why should the united states break from the united nations?
104298
Cooperation is important to forward US policies and having a forum to speak to the world is very helpful.
787977
That could be a bad idea.  Our veto power in the Security Council helps ensure that they don't resolve to screw with us.  When Russia got upset, stormed out and decided not to sit in a security council session, the Korean war started.  Basically, we would lose the right to stop other countries from uniting against us with legitimacy.  Part of the reason the UN is so stupid is because it is set up so that if any of the five superpowers doesn't support a cause, nothing is done about that cause.\n\nA US walk-out could make it a more effective body, united against the US.
690844
I really don't have an answer to your question, but I think we could go along way toward world peace by disbanding the military and just building a purely defensive force. We could protect our borders better if we concentrated our resources on protection of our own country. Things like happened on 9/11 would not be able to happen. I also think that the money saved would be better spent on the American people in need. Health care being one of my biggest issues. That being said there are to many greedy repuglicans in this country to ever happen, but it is my dream world.
1184039
Given the history of scandals within the bureaucratically bloated and inept U.N., I don't understand how ANYONE could trust the direction of these 'peace missions' to a corrupt individual like Kofi Annan?\n\nThe U.N. needs to be COMPLETELY OVERHAULED, or DISSOLVED.  Until any of those things happens, I suggest that the U.S. and its allies take a a long and scenic detour off of the U.N. 'Pretentiousness Highway'...
601080
Well, there's two ways of looking at it.\nFirstly, as you say, in an increasingly globalized world no nation--no matter how powerful or wealthy--can afford to be selfish or motivated by narrow, self-centered interests. Thus, the USA too must adapt to the new realities and requirements of this age. It must strive to be more friendly and sympathetic towards other nations and generally develop a more positive attitude in its dealings with the rest of the world.\nThe other aspect is, that all nations have their own interests at stake, ultimately. And the USA also has its interests to watch and protect. But even if this is the case, it doesnt mean that it can ride rough-shod over other nations and interfere indiscriminately in their affairs.\n There is a dire need for it to strike the right balance between (a) national self-interest and (b) global needs, concerns and relations.\nIf the US wants to play a greater, more responsible role in world politics, it should do so with legitimacy i.e., by being a part of international organizations and acting in concord with them not by trying to usurp the role of the UN or other, similar agencies.
664493
In actuality, while I agree that the UN is a very disorganized and unreliable force, I also think we need to agree that the USA has not been terribly supportive of the UN in return either (this is not a GWB thing). Every President since the inception of the UN has ignored the UN until something has come up where we can use it to embarass someone else (Suez, KAL 007 shoot down, etc). It is definitely a dysfunctional relationship from both ends.\n\nAs to making the UN relocate, that is not possible under American law. The land that the UN stands on was donated to the organization by a private philantropist, it is not public land on loan from the US government. The land and the buildings belong to the UN.\n\nSo, that is the short version of 'yes' and 'no.'
73075
I think we're seeing the trend to the opposite  because so much of the world see's the U.S. that way.  And, the U.S. citizens are not the least bit happy about being seen that way.  If we wanted to rule the world we'd probably go ahead and become aggressive toward the whole world.  Unfortunately we're wrapped up in situations like Iraq only because we made the mistake of getting involved with the middle east after world war II.  Now we're so involved we can't get out without the middle east self destructing.  We can't leave or Israel would be a parking lot. So it's those things that keep us policing the world while we all hope in vain that the U.N. will start filling it's purpose.
168869
great question, ty. The history is clear. Neocons have long wanted the USA out of the UN. They do not support peaceful contact with other Nations. The Neocons always point to the fact that we pay the most. The truth is they do not want to share any power with anyone. They also have no interest in what the other countries think or say. Neocons like Bu$h think "my way or the highway". A UN peacekeeping force could be in Iraq now (no ours) but for giving up the power and the control of oil, the wealth and the Contracts.
