Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a debate page, not an article.
Opinions are welcome. Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.

Post Your Thoughts


I think the belief that the UN is "ineffective" or "doesnt do anything" is a real disservice to the interests of the United States. In point of fact, the UN does a lot. And almost all of it is detrimental to us in the long run. Feel free to call me a jingoist or whatever other petty names you've got in your arsenal. I have nothing against the European nations, nor any other region of the world. But the UN isn't bleeding those nations dry. It isn't pointin the finger of blame at them needlessly (Kyoto Accords, anyone?). The UN has become an anchor around our neck. Its time we stop paying these crooked politicians' speeding tickets and get them out of New York. Unless they want to pay rent. We've got enough homegrown crooked politicians, thanks. UN out of the US, US out of the UN. (I'm sure Canada would be glad to have you. They prefer talking about whats right to fighting for whats right as well)


YES YES YES PhilipB 12:24, 14 December 2006 (EST)

I agree....what a powerless waste of time! David R

Assuming arguendo that the United Nations is actually an effective organization, it’s still pernicious. The underlying theory that the UN is built upon is that the world can achieve peace, security and prosperity through unified world government; however, that logic completely contradicts the principle of separation of powers. In America, the way that separate, but equal branches of government check and balance each other is one of the greatest strengths of our system of government. The checks and balances in our system of government are quite effective at preventing any faction of the government from gaining absolute power and behaving tyrannically. By unifying national governments, the UN takes a large step towards abolishing the separation of powers that truly creates peace, security, and prosperity. EWJ

Because our government is so effective at getting things done!
Since everyone knows that the cold war was actually a peaceful time without the threat of war. That was a time filled with nations checking and balancing each other. Rellik 19:44, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Yeah, only the US can keep the rest of the world from messing up. Next time, let's invade Europe. Silly Eurotrash. :)

Yes - that way the back dues owed to the UN can be conveniently swept under the rug. Niwrad 04:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes they should leave because they are a homicidal waste of space thats only interested in furthering its own ends. they dont even seem to realise that europe is a continant and they would be invading more countries than they could cope with. JontheHungry 06:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)JontheHungryJontheHungry 06:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, that's a really helpful remark. And while you're sniping at Americans, you could stand to improve your own spelling skills. It's 'continent', not 'contenant'. It would also help if you learned to properly apply basic punctuation as well. At last but certainly not least, at least have the guts to sign your entries - put four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments; that appends your username and a date/time stamp. Niwrad 22:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

there you go you ego inflated right wing extremist. Is that any better? and i dont see what my spelling has to do with anything really. I mean my point got across didnt it? and did you also fail to realise that people are sniping at europeans (like my self) and no one batters an eyelid? probably not because it is not in your ideological peripheral vision. JontheHungry 06:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)JontheHungryJontheHungry 06:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Emphatic yes. I personally view the UN as a socialist world organization which stands against everything that America stands for. It is positively sick that we are involved with such an organization which seeks to destroy our freedoms of assembly, expression, and self-defense. --Blu Aardvark 09:11, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Let me remind you that the first attempts at world unification, the League on Nations, did not include the U.S. Look how well that turned out! (WW2, anybody?) The U.S. is a FOUNDING MEMBER of the UN. It sits on the P5, giving it nukes. It can veto countries from actually becoming countries (Palestine, anybody?) Pulling out, besides making it look weak and idiotic, would send the world in turmoil, WW3 maybe, definitely a giant arms race, genocide, weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. would be soooooo much better off! CSargent 14:24, 9 December 2011 (EST)

Kofi Annan should have been fired for incompetence long ago! And John Bolton was the most awesome U.S. rep we've ever had. But yes, the U.N. Tower of Babble is a royal waste of time and money. They solve nothing and just blame the U.S. for everything. -Jesus

Absolutely yes! The UN as it stands today has no value. It has become so completely corrupt that any actions that it might take would be suspect. In it's current state, it is irreperable. Perhaps if the US pulled out, it might prompt others to take action and call for a complete over haul.

