Shouldn't we fire the UN?

http://www.getusout.org

 

You might like this program:

http://theamericanview.com/index.php?id=333

By the way, it is the very institution that is the problem, not the track record.
There should be no UN period.

 

The United States, Israel, and a few other nations should pull out of the United Nations. We should then give them 30 days to vacate the building in New York and for all of their non-American employees to leave United States territory. At the end of the 30 days the building, and its grounds, should be sold to a private developer. Maybe then that building could be turned into a hotel or something useful.

 

The building is in expensive need of repairs and updating to which millions of US tax dollars have been allocated. So, it is not suitable for a hotel or something else.

 

If sold to a private developer they could tear it down and build a nice structure in its place.

 

Good idea. Send the ambassadors home, blow the place up, build a public park. Erase every trace. No plaques, no memorial speeches. Just boot it out of here.

 

I think we need a place where we can discuss differences rather than go to war over them. Evidently Bush would rather go to war so abolishing the U.N. is popular among his far right supporters.

 

And ignoring the many, obviuos problems the U.N. has is popular among the left. So is the false assessment that our enemies are willing to talk.

 

SAN,

If you have paid attention to the "far right", you know a lot of folks on the Right have been for doing away with the UN for a long time, it has nothing to do with Bush or the war.

IMO, we should keep it as I agree it is good to have a forum for nations to come together but we should have no illusions about it. We should also:

--scale our financial contributions way back. The UN has become a forum for a bunch of dictators to trash the US. Let them (or someone else, I don't care who) foot more of the bill.

--get out of the Commission on Human Rights, which welcomes such as Sudan, Libya, and Cuba to judge our behavior.

--rely more on bilateral and multilateral agreements and be careful of such "international conventions" as the LOST and any other such agreements that impact our sovereign rights on our territory, as well as any that might impact our liberties.

--reduce support for its military operations. If they want to contract it out to the US and are willing to pay us (out of their, not our own) pockets, we can talk about it.

 

JB,

I respect your view on this and my heart is with you, but I think it's good to have an international forum. Now, how much good it does is another question. I am glad that we have someone like John Bolton, and had a Jeane Kirkpatrick there who refuse to let the U.S. be a doormat to the world.

It's certainly not the only forum and I think it is probably better to look more to regional organizations (such as ASEAN, ANZUS, NATO, etc) for regional stability. And we should not be overly optimistic about outcomes at the UN. I also think it is good, though, to be able to have a Security Council stamp of approval in responding to threats to international peace, stability, or human rights but it should by no means be a show stopper to unilateral actions when that is the best course of action or when we need to be concerned about operational security prior to conducting a military operation.

 

If you love war so much why don't you enlist?

 

JB,

Well, you've got me there. The pat, liberal internationalist answer would be that it has gotten us "peace". Well, of course, that's poppycock. I think that it has produced some fairly successful peacekeeping missions, such as the one in the Sinai several years ago but I certainly understand that a huge reason for that success is that Americans were so heavily involved there. I don't know that if on balance it is a plus but, with some reforms it could at least be, perhaps, less of a bust. Cutting its funding way back so that international diplomats aren't living high on the hog in NYC on the US taxpayer's dime is a start. Also, though I believe in diplomatic immunity, there should be some way of cutting back on abuse, such as the abuse of parking in New York. Perhaps the city should be able to present a bill to the UN for parking tickets, then those charges should be assessed against the offending country, holding the country rather than the individual diplomat responsible for paying, then it's up to that country to hold their representative accountable. Just a thought.

Back to your question, though, I can't offer up much. I think it does give smaller nations a "place at the table" though I understand a practical question is "Why?"

Also, while I don't believe that foreign aid should be directly and proportionally affected by other nations' votes in the UN, the worst offenders should understand there are practical effects to their supporting us or opposing us in such fora and that we don't see much benefit, sometimes, in subsidizing snotnose brats.

 

I served, July '79 to July '83, under Carter & Reagan, recieved the Navy Expeditionary Medal for our actions in the Persian Gulf, & Lebanon.

Next ? I like debating with you.

 

SAN, did you serve in the military or do you require that only the other side do so?

 

And just how does being against the U.N. mean I love war ?

 

BC, dontcha get it--if it weren't for the UN we would be facing perpetual war. Get with the (Left) program!