2007-01-19 09:54:23 · 9 answers · asked by Tiffa 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I'm not sure, but I tend to say yes, it would be better. It's not really very effective in preventing or even mitigating conflicts, and it has an awkward structure that seems to give too much power to small countries. Unlike the US with its two houses, one by state (senate) and one by population (house), the delegates to the UN are all about per country, not per population or per capita income or even land area. This distorts the importance of the very large and the very small, since the very small country's influence is magnified, while the very large country's influence is discounted.
Perhaps we should acknowledge that the UN is mostly useful as a communication and discussion forum, diplomacy in some sense, and take a sort of Geneva position: you all come here and do your discussions, but leave us out of it. We will be the gracious hosts, but no more.
2007-01-19 10:01:19 · answer #1 · answered by auntb93again 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't know if its a case of quitting...they should be thrown out! What do other organizations do for blatant disregard and disrespect by a member?
There seems to be a serious misunderstanding by Americans about the UN. HMMMM. Could it have anything to do with the President's disrespect for it? Why would they have a problem with joining a worldwide organization whose goal is world peace? Does the US believe itself to be the most important country on the planet? That it doesn't need to meet the standards as set by the rest of the countries? Don't we all share this planet? Shouldn't we all commit ourselves to participation and cohabitation? Sigh.
2007-01-19 18:03:20 · answer #2 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it shows "pretend unity" within all world countries.
Since the UN has no real power, it does not hurt the US to stay a member. I believe the UN was an ill conceived idea & was only meant to help countries recover from the war.
2007-01-19 18:00:43 · answer #3 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. I think its worse than useless. Liberals think of it as the World's legislature but its not that all. Its corrupt and unnecessary.
Its ties the United State's hands unnecessarily. It should be abolished.
I like what Ann Coulter says about international law: "It is whatever the United States and Britain say it is!".
2007-01-19 17:58:17 · answer #4 · answered by John16 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, the UN wants to stop war.
The US just wants to start them.
2007-01-19 18:02:35 · answer #5 · answered by Mighty C 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes because the hold veto power which pretty much exempts them from any international law.
2007-01-19 18:22:26 · answer #6 · answered by smedrik 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no because the un is awesome
2007-01-19 18:01:27 · answer #7 · answered by Nightchild 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think so. It might create diplomatic problems with some of their U.N. allies but this organization hasn't done anything for us.
2007-01-20 12:35:31 · answer #8 · answered by cynical 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES,YES,YES,YES,YES!!!!!!!
2007-01-19 18:02:40 · answer #9 · answered by me45404 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