Should the US pull out of UN?

Since the US backs up almost everyone in the world, i think the US should pull out of UN. Why u ask?

Well first off, the US tries to help everyone in the world and somehow.......they dont appreciate our help? :banghead: :sly:
I mean come on.....the US....the richest country in the world is trying to help the ragtag countries and wat do they do....they start shooting people. WTF

Take Iraq. We came in. We got stupid Saddam and his cronies. We liberate the people. And wat do some of them do??? They fuck with us.

And if u do the research, we liberated Afghanistan in the 80's and the fucked with us too.

Thats just my opinion.

You are an idiot plain and simple. Get your "facts" straight.

1. The US isn't the richest country in the world. Ranked number one would be Luxembourg (based on DGP per capita). The Us is ranked 3rd.
2. Those "ragtag" countries have more issues now then they did before the US "saviours" came and "helped" them.
3. The US is fucking with the world...keep fucking with them and expect the same back.

The only reason i think that way is because the US is what i believe the back bone of the UN.

Hey man...sorry if i offend u.

The only reason i think that way is because the US is what i believe the back bone of the UN.

Hey man...sorry if i offend u.
Your beliefs aren't necessarily the truth. If you would be less of a racist and not refer to the middle-eastern culture as a bunch of ragheads then maybe you'd get more respect around here. I'm assuming that yuo only hear one half of thestory about the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. If you do some more research then maybe you wouldn't be so over confident that the US is so sacred.

The US vetos or ignores UN decisions that it disagrees with, while using its influence wherever possible to get what it wants from other members.It's history of paying its dues to the organisation has been sketchy to say the least,and quite frankly the current US misadministration was the kind of pariah that that the UN was supposed to protect the world from.

Well first off, the US tries to help everyone in the world and somehow.......they dont appreciate our help?
I mean come on.....the US....the richest country in the world is trying to help the ragtag countries and wat do they do....they start shooting people. WTF

Take Iraq. We came in. We got stupid Saddam and his cronies. We liberate the people. And wat do some of them do??? They fuck with us.

And if u do the research, we liberated Afghanistan in the 80's and the fucked with us too.


If you genuinely believe that, then you'd be justified in pulling out of the UN.You'd be gloriously unaware of the truth, but your reasoning would be sound.Regardless of that, the end result would still be acceptable.The UN was established to act in the best interests of the world. Clearly, the present US administration isn't interested in taking part. If the US wishes to pick and choose which UN policies it supports, it may as well not bother with membership. Curiously, the world does NOT revolve around Washington,and it would not be the end of the world if Bush and his clowns were kicked out of the civilised world.

The original topic is sound. The US should leave the UN and the UN is should feel free to head out of the US, but as long as they pay the rent, NY City can be whatever kind of landlord they want to be.

Don't pay much attention to Raz, he sees racist claims in everything. You say RAGTAG he sees RAGHEAD. Just a sad little boy looking for something that isn't there.

The UN is falling apart at the seams and its been long overdue.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

I think Raz has far better grasp of the situation than the original poster, seeing as his father was part of the army of the afore mentioned "ragtag" country.

Since the US backs up almost everyone in the world, i think the US should pull out of UN. Why u ask?

Well first off, the US tries to help everyone in the world and somehow.......they dont appreciate our help? :banghead: :sly:
I mean come on.....the US....the richest country in the world is trying to help the ragtag countries and wat do they do....they start shooting people. WTF

Take Iraq. We came in. We got stupid Saddam and his cronies. We liberate the people. And wat do some of them do??? They fuck with us.

And if u do the research, we liberated Afghanistan in the 80's and the fucked with us too.

Thats just my opinion.

Ignorance at its finest.

But I agree with Naki, the US doesnt listen to the UN, and chooses to do what it wants, with or without UN support, so we really have no right to be a member anyway.

Now you're talking. We don't deserve to be a member. Stop all payments and withdraw all diplomatic credentials from anyone who comes to the UN from a foreign country. They can feel free to leave or negotiate their rent with the city of New York.

Not a tear will be shed when it enters the dustbin.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

And maybe after we leave the UN we can convicne other countries to do the same thing, then we can form alliances with them saying that if they go to war we will go to war too!

The reason why people in Iraq will attack the US troops is because not everyone wants to be "liberated" Everyone will never be in complete agreement when it comes to national policies...at least not until the entire world becomes communist, Marx said it, it must be true! Lets start a revolution!!!

