Close Topic Options

United Nations or USA's Nations? - Page 16

I will go back to my conviction that the US must act without the UN, as the UN is against US interests.

NightHawk

Nations USAs Nations United

Nighthawk, then your people must lobby against it, afterall you go as far as to actually keep the headquaters there --> Bush's constant talk of the UN does not show a desire to part either.

United Nations or USA's Nations? History & Civil Business Politics

Now, I don't think it has to be leave the UN or never act without the UN.

I personally wouldn't mind our leaving as I have said before because I don't think the US needs the UN as much as the UN needs the US. So, when we can assist smaller countries that don't have large enough militaries or enough money or both to protect themselves, as was done with Kuwait, then fine we can work with the UN, but I don't feel we need to do only what the UN says.

This is not a large world order where we are ruled by some central governing force. We are a sovereign nation, and are free to act on our own when we feel the need.

Page 16 Nations USAs Nations United

Aah, how true a statement. Just wonder whether it applies the same way to the rest of the nations of the world, big or small. Funny how I have come to think, or seem to get the impression that it is the US that seem to have deleted the word 'sovereignty' from their political dictionary.

If only every nation leave every other nations alone, unless the request to interact or to interfere is initiated by that particular requestee nation. But in today's world, that borders on utopia.

Nations USAs Nations United

You know what, I would love to leave the rest of the world alone. Yet, where is the first place smaller countries come looking for money or troops when they get into trouble? In my opinion, you can't have it both ways.

United Nations or USA's Nations?

I think Tena and Fireduck, both have good points.

Tena, I think what the rest of the world sometimes get frustrated about the USA is that the USA preaches about 'sovereignty' and being a free nation which is very true but again when other nations want to do their own thing, if affects US interests then the US comes and say 'No, you cannot do it' then where is our sovereignty and freedom? just because we are small countries that sometimes do depend on the US it doesn't mean we don't have dignity, they can't take away that from us just because we are small and poor countries. You know what I mean?

Regards to the UN, I don't think the USA will ever leave the UN. Even though Nighthawlk says they do not need it, I don't fully agree with this statement. I think the USA like any other country do need the UN for diplomatic reasons...yes...Bush is not a diplomat himself but again he will not be the US president forever and I think if the USA continues with what they call 'war against terrorism' then they will need somehow the UN support if they try to invade another country, if not, I think the USA will be in great danger and that's why I think they will never really quit the UN. They may critize it but they will never quit.

United Nations USA's Nations - Page 16

The USA is not muscling the UN. The president had a good reason to end what was going on in Iraq. He did it without the help of the UN. But the UN still gets sympathy because they have all of Europe on their side. In addition, most democratic Americans would rather be loyal to the UN than a republican administration. It is wrong thinking to accuse the USA of being biased. Everyone is biased, and everyone believes that anyone who disagrees with them is in the wrong. 'Old Europe' is not just anyone who disagrees with the United States. In this case, the only ones who happened to oppose the war in Iraq for whatever reason were countries like France and Germany, which are generally referred to as Old Europe.

United Nations USA's Nations Politics Business Civil & History - Page 16

Do not mean to argue over this but have you also wondered maybe, just maybe, it is the US that wants to be "the first place smaller countries come looking for money or troops when they get into trouble"? And that may be part of the design of their plans to hold sway over the lesser countries.

The US were not so successful until lately because the lesser nations then always had the second choice to go to -- the Soviet Union. And that scares the US. Remember the term 'Soviet Bloc', refering to the countries under the sphere of influence of the Soviets? Now there is no such thing and the US struts around in quite a different manner (trying very hard to make it sound very nice here) The Soviet era had this 'balance of power' that worked to deter either side from being too bold and adventurous in their military activities. Obviously, when you are outside the US you see the positiveness of such an arrangement, but when you are on the inside of US you would think that today's world order is perfect. Oh well!