NationStates Jolt Archive

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/


So what do you think? Should the US leave the UN? I am not well versed on the WTO so I do not actually know if what he is saying is true. If it is then there is a sovereignty issue.
If the US left the UN could it survive as a meaningful institution it was envisioned to be?

We left the UN a long time ago. We just stay there now to excersize veto authority every now and then to keep them in check.

Paul: Time for U.S. to leave U.N.
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.
(CNN)–Saying "I'm a believer in trade," Rep. Ron Paul says the World Trade Organization, is threatening the sovereignty of the United States.

"The WTO has now been able to come to our Congress and dictate to us, we as a Congress, and as a party has endorsed the idea that we should raise taxes on certain corporations at the directive of the W.T.O in order to satisfy and be upstanding members of the W.T.O.," The GOP presidential hopeful said Saturday. "We should never raise taxes period, but certainly because the W.T.O. tells us to do so."

Paul said the W.T.O., and other organizations that support free trade are an outgrowth of the United Nations. As a result, "I support this notion of protecting sovereignty by getting out of the United Nations," he said. The Texas Congressman said he has sponsored legislation calling for the U.S. to withdraw from the United Nations since he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Paul made his comments before a weekend retreat for Michigan Republicans on Mackinac Island, Michigan. Most of his fellow rivals for the GOP nomination were also scheduled to address the group as well.

– CNN Political Desk Editor Jamie Crawford



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/


So what do you think? Should the US leave the UN? I am not well versed on the WTO so I do not actually know if what he is saying is true. If it is then there is a sovereignty issue.
If the US left the UN could it survive as a meaningful institution it was envisioned to be?

It would do the UN a lot of good.

The UN is a pointless institution who's ability to do anything is hindred by the fact that the majority of its members are govorned by people who commit exactly the sort of crimes the UN was supposed to prevent.
Dont get me started on the 'Human Rights Council'.

Yeah, the US should get out of the UN. We can keep giving money to those branches which are still functional, but the organization as a whole is no longer effective.
We also need to start charging them rent for that piece of prime New York real estate theyve got.

So what do you think? Should the US leave the UN? I am not well versed on the WTO so I do not actually know if what he is saying is true. If it is then there is a sovereignty issue.The idea of the UN is to override petty national sovereignty for international agreements.
Leaving the WTO, on the other hand, would be wonderful.

If the US left the UN could it survive as a meaningful institution it was envisioned to be?Not in the eyes of Americans, it wouldn't be.

Not in the eyes of Americans, it wouldn't be.

It isnt a meaningful institution in the eyes of many Americans right now.

Yes, we should leave the U.N., but, contrary to what many feel, I believe that the U.N. should remain in the U.S. We could charge an exorbitant rent for use of the U.N. buildings, we could build housing for U.N delegates, families and guests and rent them at extortionate rates and, of course, refuse to permit them to live anywhere else. Right now the U.N. is costing us obscene amounts of money, if we leave and play it right, it could be a great money-making eneterprise.

I don't think the US should leave the UN, seeing as they were one of the founding members and since a lot of it was FDR's idea...but even if they did the UN still has the rest of the world to support it, so it wouldn't collapse...it probably would relocate though, I'm guessing to somewhere in Europe...

I'd imagine India would replace them on the Security Council...

It would do the UN a lot of good.

It probably would, yes. Right now all the US seems to do is vote against proposals supported by every other Western democracy. Oh, and refuse to pay its membership dues, then accuse the UN of being ineffective when it lacks funds to do things. :rolleyes:

Yes, we should leave the U.N., but, contrary to what many feel, I believe that the U.N. should remain in the U.S. We could charge an exorbitant rent for use of the U.N. buildings, we could build housing for U.N delegates, families and guests and rent them at extortionate rates and, of course, refuse to permit them to live anywhere else. Right now the U.N. is costing us obscene amounts of money, if we leave and play it right, it could be a great money-making eneterprise.

Don't be stupid. It's on international ground. The US has no jurisdiction on UN buildings.

Yes, it might be a good idea to ban all rogue nations from the UN... :p

It probably would, yes. Right now all the US seems to do is vote against proposals supported by every other Western democracy. Oh, and refuse to pay its membership dues, then accuse the UN of being ineffective when it lacks funds to do things. :rolleyes:.

Maybe a reason to leave? Obviously the government for a long time over several presidencies has not kept the payments current because of mainly political reasons.


Don't be stupid. It's on international ground. The US has no jurisdiction on UN buildings.

That part is true and rent for the ground it sits on won't work. I am not sure how the revocation process would work to revert it to US property.

Yes, it might be a good idea to ban all rogue nations from the UN... :p

Another way to kill the UN.

Maybe a reason to leave? Obviously the government for a long time over several presidencies has not kept the payments current because of mainly political reasons.


Indeed. Why stay if it's just for the sake of being obstructionist?

Yes, it might be a good idea to ban all rogue nations from the UN... :p

Define "rogue nation"?

Leaving the U.N. sounds like the act of a rogue nation to me. And I'm sure the U.S. isn't a rogue nation.


Right...?

Define "rogue nation"?

dictionary.com says:

a state that does not respect other states in its international actions

Which if you use this definition makes me worried about the U.S. since we certainly don't give a damn about other nations by our own actions.

Sounds like a plan.

isn't there trade sanctions on non- U.N members?

also:
WTO =/= U.N
Ron Paul = man up for a presidential run
Ron Paul = republican
Ron Paul = gynecologist :eek:

Euhm: the WTO has nothing to do with the United Nations; it is an independent member-driven organisation. Many countries which are member of the UN are not a member of the WTO.

As long as the US remains a member of the UN Security counsel, it has veto power and can prevent the UN from interfering in its business.
And since when has the US given a shit what the international community recommended? Even when it is apparently in our best interests to pay attention to other countries, we just flip them off and do the complete opposite for no other reason than to prove that we're willing.

As much as I would rejoice in leaving the UN, I advise against leaving it. Ron Paul, do the world a favor and shut up. You are just as bad as McCain, if not worse.

As long as the US remains a member of the UN Security counsel, it has veto power and can prevent the UN from interfering in its business.
And since when has the US given a shit what the international community recommended? Even when it is apparently in our best interests to pay attention to other countries, we just flip them off and do the complete opposite for no other reason than to prove that we're willing.

You are either with US or against US

I believe that quote says it all.

As much as I would rejoice in leaving the UN, I advise against leaving it. Ron Paul, do the world a favor and shut up. You are just as bad as McCain, if not worse.

that's a little extreme don't you think?

that's a little extreme don't you think?

Nope, he could'vesaid "as bad as Mitt Romney". That would be going a little too far...

call me a sackrider, but i have a hard time taking any kind of comment like that seriously.

there is no legitimate reason to compare Ron Paul with ANY of the current presidential candidate, whether they are Dem, or GOP.

We also need to start charging them rent for that piece of prime New York real estate theyve got.

You need to pay your dues, decades overdue now I believe, before you can start charging rent.

The concept of sovereignty is a joke. People need to wake up and realize we are one world, not 192.

The concept of sovereignty is a joke. People need to wake up and realize we are one world, not 192.

One world
192 + different states
Countless provinces

Stay in the UN...even tho it has turned into a useless institution consumed by bureaucracy and corruption...from what I've heard Ron Paul wants to get rid of the FBI and CIA...as well...

Yes, we should leave the U.N., but, contrary to what many feel, I believe that the U.N. should remain in the U.S. We could charge an exorbitant rent for use of the U.N. buildings, we could build housing for U.N delegates, families and guests and rent them at extortionate rates and, of course, refuse to permit them to live anywhere else. Right now the U.N. is costing us obscene amounts of money, if we leave and play it right, it could be a great money-making eneterprise.

Then watch them move to Europe at light speed.

And watch nations cut trade with a dangerous "Rogue" nation.

Leaving the UN means that the US cares NOTHING about the world thinks of them, that the US cares NOTHING about Diplomacy, and reinforces the warmongering, immature appearence that this country has.

Nice,we'll be the new evil empire.

Good idea Ron... You insane idiot.

As much as I would rejoice in leaving the UN, I advise against leaving it. Ron Paul, do the world a favor and shut up. You are just as bad as McCain, if not worse.
Agreed.

Stay in the UN...even tho it has turned into a useless institution consumed by bureaucracy and corruption...from what I've heard Ron Paul wants to get rid of the FBI and CIA...as well...
Let me repeat that.