1156197
My understanding of the United Nations is a confederation of Nation-States who have come together to avoid violent conflict in times of political distress.\n\nAs far as it's effectiveness or lack thereof I refer to my first statement.  As a confederation most of the power still belongs to the Nation-States and therefore renders the overall body null and void.  (Example: The Iraq War was widely opposed by the UN)
502342
The U.N. stands for United Nations.\n\nThis is a replacement for The League of Nations which was an international organization founded after the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. The League's goals included disarmament; preventing war through collective security; settling disputes between countries through negotiation diplomacy; and improving global welfare. The diplomatic philosophy behind the League represented a fundamental shift in thought from the preceding hundred years. The old philosophy, growing out of the Congress of Vienna (1815), saw Europe as a shifting map of alliances among nation-states, creating a balance of power maintained by strong armies and secret agreements. Under the new philosophy, the League was a government of governments, with the role of settling disputes between individual nations in an open and legalist forum. The impetus for the founding of the League came from Democratic U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, though the United States never joined the League of Nations.\n\nThe League lacked an armed force of its own and so depended on the Great Powers to enforce its resolutions, which they were often very reluctant to do. After a number of notable successes and some early failures, the League ultimately proved incapable of preventing aggression by the Axis Powers in the 1930s. The onset of the Second World War made it clear that the League had failed in its primary purpose—to avoid any future world war. The United Nations replaced it after World War II and inherited a number of agencies and organizations founded by the League.\n\nThe United Nations (UN) is an international organization that describes itself as a "global association of governments facilitating co-operation in international law, international security, economic development, and social equity." It was founded in 1945 by 51 states, replacing The League of Nations which was founded in 1919.\n\nAs of 2006 there exist 191 United Nations member states, including virtually all internationally recognised independent nations, except Vatican City (the Holy See) (which has declined membership but is an observer state), Palestine (whose status is still one of a de facto state, and has not yet legally declared statehood), Niue (whose foreign affairs are dealt with by the New Zealand Government) and Taiwan, which has not been internationally recognised as independent or as the Republic of China (whose status as a member state was transferred to the People's Republic of China in 1971). Palestine and the Holy See both have Permanent Observer Missions to the UN.\n\nFrom its headquarters in New York City, the UN's member countries and specialised agencies give guidance and decide on substantive and administrative issues in regular meetings held throughout each year. The organisation is divided into administrative bodies, including the UN General Assembly, UN Security Council, UN Economic and Social Council, UN Trusteeship Council, UN Secretariat, and the International Court of Justice, as well as counterpart bodies dealing with the governance of all other UN system agencies, such as the WHO and UNICEF. The UN's most visible public figure is the Secretary-General.\n\nThe UN was founded after the end of World War II by the victorious world powers with the hope that it would act to prevent conflicts between nations and make future wars impossible, by fostering an ideal of collective security. The organization's structure still reflects in some ways the circumstances of its founding. For example, the five main victors of World War II are the Security Council permanent members with veto power: The United States of America, the Soviet Union (which was replaced by Russia), the United Kingdom, France, and the Republic of China (later replaced by the People's Republic of China). Writer Alistair Cooke suggested in one of his "Letter from America" radio programmes that Stalin had in fact come up with the idea of the present
540192
I would like to see the United Nations become an agency with more teeth to it. It seems that most of the time, they sit around and talk and then after a few months of "You really ought to not do this or that", they get around to discussing possible sanctions, and ask permission to go see what may be going on. They don't act with enough authority. It would appear that any court of any of it's members could do a faster job of resolving a problem. (Maybe not to every ones satisfaction.) Why does it take the U.N so long? They need to become a world court that you don't mess around with.
100744
I can't think of 1 issue where the UN has helped the US.  It always seems that the US has to force the UN to do the right thing.  After all the US human rights commitee is made up of countries like cuba & north korea.  The UN is also composed of many nations that fear freedom and democracy.  Besides, how can a gov't control its people when they have the freedom and self determination?
