Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?

2007-04-05T16:35:18Z

Quakken: /* '''yes...''' */

{{debate}}

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

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

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

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

==='''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)

=== 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)

Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?

2007-04-05T16:34:39Z

Quakken: /* '''yes...''' */

{{debate}}

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

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

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

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 --[[User:Quakken|Quakken]] 12:34, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==='''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)

=== 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)

Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?

2007-04-05T16:30:21Z

Quakken: /* '''yes...''' */

{{debate}}

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

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

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

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

==='''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)

=== 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)

Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea

2007-04-05T16:27:34Z

Quakken: /* '''yes...''' */

{{debate}}

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

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

hell yeah, "a patriotic conservative!" That is the most awesome response i have ever seen! Anyway, i think we should either nuke them(there isnt such a thing as innocent communists or muslims)or assassinate Mohammed "Iwannajihad" and Kim Jong Ill. Then we should take over and end the communism and islamofascism, spreading democracy and christianity. then, after we have a strong foothold in the east, we will nuke the chinese commies, and also take over their factories so we can keep producing their crap. After we take over the east, including japan and russia, we will move on to europe and the middle east, taking over the girly europeans (they won't do anything about it.) after that, we go on to africa, then south america, canada, and mexico. mexico can't do anything there's no one there anymore! They are all working at taco bell,and doing jobs "americans just won't do"

-New World Order

Why did you delete the original response?

==='''no...'''===

The question seems somewhat misposed. A more important question would be, "Could the United States have eliminated Communism from North Korea." The answer to that question seems to be no. After all the North Korean military was quite large, and more importantly China intervened with an army of well over one million soldiers. Although those troops weren't terribly well equipped and hence couldn't defeat the forces protecting South Korea they did effectivelly defend North Korea along what is today the DMZ (De-Militarized Zone). If victory had been plausible then maybe occupying the North would have been worthwhile, but the costs then were too high. Today they would be worse, since North Korea has atom bombs and Seoul is within artillery range of the DMZ. All in all a terrible situation.

:'''Comment:''' Pyongyang ''might'' have one or two bombs, but the underground detonation was most likely their only one. Besides, they don't possess a delivery system for the nukes, and we do XD. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 00:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::They don't possess a delivery system '''yet'''. Don't discount them in the brains department. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The question is more along the lines of COULD we have eliminated the communism in north korea. They had a sizable military force and would've been a challenge to successfully convert to the government we all know and love, our democracy. but how would the people of NK reacted? would the people following the leader and the leader's friends fought back after we had installed a president and cabinet? hmm... well what is happening in iraq? we have installed a democracy and a cabinet, but it is still not a mini-united states like we would like it to be. There are people there loyal to the way it was, and there would've been people loyal to the way it was in korea too.
We did the correct thing pulling out when we did, although they have nuclear weapons and would love to destroy.

but why havn't they? sanctions? the positive and non-militaritical approach that seemed to have worked against them.

Everyone seems to have a missed a major issue here: McArthur didn't want to just nuke North Korea, but also China.

==='''Uh...'''===

You are forgetting that in this day and age, any nation that were to use a Nuclear weapon, for ANY reason(Regardless of circumstance), would become a global pariah, with no allies at all throughout the world. Infact, one must remember that we are not the only ones with nukes thesedays, and that if we anger the wrong people, nothing will turn good.

:It's also worth noting that America is the only country to have employed nuclear weapons in war. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Many analysts actually estimate the DPRK to have possession of at least 12 kilograms of plutonium [http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html]which could be fashioned into six or more bombs. Also, missiles and long range aircraft aren't the only delivery mechanisms, a container ship holding a smuggled nuke would be perfectly dangerous. Finally, American military personnel in Japan and South Korea are horribly vulnerable. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 14:06, 10 March 2007 (EST)

This assumes that Communism is a viable political construct. Conservatives have held for years that Communism, with its lack of competitive pressures/opportunities is inherently flawed and doomed to fail. If that's true, then why would we have to combat it at all?

Also, for anyone that claims to follow Christ, why would we kill millions of people to establish a different political system on earth when the kingdom of heaven awaits? Jesus could have thrown the Romans out of Jerusalem with a thought. However, he didn't because the earth is not the prize. Right? - Citizzzen 03.14.07