Ron.Paul.is.an..I.N.S.A.N.E..I.D.I.O.T.

Then watch them move to Europe at light speed.

And watch nations cut trade with a dangerous "Rogue" nation.

Leaving the UN means that the US cares NOTHING about the world thinks of them, that the US cares NOTHING about Diplomacy, and reinforces the warmongering, immature appearence that this country has.

Nice,we'll be the new evil empire.

Good idea Ron... You idiot.

Well on the plus side we would get a semi-decent theme song...all wee need is for Cheney to start wearing a black robe and start going be "Emperor"

Well on the plus side we would get a semi-decent theme song...all wee need is for Cheney to start wearing a black robe and start going be "Emperor" He already looks like him.
When I saw the last Star Wars I couldn't tell the difference.

well we are teh screwed then...

What free-trader would be against the WTO? In general, it works to lower barriers to trade and it helps mitigate the damage of trade wars by allowing a forum for various nations to discuss trade issues.

What sovereignty is lost by joining the WTO? Its membership is voluntary. Fines are not collected by some police or military force, they're only collected if a country gives them voluntarily. Other than fines the only penalty is allowing other nations to raise trade barriers in retaliation.

The WTO resembles arms limits agreed to by various nations only in this case its trade wars rather then real wars being curtailed. It tries to build an environment of cooperation and reciprocity among its member nations. If the US leaves the WTO it'd probably weaken the WTO as a vehicle for the freeing of trade.

By all means, do leave the UN. Then the UN countries can start imposing those long-overdue sanctions on Israel without the US, that complains the UN "has no teeth" right after removing said teeth, vetoing them.

Well on the plus side we would get a semi-decent theme song...all wee need is for Cheney to start wearing a black robe and start going be "Emperor"

But that position is already taken! :eek:

http://www.brooklynvegan.com/img/assorted/popedevil.jpg http://simianfarmer.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/lackoffaith.jpg http://www.spurgeon.org/images/Pulpit/pope.jpg

Rebuttal: Fuck Ron Paul.

Don't be stupid. It's on international ground. The US has no jurisdiction on UN buildings.[/QUOTE]

Then, as they have done in so many other countries, we nationalize the place and invite the U.N. to remain while they pay rent.

The concept of sovereignty is a joke. People need to wake up and realize we are one world, not 192.

We are the Borg. Resistance is futile...

What free-trader would be against the WTO?

"Free traders" like Ron Paul simply have an irrational fear of anything international. He opposes US membership in the UN despite the fact that the US has the power to alter (via veto power) or completely ignore UN policy at will. The idea that the US is somehow threatened by the UN is patently absurd, and people like Paul demonstrate their ignorance by continuing to insist otherwise.

As concerns the WTO, free traders like myself may simply be extremely wary of economic and governmental processes being concluded at several levels removed from the masses of people whom said policy affects.

Other international political/economic bodies are especially problematic, like the International Monetary Fund. This is supposed to be an international body, yet a single country possesses the greatest share of the voting power, in both the Executive Board (http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/eds.htm) and the Board of Governors (http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.htm#u). It is argued that the United States deserves the greatest share of the vote because it assumes the greatest share of the risk. While the cold, hard math might support this justification, it nonetheless seems contrary to the basic democratic value of "one person, one vote." And it still seems difficult to think of such an arrangement as being "international" in nature. This situation is especially demeaning to the rest of the world when the UN is added to the equation, wherein the United States possesses not only the veto power and sufficient independent power to completely ignore the UN right from the start, but then continues to spawn politicians who spread nonsense about how the United States is somehow threatened by the very institutions it dominates.

So my fear, as an advocate of free trade, is not for the United States, as its position is (excessively) secure. My fear is for the rest of the world, the vast majority of which is several levels removed from those who conclude the relevant political and economic decisions, not only in terms of governmental level (local vs. international) but also in terms of simple voting power. My fear is also for myself, as political and economic disenfranchisement is likely to anger people, a very small segment of whom will nonetheless manage to express their anger in frightening and tragic ways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism).

Contrary to what the "free trader" Ron Paul might think, international organizations are not the problem. The problem, really, is that the international organizations are not nearly international enough.

We are the Borg. Resistance is futile...

Nonsense!

The rejection of "state sovereignty" is based simply on the recognition that individual human beings possess sovereignty and rights which are prior and superior to the state and to government, and that individual human sovereignty and rights exist everywhere and always regardless of borders.

It is the concept of "state sovereignty" that is based in collectivist "Borg" ideology. ;)

Nonsense!

The rejection of "state sovereignty" is based simply on the recognition that individual human beings possess sovereignty and rights which are prior and superior to the state and to government, and that individual human sovereignty and rights exist everywhere and always regardless of borders.

It is the concept of "state sovereignty" that is based in collectivist "Borg" ideology. ;)

The only thing worse than nationalism is internationalism.

Hell yes, leave the UN now, and watch it crumble! It will have no way of doing anything without the USA's logistics capabilities.

And how is the UN in New York international territory? Its in freakin' New York. Leave the UN and charge 'em rent!

Nope, he could'vesaid "as bad as Mitt Romney". That would be going a little too far...

Ron Paul is WORSE than Mitt Romney. At least Romney wouldn't try to take us back to the fucking 1840s.

The UN should be dissolved and reformed into an institution with checks and balances, like it currently DOESN'T HAVE.

It should have a Legislature of all nations with 2 representatives from each country voted upon by that country's people. (Fuck dictatorshipfags), a Judicial branch to make sure any resolutions and laws passed are not infringing on National rights, and an Executive branch to carry out those laws and Resolutions.

About the Legislature, It could either be 2 houses with one based on population so higher population countries have more reps, and the other house with equal representation with 2 reps each. Or it could just have 1 house with equal representation, which should be OK too.

And yes, It is like the US government. Voltaire's ideas for checks and balances have worked here (United States) for 210 years or so, and would probably give the UN some actual legitimacy and correctness.

I've mulled this whole U.S. vs. UN thing about in my head for a while now. It's getting more and more difficult to separate function from dysfunction both within the UN and within the U.S.'s presence there. Which is truly hindering the other more? Is it hindrance at all, or is it progress into a future where disagreements are solved more with whining and sniveling than with rockets and bombs? Perhaps when the Cold War ended, the UN lost it's most important mission; Keeping the U.S. and U.S.S.R. from nuking the tits off the world. Maybe it served it's purpose already.

I do know one thing for sure though:

I baked muffins. :)
http://candiedquince.ca/wp-content/minis01.JPG

*hands out muffins*

The only thing worse than nationalism is internationalism.


Of course, my argument was based on individual human sovereignty and rights, not "internationalism." If one reads my other post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13074929&postcount=38), one will find that I actually do find serious problems with "internationalism" as currently constructed and employed exactly because it also violates the principle of individual human sovereignty and rights.

But, one-line slogans devoid of relevance, and thus meaning, are easier I suppose. ;)


And how is the UN in New York international territory?


Through a diplomatic agreement between the United States and the United Nations. The United States agrees to respect the sovereignty of the United Nations headquarters (requiring the UN to provide its own police, security, fire protections, etc.) and the United Nations agrees not to allow its headquarters to be used as a refuge by suspected criminals or others seeking to flee US jurisdiction.


An international territory
The site of UN Headquarters is owned by the United Nations. It is an international territory. No federal, state or local officer or official of the United States, whether administrative, judicial, military or police may enter UN Headquarters except with the consent of and under conditions agreed to by the Secretary-General of the Organization.

However, the United Nations is bound by an agreement with its host country to prevent its Headquarters from being used as a refuge for persons who are avoiding arrest under the federal, state or local laws of the United States or who are required by the Government of the United States for extradition to another country or who are trying to avoid the servicing of a legal process.

On the site, the UN has its own fire fighting and security forces and its own post office branch, with special provision for UN stamps. The buildings were constructed in a manner agreeable to the City of New York, in terms of fire and safety, but not necessarily according to all city laws.


http://www.un.org/geninfo/faq/factsheets/FS23.HTM

Through a diplomatic agreement between the United States and the United Nations. The United States agrees to respect the sovereignty of the United Nations headquarters (requiring the UN to provide its own police, security, fire protections, etc.) and the United Nations agrees not to allow its headquarters to be used as a refuge by suspected criminals or others seeking to flee US jurisdiction.



http://www.un.org/geninfo/faq/factsheets/FS23.HTM

Hmm, well if we just revoked the treaties we could kick them out.

