Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?

2011-12-09T19:24:20Z

CSargent: /* yes... */

{{debate-politics}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

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 YES [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 12:24, 14 December 2006 (EST)

I agree....what a powerless waste of time! [[User:David R|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. [[User:Rellik|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. [[User:Niwrad|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. [[User:JontheHungry|JontheHungry]] 06:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)JontheHungry[[User:JontheHungry|JontheHungry]] 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 (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) at the end of your comments; that appends your username and a date/time stamp. [[User:Niwrad|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. [[User:JontheHungry|JontheHungry]] 06:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)JontheHungry[[User:JontheHungry|JontheHungry]] 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. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|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! [[User:CSargent|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.--[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 14:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

'''YES'''
--[[User:Wally|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?). [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 22:18, 19 February 2008 (EST)

==='''no...'''===
Our vetoes have saved Israel so many times. [[User:MountainDew|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.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|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. --[[User:Jamesdoe|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. --[[User:TrueGrit|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? [[User:RobS|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.--[[User:Supaglue|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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:Terryeo|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. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Does your CIA World 'Fact' Book explain that Palestine is not an actual, recognised country? --[[User:Supaglue|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. [[User:RobS|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. --[[User:Supaglue|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. [[User:PaulB|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. [[User:Terryeo|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. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|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? [[User:Terryeo|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? [[User:Czolgolz|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. [[User:HClinton|HClinton]] 20:20, 9 November 2007 (EST)

=== Other ===

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.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:03, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::what has France ever done to deserve veto power anyway? [[User:Jaques|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations 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? [[User:EmanresU|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 Protocol]]s 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. [[User:Skeptic|Skeptic]] 09:34, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?

2011-12-09T19:18:00Z

CSargent: /* yes... */

{{debate-politics}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

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 YES [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 12:24, 14 December 2006 (EST)

I agree....what a powerless waste of time! [[User:David R|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. [[User:Rellik|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. [[User:Niwrad|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. [[User:JontheHungry|JontheHungry]] 06:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)JontheHungry[[User:JontheHungry|JontheHungry]] 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 (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) at the end of your comments; that appends your username and a date/time stamp. [[User:Niwrad|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. [[User:JontheHungry|JontheHungry]] 06:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)JontheHungry[[User:JontheHungry|JontheHungry]] 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. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:11, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

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.--[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 14:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

'''YES'''
--[[User:Wally|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?). [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 22:18, 19 February 2008 (EST)

==='''no...'''===
Our vetoes have saved Israel so many times. [[User:MountainDew|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.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|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. --[[User:Jamesdoe|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. --[[User:TrueGrit|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? [[User:RobS|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.--[[User:Supaglue|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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:Terryeo|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. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Does your CIA World 'Fact' Book explain that Palestine is not an actual, recognised country? --[[User:Supaglue|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. [[User:RobS|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. --[[User:Supaglue|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. [[User:PaulB|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. [[User:Terryeo|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. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|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? [[User:Terryeo|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? [[User:Czolgolz|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. [[User:HClinton|HClinton]] 20:20, 9 November 2007 (EST)

=== Other ===

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.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:03, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::what has France ever done to deserve veto power anyway? [[User:Jaques|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations 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? [[User:EmanresU|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 Protocol]]s 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. [[User:Skeptic|Skeptic]] 09:34, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Debate:Why the Bible

2011-12-09T18:54:50Z

CSargent: /* 2Nihilism */

{{Debate}}
==Nothing==
There is no evidence that the Bible is more trustworthy than any other piece of literature. The Bible is merely a fictional novel which has traditionally been believed and baselessly seen as the infallible word of God for hundreds of generations.
-Helios

What idiot puts page-long geniologies in a novel??!! Whether the bible is true or not (as I know it is) the ''authors'' seemed to think it's true. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 07:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. I think it was made by some men wanting to show people morals and values, like Aesop fables.

