideal but no way it would be practical.

And as for the most people killed … probably because we were the first and last people to ever use it in combat situation. Seriously how is that a point at all? sheesh

Interesting... Oh, and by the way, we should also take Italy off the list. Italians and the French will never fight well, according to Machiavelli's The Prince. ;)

It was in the Discourses of Machiavelli. I forget the exact part where he talked about the French. But for the Italians he said the reasons the Italians don't fight effectively is because they weren't a unified country and didn't have proper army officials. Machievelli said if they had unified country and proper officials they would of been able to compete.

For those who think the US should abolish all ties to the UN:

What would you do when the UN weapons inspectors come in and the world community demands the US dismantle its weapons of mass destruction?

Say no?

Didn't work for anyone else ...

But, hey, yeah ... let's pull out ... super smart idea there.

Actually saying NO worked for a long time with Saddam. And then there would be no U.S. like entity to actually enforce the policies.

Also if the U.S. wasn't in the U.N. it would be exempt from all WMD treaties. Kinda like how Israel can have nuclear weapons because they never signed the restriction act saying only the U.S., Russia, China, England and France can have nukes.

The US is not capable of self sufficiency. Start with US oil imports and work out from there.

Oil Prices would go up alot but its possible for self sufficiency because the oil fields in Alaska wouldn't be sending Oil to Japan but would be sending oil to the U.S.

Would you like to see the USA leave the UN. I would.
Whatever happened to the America of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, your greatest President?

And let's not forget the USA's gigantic trade deficit (http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html), either.

The Trade deficit isnt as bad as people make it out to be. When you compare it to how much we export(we export more then most countries make in a year) and we import about the same. The reason we have a trade deficit is because we have a massive amount of disposibable income and people in the U.S. buy more then people in any other country in the world.

Whatever happened to the America of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, your greatest President?

Franklin Roosevelt was an ultra-radical internationalist. A staunch supporter of the League of Nations, an aggressive and strongly interventionist foreign policy, and the UN, he was one of the most ardent globalists of all time. In addition, he trashed our constitution, bloated our government, trampled states' rights, mortally wounded free enterprise in America, loaded the government with arch-traitors and subversives, undermined and betrayed our allies, strengthened our enemies, and used lies, deceit, and murder to entangle us in World War II.

If the US pulled out of the UN we would be counted as a rougue nation in the eyes of the world. A powerful rougue but a rougue none the less. If the US ever does that we better make sure we can be self-sufficient.

Russia backed down after Kennedy promised to remove its long-range missiles from Turkey and not to invade Cuba, not for the reason you provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/28/newsid_2621000/2621915.stm

The Yankees have indeed a wonderful way of putting things upside down.
In fact the Russians made the Americans back down out of Turkey.
Later on Kennedy used the excuse that the nuclear weapons were out of date. Al lot of bullshit of course. But the American public bought the story.

Franklin Roosevelt was an ultra-radical internationalist. A staunch supporter of the League of Nations, an aggressive and strongly interventionist foreign policy, and the UN, he was one of the most ardent globalists of all time. In addition, he trashed our constitution, bloated our government, trampled states' rights, mortally wounded free enterprise in America, loaded the government with arch-traitors and subversives, undermined and betrayed our allies, strengthened our enemies, and used lies, deceit, and murder to entangle us in World War II.

Don't forget he also tried to create a pseudo dictatorship by "I need to add 13 members to the supreme court because the Judges don't know what there doing."

Well, seenig as the US ignores the resolutions anyway, I don't see the point of this poll.

Don't forget he also tried to create a pseudo dictatorship by "I need to add 13 members to the supreme court because the Judges don't know what there doing."

Yup.

Not to mention his Nazi-esque internment of the Japanese-Americans, most of whom were peace-loving, intensely loyal, deeply patriotic Americans.

The Trade deficit isnt as bad as people make it out to be. When you compare it to how much we export(we export more then most countries make in a year) and we import about the same. The reason we have a trade deficit is because we have a massive amount of disposibable income and people in the U.S. buy more then people in any other country in the world.

??

A trade deficit is a negative difference between the amount you export and the amount you import -- or, in other words, the amount the USA sells and the amount it buys. The USA does not export "about the same" as it imports. As of June, in the report (http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html), the USA has a balance of trade deficit running at around $50 billion per month ($489.4 billion total for 2003, on top of a $418 billion total for 2002, and here's (http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/ticker_home.asp) a happy little site that has a running total for 2004).

Regardless of the various interpretations people can make regarding the seriousness or otherwise of this situation -- which frankly are beyond me -- it conclusively demonstrates that the USA is not even close to being self-sufficient in all the things its people want to buy. It might be able to become self-sufficient, but it would require a massive internal upheaval which would be political suicide for any government that attempted it under anything but the most dire circumstances.

No, because that would mean they could make resolutions against our wishes. As long as we have that seat on the Security Council, we have the power of veto.

Very true

Most things that are imported into the United States aren't necessary to keep the economy running. You don't need a TV to live. Its nice but you don't need. Most resources except for Oil are from the states. A large percentage of things imported to the states are luxury goods, which are not essential to keeping the country running.

I'm not American. But I would like to see the USA leave the UN. Its not like your government follows UN protocol anyway... :rolleyes:

Most things that are imported into the United States aren't necessary to keep the economy running. You don't need a TV to live. Its nice but you don't need. Most resources except for Oil are from the states. A large percentage of things imported to the states are luxury goods, which are not essential to keeping the country running.

Which is why I said that the USA "might be able to become self-sufficient, but it would require a massive internal upheaval which would be political suicide for any government that attempted it under anything but the most dire circumstances."

In other words: you might be able to do it, but you sure as hell wouldn't like it.

We (the United States) created the UN. There is no way we would ever pull out. Anyway we have our own motives for wanting the UN. No matter what the UN votes for, even if every vote were against us we could never pull out. Why? Intelligence.

People in a debate always say too much. And we rely on that. We wait for someone to get all pissed off and say "Well we've already got nukes anyway” or "Were already buying from china" or something along those lines.

The UN has more uses then anyone outside the intelligence community could understand.

Death to internationalism!

Death to NAFTA!

Death to NATO!

Death to the UN!

Death to the New World Order!!!!!!!!
I agree with you on these.