Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/3/06 03:13 AM, Wyrlum wrote: That is not a compelling argument for pulling out of the UN. All the argument shows is that maybe the US should cut funding, become more self-reliant, or insist upon reform. I do not see a good reason why the US should just pull out.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Yes, I agree completely with you. We should cut funding, become more self-reliante, and insist upon reform. It would be a diplomatic nightmar to just pull out.

However, if all that fails, we should not hesistate to remove ourselves.

The last thing I heared of the UN trying to do something good was in Somalia. Well, actually the US got everything settled, let the UN take over, then they fucked up, and then we all lost.

Considering that the UN was poorly made to begin with (the security council should be reveiwed and shifted around every few years, no "permanant" members), spent most of it's life when the world was divided between washington and moscow, and is completly reliant on it's member states....

I say it's done a pretty good job given those circumstances.

Besides, no one mentions the things good it's done, just it's failures. It helped stop lots of international incidents (cyprus), helped negoitiate lots of treaties (UDHR) and given tons of aid around the world.

In reference to the first post

"...............................fag"

lol, Im only joking - I'd be glad to see you go for one
No offence to all you sane Americans, but your country is run by arms and oil companies, and I dont think that deserves a voice in the UN - The UN may be corrupt, but In case you dont remember Bush barred the election inspectors from America when he was elected.

At 7/3/06 04:50 PM, emmytee wrote: No offence to all you sane Americans, but your country is run by arms and oil companies, and I dont think that deserves a voice in the UN - The UN may be corrupt, but In case you dont remember Bush barred the election inspectors from America when he was elected.

To summarize: "The United States should not have a voice in the United nations because it is run by the rich elite, is full of its own corruption, and disgracefull foreign policy"

If your logic is true, then please justify the following countries being given a voice in the UN:

Iran (Nuclear profileration and threats to other nations in the region)
Syria (A know sponsor of terrorism)
Libya (Which is listed as a terrorist state)
Kenya (Another terrorist haven)
Sudan (Which is currently executing a state-sponsored genocide)
Somalia (Which doesn't even posses a national government)

At 7/3/06 04:50 PM, emmytee wrote: Bush barred the election inspectors from America when he was elected.

And just to be fair. There was also Al Gore with his "What!? Miltary personel from overseas voting? I'll have none of that!"

To summarize this thread: The united nations doesn't do what the united states wants, so we should leave it.

At 7/3/06 05:31 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: To summarize this thread: The united nations doesn't do what the united states wants, so we should leave it.

Even tho in this entire thread and topic starter didn't even say anything like that. Just that it was a waste of money and isn't performing it's job very well in recent days.

At 7/3/06 05:31 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: To summarize this thread: The united nations doesn't do what the united states wants, so we should leave it.

As the actual starter of this thread, maybe I could summarize it.

The United Nations doesn't do its job, operates corruptly, is financially depenedent on only a few nations, and gives inappropriate responsablities to dangerous nations.

The United State's votcing track speaks for itself.

Which begs the question, supposing that the US does pull out of the UN; "then what?"

At 7/3/06 08:12 PM, sea_food wrote: The United State's votcing track speaks for itself.

Which begs the question, supposing that the US does pull out of the UN; "then what?"

You know for someone who criticizes the validity of my sources, you don't hesitate to give your own ridiculous sources.

Third World Traveler?

Do you know what SourceWatch.org has to say about that site. NOTHING. It's not even credible enough to have an entry on a fact-check site!

The U.N. was created to create diplomatic cooperation between countries to prevent wars, namely world wars. The stupidest, most thick-headed thing that we could possibly do right now would be to pull out of the United Nations.

Just because you want America to be imperialist doesn't mean that we should have to pull out of the U.N.

Besides, our national voice to the rest of the world would be snuffed.

At 7/3/06 12:25 PM, AccessCode wrote: The last thing I heared of the UN trying to do something good was in Somalia. Well, actually the US got everything settled, let the UN take over, then they fucked up, and then we all lost.

That's not why America was there, and that's not why America got screwed in Somalia.

http://www.zmag.org/..ky/pfrm/pfrm-04.html

The U.N is tricky. It's corrupt beyond belief because leaders are all trying to get what they want by their own means.

But the United Sates won't pull out of the U.N any time soon; it'd be political suicide, especially with our already shitty reputation with the international community thanks to El Presidente's Shock and awe.

At 7/4/06 03:23 AM, bradford1 wrote: Just because you want America to be imperialist doesn't mean that we should have to pull out of the U.N.

Im sorry, but what made you believe that I wanted to withdraw from the UN because I wanted imperialism.

At 7/4/06 03:44 AM, FightingForFreedom wrote:

At 7/4/06 03:23 AM, bradford1 wrote: Just because you want America to be imperialist doesn't mean that we should have to pull out of the U.N.

Im sorry, but what made you believe that I wanted to withdraw from the UN because I wanted imperialism.

Because the UN keeps nations in line. Not to mention the fact that it passes regulations, regulations that could be unfavorable to imperialism.

Besides, we'd be able to be a lot more rogue if we dropped out of the UN. Rogue nations can more easily become imperialist. Knowing that Americans tend to do whatever they can to make money at the slightest oppurtunity, I'd predict that if America were to drop out of the UN, global economic imperialism by the USA would be rather rampant.

At 7/4/06 03:54 AM, bradford1 wrote:

At 7/4/06 03:44 AM, FightingForFreedom wrote:

At 7/4/06 03:23 AM, bradford1 wrote: Just because you want America to be imperialist doesn't mean that we should have to pull out of the U.N.

Im sorry, but what made you believe that I wanted to withdraw from the UN because I wanted imperialism.

Because the UN keeps nations in line. Not to mention the fact that it passes regulations, regulations that could be unfavorable to imperialism.

Besides, we'd be able to be a lot more rogue if we dropped out of the UN. Rogue nations can more easily become imperialist. Knowing that Americans tend to do whatever they can to make money at the slightest oppurtunity, I'd predict that if America were to drop out of the UN, global economic imperialism by the USA would be rather rampant.

First of all... "Global Economic Imperialism"? Is that a fancy way of saying that United States is evil for being fiscally successful?
By the way, I don't know if you've looked around in the past 5 years, but the United States DOES do pretty much anything it wants - with or without the approval of the UN.

At 7/4/06 03:54 AM, bradford1 wrote:

At 7/4/06 03:44 AM, FightingForFreedom wrote:

At 7/4/06 03:23 AM, bradford1 wrote:

Because the UN keeps nations in line. Not to mention the fact that it passes regulations, regulations that could be unfavorable to imperialism.

No offense, but the regulations that the UN passes, the US allready have in place.

And the fact that nations already don't listen to whatever regulations they have.

If the US pulls out of the UN, it will collapse.

They would lose our influence, funding and military, and most likely there habitat.

At 7/4/06 02:54 AM, FightingForFreedom wrote: Do you know what SourceWatch.org has to say about that site. NOTHING. It's not even credible enough to have an entry on a fact-check site!

That page happens to be the transcript of a chapter in William Blum's book
Rogue State.

At 7/4/06 11:42 AM, sea_food wrote:

At 7/4/06 02:54 AM, FightingForFreedom wrote: Do you know what SourceWatch.org has to say about that site. NOTHING. It's not even credible enough to have an entry on a fact-check site!

That page happens to be the transcript of a chapter in William Blum's book
Rogue State.

Isn't that the book that Osama Bin Laden used to justify his terrorist actions in a tape he sent to Washington a few weeks back?