While some Biblical events may be confirmable by more scientific-based types of knowledge, belief in most of the Bible is contingent on faith. Nothing more, nothing less. Take that for what it's worth. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 19:44, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

"Take that for what it's worth."-Ooooo... I get a free Bible. -Helios

I will watch this discussion and see when it gets deleted. There seems to be a concerted effort at policing even these debate areas. [[User:Seekcommon|Seekcommon]] 19:34 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm... if we consider the New Testament as Bible 2.0, then would the Koran be Bible 3.0 or Bible 2.1? And where does this leave the Book of Mormon? 4.0? 3.1? 2.2? 3.1.1? --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 07:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Well since Christianity actually branched off of Judaism the '''Old''' Testament would be v2.0 -Helios

The bible has been put together by hundreds of authors, over the course of around 900 years, and has subsequently been translated (several times), re-written and "improved" by many other hundreds of contributers and writers since. To put any kind of significance upon it at all is at best misguided and at worst plain idiotic. That is not to say that there are some good messages in there, however the majority is just plain weird. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:02, 19 April 2007

If a book was made today and was said to be the work of god, would you believe it? The world isn't as small as it used to be. Chris

You guys are right, the bible is total garbage.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:01, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==2Nihilism==
I know the Bible to be the true Word of God because I have studied it for decades. They are the reasons why I am, as well as others, are driven to study it. There are no grave errors or inconsistencies within the Bible. This is only professed by those who hate Christians and Jews that keep repeating it in the vain hope someone will believe them. Just because you don't get it doesn't make it errant. It just betrays their ignorance and illiteracy. It is readily apparent that some of the ridiculous statements being made here are thinly disguised examples of religious bigotry. Every one of the statements denouncing the Bible as being the Word of God are false, out of context, and total garbage. I see no serious discussion here but only an adolescently motivated hatefest against Judeo-Christianity.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 14:31, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::Roopilots6, you mind as well just give this up. The people you are debating with are nothing more than hard-core Christ haters.[[User:Bohdan|Sysop-Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 15:01, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm not writing it for them. It's for everyone else that reads it. Just so people can see the difference between nihilists and everyone else.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:12, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
This is a typical comment by a brainwashed Christian zealot. They always say how accepting they are of other people. Until any discussion comes into play questioning the bible or their faith. Its a silly book written by some desert nomads and has no basis guiding todays societies and norms. If Jesus could cure blind people...why are people blind? And to say the earth life was created 5K years ago has not facts to support it. Face it we all are a byproduct of algae

I would agree that this arguement is somewhat one sided. I personaly believe that the bible was written by the gretest scolars ever or by beggers, if it provides some sense moral and comfort for people then its worth a read. Even if your not a christian it still has some good morals and is probably worth a read. .[[User:Concretemuncher|Concretemuncher]]

:I personally hold to the idea of limited Biblical Inerrancy, however most of the stories in it are based on '''History''' (although frequently changed by author bias, or changes during the oral tradition). The Authors did not intend on writing a simple novel. The wrote what they believed as Truth. Even though modern science calls the historic, geographic, and scientific statements into question, it still provides what should be common sense morals and ideas. It shows a loving God who cares for us, desires us to be good, not a people hating "Volcano" god. I have gotten something out of it, ideas about life, and thanks to my Jewish friends, humor (Apparently the OT is riddled with Yiddish humor). That's my rant. I dare you to counter it. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:37, 7 February 2008 (EST)
::Normally, I would agree with you. But the danger is that some people out there are taking this book of morales WORD FOR WORD. Sure the bible has some good stories in it (ex: Noah's Ark, The Garden of Eden.) But these stories were created to illustrate a morale point or issue, to guide them in the right direction. It be used as scientific fact to counter evolution, or the Big Bang, per say. It was not written for that purpose. [[User:CSargent|CSargent]] 13:54, 9 December 2011 (EST)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

The danger of the direction this discussion is going is for simple minded people to read this, in passing, and believe that the bible is just a collection of cute myths that were gathered together. It is far more than that based on MANY evidences. The most obvious one I would like to site is the thousands, thats right, thousands of documents we have discovered over the years from ancient history. The oldest of which, the book of Mark, was found to be dated within like a few decades of the ACTUAL events taking place. I have learned that the bible has somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 different manuscripts that are survived from that time period. These NUMEROUS attestations provide overwhelming evidence that the bible can be trusted as a whole as the inspired word of God, and our savior Jesus Christ. -matt