[TLBSHOW]

It's the right thing to do, and it will stop Bill Clinton from the job he wants the most, that is to be the U.N. leader and head.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

It's the right thing to do

From Mr. Lamb's mouth to God's ears!!

I whole heartedly agree with both of you we need to be free of this ball and chain!

[Vigilanteman]

There will still be a UN even without the U.S., but it will be a club of the has-beens, the gimmes and the wannabes. In other words, total irrelevant. Just like Clinton.

[expatpat]

He can't get it anyway, since he's a citizen of one of the Permanent Members of the Security Council.

[Exeter]

The United Nations is what the U.S.Congress would be if there were no House of Representatives and instead only a Senate with its 2 Senators from each state, no matter how populous or wealthy. Then you would have a legislative body in which Rhode Island would have as much power and voice in the running of the government as California, Montana would have as much power as New York, Alaska would have as much power as Florida. Sooner or later the smaller, less populous states would join together and impose their will on the larger states while at the same time expecting the majority of the capital required to run our government to come from these larger states. Now ask yourself, what would the citizens of California or Texas or Illinois do to maintain control over their own state if such a situation were to occur? Why wouldn't and shouldn't the United States, for the same reason, consider withdrawal from the UN to preserve its own survival and continued sovereignty?