Americas superpower legacy should not be an excuse to act like the big brother who takes its toys away form little brothers when it comes down to International secuirty. A stronger better trained United Nations can be of help in worldwide conflicts. Respect to other nations opinions and honest debate can bring new leadership to UN. Should the security council be composed of 8 developed countries only?
2007-01-28 09:02:43 · 10 answers · asked by ION-CONSTITUTION 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No, we should stay as a member of the UN. Simply because it gives us a place to meet with the other member nations on an equal footing. We can listen to others & they can listen to America. Perhaps they have not done all that could have been done to prevent wars. But we seem to forget that they really have no power, they are only a group of nations that have agreed to talk. America pays little attentiion to anything having to do with the UN, we go our own way. So why should we pull out? The UN has done some good in helping poor nations by supplying food, educational programs, housing etc. They are not all bad. By pulling out we will have no place to come together with the other 191 nations & talk things over.
2007-01-28 09:42:29 · answer #1 · answered by geegee 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Not just that, but yes that is enough reason to get out. The UN is more than a series of mistakes. It is the staging ground for a global Totalitarian Socialist "government."
I can't stress it enough. The UN was a rotten seditious idea from the outsest, and is the primary cause for my disdain of the 2 major parties, with particular loathing for the democrats. We do not need this outdated worthless organization anymore. It has failed at everything it has attempted. "To rid the world of the scourge of war." The UN charter says. The reality is an almost constant state of war since it's inception. It is time honored, historically proven failure. To want to empower it more is suicidal, and insane.
The USA needs to end membership in the Un and end it now. Empoer it? Over a lot of our dead bodies, I'm afraid. Do you really want a Frenchman directing American troops? Screw that, I say.
Oil for food, sex scandals with CHILDREN, monetary waste, idly watching genocide, EMPOWER them? Not in this life.
2007-01-28 09:14:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
America needs to pull out of the United Nations because the United Nations does absolutely no good anymore. They do nothing to keep the peace worldwide; all they do is draft useless, toothless resolutions which offer no real solutions or retributions for acts committed and let their committee members make private deals with dictatorships that allow them to line their pockets with ill-gotten money. Aside from that, the UN owes the City of New York about 2 MILLION dollars in parking fines.
The time of the UN has passed.
2007-01-28 09:09:46 · answer #3 · answered by Team Chief 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
How about the rampant corruption present in the United Nations? The Oil for food scandal is only the latest one to come to light.
How about the blatant Anti-American attitude of the U.N.?
How about the horrendous anti-Israel attitudes displayed by the U.N.?
How about the terrible human rights violations by security member nation China, and leading Candidate for the spot Venezuela that are ignored by the general body?
2007-01-28 09:12:05 · answer #4 · answered by Willie 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The United Nations may seem impotent in modern times, but it still serves a purpose. Countries with enmity, like America and France occasionally, can vent their grievences there instead of starting wars.
I think getting countries and their representatives together frequently and having them talk is very good, even though years may pass with no tangible results.
2007-01-28 09:13:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
US - sure China - sure Russia - sure France - No, yet I agree Europe could have a seat the Council. possibly it is going to belong to the ecu or rotate to a separate eu state each and every few years. uk - possibly, all in all they are nevertheless between the greater effective states interior the international. could the main suitable to veto be abolished? No, that's the factor. Resolutions require unanimity to have binding tension, the two in prepare and letter. could votes be weighted? No. One u . s . a ., one vote. South Africa has no outstanding for an enduring seat on the U.S. yet India surely does and Brazil merits attention.
2016-12-16 15:46:04 · answer #6 · answered by zabel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There should be no permanent members but revolving members. No veto power, and those countries who cannot follow UN resolutions should be banned for a considerable length of time.
2007-01-28 09:08:49 · answer #7 · answered by Cherry_Blossom 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Something needs to happen, thats for sure. Everyone asks why the U.S. is in Iraq and not in Afica. I say where the hell is the U.N.
2007-01-28 09:27:45 · answer #8 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because those 8 countries pay the bills
2007-01-28 09:07:42 · answer #9 · answered by nermil 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yup..
2007-01-28 09:17:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