U.N. - U.S. = ?

[Anime Elf]

How do you guys feel about the U.N. and the U.S. relationship now and how would you feel if the U.S. pulled out?

Personally, I think that the U.N. really doesn't do all that much, mostly just going to talk to people and try to get them to stop fighting, mostly depending on a small number of countries like the U.S., England, and Australia, etc. to actually enforce things. In addition, while it's good that all the countries in the United Nations are represented, I don't think that every single country should have equal representation (I do know about the "big five") because not every country is affected the same way by U.N. policies, not every country is the same size, not every country provides the same funding, etc. In addition, I think that the U.N. hasn't always agreed with the U.S. even though it has asked the U.S. to give more money/support/etc. only many occasions. The U.S. is the largest contributor. Don't try and take money from while bossing around one of the biggest members.

Anyhoo, what do you think the U.N. would be without the U.S.? Better? Worse? Would America be better or worse off withdrawing from the U.N.?

[Albert Flasher]

[FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=Sienna]If you think that all the UN does is Peacekeeping than this conversation is already over.[/COLOR][/FONT]

[Leofski]

Contributions are based on national income, therefore it makes sense that the U.S is the largest contributor. The point of this system is that most of the money comes from those who earn more, like most western countries tax systems. Who did you think would be the largest contributor? Ethiopia?

It's sort of like how theoretically even if you pay more tax than anyone else you still have to listen to the government.

[Raiyuu]

[color=DarkGreen][font=Trebuchet MS][quote name='Anime Elf][/font][/color]Personally, I think that the U.N. really doesn't do all that much, mostly just going to talk to people and try to get them to stop fighting...[color=DarkGreen'][font=Trebuchet MS][/quote] Besides the fact that the U.N. does much more than just that, why are you belittling an organisation that tries to solve international conflicts through peaceful negotiation? Even if that [b]were [/b]all that the U.N. did, that would still be an important enough task to warrant its existence.

Also note, U.N. = United Nations, not America And Those Other Guys America Gets To Boss Around. A.A.T.O.G.A.G.T.B.A. is such an ugly acronym.
[/font][/color]

[Anime Elf]

Peaceful negotiations don't always work, but there's already another thread about pacifism. The U.N. troops are troops sent by nations who volunteer troops, the U.N. is not some world government that has its own resources. It's a group that many of the world's nations have joined to act almost like a peaceful police force for the rest of the world, and while that's not all they do, it's a big part of it.

My main beef with the U.N. is that the nations will rag on the U.S., not support their actions, criticize America, and still expect them to write a check. That's some twisted logic. That's like if we were in a club, and you gave the most money and were the strongest, but me and a bunch of other members criticized almost everything you did and still expected you to do contribute more than anyone else. Not to mention that despite being the biggest contributor and strongest member, you're expected to be equal with the littlest guys who will criticize you and still expect help when they need it.

And while I know that the U.N. does not stand for the U.S. and friends, how well would the U.N. work if you removed the United States from it completely?

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations]United Nations[/url]. Pretty much everything you need to know about the United Nations, it's history and seemingly most importantly it's methods of finance. Personally I've always viewed the U.N. as a very good thing, as often it's attempts to settle conflicts through peaceful diplomacy are successful. As Raiyuu pointed out, the very fact that it attempts to settle conflict through words rather than some other nations more war-like attitudes is enough to deserve existence in the modern world.

Sure the United Nations isn't perfect, but I don't think there's a single organisation of it's size and scope that's perfect and at the end of the day it's just trying to make the world a better place for everyone. If the United States were to pull out of the U.N., while it would cause financial problems I'm sure they could be overcome eventually. I think it's rather foolish for any one nation to think that they are the sole source of power in the U.N. [/SIZE]

[Starwind]

I'm gonna have to say that the UN is in fact very important in the world we live in. The US is not the only nation that holds power. There are five permanent memebers and they each have the power of veto and can hold just as much control over the council as the US could.