Is it hindrance at all, or is it progress into a future where disagreements are solved more with whining and sniveling than with rockets and bombs?

This is what really annoys me about accusations that the UN is useless because its just a bunch of people whining and sniveling. Duh, that's pretty much the point, by design.

This is what really annoys me about accusations that the UN is useless because its just a bunch of people whining and sniveling. Duh, that's pretty much the point, by design.

I don't care much for whining and sniveling either. But I care even less for atomic death. ;)

Only this will never happen because the United States enjoys a privileged and strategically important position by retaining General and Security Council membership.

Well, if we leave the UN, almost 30% of its funding goes away, most of its peacekeeping troops go away, and so do most of its laws.

Hmm, well if we just revoked the treaties we could kick them out.

Only this will never happen because the United States enjoys a privileged and strategically important position by retaining General and Security Council membership. I would agree that no one country should enjoy such a position, but the position does exist, and no rational actor would just throw it away. Like it or not.

...and so do most of its laws.


What "laws?" The UN has no power to pass "laws." In fact, so long as one doesn't violate the sovereignty of another member state though military force, the UN can't do anything to anyone that isn't voluntarily accepted.

That's the thing about "international law." It has absolutely no authority that an individual state isn't willing to accept voluntarily. Sure, bigger countries can impose their will via military force, but such aggression exists regardless of the UNs existence, and such aggression is usually contrary to the principles of "international law" anyway.

I remember reading about how many people thought that we shouldn't have a US Supreme Court as it was ineffective and powerless(untill John Jay).That has taken almost 200 years to work itself out to the degree it is now,like it or not.In an era of instant world wide trade and communication,we should have some kind of governing body.In the case of the Leage of Nations, the US Congress refused to join,they caved on the whole womens sufferage idea,but were not to keen on the requirement that "qulified citizens" such as negros were allowed to vote.

I haven't been paying much attention to it... but was this guy a serious candidate?

Well, if we leave the UN...most of its peacekeeping troops go away...

Actually, only 0.37% of UN Peacekeepers are contributed by the United States. 60% are contributed by other developing countries.


Despite the large and growing number of contributors, most “Blue Helmets” continue to be provided by a core group of developing countries. The 10 main troop-contributors to UN peacekeeping operations as of 31 October 2006 were Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Jordan, Nepal, Ghana, Uruguay, Ethiopia, Nigeria and South Africa, providing together 60 per cent of all UN military and police personnel. Approximately 12.9 per cent came from the 25-member European Union and 0.37 per cent from the United States.


http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/faq/q11.htm

(EDIT: In fact, it is often posited in the international relations/security literature that one of the major factors behind UN Peacekeeping failures or ineffectiveness is the unwillingness of developed countries to contribute their highly trained, well equipped and professional military forces. Once again, the United States is the primary contributer to the very failure for which it criticizes the United Nations.)

Actually, only 0.37% of UN Peacekeepers are contributed by the United States. 60% are contributed by other developing countries.



http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/faq/q11.htm

(EDIT: In fact, it is often posited in the international relations/security literature that one of the major factors behind UN Peacekeeping failures or ineffectiveness is the unwillingness of developed countries to contribute their highly trained, well equipped and professional military forces. Once again, the United States is the primary contributer to the very failure for which it criticizes the United Nations.)



I for one, wouldn't want to UN to succeed. I'm glad its powerless and a joke.
Even if the US doesn't provide that many peacekeepers these days, the UN relies on the logistics capacity of the US armed forces. Even if troops still provided by other member nations, they couldn't get anywhere. (if the US pulls out of the UN, that is)

So let me get this straight. If this guy were to by some miracle become president of the US, the US would withdraw from the UN and go on some sort of isolationist bent leaving the rest of the world alone?

... why am I not thinking this is a bad thing? I mean, it might end up sucking for americans, and it might be tough up here for a bit (since they're our biggest trading partner) but it would probably be better for the rest of the world.

Well, if we leave the UN, almost 30% of its funding goes away, most of its peacekeeping troops go away, and so do most of its laws.
Wait, 30% of the UN's funding comes from a country that hasn't paid UN dues in decades?

Also 0.37% is most now?

So let me get this straight. If this guy were to by some miracle become president of the US, the US would withdraw from the UN and go on some sort of isolationist bent leaving the rest of the world alone?

... why am I not thinking this is a bad thing? I mean, it might end up sucking for americans, and it might be tough up here for a bit (since they're our biggest trading partner) but it would probably be better for the rest of the world.

Hmm, we would have to make it hell for the rest of the world.

*brainstorms*

Freeze all foreign money in the US. Declare all foreign money to be held by terrorists, and confiscate it! Yes! No more national debt, and the rest of the world is poor! HA! In yo' face!

Haha, anyways. A return to isolationism would be welcome indeed. Too long have we been involved in other places, let the world deal with its own problems, and we shouldn't be out creating more!

Hmm, well if we just revoked the treaties we could kick them out.

You're ignoring three truths:

The US is NOT the only country that matters.

International law COUNTS.

Manifest Destiny is CRAP.

Hmm, we would have to make it hell for the rest of the world.

*brainstorms*

Freeze all foreign money in the US. Declare all foreign money to be held by terrorists, and confiscate it! Yes! No more national debt, and the rest of the world is poor! HA! In yo' face!

Welcome back, everybody, to yet another edition of "Trolling, Joking Or Insane?"! Tonight's contestant, Trollgaard!

Simply put, no. If the US left the UN, if would be a blow to the UN as an international organisation and the world. The UN relies on funding from it's member states, particularly the US (even though the US is actually constantly behind on payments). It also, of course, has it's main HQ in New York city.

If the US pulled out, the UN would be severely limited, if not crippled, in it's actions. Many UN organisations, affliates and projects would grind to a halt, including the:


UN Peacekeeping missions
International Atomic Energy Agency
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
United Nations Childrens Fund
United Nations International Drugs Programme
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
World Health Organisation


There are currently around 14 ongoing UN Peacekeeping missions all around the world. Each and every one of them have provided safety, security, medical care and critical infrastructure to civilian populations, and laid the groundwork for peace in thier countries.

The International Atomic Energy Agency gathers information regarding nations civilian and military nuclear power sources, and so prevents proliferation of Nuclear weapons, and future Nuclear-related accidents in member states.

The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS researches global HIV/AID's outbreaks, and provides assistance to world citizens through UN GUM clinics and the promotion of sexual education for teens and adults, particularly in third world countries such as Africa.

The United Nations Childrens fund researches problems faced by children all over the world. They regularly issue reports regarding childrens welfare in certain countries to the respective governments. They also are responsible for directly setting up programmes for children in troubled countries, in particular building schools and children's hospitals.

The United Nations Development Programme assists member state countries in developing basic and critical infrastructure, such as building roads, creating sewage systems and electricity grids.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation protects member states heritage by providing funding for museums, scientific insitutes and historical sites.

And the World Health Organisation allows international doctors and medical experts to combat disease's around the world through the sharing of medical data on epidemics and other medical research from various countries. They are also responsible for providing vaccinations to vulnerable people around the world who are unable to otherwise protect themselves.


If the US ever pulled out the the UN many of these organisations would be hampered, some even crippled by the cut off of funds and other resources. Many countries and individuals rely on the support provided by these UN programmes.

And it's not only those people who rely on these organisations that would suffer. The UN General Assembly and Security Council provide an environment for organised multi-lateral diplomacy and action. And the US is an integral and significant player in world affairs, as you all know.

If the US cut itself out of this environment, you would soon see the old days of uni-lateral dealings and diplomacy, with little to no co-operation between countries, as each member state pulled out one by one. Not to mention of course, that the absence of the US veto would create a horrific imbalance. China and Russia's influence would expand incredibly, and sanctions against Israel and other countries protected by the US veto could be levelled.


In conclusion, the US leaving the UN would be a terrible blow for not only it's interests, but the interests of every other country in the world and every citizen on the this good green Earth.

Please don't believe the propaganda. The UN is not useless, and can hardly be called past it's time. It helps secure the relative peace we take for granted every day in our countries, and is currently on a mission to secure peace for every nation.

