U.S. in a Post-U.N. World

[Aleph-Null]

Most Americans today do not wish to see the U.N. reformed, but rather abolished all together. How will the world be changed once the U.N. Organization been shut down? Will another organization replace it? Will governments give up on attempts at creating massive one world government bureaucracies which too easily fall to delusions of "manifest destiny"

How will the U.S. need to adjust its foreign policy to cope in a Post-U.N. world?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Most Americans today do not wish to see the U.N. reformed, but rather abolished all together.

Reference for that? The Economist, not too long ago, had a piece about the UN stating the opposite.

 

[Damnyankee]

Most Americans today do not wish to see the U.N. reformed, but rather abolished all together. How will the world be changed once the U.N. Organization been shut down? Will another organization replace it? Will governments give up on attempts at creating massive one world government bureaucracies which too easily fall to delusions of "manifest destiny"

How will the U.S. need to adjust its foreign policy to cope in a Post-U.N. world?

Read a history book. You will find out how the world "coped" without the UN.

 

[Warman17]

erm...world war?

 

[The Last Conformist]

The world today isn't like it was a before the creation of the UN. In fact, it didn't "cope" with the lack of something like the UN in any one way before the UN's founding - it was continuously changing. We can't bring back the inter-war years, or whatever period's grand politics Damnyankee might like.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

They'll form a new world order based around the two powers of U.S and Them.

The Onion said so.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Did the Onion play Battle Bugs?

 

[Babbler]

Most Americans today do not wish to see the U.N. reformed, but rather abolished all together. How will the world be changed once the U.N. Organization been shut down? Will another organization replace it? Will governments give up on attempts at creating massive one world government bureaucracies which too easily fall to delusions of "manifest destiny"

How will the U.S. need to adjust its foreign policy to cope in a Post-U.N. world?

I have not seen an poll saying. Even the mostly anti-UN Americans seem content to withdraw from the organization, and they are a minority. The UN is a valuable international organization, allowing for alternate channels from war, and providing a framework for country to work togher.

Only radical extremist wish the the UN be gone.

 

[Aleph-Null]

A world in which all nations are in the U.N. is no different from a world in which there is no U.N. at all, in the final analysis, the U.N. becomes nothing but another theater of war. The U.N. is not a valuable entity, I personally consider it a drain on the economy paying dues to which, ignoring felonies and crimes committed by individuals such as Kofi Annan who have diplomatic immunity, etc. Kofi is not an ambassador from any nation, and henceforth, should not possess diplomatic immunity. He should pay his parking tickets same as everyone else.

A recent poll showed that 60% of Americans believe the U.S. should withdraw from the organization, this movement is gaining momentum. Among Republicans, that number grows dramatically.

The reasons for this is the ease with which new members are gained admittance or the refusal for many nation's to be 'kicked out' Current movements within the matrix speak of a new "Global Organization of Democracies" to be formed once the U.N.o. has been dissolved. Membership will of course require each applicant meeting certain obligations.

A U.N.o. which allows un-united members is not an organization which Americans wish to be a part of. Social critic Ayn Rand perhaps said it best:

There is no margin for error about a monstrosity that was created for the alleged purpose of preventing wars by uniting the world against any aggressor, but proceeded to unite it against any victim of aggression. The expulsion of a charter member, the Republic of China [Taiwan]—an action forbidden by the U.N.'s own Charter—was a 'moment of truth,' a naked display of the United Nations' soul.

What was Red China's qualification for membership in the U.N.? The fact that her government seized power by force, and has maintained it for twenty-two years by terror. What disqualified Nationalist China [Taiwan]? The fact that she was a friend of the United States. It was against the United States that all those beneficiaries of our foreign aid were voting at the U.N. It was hatred of the United States and the pleasure of spitting in our face that they were celebrating, as well as their liberation from morality—with savages, appropriately, doing jungle dances in the aisles.

