2006-06-12 04:07:37 · 20 answers · asked by limahkow 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
sorry i re-phrase. should the rest of the members of UN boycott USA?
2006-06-12 04:15:29 · update #1
With the latest reports out of Iraq and across the world, it is evident that the United States has broken many of the U.N. charter rules.These include torture and the basic rules of war. I know that this is an unpopular choice, but sometimes the correct response is not always the most popular.
2006-06-12 04:45:44 · answer #1 · answered by se_roddy 3 · 0⤊ 5⤋
As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the US can't be thrown out. Overall, the UN was a good idea in theory, but it's questionable whether or not it works over the long term in practice. It's only been around just over 60 years, and is already chock full of corruption and has been reduced to a joke.
A more relevant question is whether or not the US should remain a member of the UN voluntarily. I think we should, not because I believe in the credibility or effectiveness of the UN, but for this reason: If we left, what would stop the rest of the UN from voting to send troops against us whenever they disagreed with action we take? That clearly would not be in our best interest, so it has to be better to stick it out and try to reform the organization, or draft a charter for a more effective one.
2006-06-12 04:21:24 · answer #2 · answered by Chris S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
LOL, the UN cant do that. Wow do you not know how the UN works! The US is a PERMANENT Security Council member. I think the first thing that is important there is the word PERMANENT. The second thing that is important, is that as a PERMANENT Security Council member, the US has full veto rights. So if the UN tried, the US could just veto the resolution. It will never, ever happen. After all, Russia is also a permanent member, and they did some pretty anti-UN things for a lot of years, but they are still around.
2006-06-12 04:12:32 · answer #3 · answered by bmwdriver11 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well lets see how long it takes the UN in Darfor to cry for help from the USA. When their people get into trouble. Just as they did in Bosnia when they Brave Blue Helmets let a few dozen soldiers take over a fully manned UN Military camp. Feck the Blue Helmets. They should be Yellow.
2006-06-12 15:54:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmmm would be nice, we could turn the UN builiding into some nice condo development, I'm sure Donald Trump would take it over. Then we wouldn't have to deal with anyone not part of NATO, withdraw all the US citizens in the UN forces, take the money spent overseas and spend it here.
2006-06-12 04:48:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Get those pompous gits out of my country! Raze that damned monument to foolish idealism and do something positive. Even Chruchill, co-founder of the UN (with FDR) knew it would turn into a useless debate society within 10 to 15 years.
It is so over. End the charade.
2006-06-12 04:27:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you mean should the USA no longer be part of the UN? Yes it should be sacked! The UN is a nightmare! Let us out!
2006-06-12 04:10:11 · answer #7 · answered by Nay 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the USA should voluntarily quit to protest the rampant corruption and general worthlessness of the organization.
How long will killing in Darfur or Somalia go on before the UN asks the USA to take care of it?
2006-06-12 04:09:14 · answer #8 · answered by Swarms 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a brilliant style of individuals would opt to think of so. The project for a clean American Century (PNAC) become a team of ideologues who believed that seeing that we've been the final final superpower we would desire to constantly by way of our weight around, advance our hegemony over the international. This blanketed sweeping interior the path of the middle East, invading first Iraq, then Syria and Iran, to place in US-friendly leaders in those international places, and bullying our allies an the UN to circulate alongside with the plan. however the plan has failed disastrously. We did no longer have the appropriate sort of protection rigidity to combat an prolonged insurgency. And something of the international united against our bullying. The Bush administration has lost administration of the region yet they nevertheless would desire to act as though the plan is working. so as that they bully, they bluster, they spout sharp rhetoric. the subsequent American president would be plenty extra conciliatory in his strikes and speech, attempting to repair the wear it rather is been accomplished to our relationships with something of the international.
2016-12-13 15:42:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The US should leave voluntarily and take all the billions in support and use it to protect its boarders and create opportunities for its own citizens. It doesn't need to support the corrupt members of the UN any longer.
2006-06-12 04:14:45 · answer #10 · answered by Shaula 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
definitely. the usa has always used uno for imposing their own idels. if they get some favor they approach un for taking it as their mask.
once some thing has to be done against the opinion of un they just neglect and take their own decisions.
a very good example is the war against iraq.
2006-06-12 04:42:56 · answer #11 · answered by Jithu 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