U.S. out of U.N.- Now!

[Bonnie]

Cal Thomas
www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/printct20041208.shtml

The United nations does not serve the interests of the United States or the objectives of democracies. the oil-for food scandal, in which billions of dollars were misappropriated in Iraq, exposed a corrupt bureaucracy, rotting from the head. In the U.N., the United States is opposed by dictatorial regimes who are treated as our equals

Paul Weyrich, who heads the conservative Free Congress Foundation, writes "The U.N. now is dominated by nations of the Third World whose values are so distant from our own that they won't even object to the genocide occuring in the Sudan."

What is the United States getting for it's money? We pay 22% of the U.N. budget, but get 100% of the grief form nations that hate us and what we stand for. The League of Nations failed for many of the same reasons the U.N. is failing. The League and the U.N. are based on a flawed philosophy that believes humans are basically good. There is ample contemporary and historical evidence to the contrary.

John Danforth, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, announced he is leaving after just five months in the job. This kind and decent man saw firsthand the futility of trying to persuade the U.N. to stop the genocide in Sudan.

Modern diplomats too often prefer the dithering process to the sucessful outcome. The process allows them to baptize their failures beneath the soothing water of "caring." It is caring and a willingness to address "complex problems" that is more highly valued than actually resovling something for the common good.

The U.S. presence int he U.N. gives credence to dictators and prevents accountability by most nations.

Too many U.N. members hate us because our decisiveness exposes their vacillation.
The world would be better off without this body and with an association of democracies in it's place. It is not likely to happen, because false hope is preffered by too many diplomats and politicians over actual results.....................

 

[Zhukov]

Maybe it's time we start pushing our representatives to devise a League of Democracies, to exist concurrently with the U.N.

Abandoning the U.N. would be opposed by too many in this country, but perhaps we could marginalize it by creating an effective body composed of exclsively of other democratic states.

We won't abandon the U.N.; we'll let it wither away.

 

[Bonnie]

Maybe it's time we start pushing our representatives to devise a League of Democracies, to exist concurrently with the U.N.

Abandoning the U.N. would be opposed by too many in this country, but perhaps we could marginalize it by creating an effective body composed of exclsively of other democratic states.

We won't abandon the U.N.; we'll let it wither away.

Interesting idea!!

 

[Avatar4321]

Maybe it's time we start pushing our representatives to devise a League of Democracies, to exist concurrently with the U.N.

Abandoning the U.N. would be opposed by too many in this country, but perhaps we could marginalize it by creating an effective body composed of exclsively of other democratic states.

We won't abandon the U.N.; we'll let it wither away.

See i thought about the same idea. But the problem with that is it creates a third level bueacracy over the federal government if its at all effective and even with this there is no guarentee that our due process rights will be respected in such an organization.

Thats when it hit me that we already have a league of Democracies. The United States of America. Each state has its own Democractic soviergnty. We already have the bearucractic structure set up so wouldnt have to add a completely new layer to it. Our rights are guarenteed. And our constitution has already got the provisions for adding new states to the Union.

If we considered it we wouldnt be able to just invite every nation in immediately. If we grew too big too fast we wouldnt be able to handle it but if we wanted to look for a long term solution for for the UN problem, I think its the only way that could possibly work.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

See i thought about the same idea. But the problem with that is it creates a third level bueacracy over the federal government if its at all effective and even with this there is no guarentee that our due process rights will be respected in such an organization.

Thats when it hit me that we already have a league of Democracies. The United States of America. Each state has its own Democractic soviergnty. We already have the bearucractic structure set up so wouldnt have to add a completely new layer to it. Our rights are guarenteed. And our constitution has already got the provisions for adding new states to the Union.

If we considered it we wouldnt be able to just invite every nation in immediately. If we grew too big too fast we wouldnt be able to handle it but if we wanted to look for a long term solution for for the UN problem, I think its the only way that could possibly work.

Creating a "third level bureacracy over the federal government" is EXACTLY why we need to keep our country OUT of any international group which has legal power over us and which has intentions of ultimate power-grabbing.

We need to keep the sovereignty of the USA. We must not compromise!
We need to CLEARLY delineate our relations with the rest of the world. This means keeping our Constitution intact. It must act as a barrier to the rest of the world, protecting our country from insidious inroads into our legal system. Congress needs to clearly define this and pass this message along loud and clear to our Court system which seems to be giving away the store behind our backs.

 

[Doc Holiday]

The United Nations is a waste of time and money, since no one listens to it and it cannot accomplish anything.

 

[Zhukov]

the problem with that is it creates a third level bueacracy over the federal government if its at all effective and even with this there is no guarentee that our due process rights will be respected in such an organization.

Creating a "third level bureacracy over the federal government" is EXACTLY why we need to keep our country OUT of any international group which has legal power over us and which has intentions of ultimate power-grabbing.

There's no third level bureaucracy, there are no obligations, and no nation-state will be beholden to it. It will simply be a body where officials from democratically elected governments can get together without the intrusive annoyance of the objections of the stooges of every two-bit dictator.