Very good insight Citizzzen. The Earth and everything in it is finite. But Communism also hurts the people it governs and does not allow its people to take part in any religion, effectively condemning their souls to Hell. Doesn't God want us to protect and defend the oppressed? I don't see why not. And I don't think the Bible says that God is against war. I am sure war is not a part of His original plan - that original plan would be a perfect world where there is no need for war - but God protected the Israelites through multiple wars. Why would He do such a thing if He were against war? I think there is such a thing as a just war. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:40, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wait... Are we saying that a person's immortal soul could be condemned to hell because an earthly government didn't allow them to pray? An all loving, all knowing God wouldn't understand that? That seems hard to accept... I agree that some wars are justified, but only from a human standpoint... It seems to me that the Jews were no closer to salvation in Jerusalem then they were in Egypt. Assuming of course that eternal salvation is linked to loving worshipping and accepting God, and not rituals and sacrifices... Citizzzen 03.15.07

==Communism hasn't ever existed==

It's pretty hard to eliminate something which hasn't yet been implemented. [[User:Thjazi|Thjazi]] 19:12, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea

2007-04-03T19:11:42Z

Quakken: /* '''yes...''' */

{{debate}}

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

==='''yes...'''===
Of course we should've nuked the bloody gooks!
Those freedom hating, satanist/atheist (because we all know they are the same; am I right or am I right?) baby eating meth addicts are going straight to hell in a handbasket anyways, so why shouldn't we have helped them along the way?!
Now I'm gonna have to get a bomb shelter because the gooks have their own bombs, shame on you Eisenhower for not letting McArthur nuke 'em! Or, Truman, or whoever it was, I don't care, because all I know is some gook loving cheese eating surrender monkey liberal frenchman is rotting in hell for caving into the demonspawn!

-a patriotic Conservative

hell yeah, "a patriotic conservative!" That is the most awesome response i have ever seen! Anyway, i think we should either nuke them(there isnt such a thing as innocent communists or muslims)or assassinate Mohammed "Iwannajihad" and Kim Jong Ill. Then we should take over and end the communism and islamofascism, spreading democracy and christianity. then, after we have a strong foothold in the east, we will nuke the chinese commies, and also take over their factories so we can keep producing their crap. After we take over the east, including japan and russia, we will move on to europe and the middle east, taking over the girly europeans (they won't do anything about it.) after that, we go on to africa, then south america, canada, and mexico. mexico can't do anything there's no one there anymore! They are all working at taco bell,and doing jobs "americans just won't do"

-New World Order

==='''no...'''===

The question seems somewhat misposed. A more important question would be, "Could the United States have eliminated Communism from North Korea." The answer to that question seems to be no. After all the North Korean military was quite large, and more importantly China intervened with an army of well over one million soldiers. Although those troops weren't terribly well equipped and hence couldn't defeat the forces protecting South Korea they did effectivelly defend North Korea along what is today the DMZ (De-Militarized Zone). If victory had been plausible then maybe occupying the North would have been worthwhile, but the costs then were too high. Today they would be worse, since North Korea has atom bombs and Seoul is within artillery range of the DMZ. All in all a terrible situation.

:'''Comment:''' Pyongyang ''might'' have one or two bombs, but the underground detonation was most likely their only one. Besides, they don't possess a delivery system for the nukes, and we do XD. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 00:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::They don't possess a delivery system '''yet'''. Don't discount them in the brains department. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The question is more along the lines of COULD we have eliminated the communism in north korea. They had a sizable military force and would've been a challenge to successfully convert to the government we all know and love, our democracy. but how would the people of NK reacted? would the people following the leader and the leader's friends fought back after we had installed a president and cabinet? hmm... well what is happening in iraq? we have installed a democracy and a cabinet, but it is still not a mini-united states like we would like it to be. There are people there loyal to the way it was, and there would've been people loyal to the way it was in korea too.
We did the correct thing pulling out when we did, although they have nuclear weapons and would love to destroy.

but why havn't they? sanctions? the positive and non-militaritical approach that seemed to have worked against them.

Everyone seems to have a missed a major issue here: McArthur didn't want to just nuke North Korea, but also China.

==='''Uh...'''===

You are forgetting that in this day and age, any nation that were to use a Nuclear weapon, for ANY reason(Regardless of circumstance), would become a global pariah, with no allies at all throughout the world. Infact, one must remember that we are not the only ones with nukes thesedays, and that if we anger the wrong people, nothing will turn good.

:It's also worth noting that America is the only country to have employed nuclear weapons in war. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Many analysts actually estimate the DPRK to have possession of at least 12 kilograms of plutonium [http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html]which could be fashioned into six or more bombs. Also, missiles and long range aircraft aren't the only delivery mechanisms, a container ship holding a smuggled nuke would be perfectly dangerous. Finally, American military personnel in Japan and South Korea are horribly vulnerable. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 14:06, 10 March 2007 (EST)

This assumes that Communism is a viable political construct. Conservatives have held for years that Communism, with its lack of competitive pressures/opportunities is inherently flawed and doomed to fail. If that's true, then why would we have to combat it at all?

