The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (PUBLIC) The Pub Genius - amazingly concise and accurate.

I disagree with withdrawing from the UN.

One of the things that I feel Bush is guilty of is alienating us from the rest of the world. And one of the things I'm most looking forward to our next leader to do is to help repair this damage that's been done.

Withdrawing from the UN would make what Bush has done look like nothing. It seems to me that it would completely alienate us from the entire world, and we'd become completely isolationalist, which is something I don't believe in (although, the exact opposite isn't the answer either; everything in moderation).

I understand all the complaints about the UN, and I can't disagree there, but withdrawing isn't the answer. If something this important to the world is broken, don't destroy it; fix it.

I'm not worried though, because I don't think it's even possible, not in the current political world. It'd take really drastic circumstances to cause this to happen, and once that all came... well, I'd be living a few miles underground in my own little awesome community to escape all that was coming, so I wouldn't care anyways.

The message isnt isolationism, its that the UN isnt an effective or desirable mechanism for diplomacy.

I agree about Bush having terrible diplomacy and foreign policy, I disagree that withdrawing from the UN would be worse than what Bush has done.

The idea that we deal respectfully with other nations is a good ideal, but the concept of signing over national sovreignty to a world body is a totally different animal.

Something else people fail to realize, is a forceful UN will lead to more war, not less. UN as a place to talk is OK, UN as a forcefull entity - will lead only to the reproduction on a larger scale of the chaos you get when splintered national governments have multiple armed factions who cannot agree.

We see it rather often, where a large cultural minority will get legislativly shafted by the cultural majority, and the minority cries "tyranny" and the majority yells back to "respect democratic process" and they end up slaughtering each other.

I disagree. I think the fear of the UN using force against them keeps countries in check. Think about it, since the UN was implemented a third world war has been avoided. Sure, wars have still squeaked by, but except for I guess Vietnam, they haven't been to the obscene magnitude as the world wars (although I guess you could also attribute that to technological improvements that lead to reduced casualties... at least on our side :P)

And I don't think it's so much a question of what the UN has done for us... we're a pretty self-sufficient, highly-developed country. The problem is that without us backing the UN, the world would be in a shitty state. No one likes us because we go around sticking our nose where it doesn't belong (in the most recent case, without the UN's approval...) but honestly if it weren't for the UN, all those communists and dictators that go around ass-raping the third world way too often as it already is, would completely wreak havoc upon the people they so love to oppress and exploit.

There is no reason to think the UN had anything to do with preventing WW3. The thing that prevented WW3, is both the US and Soviet leaders got cold feet about starting it, it had zero to do with the UN.

There is plenty of war, and tyranny despite the UN. As a matter of fact, unless the United States takes a strong interest in pushing for, and funding interventions it doesnt happen.

When it does happen, we are blamed (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly) of simply serving our own interests.

I would like to hear one good reason that U.S. soldiers should be tried for war crimes internationally, should someone wish to try and bring charges.

I would like to hear one good reason why we should ever screw ourselves, simply because others in the world think we should.

Guess what, other people in the world dont have fairness and agreement as their highest priority. They have their own agendas as their priority. Not that it should be any different, but diplomacy worked perfectly well for many centuries before the UN, and would continue to work perfectly well after.

I think you can look at history to see the effectiveness of the UN. The league of Nations were based on Wilson's 14 points, but English and French interests weakened the League. As a result, it did little to prevent future wars. World War Two happened, the UN came about, much more similar to the original plan for the league, and bam, no WW3. Globalization has increased since ww2, so you'd think more conflicts would arise to bring fourth a third world war. Two happened within twenty years, it's been sixty since the last and still nothing.

Uhm. No.

and

No, you wouldnt.

Ok, I guess I will explain these nos real quick -

ww2 happened, essentially because the French were insistent on such severe treatment of the germans after ww1 that their economy never recovered, and eventually the germans got so bitter as to hand power to a creature like Hitler.

WW3 DIDNT happen, because nuclear weapons were in play. Weighing the effects of some organization like the UN, and the concept that ww3 would likely bring about the near-extinction of our species side by side... I find it difficult to fathom how the UN could have played any part.

If you think "world opinion", or "world governing bodies" had jack, or shit to do with.... say- Kennedy or Chruszchev's military/nuclear decisions for example, then I have some fine real-estate in Florida I would love to sell you.

Saying "then along came the UN and, BAM - no WW3 " is akin to saying " wow I saw Brittney Spears on TV, and BAM! - my constipation cleared up".

Maybe, there was somehow through some complicated process connecting the two.. but in the example given above, the subject had also downed several habenero peppers, and a bag of black licorice. (peppers metaphorically representing the A-bombs here)

You're assuming ww3 would include nukes.

Countries with nuclear arsenals have been involved in probably a dozen wars, and twice as many military engagements lasting less than a week such as Kuwait or Panama since the end of WWII, a nuke has never been dropped.

With NATO and the Warsaw Pact, there was a presence of the entangled alliances that led to the first two world wars, yet a third was avoided.

Yeah, nukes could have played a part in the avoidance of a third world war, but I don't think they played the whole part. It's like rival gangs, they don't necessarily stop fighting because they each have guns. They could very well set up an outsiders-styled fists-only brawl or whatever.

No, again - way wrong.

I am not assuming anything, its a established fact that both the US and Soviets were both afraid that any conflict could/would escalate to nuclear, because eventually one side would gain an advantage and inevitably the loser would be tempted.

So, no - I am not assuming anything.