Yes. To be rejected and bashed by the U.N. when they are on our territory is one of many, many reasons to leave the U.N.--Freiberg 14:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)


--Wally 13:00, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Completely yes.
We can do what we are doing without having to explain every little detail to a bunch of bureaucrats who would just as soon see America burn as bat an eyelash at us (yes thats a snipe at JontheHungry).
America is the only country in the world that has or ever had a conscience.
We have a right to promote freedom abroad without
playing nurse maid to a bunch of oldy moldy Imperialists and Totalitarians
(Is that good enough name-calling for JontheHungry to understand my point?). CMacloud 22:18, 19 February 2008 (EST)

As a Canadian, I say that the UN should be destroyed. It is the pathway to world government. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. The Bible warns that in the last days, as in Babylon, a one world government - a New World Order - will be formed. The UN is the ancestor of such. Look at history: The UN forced the peaceful democracy of Katanga to join the neighbouring communist state, killing many innocents. --Ambassador (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2017 (EST)


Our vetoes have saved Israel so many times. MountainDew 21:57, 25 February 2007 (EST)

What good can we do by being absent? If we can do one iota of good, it's worth staying.--Sub Zenyth 23:57, 6 March 2007 (EST)

It seems like there is some confusion regarding the UN. Separation of powers doesn't apply, because in theory the UN has seperate branches of government that institute checks and balances, namely the existence of the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Secretariat and the World Court. Moreover the basis of modern international relations lies in the anarchy between countries, since there is no powerful world government to force countries to abide by agreements they make with each other. The UN helps provide some of basis of this, since going against the UN is embarrassing for powerful countries and dangerous for weak ones. Finally, since the US has a veto on the Security Council in never needs to worry about the UN hurting American interests. --Jamesdoe 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

The United States doesn't pay in the money they're supposed to; they're too busy incurring debt over a failed war in Iraq. In addition, their vetoes on the security council hurt people. If you don't believe me, just ask Rwanda. A multinational force could have done a lot more to help Rwanda, but the US would not support it, and now 800 000 people are dead for no reason. The US is far more concerned with "American Interests" than with the welfare of the world. --TrueGrit 12:14, 11 March 2007 (EST)

(1) So Rwanda massacres are the US's fault? (2) What evidence can you present that (a) Rwanda would have been anymore successful than Iraq; (b) American public opinion would not have turned against a Rwanda operation just as it has Iraq? RobS 22:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, in answer to your points:
(1)The UN did sanction the use of peacekeeping forces in Rwanda (albeit only after half a million people had been killed and even then there was hardly the enthusiasm that was displayed in the invasion of Iraq), so in a sense, the UN and its key political players (US, UK, France, in particular) do have responsibility for the prevention of the massacres being carried out. Even humnanitarian aid was slow in coming.
(2 a & b) Compare (1) above to Iraq, where there was not even a direct UN mandate to invade, leading the 'coalition of the willing' (including, ironically, Rwanda) to get around the fact by ignoring the advice of the Iraq Survey Group and declaring Iraq had 'imminent threat' capabilities, when it did not. The differential fact of a UN mandate would have an enormous effect on worldwide opnion over the Iraq invasion. Rwanda would have been a joint peacekeeping effort in a country that had broken down, whereas Iraq had a structured - and often Western supported - regime that was purposefully toppled. I agree though that Rwanda would probably have bogged down into another mess, but there was (and is) an arguably more humanitarian need to do something there.--Supaglue 09:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Briefly, this answers the question (others may not have followed it, but you did address everything directly and fully). One question, do you have evidence or a cite to support the claim the US is a "key player"? And for the record let me include dissention on the interpretation of the Iraq Survey Group (IRG) report. RobS 14:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Every nation on the planet belongs to the U.N. now. For the USA, or any nation, to withdraw would be silly at best. The U.N. serves as a communication platform, though imperfectly. When people are talking, they are not shooting. Terryeo 17:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Well not necessarily; Palestine, while an Arab league member, is not a UN member. And I believe if you consult the CIA World Fact Book you may find perhaps two more instances of entities or regimes claiming nation-state status, some may even have recognition from some UN members, who like Palestine are not UN members. RobS 23:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Does your CIA World 'Fact' Book explain that Palestine is not an actual, recognised country? --Supaglue 09:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Palestine is in fact a recognized country by 22 of the 23 member Arab League states. All 22 states are UN members also. And of course the 23rd member is Palestine itself. RobS 00:14, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't want to get off topic by splitting hairs, but try telling the US and Israel that Palestine is an actual recognized state! Palestine is a state recognized by the Arab League, true, but the Arab League is a loose political collection of countries, much like for example, the African Union, and is not directly affiliated with the UN. Palestine does not have full UN membership. It has observer status. In the late '90s it gained the right to address the general assembly and the right to raise issues, but it can't vote, so cannot be considered a member. Alot of other countries recognize the Palestinian General Delegation (UK, Canada, France, etc), but whilst this recognition usually allows embassies and diplomatic rights in those countries, this is very different to recognizing Palestine as an independant country - In fact, if you look at the countries that do recognize Palestine in its own right, you'll notice that hardly any of them are the major political powers (excepting China and India). The bottom line is Palestine cannot be an independent country as it does not have full sovereign rights over its claimed territory. --Supaglue 08:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