Welcome back, everybody, to yet another edition of "Trolling, Joking Or Insane?"! Tonight's contestant, Trollgaard!

That part of the post was made jokingly.

You're ignoring three truths:

The US is NOT the only country that matters.

International law COUNTS.

Manifest Destiny is CRAP.

I know the US is not the only that counts. I just don't think we should be involved with them. Live and let live. You leave us alone, and we'll leave you alone- that hasn't been happening for 50 years, though.

International law does not count, and there is no world government to enforce it, so it is not law.

I never said anything about Manifest Destiny.

Even if the US doesn't provide that many peacekeepers these days, the UN relies on the logistics capacity of the US armed forces.


Actually, the UN relies on the logistics capacity of the United Nations Logistics Base, which includes the Department of Peacekeeping Operations.

http://www.unlb.org/


Even if troops still provided by other member nations, they couldn't get anywhere. (if the US pulls out of the UN, that is)


Are we really trying to claim that the United States is unwilling to contribute more than 0.37% of personel to peacekeeping operations, but is somehow willing to contribute all the of the (really expensive) equipment that the UN could possibly want?

Show me a source, because I find this extremely hard to believe.

... why am I not thinking this is a bad thing?

It's not a bad thing if we're talking about changing US military doctrine to one of multilateralism, which involves closing foreign bases and bringing the vast majority of troops home.

It is a bad thing if we're talking about economic isolationism, which is not only destructive but essentially impossible (short of the sort of world events that I really don't want to think about, anyway).

It is also a very bad thing if we're talking about political isolationism. As has already been pointed out (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13075050&postcount=43), the UN provides the vital function of allowing states to argue over disagreements hopefully without resorting to war. Yelling across a table is always better than bombs. Cutting off channels of communication makes constructive endeavors that much more difficult, and makes escalation of disagreements, upto and including war, far more likely.

International law does not count, and there is no world government to enforce it, so it is not law.

Yes, it does count. Yes, the US and all other countries usually are, and should be, threatened with punishment - economic sanctions for instance - when they flout it.

Yes, it does count. Yes, the US and all other countries usually are, and should be, threatened with punishment - economic sanctions for instance - when they flout it.

Haha, and who's going to enforce it?!

It's not a bad thing if we're talking about changing US military doctrine to one of multilateralism, which involves closing foreign bases and bringing the vast majority of troops home.

It is a bad thing if we're talking about economic isolationism, which is not only destructive but essentially impossible (short of the sort of world events that I really don't want to think about, anyway).

It is also a very bad thing if we're talking about political isolationism. As has already been pointed out (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13075050&postcount=43), the UN provides the vital function of allowing states to argue over disagreements hopefully without resorting to war. Yelling across a table is always better than bombs. Cutting off channels of communication makes constructive endeavors that much more difficult, and makes escalation of disagreements, upto and including war, far more likely.


I'll take the risks and keep my sovereignty and pride.

Not only should the US leave the UN but it should kick it out of the country and let someone else pay for all the security and associated BS. The UN has not been relevant since the Cuban Missle Crisis. They do nothing. Nobody listens to them and the idiots get diplomatic immunity. Goodbye and good riddance.

Not only should the US leave the UN but it should kick it out of the country and let someone else pay for all the security and associated BS. The UN has not been relevant since the Cuban Missle Crisis. They do nothing. Nobody listens to them and the idiots get diplomatic immunity. Goodbye and good riddance.

Wow. Nice to know someone read my good and lengthy post on how useful the UN is. :rolleyes:

I'll take the risks and keep my sovereignty and pride.

Look at yourself, all macho behind the keyboard while knowing deep down that, should a war with your country as the stage actually start, you would be the first one to run and cry for the same UN you currently claim is useless. What do you know about pride or sovereignty? Why do you even define sovereignty as "being free from the UN"? Would you define personal freedom as being free from lawful obligations as well? That'd be cute if it wasn't so dangerous a thought.

Wow. Nice to know someone read my good and lengthy post on how useful the UN is. :rolleyes:

I did, and I mostly agree, save for the fact that Israel deserves those sanctions. The only good thing that would come out of the US leaving the UN would be Israel getting sanctioned.

It is also a very bad thing if we're talking about political isolationism. As has already been pointed out (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13075050&postcount=43), the UN provides the vital function of allowing states to argue over disagreements hopefully without resorting to war. Yelling across a table is always better than bombs. Cutting off channels of communication makes constructive endeavors that much more difficult, and makes escalation of disagreements, upto and including war, far more likely.
Yeah, but you're acting like the US actually pays attention to these things, lately it really hasn't been.

Look at yourself, all macho behind the keyboard while knowing deep down that, should a war with your country as the stage actually start, you would be the first one to run and cry for the same UN you currently claim is useless. What do you know about pride or sovereignty? Why do you even define sovereignty as "being free from the UN"? Would you define personal freedom as being free from lawful obligations as well? That'd be cute if it wasn't so dangerous a thought.

I would never run, to anyone. What war could touch US soil, anyway? Canada or Mexico invading? Anyone else would have to come from the sea or air...and the US owns both.

The UN, right now, isn't a threat to sovereinty for powerful nations, per se, because they can, and do ignore it. However the threat is there, so the US should leave the UN or the UN should be dismantled.

Freedom from lawful obligations such as what? The UN is just agreements, and any party can back out. No lawful obligation.

Wow. Nice to know someone read my good and lengthy post on how useful the UN is. :rolleyes:

I don't consider those things useful. People and nations can care for themselves, as long as they aren't screwed over by more powerful nations. That's why instead of expansion (what US is currently doing), isolation should be pursued.

I would never run, to anyone.

Riiiiight...

Freedom from lawful obligations such as what? The UN is just agreements, and any party can back out. No lawful obligation.

By that logic you're claiming you should be personally free to, for instance, not pay your part in a contract, since it was an "agreement" and file it as "personal freedom", much like you claim a nation has the right to disrespect international law and file it as "sovereignty".

Cute.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/


So what do you think? Should the US leave the UN? I am not well versed on the WTO so I do not actually know if what he is saying is true. If it is then there is a sovereignty issue.
If the US left the UN could it survive as a meaningful institution it was envisioned to be?

Would it make a difference if the US left? Even if the US stayed, nobody would change their ways.

I don't consider those things useful. People and nations can care for themselves, as long as they aren't screwed over by more powerful nations. That's why instead of expansion (what US is currently doing), isolation should be pursued.

You'll be glad to know that the US received a LOT of international help, included but not limited to Venezuelan oil, on the aftermath of Katrina.

I did, and I mostly agree, save for the fact that Israel deserves those sanctions. The only good thing that would come out of the US leaving the UN would be Israel getting sanctioned.

Oh. Thank you! :)

It's nice to see thier are people willing to support the UN as an organisation essential for peace and security in the world. And yes, rightfully Israeli war criminals do deserve action to be taken against it. However, if the US didn't use it's veto to protect Israel from the more extreme measures that might be levelled at it, unnecessary punishment might be inflicted, and the Middle Eastern situation could deteriorate.

It's an unfortunate situation, to be sure.

You'll be glad to know that the US received a LOT of international help, included but not limited to Venezuelan oil, on the aftermath of Katrina.

And the US people give out more aid through charities every year than any other nation. Our government doesn't provide alot, but the people do.

So, what were proving?

Oh. Thank you! :)

It's nice to see thier are people willing to support the UN as an organisation essential for peace and security in the world. And yes, rightfully Israeli war criminals do deserve action to be taken against it. However, if the US didn't use it's veto to protect Israel from the more extreme measures that might be levelled at it, unneccessary punishment might be inflicted, and the Middle Eastern situation could deteriorate.

It's an unfortunate situation, to be sure.

Essential for peace? Nah.

Civilization has been at constant war for 10,000 years. Peace is a dilusional dream.

The problem with the UN: The permanent seats on the Security Council and mainly that of the US. But Ron Paul is a fucking libertarian crackpot.

I think its time for the UN to leave the US. And in Soviet Russia, that might be possible...

You'll be glad to know that the US received a LOT of international help, included but not limited to Venezuelan oil, on the aftermath of Katrina.

Indeed.

NEW YORK, 6 September 2005 – A United Nations offer to contribute to the aid effort for survivors of Hurricane Katrina has been accepted by the United States government. Key UN staff have been deployed to help U.S. authorities coordinate the international relief effort.