Im kidding by the way.

The US doesn't adhere to UN guidelines when they're issued, which shows an arrogant, self righteous face to the rest of the world. If you're not going to accept the decisions of a "club" you're in, leave the club.

So on that basis, the US should leave the UN.

On the other hand, that would be a bad thing in the long run. I think that most of us agree that the UN is broken, (for various reasons stated in other posts) and that a new organization is needed. In that respect, the US should NOT leave the UN, but rather work to remove it and build a new and better organization.

There are serious moves afoot to revise both the role of the UN, and the way it does its business.Those who are calling for its abolition have nothing to gain from doing so, and quite a bit to lose.I'm sure that the city of New York would not want lose all of the business generated within its boundaries by the presence of thousands of people in a single location.

Frankly, the arguments about whether or not the US should be part of the world communtiy are only relevant because there is a faint possibility that the current administration might possibly be senseless enough to try and do it.However, I'm confident that if they were, the Democrat government that would llandslide in on the back of that and other stupid decisions would quite rightly reverse it.

That's what I was trying to say; simply leaving the UN in this day and age would be foolish; isolationism just isn't possible any more.

As with most bureacracy, it's usually easier to get rid of it and start anew, than to modify it. I'm sure that the "big 5" members of the UN would resist, veto, and otherwise quash any attempt to make all the members equal. The UN should be a reflection of humankind, all members equal, not 5 members having quite a bit more say-so than others.

The UN certainly didn't do a thing about Rwanda and now more nothing about the Sudan. So what's the point of all the high and mighty idealisms in their charter?

Truth be told, most Americans didn't give a fuck and a half about Rwanda and Sudan and any U.N. action/inaction in those countries before the organization condemned and criticized U.S. actions in Iraq. Now the atrocities in those countries are suddenly being used as a lame excuse as to why we should pull out by the most NOBLE citizens. Time to stop acting like babies- don't try to change the rules, criticize the referee or leave the game because it doesn't always go your way...

US= Police of the world
UN= Monday morning quarterbacks

You can't win a war that the other side is not participating in.

BUT...

We the people should not have to endure the constant bashing we get from other countries that we support financially and with a military presence. If it wasn't for our grandfathers most of the english speaking world would be speaking GERMAN instead.

You can't wni a war based on lies while deceiving the world that your money hungry agenda is all in the name of freedom.

We the people should not have to endure the constant bashing we get from other countries that we support financially and with a military presence. If it wasn't for our grandfathers most of the english speaking world would be speaking GERMAN instead.

Yes wh should. We the people have created a country that is hated and despised worldwide, so we deserve any spite that comes our way.

We (well not me, but a lot of people) helped to elect a president in the US that without hesitation violated international law by aggressively invading Afghanistan and especially Iraq. Bush and other US leaders are war crimnals under that same international law. What international law you say? Those of the UN. Funny thing is, we playes a large role in establishing those laws following WWII (think Nuremberg). Once those laws actually apply to us, who gives a crap what the UN thinks. Ahh, the hypocisy of the situation...beautiful.

So yes, the US should be kicked out of the UN or at least lose permanent securit council standing. And Bush, Rumsfeld, Franks, etc... should stand trial as war criminals.

Truth be told, most Americans didn't give a fuck and a half about Rwanda and Sudan and any U.N. action/inaction in those countries before the organization condemned and criticized U.S. actions in Iraq. Now the atrocities in those countries are suddenly being used as a lame excuse as to why we should pull out by the most NOBLE citizens. Time to stop acting like babies- don't try to change the rules, criticize the referee or leave the game because it doesn't always go your way...

Are you really that shallow? The same people who don't give a fuck about those countries also don't give a fuck about the UN - either before or after the UNs criticism.

The UN has been a failure of near biblical proportions. They stand aside while hundreds of thousands are slaughtered. They send in troops who rape children. Their claim to fame is passing resolution after resolution that does nothing more then keep Xerox busy.

Its pathetic that anyone would stand behind this second go around of the League of Nations. Its structurally unsound and not a single one of the reforms its cheif fuckwit has offered will do anything to address it. Every single one of the reforms just adds to the bureaucracy. It could do nothing before - how in the hell is adding more going to turn this paper pushing, genocide watching, and cowardly bunch of political hacks into anything useful. It won't. Its dieing and it doesn't have the leadership or internal structure to save itself.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Yogs- i don't know about you but I've been hearing folks mentions how the UN is useless for decades- well before Rwanda. There is even and old saying from at least the late 1960s "Get US out of the UN."


