Time To Ditch The UN: The UN is useless; why not create a new organization?

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | Friday, February 21, 2003 | By Stanley K. Ridgley

[JohnHuang2]

Friday, February 21, 2003

Quote of the Day by Republic

[jjm2111]

Why start a new organization at all?

[livius]

Call this new alliance the Free Nations, and its membership will begin with the United States, England, and the 17 continental European states that have taken a clear and powerful stand with the US on the issue of Iraq"

I think this is an excellent idea. The UN has always been dysfunctional, and most conflicts which it had a hand in "settling" were never settled, but are even still dragging on (Korea, for example). But now it has become a flat-out obstacle to peace, because of the structural weight it gives to countries (such as its many dictatorship members) who have no interest whatsoever in peace.

What's worse is that we're paying for all this. The UN should be dumped like the dated, unsuccessful enterprise that it is (someone mentioned it was now like the old Hanseatic League, something that had outlived its time).

I agree that international negotiating blocs could be helpful, though, and I think it's time to start forming one for our side. As for the other side - well, just let all the little dictators try to get together if we're not footing the bills anymore!

[kitkat]

BUMP

[wunderkind54]

Keep the admission policy simple;

Only democratically elected constituancies and republics need apply.

This should keep out the riff-raff.

[dalereed]

Just scrap the UN and be done with it.

We don't need another new one to work to socalize the world under one rule which is all the UN is and all the League of Nations was.

[RushLake]

We already have an organization the renews itself constantly, its called the United States of America. I understand that FDR and Wilson before him were collectivists and a League of Nations or a U.N. would address their goals of one world government, but since these organizations and others like them have proven useless, let's do what we do best and continue to set the pace.

[graycamel]

George Washington warned us not to join alliances. He'd turn over in his grave. He didn't even like political parties.

[JohnHuang2]

Bingo.

[gulfcoast6]

Send those 'fat cats' home, that is the ones who don't defect to the USA. They have gotten use to the good living, booze and expensive meals.

[piasa]

I agree... dump the UN and DON'T replace it with anything. Let individual nations make treaties with others as needed, all short term treaties for extremely limited purposes, so that they don't end up getting ensnared by them.

The long duration of multinational treaties like the UN can lead to people considering them to be legitimate even when they clearly are not- they are nothing but a trap. And when people give them legitimacy they do not deserve, we find our sovereignity undercut by emotion-driven wackos who want to wait until the UN gives them the OK to defend themselves.

Too many nations have found the UN to be 'useful' when in fact it's 'greatest' accomplishment was that here and there, it managed to maintain the status quo at great cost to life and liberty... hardly something to be proud of. Of what use is stability if it means eternal misery as we see in North Korea? The UN doesn't promote freedom, just stagnation. Some diplomats call that 'victory.'

[aardvark1]

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!

[ClearCase_guy]

Do any trekkies know how The Federation came into being? Did it replace the UN?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The UN isn't what it used to be. But then, it never was . . .

Consider that the UN was founded by the WWII Allies, including the Soviet Union and a United States as represented by the Soviet agent Alger Hiss, and it's a marvel if anything other than socialist tendencies were to arise from it.

Like the League of Nations--and for that matter our own historical Articles of Confederation--the UN tries to split the difference between fully sovereign states, fully in charge of the power of the sword internally, and states with limited sovereignty, having universal citizenship and universal citizen obligation as under the US Constitution.

In truth such a universal system is not a solution to preexisting conflicts; instead the resolution of conflicts is a precondition for a universal system. The EU, for example, came into being because the member states did not have conflicts over which they were willing to appeal to the sword.

The War Between the Southern States and the Central Government, and the subsequent "Reconstruction", offers another historical model.

[anoldafvet]

"The U.N.’s handling of the Iraq crisis demonstrates that the organization has become an excuse for the timid, a forum where dictators and despots outnumber democrats". I thought that dictators and despots were synonyms for democRAT.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

Ref post 7..Good reply. We don't need anymore world organizations. We have alread had two too many. They have both been failures. And I don't like my tax money going to these guys. NO MORE!!!!

[graycamel]

thanx. When I used to live in Columbia, MO, I used to listen to a left-wing whakco that had a talk show. He wanted the UN to run the world. He believes that if countries ceased to exist, there would be a lot fewer wars and a lot less hate. I'd list his name but I don't think I'm supposed to. Besides, I don't want to give him any more listeners. It is on the NPR station, if you are really interested.

[timestax]

yeah, and call it the LEAGUE of NATIONS, ha ha ha

[McGavin999]

Excellent idea. The only thing I object to is maintaining a presense in the UN. If we withdraw, and the other nations of FN withdraw, I would imagine the UN budget would shrink by some 60% to 70%, and their military budget would shrink by about 85%, their humanitarian aid would shrink by roughly 95%. The FN would be composed of US, the "Gang of Eight", the Vilnus 10, Australia, and Japan. Provisional membership will be extended to Russia, Canada and Mexico.

Russia seems to be coming around, Canada has a lamebrain for a leader by usually they're OK, and Mexico could be a powerhouse if they'd concentrate on developing their natural resources instead of trying to foist their problems off on us.

Hey, I'm really starting to like this idea.