“The United States itself has been very generous in other people's crises,” UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the BBC in an interview on Monday night. “And this is why I think it's important that we, the United Nations, and other countries return the favour, now that they are in need.”

"Our hearts go out to all the victims of this tragedy, especially the children," UNICEF Executive Director Ann M. Veneman, a former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, said on Friday.

Last week, Ms. Veneman had been in touch with senior U.S. officials and said that UNICEF – along with the rest of the United Nations – was exploring how it might help. UNICEF keeps a variety of pre-packed emergency supplies in its global supply hubs and a list of these items was forwarded to U.S. relief officials.


The interagency teams fielded in Texas and Georgia are comprised of representatives from the World Food Programme (WFP), Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), World Health Organization (WHO), and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), as well as support teams from the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)/United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC) network.




The very same organisations I listed aiding foreign nations, assisted the US survivors of Katrina. I wonder if they were insulted at the UN's obvious infringement of US sovereignty?

league of nations had a much cooler name

I prefer the league of warring tribes.

league of nations had a much cooler name

At the end of the day, who cares what Clown Paul says or thinks?

It would be asinine to leave the UN, if only because we would give up our veto power in the security council.

Essential for peace? Nah.

Civilization has been at constant war for 10,000 years. Peace is a dilusional dream.

I think I'll take the advice in geopolitics from someone other than the American that's worse at spelling than me, the Brazilian.

However, even assuming you were any good at making sense, the fact is the UN reduced the number and severity of wars more than you care to admit. Not that you care, as you'd rather have frequent, incessant wars and "sovereignty", a concept you have yet to define, than international law.

And the US people give out more aid through charities every year than any other nation. Our government doesn't provide alot, but the people do.

So, what were proving?

We're proving that the UN was necessary for those people in New Orleans. But if you'd rather let them die for the concept of sovereignty you're yet to define, at least ask them about this idea of yours first.

The very same organisations I listed aiding foreign nations, assisted the US survivors of Katrina. I wonder if they were insulted at the UN's obvious infringement of US sovereignty?

The word "sovereignty" is so abused that I won't be surprised if it someday writes a "Mommy Dearest"-esque book about its users.

Then, as they have done in so many other countries, we nationalize the place and invite the U.N. to remain while they pay rent.

Then say goodbye to all your embassy's and foreign bases.

And how is the UN in New York international territory? Its in freakin' New York. Leave the UN and charge 'em rent!

The same way embassies are considered territory of the nation they represent. You want to charge them rent? You'd better be ready to cough up for your embassies then, or face foreclosure.

The US should definately leave the UN if it wants to be seen as a titanic jackass on the international stage.

The US should definately leave the UN if it wants to be seen as a titanic jackass on the international stage.

Arn't we already seen as that?

Freeze all foreign money in the US. Declare all foreign money to be held by terrorists, and confiscate it! Yes! No more national debt, and the rest of the world is poor! HA! In yo' face!

American economy collapses as it no longer receives foreign resources. Consumer prices skyrocket as goods no longer entirely manufactured in the US (just about everything) become scarce. Mass riots. Agricultural concerns grind to a halt due to lack of petrochemical imports. Famine sets in.

America collapses into 3rd world economy. A lot of people die.

Good. Please do so. America could do with a good culling of its stupidity.

Arn't we already seen as that?

Sure, but if you leave the UN you'll be the jackass that sticks his hands on his ears, closes his eyes and pretends everyone else isn't there.

No nation can be a member if they persist in invading other nations where the UN has to send forces to re-establish the peace. Does The US ever do "Blue helm" duty ? or are they just to busy in playing the bully with their veto's.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/


So what do you think? Should the US leave the UN? I am not well versed on the WTO so I do not actually know if what he is saying is true. If it is then there is a sovereignty issue.
If the US left the UN could it survive as a meaningful institution it was envisioned to be?


the WTO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTO) is nothing to do with the UN. What are you on about?

No nation can be a member if they persist in invading other nations where the UN has to send forces to re-establish the peace. Does The US ever do "Blue helm" duty ? or are they just to busy in playing the bully with their veto's.

I think they did, when it suited them, in the Leb. Bad area to be in, which shouldn't have been just obvious in hindsight either.....Somalia was a UN mission I think, though they didn't run it like one.
They're too quick on the trigger a lot of the time, and besides, they have a bad rep these days.....

the WTO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTO) is nothing to do with the UN. What are you on about?

Don't kill the messenger here it was Ron Paul talking about it. I already mentioned I was not well versed on the WTO to know if what he was talking about was true. Apparently he seems to be wrong. Probably another reason he will never be President of the US.

No nation can be a member if they persist in invading other nations where the UN has to send forces to re-establish the peace. Does The US ever do "Blue helm" duty ? or are they just to busy in playing the bully with their veto's.

The US has troops under UN control all the time. Check your facts before spouting off about how they do this or that. Just as an example the 8th Army in Korea is under a UN command structure. They may not be wearing "blue" hats however they are under the UN command structure.

Yes, it might be a good idea to ban all rogue nations from the UN... :p
But then it would just be U.

What free-trader would be against the WTO?

I am.

There is no need for the WTO as it just legitimizes trade barriers.
If you want free trade, just trade freely. You do not need some external body to drop your own trade barriers.

If someone wants to practice 'dumping' I do believe a country should respond in the most appropriate way - sending a thank you card.

If someone wants to put up trade barriers against your own goods, then sell something else to someone else - no one nation is such a vital export destination that your economy would collapse from a trade barrier (even in odd cases where that might be the case, the importer of your goods would suffer sufficient hardship from blocking your goods that they would not do it anyway).

Bottom line - WTO just gives cover to countries to talk about how they are 'working towards free trade', it doesn't actually do much at all to foster it.

We left the UN a long time ago. We just stay there now to excersize veto authority every now and then to keep them in check.

Right. That's why we sent peace keepers to Bosnia, right?

Heh. It's fun to see yet another presidential hopeful that has no intertantional policy, and no concept of how the international community works...

I would never run, to anyone. What war could touch US soil, anyway? Canada or Mexico invading? Anyone else would have to come from the sea or air...and the US owns both.
For now...


The UN, right now, isn't a threat to sovereinty for powerful nations, per se, because they can, and do ignore it. However the threat is there, so the US should leave the UN or the UN should be dismantled.
Why is sovereinty so important to you anyway? Why do you dislike international cooperation? (And why are you on a british forum saying just that, hmmm?)

Freedom from lawful obligations such as what? The UN is just agreements, and any party can back out. No lawful obligation.

You make me giggle :D

But it's always refreshing to see someone who would support Iran getting nuclear weapons, and not live in fear of any dirty bombs being detonated in the US by terrorists. It's also fun to see someone who deosn't realize just how globalized the world (and the economy) is today, and who badly the US would suffer if it returned to a policy of isolasionism. Talk about removing oneself from the seat of power!

Oh well. Perhaps you would welcome China and India as new unrivalled superpowers?

No, the UN in some way, shape, or form, is essential in todays world. It needs to be reformed, but thinking about withdrawing is a delusion that won't happen. And should it happen, it will be the US that suffers most in the long run.

Well, if we leave the UN, almost 30% of its funding goes away, most of its peacekeeping troops go away, and so do most of its laws.

...you're Indian or Bangladeshian?

...you're Indian or Bangladeshian?

He is (almost) right. The US doesn't provide many peacekeepers, but it provides a good chunk of the funding for UN operations. If that funding ever dissappeared, peacekeeping missions would have to be scaled back quite a bit. Which would be horrific, considering the demand for UN peacekeepers has been going going nowhere but up this decade.

Long unresolved ethnic and national conflicts are now clamouring for peacekeepers, which is actually a good thing. If the concept of UN peacekeeping has failed, why is there a demand?

He is (almost) right. The US doesn't provide many peacekeepers, but it provides a good chunk of the funding for UN operations. If that funding ever dissappeared, peacekeeping missions would have to be scaled back quite a bit. Which would be horrific, considering the demand for UN peacekeepers has been going going nowhere but up this decade.

Long unresolved ethnic and national conflicts are now clamouring for peacekeepers, which is actually a good thing. If the concept of UN peacekeeping has failed, why is there a demand?
I know he was (mostly) right about the funding, but he was way off on the troop contributions, and it often seems to be surprising to find out that India and Bangladesh are the largest contributers in that ares ;)

UN peacekeeping has not failed, but it's not perfect either, and it has severe limitations in some areas - which again may lead to... unpleasantness.