For an organization like the UN to actually work all the players have to acknowledge that they'll play by the rules. Unfortunately those that conspire to commit genocide do not play by rules.

Those new to this controversay imagine incorrectly that the general feeling of uselessness of the UN by most people is linked to some current event when in truth I've heard the same basic "the UN sucks" for 40+ years.

In the other thread, Yogs, 100% of the people are concerned for one woman's welfare in most compassionate ways yet we're told that no one in the country cares about the Sudanese? Very sad, bitter and pessimistic point of view, huh?

Diversion from the point in an attempt to headline a totally unconnected agenda like Iraq is senseless.
The fact remains- what are they going to do about genocide in Sudan?

For an organization like the UN to actually work all the players have to acknowledge that they'll play by the rules.

^^^ABSOLUTELY! This is apparently far beyond the abilities of the Bush administration. Focusing solely on the failures of an organization in order to detract from and/or veil one's own shameful, illegal and unilateral agenda is the true diversion here...

And Yogs- you tell me U.N. peacekeepers are all rapists (a glaring generalization, by the way), I can counter with any number of appalling stories involving American soldiers. Choose any conflict you like.

You want to convince me the U.N. is cautious and cowardly. I say the U.S. is reckless and arrogant.

The U.N. "stands aside" and thousands are slaughtered while the U.S. invades at will and slaughters thousands.

Faults abound. Those in glass houses...

Truth be told, most Americans didn't give a fuck and a half about Rwanda and Sudan

Truth be told, neither did anyone else in the world except those imediately affected.

OK. Suddenly then, the issue that nobody in the world cared about (which is bullshit, by the way) is a very serious point of concern for the U.N. critics here. Why such an abrupt shift in interest? DGB- I didn't see you or any of the other Bush-backers wailing about the cruelties in question until AFTER the U.N. condemnation of the war. Nobody was here demanding U.S. and U.N. intervention or carping about their impotence in those countries until AFTER their condemnation of the Bush administration's actions. It's a completely transparent and ridiculous effort. Some people are far better at making excuses than contributing or, god forbid, admitting fault. The U.S., a country where the sun gloriously shines out of the almighty President's ass, couldn't possibly be wrong in action or principle- let's blame the U.N., eh? :disappoin

ANother thought on the purpose of the UN- back in the 50s we all saw it as a confusing contradiction of the job that the Red Cross does. The UN horned into the food and medicine distribution business that the Red Cross was already in. Any reference to them actually doing anything substantial as a "peace-keeping force" was never taken seriously by the public at the time. Until the end of the Sovs as a military power no one could picture UN guys doing much of anything against them to "keep them in line" at all. The height of the Cold War was quite a different time than today, of course.

I never said everyone in the UN were rapist nor did I imply that they were. They did send troops to the Congo. They raped the women and set up a pedophile ring. What has the UN done to redress the issue? Holy cow! They had resolution and we all know what those mean.

So far the best defense for the UN is that they make some of the same mistakes the US has. Wow - you guys are really making the case for how needed the UN is. There is not a single function that they accomplish that can't be done without the beuracracy they're perfecting to an art form.

RSX - you must have a hard-on for the President. You keep trying to relate your percieved failings of his administration to the how we view the UN. They are not related. It doesn't matter who the president is/was. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Kennedy - it doesn't matter, the UN is a failure on its own.

I didn't see you or any of the other Bush-backers wailing about the cruelties in question until AFTER the U.N. condemnation of the war.

Your inability to read it doesn't make it true. I've been pointing out the failures of the UN for a couple decades (and since I've joined this board). Many others have as well. It seems that you just didn't notice until the UN's stance on Iraq coincided with your own.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Yogs- you know that about says it all. Every topic discussed here gets turned into something about Bush or something bad about America. I've begun ignoring certain people's posts since they are usually just "damn Bush" or some similar predictable substitute with no redeeming content whatsoever. Bush is responsible for everything bad that happens anywhere, huh?


Someone always horns in to hijack a topic and pervert the original theme as though all of the world's ills are traceable to 2 causes. It's just so transparent that it's nothing more than an agenda to perpetuate negativity for the sake of negativity with things US as the scapegoat. And of course vile language and name calling has to be used about Bush, Blair or whatever topic principal for the shock value since coherent verbal communication is beyond some that come here.