The organization will be a deliberative club more than anything else. Someplace where substantive conversations about legitimate problems can take place absent the objections of whatever Generalissimo would rather not brooch certain subjects. If over time the participants decide to enlarge the organization's breadth of concern and action, that will be addressed contemporaneously.

See, the article is correct, our very presence in the U.N. gives credibility to terrorists-states like Iran and prison-states like North Korea. They are treated as equals. This is intolerable and devoid of any kind of morality.

Unfortunately, I believe the United States leaving the U.N. is not a realistic occurence within the forseeable future.

Therefore the first step is to take the focus off the U.N. To minimize it.

Whether our new organization, our League of Democracies (someone come up with a better name), whose only entrance requirement will be that the member state's government is popularly elected, will be effective or not, only time will tell. But considering that what we have now is completely ineffective, I don't see a real problem with that.

All I'm advocating here is the first small step.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There's no third level bureaucracy, there are no obligations, and no nation-state will be beholden to it. It will simply be a body where officials from democratically elected governments can get together without the intrusive annoyance of the objections of the stooges of every two-bit dictator.

The organization will be a deliberative club more than anything else. Someplace where substantive conversations about legitimate problems can take place absent the objections of whatever Generalissimo would rather not brooch certain subjects. If over time the participants decide to enlarge the organization's breadth of concern and action, that will be addressed contemporaneously.

See, the article is correct, our very presence in the U.N. gives credibility to terrorists-states like Iran and prison-states like North Korea. They are treated as equals. This is intolerable and devoid of any kind of morality.

Unfortunately, I believe the United States leaving the U.N. is not a realistic occurence within the forseeable future.

Therefore the first step is to take the focus off the U.N. To minimize it.

Whether our new organization, our League of Democracies (someone come up with a better name), whose only entrance requirement will be that the member state's government is popularly elected, will be effective or not, only time will tell. But considering that what we have now is completely ineffective, I don't see a real problem with that.

All I'm advocating here is the first small step.

I understand that what you are proposing would be an improvement over the current conglomeration of nitwit dictators in the UN.

But will the "representative" members of this new body be ELECTED by the people of the US (or from wherever)? If it is only a "club", as you suggest, then how can this body of UNELECTED representatives make decisions that will affect us? What gives them the right to make such decisions?

Would you really even want "elected" members from various countries telling us here in the US what we can or cannot do? What kind of international law are we willing to submit to? Our Constitutional law is different from other countries, even those with democratic procedures. Is this something you wish to give up? Would you want to place the U.S. Constitution subject to the decisions of an international "democratic" group?

I'm not so sure we need to "belong" to any "club" or international "organization".

 

[Zhukov]

But will the "representative" members of this new body be ELECTED by the people of the US (or from wherever)? If it is only a "club", as you suggest, then how can this body of UNELECTED representatives make decisions that will affect us? What gives them the right to make such decisions?

They will have the same authority as any Ambassador, and will be appointed by our elected President and vetted by our elected Congress.

Would you really even want "elected" members from various countries telling us here in the US what we can or cannot do?

This body would not be telling constituent countries what to do. It would merely debate problems, and agree upon a suggested course of action. Each individual member state would then decide what degree of co-operation it wished to provide, if any at all.

What kind of international law are we willing to submit to? Our Constitutional law is different from other countries, even those with democratic procedures. Is this something you wish to give up?

I would be unwilling to cede any authority to this body.

The idea is to rethink exactly what a useful international organization should look like, because we already know what it doesn't look like.

 

[acludem]

As much as I realize some of you hate to hear this....going back to isolationist, standoffish, 19th century international policy would be an absolute disaster. The U.S. must stay actively engaged in the UN and NATO, and must stay actively engaged in international affairs. THis is a must not only for our own national security, but for the security of democracy the world over. The last time the U.S. chose to hide, a man named Adolf Hitler was allowed to run roughshot over Europe for several years until the British and Russians stood up to him and the U.S. led an offensive that ended his regime. The last time the U.S. chose to hide, our naval base at Pearl Harbor was attacked because we didn't take the threat seriously, and yes I'm a Democrat and I believe this was FDR's greatest error as president. The League of Nations died because the U.S. wasn't involved. We simply cannot afford to allow the UN to die. It would be detrimental to our national security and to the security of the free world. Neither the U.S. or any other country has given up it's sovreignty to the U.N. We've agreed to live by certain rules, but that doesn't mean we're in jail.

acludem

 

[dilloduck]