As far as I know, it is not even possible to leave the UN once a country is a member of that organization, mainly to avoid what happened to the League of Nations, namely, countries leaving the organization and effectively ignoring it. The UN Charter does not provide a way to leave the UN, although countries may be expelled from the UN. In that sense, this discussion is perhaps besides the point. PaulB 12:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

No, every country on the planet is a member of the U.N. The biggest loser of such a withdrawal would be the country who withdraws. Terryeo 15:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

If the United States left the UN, the US would be shunned by the international community, forcing a government change due to embargoes from countries angry at the US. --Eiyuu Kou 22:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Eiyuu, are you saying countries would be angry with the US. Then would place embargoes against the US. And then the US government would have to change? Terryeo 04:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The UN has no power over the US, but we have power over the UN...we provide most of it's budget (and, by the way, are one of the worst nations when it comes to payment). What of all the relief efforts that bring food to starving children? Are we going to stop that, just because France or Russia threatens a veto? Czolgolz 18:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

We must remain in the UN in order to protect American interests. We need a better UN, not a weaker one. HClinton 20:20, 9 November 2007 (EST)


The United States IS the UN! It would be irresponsible to leave, but at the same time the UN doesn't get much done.

I think a lot of Americans get frustrated whenever the UN doesn't listen to us, but we have to remember in the past that we had the utmost influence over the UN. However, since other countries have veto power in it, we must accept that other countries have other views, and try to comprimise for once

I say give it time, the UN is a relatively new entity and has had some success, ala, Desert Storm.--Elamdri 19:03, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

what has France ever done to deserve veto power anyway? Jaques 23:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, since 1960, nuclear weapons (as in, "you take me off the security council, I'll blow up your capital city"). These are a pretty good way of stopping anyone from arguing with the permanent members of the security council. Originally, it was obviously the most powerful victors of WW2 putting themselves in charge: who could stop them? In response to those above saying the UN serves no purpose, the Wikipedia article says that the UN's World Food Programme helps feed more than 100 million people in 80 countries. Then there's the UNHCR, the WHO, UNAIDS, peacekeepers in more than 24 countries... Besides, if the UN has problems, surely the best position from which to resolve them is from inside the organisation? EmanresU 16:32, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Third option - expel the US from the UN

This should be quite easy to do; it has been paying its membership dues late (if at all) for years. Expelling a member for non-payment should be easy.

This would have a number of advantageous.

  • The US is currently a negative force in the UN. The US often acts as if it believes the UN (and all other governments in the world) should support US policy on principle, and not to do so automatically makes them "wrong" and "the bad guys". A significant portion of the US electorate probably believes so as well, hence the subconscious attitude of much US policy that other countries are inferior to and should be subservient to the US.
  • Free from the US veto, the UN may be able to be more effective. The Soviet Union discovered how disadvantageous it was (to them) to withdraw from the UN (and therefore give up the veto power) when its withdrawal allowed the UN to send armed forces to South Korea to defend it against North Korean attack. The USSR stayed in after that, in the UN they could block most attempts to prevent them doing whatever they wanted.
  • Free from the US veto, the UN would be able to pursue a more pro-active policy in the world. Admittedly the UN is currently hindered by the number of non-democratic members, but democratic and partially-democratic countries are in the majority, and expelling the US would only reduce the majority by one.
  • The UN would be more able to create consensus and act, without the US adopting an attitude "you do it our way, or we block you doing anything".
  • The UN would be able to put sanctions in place for countries that conduct activities against international law. For example:
  • Enforcing the Kyoto Protocols on the US.
  • Ensuring no more illegal military action takes place, such as the invasion of Iraq.
  • Enforcing a consistent global standard on human rights, via the International Criminal Court. A murderer is not allowed to opt out of a court trying him, so why should a country be allowed to opt out of a court?

In conclusion, no longer having one dominant superpower blocking the UN can do nothing but good.

Therefore the US should be expelled from the UN forthwith, or at least have its veto power removed.

I leave the reader to consider how much of the above is tongue-in-cheek, and how much contains a grain of truth.

Happy New Year. Skeptic 09:34, 31 December 2007 (EST)