Well, everything IS Bush's fault.










Isn't it?










:lol2:

So far the best defense for the UN is that they make some of the same mistakes the US has. Wow - you guys are really making the case for how needed the UN is. There is not a single function that they accomplish that can't be done without the beuracracy they're perfecting to an art form.

So they make the same mistakes the U.S. does, but they certainly don't storm foriegn countries on a whim. What the U.N. symbolizes (faults and all), and what it means to cooperate with our world neighbors is something we should never toss aside. Bush is a fool for doing so. Anyone who believes as he does is being incredibly short-sighted.

RSX - you must have a hard-on for the President. You keep trying to relate your percieved failings of his administration to the how we view the UN. They are not related. It doesn't matter who the president is/was. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Kennedy - it doesn't matter, the UN is a failure on its own.

I simply have an aversion to bullshit. To be fair, shouldn't I be the one asking why you all have a hard on for the man? Nothing is a failure if you're willing to work at it- and the U.S. is not- we want what we want when we want it. God help you if you get in our way. And I don't think it's out of line to think that the right is pissed because they percieve the U.N. as a roadblock. Turns out the U.N. was absolutely right when they rejected the idea of WMDs in Iraq. The U.S. was dead wrong. What's worse they were dead wrong in front of a world audience. Best way to save face is to deflect their own incompetence. Dare I suggest that the people who believe (as Bush does), that the U.N. should serve our agenda, are the same people who are constantly bitching when, historically, they fail to do so?


Your inability to read it doesn't make it true. I've been pointing out the failures of the UN for a couple decades (and since I've joined this board). Many others have as well. It seems that you just didn't notice until the UN's stance on Iraq coincided with your own.

I imagine you fall into the above-mentioned category. But more accurately, I didn't notice until certain members, who seem to take a sick pride in showing a complete disregard for the welfare and safety of non-Americans, suddenly became quite concerned about the goings-on in two African countries. Especially when the events in question can be used to back their viewpoint...

OK. Suddenly then, the issue that nobody in the world cared about (which is bullshit, by the way)
Prove it. While you're at it prove that no one in the U.S. cares.

is a very serious point of concern for the U.N. critics here. Why such an abrupt shift in interest?
I don't critisize the UN. Frankly I don't care one way or the other about it.

DGB- I didn't see you or any of the other Bush-backers

You're barking up the wrong tree again. I'm not a Bush backer. I'm also not a US basher.


wailing about the cruelties in question until AFTER the U.N. condemnation of the war.
Wrong again. I don't think we should be in this war either.

Nobody was here demanding U.S. and U.N. intervention or carping about their impotence in those countries until AFTER their condemnation of the Bush administration's actions.

Again...I could care less about the UN or anything they collectively put out.

It's a completely transparent and ridiculous effort. Some people are far better at making excuses than contributing or, god forbid, admitting fault.

If you had your facts straight about the people you set out to try and belittle then I may be willing to admit fault. But as it stands I see no fault to admit to in any of my statements.

The U.S., a country where the sun gloriously shines out of the almighty President's ass, couldn't possibly be wrong in action or principle- let's blame the U.N., eh? :disappoin


I'm not sure where you live (nor do I care) but from where I stand the sun gloriously shines down on this great country from the sky.
Blame the U.N.? Sure why not. Close them or keep them open makes no difference. They are of little use.

You apparently care so little about anything that you feel compelled to argue everything...to the sentence fragment...

Well I have to agrue with the material I'm given. Sometimes it's good material and sometimes it's not.

Don't mistake my not caring about the U.N. or you for not caring about anything. I care about what is important to my life.
I see no value in the U.N. other than spending money in N.Y.

"Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Kennedy - it doesn't matter, the UN is a failure on its own." -Yogs. I've lived through all those administrations and it's a fact. Associating Bush is with the UN's faults is the same tired equivalent tactic people have done since Kennedy! It just never ends. It's so lame and predictable.

I stated "The fact remains- what are they going to do about genocide in Sudan?" and got unrelated crap on Bush. Seems no one cares to speculate what the wonderful UN should do. It's more volitile to spew propaganda about Bush. Then someone will argue as the devil rubs his hands in glee.

What should the UN do? Disband.

Then we can form a truly egalitarian international organization where there aren't 5 club members that can poo-poo anything they want to.

An organization with some real authority.