| Well, we effectively did drop out of the UN, one for not giving in our dues, and two for going against their own rulings. I even think Bush tried to ban flying the UN flag on US territory...
That said, the UN should have a military for exactly this contingency, because we can see that the UN works only when the US supports it - mainly because the US can decide what we can and cannot do since it has the largest military budget the world has ever seen (more than the next 19 countries combined). The blue helmets can't intervene on most instances because the leading countries don't really want to get ensnarled in just the problems the US is in right now.
We really can't talk about a New World Order or an international judicial committee when the US flouts the UN's rule when it so pleases us. Notice how no suspected terrorists are reaching the international court. Notice how the US ignores UN concerns for its tribunals on Guantanamo and others. Notice our "coalition of the willing" and our expelling of UN inspectors. They should have a military if only to stop our aggression.
. . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. |