It’s Time To Bail
June 16th, 2008 by 
Kevin
Before the state convention, I got involved in a conversation with a fellow delegate on the pros/cons of the UN and especially the US participation in it. Subsequent to that conversation, the delegation at the MN GOP state convention, passed a resolution stating
Ending United State participation in the United Nations
My viewpoint was as follows
Since the UN has no real power and is mostly funded by us and whose mandates are mostly enforced by us……why bother???
We leave, it folds, world loses an anti-US soapbox.
While I fully admit that my viewpoint is a relatively minority opinion, at least in the general population. When you continue to have incidents like Mugabe’s goons burning political opponents alive, I think it serves to prove the validity of such viewpoints.
For what purpose does the UN exist? According to their charter preamble :
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small
I certainly seems like Mugabe’s continued reign of violence would violate that on several levels. Instead he is regarded as a legitimate leader of a nation, despite his continued refusal to abide by the results of his countries recent elections. While his people starve, he dines on fine multi-course meals.
The UN stands impotent, proving to be their usual worthless self. Indeed, I’m not sure UN forces would be much good even if they did deploy to keep the peace. They seem more adept at corruption and rape than anything else.
It’s time to realize that this is a failed experiment gone horribly wrong. Why continue to spend resources on that failed experiment, especially when we’re repeatedly asked to relinquish sovereignty to that failed experiment.
Email This Post
| 
Print This Post
Posted in United League Of Nations | 
4 Comments »
June 16th, 2008 at 9:56 am
You’ve got a heck of a good argument there, and examples of UN fecklessness, perfidy and bungling malfeasance are easy to find– look at anything they’ve done.
But just like voting for McCain, I claim it is very difficult to replace something with nothing. I would fully support Bush’s “league of democracies” if he could get it off the ground, and THEN we could stop “participating” in the UN in this sensible way– stop giving them money, and continue to hold our veto in the Security Council. This would tear them apart fairly quickly, and there would be the LOD to step in!
June 16th, 2008 at 10:03 am
I would argue there isn’t a legitimate need for either the UN or a LoD.
Civilized nations can talk without the need for a complex bureaucracy.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Quite so, but the idea itself does not require a large bureaucracy or a giant tombstone in NYC, either. I don’t know what Bush has in mind, but I suspect that it would be more like the “Security and Prosperity Partnership” between the US, Mexico and Canada so feared by the Ron Paul foil-hat crowd. It’s a tiny office “facilitating communications” on security and economic issues, not a policy organization or a place where votes are taken. The fact that only “mature” democracies could participate should make agreement easier to gain and minimize mischief-making. It could, for example, get a low-level agreement on how to deal with Iran without all the public uproar, and then present a united front with the individual countries’ military and economic might behind it.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
I still don’t see why we need ANY level of bureaucracy to accomplish all that.
“Facilitating communication”??? Tell you what, Thomas Edison already came up with a solution for that. And I bet most “mature democracies” are already wired to use it.