Also, for anyone that claims to follow Christ, why would we kill millions of people to establish a different political system on earth when the kingdom of heaven awaits? Jesus could have thrown the Romans out of Jerusalem with a thought. However, he didn't because the earth is not the prize. Right? - Citizzzen 03.14.07

Very good insight Citizzzen. The Earth and everything in it is finite. But Communism also hurts the people it governs and does not allow its people to take part in any religion, effectively condemning their souls to Hell. Doesn't God want us to protect and defend the oppressed? I don't see why not. And I don't think the Bible says that God is against war. I am sure war is not a part of His original plan - that original plan would be a perfect world where there is no need for war - but God protected the Israelites through multiple wars. Why would He do such a thing if He were against war? I think there is such a thing as a just war. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:40, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wait... Are we saying that a person's immortal soul could be condemned to hell because an earthly government didn't allow them to pray? An all loving, all knowing God wouldn't understand that? That seems hard to accept... I agree that some wars are justified, but only from a human standpoint... It seems to me that the Jews were no closer to salvation in Jerusalem then they were in Egypt. Assuming of course that eternal salvation is linked to loving worshipping and accepting God, and not rituals and sacrifices... Citizzzen 03.15.07

Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea

2007-04-03T19:03:01Z

Quakken: /* '''Uh...''' */

{{debate}}

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

==='''yes...'''===
Of course we should've nuked the bloody gooks!
Those freedom hating, satanist/atheist (because we all know they are the same; am I right or am I right?) baby eating meth addicts are going straight to hell in a handbasket anyways, so why shouldn't we have helped them along the way?!
Now I'm gonna have to get a bomb shelter because the gooks have their own bombs, shame on you Eisenhower for not letting McArthur nuke 'em! Or, Truman, or whoever it was, I don't care, because all I know is some gook loving cheese eating surrender monkey liberal frenchman is rotting in hell for caving into the demonspawn!

-a patriotic Conservative

==='''no...'''===

The question seems somewhat misposed. A more important question would be, "Could the United States have eliminated Communism from North Korea." The answer to that question seems to be no. After all the North Korean military was quite large, and more importantly China intervened with an army of well over one million soldiers. Although those troops weren't terribly well equipped and hence couldn't defeat the forces protecting South Korea they did effectivelly defend North Korea along what is today the DMZ (De-Militarized Zone). If victory had been plausible then maybe occupying the North would have been worthwhile, but the costs then were too high. Today they would be worse, since North Korea has atom bombs and Seoul is within artillery range of the DMZ. All in all a terrible situation.

:'''Comment:''' Pyongyang ''might'' have one or two bombs, but the underground detonation was most likely their only one. Besides, they don't possess a delivery system for the nukes, and we do XD. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 00:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::They don't possess a delivery system '''yet'''. Don't discount them in the brains department. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The question is more along the lines of COULD we have eliminated the communism in north korea. They had a sizable military force and would've been a challenge to successfully convert to the government we all know and love, our democracy. but how would the people of NK reacted? would the people following the leader and the leader's friends fought back after we had installed a president and cabinet? hmm... well what is happening in iraq? we have installed a democracy and a cabinet, but it is still not a mini-united states like we would like it to be. There are people there loyal to the way it was, and there would've been people loyal to the way it was in korea too.
We did the correct thing pulling out when we did, although they have nuclear weapons and would love to destroy.

but why havn't they? sanctions? the positive and non-militaritical approach that seemed to have worked against them.

Everyone seems to have a missed a major issue here: McArthur didn't want to just nuke North Korea, but also China.

==='''Uh...'''===

You are forgetting that in this day and age, any nation that were to use a Nuclear weapon, for ANY reason(Regardless of circumstance), would become a global pariah, with no allies at all throughout the world. Infact, one must remember that we are not the only ones with nukes thesedays, and that if we anger the wrong people, nothing will turn good.

:It's also worth noting that America is the only country to have employed nuclear weapons in war. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Many analysts actually estimate the DPRK to have possession of at least 12 kilograms of plutonium [http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html]which could be fashioned into six or more bombs. Also, missiles and long range aircraft aren't the only delivery mechanisms, a container ship holding a smuggled nuke would be perfectly dangerous. Finally, American military personnel in Japan and South Korea are horribly vulnerable. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 14:06, 10 March 2007 (EST)

This assumes that Communism is a viable political construct. Conservatives have held for years that Communism, with its lack of competitive pressures/opportunities is inherently flawed and doomed to fail. If that's true, then why would we have to combat it at all?