As much as I realize some of you hate to hear this....going back to isolationist, standoffish, 19th century international policy would be an absolute disaster. The U.S. must stay actively engaged in the UN and NATO, and must stay actively engaged in international affairs. THis is a must not only for our own national security, but for the security of democracy the world over. The last time the U.S. chose to hide, a man named Adolf Hitler was allowed to run roughshot over Europe for several years until the British and Russians stood up to him and the U.S. led an offensive that ended his regime. The last time the U.S. chose to hide, our naval base at Pearl Harbor was attacked because we didn't take the threat seriously, and yes I'm a Democrat and I believe this was FDR's greatest error as president. The League of Nations died because the U.S. wasn't involved. We simply cannot afford to allow the UN to die. It would be detrimental to our national security and to the security of the free world. Neither the U.S. or any other country has given up it's sovreignty to the U.N. We've agreed to live by certain rules, but that doesn't mean we're in jail.

acludem

Hogwash---I'm not advocating isolationism. I'm advocating leaving an organization that is committed to the weakening of America. We are in jail when we are the only ones following the rules while the rest steal from the poor and starving and allow genocides to occur if it financially benfits certain member states. We can certainly continue to pursue diplomacy by using forums other than a corrupt organization of hedonists and conspirators.

 

[no1tovote4]

Hogwash---I'm not advocating isolationism. I'm advocating leaving an organization that is committed to the weakening of America. We are in jail when we are the only ones following the rules while the rest steal from the poor and starving and allow genocides to occur if it financially benfits certain member states. We can certainly continue to pursue diplomacy by using forums other than a corrupt organization of hedonists and conspirators.

I don't think we sould leave the UN, we should use it by vetoing pretty much every Security Council vote.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't think we sould leave the UN, we should use it by vetoing pretty much every Security Council vote.

I guess being an obstructionist to the UN WOULD be a positive thing !

 

[Bonnie]

As much as I realize some of you hate to hear this....going back to isolationist, standoffish, 19th century international policy would be an absolute disaster. The U.S. must stay actively engaged in the UN and NATO, and must stay actively engaged in international affairs. THis is a must not only for our own national security, but for the security of democracy the world over. The last time the U.S. chose to hide, a man named Adolf Hitler was allowed to run roughshot over Europe for several years until the British and Russians stood up to him and the U.S. led an offensive that ended his regime. The last time the U.S. chose to hide, our naval base at Pearl Harbor was attacked because we didn't take the threat seriously, and yes I'm a Democrat and I believe this was FDR's greatest error as president. The League of Nations died because the U.S. wasn't involved. We simply cannot afford to allow the UN to die. It would be detrimental to our national security and to the security of the free world. Neither the U.S. or any other country has given up it's sovreignty to the U.N. We've agreed to live by certain rules, but that doesn't mean we're in jail.

acludem

Roosevelt was not remotely an Isolationsist president in general, however you are right in the case of WWII he came up against a congress and his own citizenry that had that mentality due to many reasons much to our detriment. The U.N however is useless and corrupt, and we are financially suporting 20% of that institution......What do we get in return, beside aggravation and disrespect?

 

[Bonnie]

Does anyone remember Python's "Life of Brian", the scene in which Reg and group were constantly debating about what to do about the Romans, but they never actually did anything!!!!!! If that isn't a fitting representaton of the U.N. I don't know what is.

 

[no1tovote4]

Does anyone remember Python's "Life of Brian", the scene in which Reg and group were constantly debating about what to do about the Romans, but they never actually did anything!!!!!! If that isn't a fitting representaton of the U.N. I don't know what is.

"No! You don't understand! They're going to crucify him! You have to do something now Reg!"


"I move that we take this into serious consideration and discussion for a vote at a later period."


I love that movie.

 

[Bonnie]

"No! You don't understand! They're going to crucify him! You have to do something now Reg!"


"I move that we take this into serious consideration and discussion for a vote at a later period."


I love that movie.

But apart form education, public order, sanitation, wine, irrigation, the aquaduct.......What have the Romans ever done for us????? LOL

Apart from eating in our NY restaurants, accumulating parking tickets they never pay, bad mouthing us at every meeting, having endless meetings about having meetings, not supporting our efforts to protect the world from terrorism, stealing billions of dollars, doing nothing to stop the mass murdering in the Sudan..........What has the U.N. ever done for us????

One of the other great dialogs in that movie is the one where Stan wants to have a baby but he can't cause he's a man which is no on'es fault not even the Romans'.......How about we say Stan should have the right to have a baby........Great stuff!!

 

[acludem]

What is a good alternative? Working together as a world has helped prevent major world conflict since World War II. It is likely that the U.N. and Nato prevented nuclear war between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. The UN has its problems, but we must stick with it.

acludem

 

[Avatar4321]

What is a good alternative? Working together as a world has helped prevent major world conflict since World War II. It is likely that the U.N. and Nato prevented nuclear war between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. The UN has its problems, but we must stick with it.

acludem

Exactly what on earth did the UN do that prevented a nuclear war between the US and USSR?

 

[Bonnie]

What is a good alternative? Working together as a world has helped prevent major world conflict since World War II. It is likely that the U.N. and Nato prevented nuclear war between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. The UN has its problems, but we must stick with it.

acludem

Sounds nice!! Exactly what has the U.N. actually done to facillitate this????