814237
The United Nations actively pursues anti-American policies and appeases America's enemies, while being largely funded by $3 billion worth of annual American dues. After revealing the depth of rampant corruption in the UN, it is time to recognize the changes in Old Europe and redesign America's alliances that line up with America's national interests. \n\nIf John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have their way, Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac will gain veto power over American foreign policy. Scared? You should be. It could happen. And in Inside the Asylum, former deputy undersecretary of defense Jed Babbin shows just how it could happen and why the UN deserves the nickname "The Asylum." \n\nIn the Asylum... \n\n* the UN assists international terrorists. Babbin exposes the shocking links between the UN and terrorist organizations. \n\n* The money trail from the UN to Saddam Hussein. It is time to rip the veil from the outrageous Oil-for-Food program-proving that the UN sold its moral legitimacy for oil, stuffed its own pockets at the expense of the Iraqi people, and undermined American pressure on Saddam Hussein: the UN's cash cow. The UN's Oil-for-Food program, provided Saddam Hussein with the means to bribe politicians, to deprive his people of needed food and medicine, and to literally steal billions of dollars. There is even emerging evidence that money from the program might have gone to support al-Qaeda. \n\n• The UN's raid on the American Treasury: dominated by Third World staffers who consider the United States Treasury "the common heritage of mankind." Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, is an anti-American moral relativist who misses no opportunity to arrogate power from the United States to the UN. \n\n* The United Nations and the European Union are morally bankrupt-and open enemies of the United States. France and the United Nations have cost American lives in Iraq by their perverse delaying of American action in the Iraq War. American troops are fighting and dying today because of a terrorist strategy Saddam Hussein developed while France and the United Nations delayed Operation Iraqi Freedom. \n\nThe UN is more of an international criminal than a dispenser of legitimate international law. If America wants to retain its sovereignty and security, it's time to escape from the UN asylum and say goodbye to the false friends of Old Europe. We owe no tribute to the UN and the EU, We should not be ashamed and divided to look after our own defense." \n\nThe United Nations building in Manhattan is an international enclave, no longer American territory. Inside the Asylum is a powerful argument that it's time to reclaim that land for America.
1050802
The UN, while noble in its conception, is an abject failure in its function and should be dissolved.
852408
No, it was a good idea because it will eventually (though not intentionally) lead to the break up of the Union. This will mean that that the constitute countries will be free.
659820
Hands off. We are not the worlds moral police. That's the UN's job. Take care of America first.
243266
The United Nations is weak, indeed. The weakness of the organization stems from the widespread corruption throughout its ranks.\n\nMany of the UN's poorer members (as well as many of its socialist members) view it as an opportunity for wealth redistribution. Take a look at the amount of money contributed by each member nation versus the benefits received by each member nation. I am not saying that helping poorer countries is bad. Indeed, every nation should help out as much as they can. However, help should be voluntary and not forced through the United Nations.\n\nMany top individuals are corrupt, including the Secretary General. If you think the US government is corrupt regarding some of the defense no-bid contracts, you should look up what goes on in the United Nations. Not only are no-bid contracts common, NOBODY can summon the records. When an investigation becomes necessary, it is always conducted by UN members who find no wrongdoing. The company that Kofi Annan's son works for received numerous such contracts.\n\nThese are things that I certainly DO NOT want my tax dollars paying for.\n\nNOTE FOR EMILYROSE: An organization for peace is certainly a worthy goal. But when diplomatic options have failed, the UN has shown in recent history that they have nothing to back up their resolutions. Iraq thumbed its nose at the UN for a decade before something was done - and it wasn't the UN that did it. Countless resolutions regarding the Palestinian state and Israel have been passed (some for and some against each state). Each government laughs them off. Iran is now thumbing its nose at the UN. We'll see what happens. If the United Nations is not willing to go to war to back up the resolutions of the international community, they should disband and all go home because nothing will ever get accomplished. Kind of like what is happening now.