 

[Aleph-Null]

I have not seen an poll saying. Even the mostly anti-UN Americans seem content to withdraw from the organization, and they are a minority. The UN is a valuable international organization, allowing for alternate channels from war, and providing a framework for country to work togher.

Only radical extremist wish the the UN be gone.

That's the most ridiculous bunk of bullcrap I've heard in my life. What did you have that programmed into your head by your U.S. 6th grade social studies class? b1g br0th3r pWn35 u!

 

[blackheart]

The UN would simply relocated to Europe of China if America wanted it gone.

 

[Babbler]

A recent poll showed that 60% of Americans believe the U.S. should withdraw from the organization, this movement is gaining momentum. Among Republicans, that number grows dramatically.

I couldn't find it, so could you please link to an article?

That's the most ridiculous bunk of bullcrap I've heard in my life. What did you have that programmed into your head by your U.S. 6th grade social studies class? b1g br0th3r pWn35 u!

I'm Canadian, so it was program into my buy the Canadian social studies class.

 

[Aleph-Null]

The UN would simply relocated to Europe of China if America wanted it gone.

It would obviously be relocated to Europe, however, I doubt that Asian nations would retain membership. Especially Japan. As it currently stands, the U.N. receives the majority of its funding from the U.S., Japan, and Germany. Without U.S. and Japanese funds the U.N.o. becomes capable of nothing. As time progresses, the U.S. would provide economic incentives for those who join the priorly discussed "Global Organization of Democracies" of course, my only amendment would be membership in competitor organizations would disqualify one from being accepted.

 

[Aleph-Null]

I couldn't find it, so could you please link to an article?



I'm Canadian, so it was program into my buy the Canadian social studies class.

Without being able to go through the history files on my other computer here's a quickie link: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/United Nations Oil-for-Food.htm

Most of America is apathetic towards the U.N.o. that apathy will be the nail in its coffin... and not a moment too soon. In the final analysis, the U.N.o. is merely another theater of war and thus worthless to mankind. What is needed is an institution like the U.S. which advances the cause of peace and freedom. The U.S. is perhaps humanities best hope.

 

[Aleph-Null]

the U.N.o. had potential. That potential went out the window when member nations were allowed to join which refused to ratify the UNDHR. That mistake must not be made again with the u.n.'s successor. In my opinon, that successor exists already today. The United States has already proven itself as worthy of transcending to a global organization replacing the U.N.o.

 

[Aleph-Null]

As for the U.S., I see no reason why it should lower itself to the level of the U.N.o.

 

[Elrohir]

Even if the US leaves, I don't think the UN will shut down. They'll probably move to Paris or Berlin or somewhere in Europe, and act like their still important for a couple decades without being able to do anything before abolishing themselves.

 

[Aleph-Null]

Even if the US leaves, I don't think the UN will shut down. They'll probably move to Paris or Berlin or somewhere in Europe, and act like their still important for a couple decades without being able to do anything before abolishing themselves.

My guess is that the U.N.o. will abolish themselves much sooner in order to pave the way for a new organization like the U.S. or this G.O.O.D. (I like that acronym for some crazy reason) The U.N.o. *could* have worked were membership to have been pre-conditioned upon ratification of something like say, the UNDHR.

 

[GenMarshall]

Even if the US leaves, I don't think the UN will shut down. They'll probably move to Paris or Berlin or somewhere in Europe, and act like their still important for a couple decades without being able to do anything before abolishing themselves.

And the United Nations would have the same fate as the League of Nations and the world would be tossed into a thrid World War.

 

[Ebitdadada]

That's the most ridiculous bunk of bullcrap I've heard in my life. What did you have that programmed into your head by your U.S. 6th grade social studies class? b1g br0th3r pWn35 u!

I think I heard something more rediculus when I read the first post of this thread. Of course since I don't agree with you I must be brainwashed by the evil liberal education system and / or men in black helocopters.

If you're going to claim "Most Americans favor abolishing the UN instead of reform", at least site a credible news organization.