And it will be in the interest of the US to contain and reduce war and unrest, so it would only be natural to support the peacekeeping operations.

American economy collapses as it no longer receives foreign resources. Consumer prices skyrocket as goods no longer entirely manufactured in the US (just about everything) become scarce. Mass riots. Agricultural concerns grind to a halt due to lack of petrochemical imports. Famine sets in.

America collapses into 3rd world economy. A lot of people die.

Good. Please do so. America could do with a good culling of its stupidity.
How would that actually happen? Yes maybe there would be economic sanctions against the US but they wouldn't be mandatory. I'm sure there's at least a few countries that would like to make money by trading with the US.

How would that actually happen? Yes maybe there would be economic sanctions against the US but they wouldn't be mandatory. I'm sure there's at least a few countries that would like to make money by trading with the US.

Just like there are a few that do make some money by trading with Cuba.

I think it is time for everyone to leave the U.N and act as individual nations with only the distant memory that there was once some sort of like, you know, United thing that held like stuff, like together to solve like altercations between da nations. Like.


Oh... wait...

Exactly. That's why there's been a total of two successful cases of economic sanctions. You cannot force countries to follow them. Besides why would you want to punish the average person for the stupidity of their government?

And the US people give out more aid through charities every year than any other nation. Our government doesn't provide alot, but the people do.

So, what were proving?

False!

American citizens provide, per capita, far less than other similarly developed nations. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0104-13.htm)

Put all of Europe together and we greatly exceed American charities, easily by twice the amount and usually for long-term rather than measly short-term assistance.

I guess it's up to the yanks. If they want to further isolate themselves, fine.

I guess it's up to the yanks. If they want to further isolate themselves, fine.

The only thing the yanks are good for is choking in the playoffs. Which I like :D

False!

American citizens provide, per capita, far less than other similarly developed nations. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0104-13.htm)

Put all of Europe together and we greatly exceed American charities, easily by twice the amount and usually for long-term rather than measly short-term assistance.

BS. You are speaking of government only. The vast and I mean vast amount of charity is given by private orginaztions that get it directly from US citizens and companies. Europe doesn't even compare in this regard.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm

BS. You are speaking of government only. The vast and I mean vast amount of charity is given by private orginaztions that get it directly from US citizens and companies. Europe doesn't even compare in this regard.

That's a true statement.

False!

American citizens provide, per capita, far less than other similarly developed nations. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0104-13.htm)

Put all of Europe together and we greatly exceed American charities, easily by twice the amount and usually for long-term rather than measly short-term assistance.
That's true but I always wonder where they get their data from on the private donations. Did they count donations from churches that go overseas? Also, we have a lot of poverty within our own country as well. I know a lot of people who are more likely to donate money and time to help people within their own country because we can see where the money goes.

The only thing worse than nationalism is internationalism.

Hell yes, leave the UN now, and watch it crumble! It will have no way of doing anything without the USA's logistics capabilities.

And how is the UN in New York international territory? Its in freakin' New York. Leave the UN and charge 'em rent!

By international treaty, all UN offices (including the ones in New York; yes, there's more to the UN than the HQ you know) are international territory.

UN can't do anything without the US? Bullshit. All the peacekeepers already come from the Indian subcontinent. The only thing the US does is contribute money, which, should we leave, would be attributed to other, more UN friendly, western nations.

By all means, the only way the UN would "crumble" is if the US does more stupid shit and starts WWIII.

How would that actually happen? Yes maybe there would be economic sanctions against the US but they wouldn't be mandatory. I'm sure there's at least a few countries that would like to make money by trading with the US.

I have to agree with dead pirates, no country in the world would be stupid enough to stop trading with the United States, they would lose hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars annually by sanctioning the US. It's kind of the same deal as Saudi Arabia, you can sanction it, but no one wants to because of the massive amounts of revenue your corporations generate off of the place.

How would that actually happen? Yes maybe there would be economic sanctions against the US but they wouldn't be mandatory. I'm sure there's at least a few countries that would like to make money by trading with the US.

No country run by anyone with two brain cells to rub together would trade with a country that seizes foreign monies and declares its debts null and void. It's like giving money to drug addicts. You'll never see it again.

No trade means the US shrivels up like a grape in the Sahara. It doesn't produce anything locally anymore other than hot air and weapons, and not even that is completely locally manufactured.

Oil, consumer goods and food would drastically become scarce. The rioting and civil wars that will follow is only a natural progression of the consequence of whatever fruitcake decided to null the national debt and likely attempted conquests to come as a desperate measure to stave off complete collapse.

Just like there are a few that do make some money by trading with Cuba.

Cuba isn't in the habit of declaring foreign investments terrorist funds and confiscating money to get out of debt.

I have to agree with dead pirates, no country in the world would be stupid enough to stop trading with the United States, they would lose hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars annually by sanctioning the US.

Trollgaard specified seizing all foreign assets and declaring its debt null and void. Such an action means all the trading nations already lose hundreds of billions of dollars. What kind of noodnik would risk trading with a country that's already cost it so badly and would do so again whenever it felt like it?

I'll tell you what kind. The blind faith kind who would end up being lynched by thousands of angry and suddenly unemployed people.

I think its time for the UN to leave the US. And in Soviet Russia, that might be possible...

In Soviet Russia, UN Leaves You!!!!!

I am.

There is no need for the WTO as it just legitimizes trade barriers.
If you want free trade, just trade freely. You do not need some external body to drop your own trade barriers.

If someone wants to practice 'dumping' I do believe a country should respond in the most appropriate way - sending a thank you card.

If someone wants to put up trade barriers against your own goods, then sell something else to someone else - no one nation is such a vital export destination that your economy would collapse from a trade barrier (even in odd cases where that might be the case, the importer of your goods would suffer sufficient hardship from blocking your goods that they would not do it anyway).

Bottom line - WTO just gives cover to countries to talk about how they are 'working towards free trade', it doesn't actually do much at all to foster it.

How does the WTO legitimize trade barriers? Countries can still get rid of all trade barriers unilaterally, and they can also raise barriers of trade as much as they want, with consequences if they still want to be a member of the WTO.

As I see it, membership in the WTO mostly serves as signal to other nations and the business community that one wont go uber-protectionist, even if other countries do. Also, when lowering trade barriers causes pain, at least in the short run, to various people the government will have a handy culprit to blame.

Third, I see reciprical lowering of trade barriers as being in line with human nature. Most people will punish others even at cost to themselves. A real life example would include trade wars. Other examples include the open iterated public goods game with punishment, this being "punishing" free-riders at cost to one's self and the ultimative game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_goods_game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

Trollgaard specified seizing all foreign assets and declaring its debt null and void. Such an action means all the trading nations already lose hundreds of billions of dollars. What kind of noodnik would risk trading with a country that's already cost it so badly and would do so again whenever it felt like it?

I'll tell you what kind. The blind faith kind who would end up being lynched by thousands of angry and suddenly unemployed people.

Dude...If you read my later posts, and read the laughing in that post, you would know that part of the post (taking foreign assets) was a joke.

We should have left decades ago...

We should have left decades ago...

We shouldn't have been the primary instigator of its creation? ;)

In Soviet Russia, UN Leaves You!!!!!

It took that long for a In Soviet Russia post...shame

should? what the u.s. "should" is get its head out of its ass of pretending to be gods gift to the rest of the universe.

i think an impartial and omnilateral u.n. needs to have the teeth to keep the absurdities of absurdly powerful super soverigntees from getting as absurdly out of line as america does and is.

and pseudo-conservatism's support of soverign excess, is pure nutjob land.

i think the u.n. should pull out of america though. and establish an international 'district of columbia' of it's own, possibly the top of mt carmel in israel, making it neutral international territory, and put an end to this nonsense of nations and economic interests having more rights then real living persons, places and things.

=^^=
.../\...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/


So what do you think? Should the US leave the UN? I am not well versed on the WTO so I do not actually know if what he is saying is true. If it is then there is a sovereignty issue.
If the US left the UN could it survive as a meaningful institution it was envisioned to be?

I think it's hilarious that the US tried to drive the UN into invading another country on the flimsiest of evidence, and then whines because the WTO wants them to raise taxes.