Also, for anyone that claims to follow Christ, why would we kill millions of people to establish a different political system on earth when the kingdom of heaven awaits? Jesus could have thrown the Romans out of Jerusalem with a thought. However, he didn't because the earth is not the prize. Right? - Citizzzen 03.14.07

Very good insight Citizzzen. The Earth and everything in it is finite. But Communism also hurts the people it governs and does not allow its people to take part in any religion, effectively condemning their souls to Hell. Doesn't God want us to protect and defend the oppressed? I don't see why not. And I don't think the Bible says that God is against war. I am sure war is not a part of His original plan - that original plan would be a perfect world where there is no need for war - but God protected the Israelites through multiple wars. Why would He do such a thing if He were against war? I think there is such a thing as a just war. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:40, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wait... Are we saying that a person's immortal soul could be condemned to hell because an earthly government didn't allow them to pray? An all loving, all knowing God wouldn't understand that? That seems hard to accept... I agree that some wars are justified, but only from a human standpoint... It seems to me that the Jews were no closer to salvation in Jerusalem then they were in Egypt. Assuming of course that eternal salvation is linked to loving worshipping and accepting God, and not rituals and sacrifices... Citizzzen 03.15.07

Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea

2007-03-16T01:01:02Z

Quakken: /* '''no...''' */

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

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

HELL YES! We should have nuked the communists in Russia and North Korean and Vietnam and China before they saw it coming. That would have solved everything.

Um... Communism is bad, right?

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

While I agree with the notion that communism is bad and that we should have eliminated communism in North Korea, there is more to the story than that. At that time, the U.S. government had agreed upon a policy of containment. It would have gone directly against that policy to rid North Korea of communism. But I still think we should have, given the circumstances we find ourselves in today.

[[User:David R|David]]

==='''no...'''===

The question seems somewhat misposed. A more important question would be, "Could the United States have eliminated Communism from North Korea." The answer to that question seems to be no. After all the North Korean military was quite large, and more importantly China intervened with an army of well over one million soldiers. Although those troops weren't terribly well equipped and hence couldn't defeat the forces protecting South Korea they did effectivelly defend North Korea along what is today the DMZ (De-Militarized Zone). If victory had been plausible then maybe occupying the North would have been worthwhile, but the costs then were too high. Today they would be worse, since North Korea has atom bombs and Seoul is within artillery range of the DMZ. All in all a terrible situation.

:'''Comment:''' Pyongyang ''might'' have one or two bombs, but the underground detonation was most likely their only one. Besides, they don't possess a delivery system for the nukes, and we do XD. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 00:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)

The question is more along the lines of COULD we have eliminated the communism in north korea. They had a sizable military force and would've been a challenge to successfully convert to the government we all know and love, our democracy. but how would the people of NK reacted? would the people following the leader and the leader's friends fought back after we had installed a president and cabinet? hmm... well what is happening in iraq? we have installed a democracy and a cabinet, but it is still not a mini-united states like we would like it to be. There are people there loyal to the way it was, and there would've been people loyal to the way it was in korea too.
We did the correct thing pulling out when we did, although they have nuclear weapons and would love to destroy.

but why havn't they? sanctions? the positive and non-militaritical approach that seemed to have worked against them.

==='''Uh...'''===

You are forgetting that in this day and age, any nation that were to use a Nuclear weapon, for ANY reason(Regardless of circumstance), would become a global pariah, with no allies at all throughout the world. Infact, one must remember that we are not the only ones with nukes thesedays, and that if we anger the wrong people, nothing will turn good.

Many analysts actually estimate the DPRK to have possession of at least 12 kilograms of plutonium [http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html]which could be fashioned into six or more bombs. Also, missiles and long range aircraft aren't the only delivery mechanisms, a container ship holding a smuggled nuke would be perfectly dangerous. Finally, American military personnel in Japan and South Korea are horribly vulnerable. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 14:06, 10 March 2007 (EST)

This assumes that Communism is a viable political construct. Conservatives have held for years that Communism, with its lack of competitive pressures/opportunities is inherently flawed and doomed to fail. If that's true, then why would we have to combat it at all?

Also, for anyone that claims to follow Christ, why would we kill millions of people to establish a different political system on earth when the kingdom of heaven awaits? Jesus could have thrown the Romans out of Jerusalem with a thought. However, he didn't because the earth is not the prize. Right? - Citizzzen 03.14.07

Very good insight Citizzzen. The Earth and everything in it is finite. But Communism also hurts the people it governs and does not allow its people to take part in any religion, effectively condemning their souls to Hell. Doesn't God want us to protect and defend the oppressed? I don't see why not. And I don't think the Bible says that God is against war. I am sure war is not a part of His original plan - that original plan would be a perfect world where there is no need for war - but God protected the Israelites through multiple wars. Why would He do such a thing if He were against war? I think there is such a thing as a just war. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:40, 14 March 2007 (EDT)