The UN right now is in the process of analyzing this worlds greatest military threat, Iran. That's right, Iran has been declared a rogue nation and is rebeling against the US and the UN. But two of the permanent members of the security council, namely Russia and China, are using there power of veto to keep them from appearing before the council. These two nations have close economic ties to Iran, so the odds of them allowing Iran to face the council, which could result in political and economic sanctions, is silm.

The point is, the US is not holding tyranical control over the UN. It is even spread power, even though the US is the biggest contributor. And that's okay, because there shouldn't be anyone nation in control, regardless of there economic status. Would we be in the US be better off without the UN? I would think not. But that's just me. Would the UN be better off without the US? Definitly not. People need to stop veiwing the UN as the US's board of associates, and start seeing the fact is that the US in not very high in regard. At least not more then the other four permanent members.

[Retribution]

[quote name='Starwind']The UN right now is in the process of analyzing this worlds greatest military threat, Iran. That's right, Iran has been declared a rogue nation and is rebeling against the US and the UN. But two of the permanent members of the security council, namely Russia and China, are using there power of veto to keep them from appearing before the council. These two nations have close economic ties to Iran, so the odds of them allowing Iran to face the council, which could result in political and economic sanctions, is silm.[/quote]
[size=1]I wholeheartedly agree that the UN is very important in this day and age. Surprisingly enough, I agree with almost everything you said.

However, I always thought that China and North Korea were larger military threats than Iran. China would probably wipe the floor with America in a land-oriented battle, due to their heavily superior numbers. Although America does have superior technology, there's only so much you could do against a D-Day invasion of something like LA by the Chinese. I also thought that North Korea was a huge threat due to their posession of nuclear weapons and willingness to use them.

I might be wrong, though. I haven't read any real statistics.[/size]

[Albert Flasher]

[QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]I wholeheartedly agree that the UN is very important in this day and age. Surprisingly enough, I agree with almost everything you said.

However, I always thought that China and North Korea were larger military threats than Iran. China would probably wipe the floor with America in a land-oriented battle, due to their heavily superior numbers. Although America does have superior technology, there's only so much you could do against a D-Day invasion of something like LA by the Chinese. I also thought that North Korea was a huge threat due to their posession of nuclear weapons and willingness to use them.

I might be wrong, though. I haven't read any real statistics.[/size][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=Sienna][FONT=Times New Roman]
Well, just for the record, China and Korea are relativly harmless to the direct North American landmass... China has over a million soldiers but they have no way of moving them (especially across the Atlantic Ocean) and many of them are armed with weapons that predate the M1 Garand. They'd be completely outclassed but any army in the West. Yes, even France :animesmil

As for Korea they really can't do much with their nukes... yes they have them but they're also relativily primative, and are most likely a big bluff... they know if they use them it's full-scale invasion and obliteration. Even then the nukes would be picked off in the high atmosphere by sophisticated missile defenses. I'm not a nuclear expert or anything, but I think that the Nukes wont explode unless they're detonated by the detonators, but I could be wrong, so detonating them in mid-air would make them relativly harmless.

Er, that was a bit off topic...[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=Ziggy Stardust][COLOR=Sienna][FONT=Times New Roman]
Well, just for the record, China and Korea are relativly harmless to the direct North American landmass... China has over a million soldiers but they have no way of moving them (especially across the Atlantic Ocean) and many of them are armed with weapons that predate the M1 Garand. They'd be completely outclassed but any army in the West. Yes, even France :animesmil [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

You are quite correct Ziggy. The best predictions for a conventional war see China losing air superiority and naval superiority. Its own nuclear arsenal (thanks to a generous donation by the Clinton administration, yes? Clinton?s boys gave China missile designs capable of hitting the U.S. west coast now!) would probably be demolished and rendered ineffectual using Patriot missiles (they were made before the patriot act). The weapons and training of the U.S. military is really the finest. I would think a conventional war would be preferred.