That's true but I always wonder where they get their data from on the private donations. Did they count donations from churches that go overseas? Also, we have a lot of poverty within our own country as well. I know a lot of people who are more likely to donate money and time to help people within their own country because we can see where the money goes.

Churches do more harm than good in most of the conflict-ridden zones, what with the polarizing of society, destruction of ancient artifacts and falsification of how disease spreads.

That's not to say that they can't do something right, but a large majority of the churches have proven time and time again that they're more interested in dead converts than living people.

BS. You are speaking of government only. The vast and I mean vast amount of charity is given by private orginaztions that get it directly from US citizens and companies. Europe doesn't even compare in this regard.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm

Actually, I was personally giving 2% of my income to UNICEF until just about recently.

It's not uncommon for, particularly, the Scandinavian countries to give up to 1% of their income to donations through a combination of private and public charities.

So no, the US still lags behind, if you would bother reading the article I gave you.

That 1.7% is as part of the government budget, not GDP: Linky (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Foreign_Policy/Most_Generous_Misers.html)

Even carrying forth this misconception that 1.7% of GDP is given, that's just in terms of money, whereas other countries are more realistic and realize you actually need to go work: linky nr 2! (http://www.euconsult.org/109/)

Cuba isn't in the habit of declaring foreign investments terrorist funds and confiscating money to get out of debt.

My point was the opposite one: Cuba would be much more developed if it weren't for the embargo. Some countries still trade with it. Think about an embargo against the US and its results.

I didn't know much about Ron Paul until reading this little gem. I can now say with confidence that the man is an idiot.

WTO =/= UN. Idiot.

The WTO is only as good as the sum of its parts, but has the potential to do a great deal for the poor of the world (and, in turn, for the rich and the comfortable; a nice little feedback loop). Mr Paul is, it seems, a right-wing libertarian who objects to free trade. Idiot.

He proposes abandoning all those UN peacekeeping missions, organisations devoted to assisting the poor and victims of natural disasters. Such as Hurricane Katrina. Idiot.

Yes, the US has had a negative impact in many areas thanks to its foreign poliyc. It has also, however, done a lot of good. Isolationism would not, for example, have dealt with Nazism, whatever Ford, Lindbergh and company believed. You see, they were idiots. And so is Ron Paul.

I repeat: the man is an idiot. Good job he doesn't have a hope in hell of being elected President.

My point was the opposite one: Cuba would be much more developed if it weren't for the embargo. Some countries still trade with it. Think about an embargo against the US and its results.

How many nations actually have a Cuban embargo?

My point was the opposite one: Cuba would be much more developed if it weren't for the embargo. Some countries still trade with it. Think about an embargo against the US and its results.

Cuba produces sugar though, cigars and a few goods that do bring in cash. It's also got a decent tourist trade, and a fairly competent medical profession that brings home money. What exactly does the US produce entirely locally these days for export other than obnoxiousness?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/


So what do you think? Should the US leave the UN? I am not well versed on the WTO so I do not actually know if what he is saying is true. If it is then there is a sovereignty issue.
If the US left the UN could it survive as a meaningful institution it was envisioned to be?

The UN is useless. We singlehandedly provide half its funding and all we get in return is griping about human rights while they appoint Syria to the head of the human rights commission.

The UN is useless. We singlehandedly provide half its funding and all we get in return is griping about human rights while they appoint Syria to the head of the human rights commission.

My god. You are ignorant, aren't you.

We singlehandedly provide half its funding

This is a bald faced lie. Not that we really should expect any different from a lame bum now should we?

:p

What free-trader would be against the WTO?

Because it's not actually free trade; it's managed trade.

If you want free trade, you don't need agreements--you just need to engage in trade.

Because it's not actually free trade; it's managed trade.

If you want free trade, you don't need agreements--you just need to engage in trade.

Its the managed liberalization. ie freeing, of trade. The WTO and its predecessor, the GATT, have been instrumental in lowering trade barriers since their inception. IMO, if the GATT and the WTO hadn't been created trade barriers would be higher than they are. What free trader is for higher barriers of trade?

Calling an organization that generally frees trade an organization that manages trade is similiar to calling deregulation "managed regulation". If a government truly deregulated they take the Big Book of Regulations cast it in a bonfire. It wouldn't get rid of some, keep others, and create new ones like every government that has ever "deregulated, right?

Its the managed liberalization. ie freeing, of trade. The WTO and its predecessor, the GATT, have been instrumental in lowering trade barriers since their inception. IMO, if the GATT and the WTO hadn't been created trade barriers would be higher than they are. What free trader is for higher barriers of trade?
If you're really interested in free trade, you don't need an organization to repeal all international trade barriers--you just tear them down.

If a government truly deregulated they take the Big Book of Regulations cast it in a bonfire.

Exactly.

If you're really interested in free trade, you don't need an organization to repeal all international trade barriers--you just tear them down.

How many countries have unilaterally destroyed all trade barriers? The Brithish Empire for a time in the 19th century and early 20th and Hong Kong. Any others?

Exactly.

I don't understand why those managed regulators Ronald Reagen and Margaret Thatcher hated free markets so much.:rolleyes:

It took that long for a In Soviet Russia post...shame

:confused: my post was back on page 5 or something.

The US has troops under UN control all the time. Check your facts before spouting off about how they do this or that. Just as an example the 8th Army in Korea is under a UN command structure. They may not be wearing "blue" hats however they are under the UN command structure.

If you didn't assume that I was spouting ... I was not making a statement it was a question I asked Duhhh.
If they don't wear the blue helm they are not, in my view, functioning as peace keepers, besides Korea was their mess to clean up and hold the communist at bay. Besides I do not think that the US military will ever allow another command structure to to take over the lead of their forces. NEVER , NEVER EVER

I like the proposal that we need to set up a parallel organization of democratic nations.

This organization would only admit nations that meet certain benchmarks with regards to democratic government, human rights etc. Members would have their record reviewed every 5 years or so to ensure that they are still in compliance with these standards. We could start with five or six initial members, one from each continent- say, Canada, Sweden, India, South Africa, Brazil and maybe Australia or New Zealand. The initial members would then proceed with admitting more members. The US doesn't have to be one of the initial members- it should go through the admittance process like any other country to defuse charges that the organization is an American puppet.

Over time, the organization could slowly but surely take over the useful UN functions. Eventually, the members of this new democractic UN would withdraw from the original UN, and the UN could be expelled from US territory. If the remaining UN members such as Iran, Syria, Cuba, Zimbabwe etc. want to keep up their own farce of an organization, they should feel free to do so on their own territories.

Why does that sound so much like how the Earth Alliance in Babylon 5 got started? Oh wait. That took WWIII to actually take place but it did replace the UN.

What exactly does the US produce entirely locally these days for export other than obnoxiousness?
Pharmaceuticals, lawyers, scientists, doctors, cheese that doesn't spoil in heat, syrup concentrate for Coca Cola, just to name a few.

My point was the opposite one: Cuba would be much more developed if it weren't for the embargo. Some countries still trade with it. Think about an embargo against the US and its results.
So the only thing holding Cuba back is an embargo that no one but the US follows?

So the only thing holding Cuba back is an embargo that no one but the US follows?

I said much more, I didn't say a developed country.

My point is a world embargo against the US or even an Europe one would be pretty damaging.

I know. I'm trying to clarify you're point. Is the only reason why Cuba isn't as developed as it could be, because the US refuses to trade with it? We're one country. A few other countries picked up trading with Cuba after the US backed out. They really weren't affected much by the US's embargo.

New New Nebraska: Time to slap Paul!

Whatever keeps a country in itself.

Once it leaves its borders, there are other rules.

Sovereignty does not extend past x miles/kilometers out to sea.
period.



Unfortunately,
the UN has primarily been a tool of US foreign policy.
but ignored whenever us rulers deemed it a nusence.
just take a look at voting records at the UN.
as well as SC veto records
sooooooooooooo many times the the US has voted alone
or with one or two others they could bribe with aid.

read
"Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today's U.N."
for a history up to the mid to late 90s

If we're not going to listen to the U.N. then we should just leave. You can't see-saw between Rambo and Jesus whenever you please.

