[inquest]

As long as we're in the UN, we need a voice, we can't let the UN run roughshod against us as long as they have a say.

But that was the point of my question. If we leave the UN, and stop funding them, how exactly are they going to run roughshod against us? How would they even be capable of doing anything to us?

Which begs the question, who is in charge of removing us from the UN?

Congress. There's been a bill that gets reintroduced in the House of Representatives every year for doing just that, and each year it gets more co-sponsors.

[Indy Pendance]

Thanks, do you have a link as to how the congress implements the US from disassociating from the UN? I seriously want to know.

[hoosierham]

While the U.S. of A. has a permanent seat on the Security Council we can veto many U.N. actions thus providing cover to nations that might secretly agree with our positions but feel forced by bigger,meaner neighbors to vote against us. Then ,after the veto, those little fellows can refuse to participate in the veto'ed actions ,rightly claiming it would be a violation of U.N. and international law .

I have at times wondered what American history would have been if the South's politicians had stayed in the Congress and continued their fight there rather than leaving in a huff.Surely it would have been less bloody and destructive of that which they hoped to protect.

I used to advocate the U.s out of the U.N and vice versa but now I believe we must stay in until the (dis)organization is dissolved. When the U.N. joins the League of Nations on history's scrapheap freedom will breathe easier.