Oh, and I think China would need to concern itself in crossing the Pacific? before thinking about the Atlantic. ^_^

[QUOTE=Ziggy Stardust][COLOR=Sienna][FONT=Times New Roman]
As for Korea they really can't do much with their nukes... yes they have them but they're also relativily primative, and are most likely a big bluff... they know if they use them it's full-scale invasion and obliteration. Even then the nukes would be picked off in the high atmosphere by sophisticated missile defenses. I'm not a nuclear expert or anything, but I think that the Nukes wont explode unless they're detonated by the detonators, but I could be wrong, so detonating them in mid-air would make them relativly harmless.

Er, that was a bit off topic...[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

North Korea wouldn?t attack the U.S. first. North Korea wants South Korea. North Korea can?t invade South Korea, because [i]China[/i] knows that if NK does, there will be a full blown conflict with the U.S. that may draw China and the U.S into conflict. China, and its booming economy, can?t afford that.

I think the U.S. should withdraw a some portion of its involvement in the United Nations. The UN is often treated like a senatorial body, whereas I believe it should be more equivalent to a house of representatives. Not only has the UN been ineffectual in keeping peace, and halting world genocides (they have, I?m just assuming no one is going to be foolish enough to argue this- so I?ll hold of on examples for now); but when it is somewhat effective, who?s soldiers go into combat? U.S, UK, and to a lesser degree French and Australian soldiers. I can?t help but feel like the UN [i]uses[/i] our nation with little gain on the part of the American people.

When it comes down to baseline arguments, our government doesn?t have any real obligation to the UN; it has an obligation to its citizens and the maintaining of their constitutional rights. So when the US makes unilateral decisions for the sake of its people; I think her sovereignty can speak for itself. I ask anybody to name another country that is expected as much to put her own sovereign issues aside for the sake of other nations. In reality, aren?t those nations acting in the best interests of their [i]own[/i] people as well?

[Starwind]

In all honesty, the UN is important, and it helps keep a peaceful understanding between it's member states if nothing else. At this point I think the US needs to stay strong nad hold it's stance with the UN. Do I believe we should be spending more time on bettering the lives on our own shores? Absolutly. But that doesn't mean I think we should ignore the rest of the world.

As a nation we need to come together and see the rest of the world and recognize the true threats to our world, ones that can only be dealt with using force. And those that can be solved diplomatically.

Recently the US recieved yet another video message from Osama Bin Laden, the scum of the earth in this, and every other soilders mind, pleading a truce between the two of us. Let me further elaborate, first in the video he claimed they had other attacks planed on us, then he said he wanted to make a truce. All I have to say to that is "Not a chance in Hell." Terrorism is in fact a problem that only force can solve, it's the simple fact for the matter.

I believe that we can settle our problems with China diplomatically, without having to go to war with them. In short, the UN does serve a purpose, and even if it's not perfect, it still his leaving an impact. Most people usually don't see it because they simply ignore the diplomatic and international world, and simply wait for the next televised blood bath. American audiences are anxiously awaiting Vietnam 2. And no, Iraq is in no way like Vietnam.

[Delta]

[COLOR=#790A43][quote name='Anime Elf']How do you guys feel about the U.N. and the U.S. relationship now and how would you feel if the U.S. pulled out?[/quote]
The UN-US bond is a tad shaky and there are times when they stand on fundamentally different grounds, but they always kiss and make up at the end of the day. They got through the whole WMD inspection shebang early this decade, yeah?

If the U.S. withdrew its membership, the UN'll still be UN. Though the withdrawal won't probably please the logistics department, the remaining 190 nations will still maintain the amity UN built up among them and good relations with the US, of course.

What I think about the UN is it's this mother-figure type to all them 191 member-nations. It's the one international organization that everybody calls on to when they need help (and even if a nation doesn't call for help, UN sends help anyway). If you don't want like the idea of it being a political body, at least think of it as an express delivery service for aid.

[COLOR=#559EEB]Hurray for UN blue![/COLOR] (it's a lovely shade, don't you think?)[/COLOR]