Pharmaceuticals,


Which it charges an arm and a leg for. Which most third world nations can't afford and go for generics instead. Nope, your exports die here.


lawyers,


Good god man. The only place people would want to export American Lawyers to is into the sun. Correction, make that any lawyer.


scientists, doctors,


You don't export these. Unless America practices human chattel officially.


cheese that doesn't spoil in heat, syrup concentrate for Coca Cola, just to name a few.

If you're hoping to maintain your standard of living on cheese and syrup exports, you're in for quite the disappointment.

This is a good plan, it will finally put the last nail in the fact that the US is a pariah state.

This is a good plan, it will finally put the last nail in the fact that the US is a pariah state.

HAHA! I love pipe dreams like this. And we are all greatful that Ron Paul has no chance in hell of actually being president.

HAHA! I love pipe dreams like this. And we are all greatful that Ron Paul has no chance in hell of actually being president.
Not talking about Paul, I think he's a nut. America has been going down the path of being a 'go it alone',' manifest destiny', ultranationalist, unilateralist regime for quite a while now, America no longer has any moral high ground for 'freedom' or 'liberty', it solely justifies itself based on 'the strong do as they will, the weak suffer what they must'.

Which it charges an arm and a leg for. Which most third world nations can't afford and go for generics instead. Nope, your exports die here.

Yes but third world countries aren't the only place we export to.



Good god man. The only place people would want to export American Lawyers to is into the sun. Correction, make that any lawyer.

Japan seems to want them for some reason. Something about business contracts and business law.


You don't export these. Unless America practices human chattel officially.

Unless you can prove that Doctors without borders and the WHO do not have any American doctors and CERN doesn't have any American scientists then don't say anything.


If you're hoping to maintain your standard of living on cheese and syrup exports, you're in for quite the disappointment.
So you're saying it's impossible to rely on the exports of McDonalds, beef, Coca Cola (the most recognized brand in the world according to wikipedia), and other things. I did say that these were a few examples.

BTW The cheese that doesn't spoil in heat is something an American company developed and they donate it to third world countries.

Yes but third world countries aren't the only place we export to.

Like other first world countries don't have their own competing pharmaceuticals.


Japan seems to want them for some reason. Something about business contracts and business law.

Want them where? In Japan? Or in America? Big difference there.


Unless you can prove that Doctors without borders and the WHO do not have any American doctors and CERN doesn't have any American scientists then don't say anything.

CERN isn't a private concern. It's governmental. WHO at last count was supposed to be a UN extension. Doctors without borders isn't a for profit organization.

None of them exactly bring in the money as exports.


So you're saying it's impossible to rely on the exports of McDonalds, beef, Coca Cola (the most recognized brand in the world according to wikipedia), and other things. I did say that these were a few examples.

McDonalds does not export goods. It's a freaking franchise. All it exports is brand name.

Beef, I'll give you.

Coca Cola? Recognized yes, capable of supporting US standards of livings following the idiotic policies of getting foreign imports cut off? Along with what limited items you've mentioned? Impossible.


BTW The cheese that doesn't spoil in heat is something an American company developed and they donate it to third world countries.

Then there's something wrong with the cheese, or its byproduct that they're getting rid of for PR. No corporation would produce something entirely for purely donative efforts.

Like other first world countries don't have their own competing pharmaceuticals.

True but that doesn't mean the US doesn't export their own.


Want them where? In Japan? Or in America? Big difference there.

Japan wants US lawyers to work for them.


CERN isn't a private concern. It's governmental. WHO at last count was supposed to be a UN extension. Doctors without borders isn't a for profit organization.

I meant the export of services and idea. Regardless of if the US benefits monetarily from the doctors/scientists being their, the US still could benefit.





McDonalds does not export goods. It's a freaking franchise. All it exports is brand name.

Beef, I'll give you.

McDonalds imports beef from the US to their international chains. That's where I got the beef idea from. Sorry if that wasn't clear.


Coca Cola? Recognized yes, capable of supporting US standards of livings following the idiotic policies of getting foreign imports cut off? Along with what limited items you've mentioned? Impossible.

So you're saying that every country would stop selling coca cola because the company is based in the US? Would the stop selling Nike products too? What about Walmart and other US companies?

Also these are only the exports that almost totally come from the US. There's other things that we could export but we need to import materials to make the products.


Then there's something wrong with the cheese, or its byproduct that they're getting rid of for PR. No corporation would produce something entirely for purely donative efforts.
You're right. They discovered it by accident when they added too much chemical to a batch of about 100 tons of cheese. They then decided to donate it all and keep making it purely for donations so the company gets a tax exemption and looks better. The company is Velveeta cheese by the way.

True but that doesn't mean the US doesn't export their own.

If we follow the trade cut offs that were mentioned earlier, those exports would get copied and copyright laws wouldn't be able to stop them.


Japan wants US lawyers to work for them.


Work for them where? Physically? In Japan or in the US? If it's the latter, it's not export.


I meant the export of services and idea. Regardless of if the US benefits monetarily from the doctors/scientists being their, the US still could benefit.


That's not export in the trade sense then. CERN definitely doesn't produce money as a business option. Neither does WHO or DWB.


McDonalds imports beef from the US to their international chains. That's where I got the beef idea from. Sorry if that wasn't clear.


Fair enough.


So you're saying that every country would stop selling coca cola because the company is based in the US? Would the stop selling Nike products too? What about Walmart and other US companies?


With the aforementioned trade cuts and sanctions? We'd see a lot of alternatives. Nike? Nope, that doesn't count. Nike shoes are made in China, so that violates the 100% locally produced ruling.

Walmart? Walmart gets all its products from cheap Chinese manufactured imports, so they go belly up too. Like all the other hypermarkets.


Also these are only the exports that almost totally come from the US. There's other things that we could export but we need to import materials to make the products.

I've listed out a few things in your examples that certainly do not make their goods entirely in the US. Almost all consumer goods you've mentioned are produced in foreign countries and imported for sale.


You're right. They discovered it by accident when they added too much chemical to a batch of about 100 tons of cheese. They then decided to donate it all and keep making it purely for donations so the company gets a tax exemption and looks better. The company is Velveeta cheese by the way.

And this cheese passes FDA standards? I wonder about that...

I always run under the assumption that the US make the most money out of free trade, that the US corporations exploit 3rd world countries to make products for them and such.

But if the US really want to survive in isolation, then they better start changing their consumption habits, cuz when you consider the US consumes 25% of the world's resources, being cut off is gonna hurt.

I always run under the assumption that the US make the most money out of free trade, that the US corporations exploit 3rd world countries to make products for them and such.

But if the US really want to survive in isolation, then they better start changing their consumption habits, cuz when you consider the US consumes 25% of the world's resources, being cut off is gonna hurt.

Want to address the fact that the developed world exploits the so called third world. Does the third world not exploit the developed? Lets look at it in reverse. The third world often is the source of conflicts and disease. Third world is always in need of some type of "free" aid either through food, money or military intervention. Third world also sends their hordes of people to the developed world to make money and send home thus robbing the developed world economies of cash. Not to mention the patents that the third world avoids on drugs and their crappy knockoff goods. Just playing devils advocate here.

If we follow the trade cut offs that were mentioned earlier, those exports would get copied and copyright laws wouldn't be able to stop them.

Maybe maybe not. Would they be able to copy every drug and vaccine? Unlikely.


Work for them where? Physically? In Japan or in the US? If it's the latter, it's not export.

In Japan.


That's not export in the trade sense then. CERN definitely doesn't produce money as a business option. Neither does WHO or DWB.

Sure it is. You can trade more than just goods.



With the aforementioned trade cuts and sanctions? We'd see a lot of alternatives. Nike? Nope, that doesn't count. Nike shoes are made in China, so that violates the 100% locally produced ruling.

Walmart? Walmart gets all its products from cheap Chinese manufactured imports, so they go belly up too. Like all the other hypermarkets.



I've listed out a few things in your examples that certainly do not make their goods entirely in the US. Almost all consumer goods you've mentioned are produced in foreign countries and imported for sale.

But what about those countries that need the Walmart and Nike factories in their countries to prop up their own economies? Do you really think those countries are going to boycott all American goods when those companies threaten to withdraw their factories? Also I highly doubt Walmart would go belly up. It makes more money right now than Turkey does.

Look I'm not trying to say that an embargo against the US wouldn't hurt. I'm just saying it probably wouldn't be permanent or that damaging in the long run.


And this cheese passes FDA standards? I wonder about that...
Does it have to? They're not selling it in the US.