2007-03-24 17:22:17 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
We should withdraw, pull our financial support and let this whole farce collapse.
2007-03-24 17:35:54 · answer #1 · answered by DrB 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The League of Nations was set up with the hopes of avoiding another world war. After it dissolved, WWII broke out. The UN was then established as a stronger international organization.
Why doesn't the US simply take over the rest of the world? Because we cannot control it, unfortunately. No, our best bet would be the type of action we took in Iraq--preemptive war. Since we cannot successfully occupy the rest of the world, we ought to simply obliterate it. "Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here."
The US has a population of 300 million, and the rest of the world is about six billion. So we only have to kill six billion people to make Pax Americana. We really don't even have to do all that--just bomb all the major cities. The rural populations that remain will lack the organization or will to attack us.
We always worried the soviet union might do something stupid like that back in the 1950s. But yes, pull out of the UN, and pull the plug on the world. They were too unfortunate to have been born america, and for that reason are inconsequential and actually, a threat we should eliminate.
2007-03-25 00:45:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is unlikely that the US would leave the UN because it would be like admitting that we were some kind of wacky third world dicatorship.
It is more realistic politically(from the point of view of the current, UN hostile administration) to stay in the UN and try to re-shape it to our interests and failing that, to loudly dismiss the rest of the UN when it doesn't act the way we want it to.
But leaving would be like throwing the Monopoly board all over the table because we weren't winning.
2007-03-25 00:29:00 · answer #3 · answered by Dr.Cyclops 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The US is a powerful state. If it was to leave the UN, it may result in a similar collapse of the organisation to that of the League of Nations.
2007-03-25 00:50:53 · answer #4 · answered by tvdh 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
why?
the US is the most powerful and influencial country in the UN by far? They have made it exactly what it is?
the UN jumps when the US asks them too?
what exactly should the US be upset about?
are Republicans so anti-social/anti-international community that they can't even bear an international group that the US basically controls?
it would be like Bruce Springsteen leaving the E-street band? if he doesn't like what the band is doing, it's because he screwed up.... since he makes all the decisions?
2007-03-25 00:30:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
The U.S. should have dumped the U.N. right after they tossed us off the human rights committee (we were replaced by those human rights stalwarts like Iran.) The oil for food scandal was just the icing on the cake.
What a waste of American tax dollars - and yes, we pay most of the bills for that abomination called the U.N.
2007-03-25 00:37:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely. They are worth far less than just one of the parking spots that they would "free-up" in New York following their departure.
The U.N. is a waste of time and space.
2007-03-25 02:31:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think we should leave, but would like to see a more equitable share in funding, based on population of member countries.
2007-03-25 00:41:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes is should. The UN is a meaningless organization, with corrupt members
2007-03-25 00:28:41 · answer #9 · answered by J S 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Yes, before they get kicked out for abuse of power,and good riddance!
2007-03-25 00:30:32 · answer #10 · answered by PuppyPrince 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