Yes, I agree. Move it to a neutral country like Switzerland and give it the powers to act properly. A United Nations, or some form of it, is an absolute necessity in these days of global issues. Pretending one country, (the US?) can act by itself is a nonsense.

I would generally leave headquarters in New York but have a travelling UN so various third world paradises that the UN loves so much could be benefited. In 2006, the UN meets in New York, Jan. to June--the rest of the year in Port au Prince. In 2007, New York the first half, Monrovia, the second half. In 2008 for variety, we'll start in Kinshasha the first half and New York the second half, etc.

Yes! Yes! Yes! Move it to Paris!

I wish there was a way we could eliminate it but just like Randyman said, and I was thinking the same thing when this subject was first brought up. Might as well be a part of it, so you know at least a bit of what's going on! EDIT: I can imagine what they would change it to if we did kick it out of the US. A.A.U. Anti-american's, UNITED!

Best idea yet. The UN is little more than a hotbed of anti-American sentiment and Jew hating. The UN almost never takes any meaningful action unless the U.S. military is involved. Who needs it? Let some other country host it for 50 years ... we did our shift.

Why? If you believe the U.N. is a good thing, you want it close. If you hate the U.N., then keeping it close to watchdog it is also a splendid idea.

Sorry, Louie, as much as they deserve to be escorted to the airport, one by one, and deported (probably hand-cuffed and manacled) this won't happen. If ever there was an absolute sham of a do-gooder organization and a nearly total waste of every American dollar spent on it, giving the UN the heave-ho would remove any vestige of diplomacy in which strategic discussions about international peace efforts (and occasionally, marginally effective relief efforts, which need to be extremely well funded to get beyond the incredibly shameful corrupt waste) and multi-lateral strategies are likely to take place. I'd like to see us manage our involvement better, sort of the way a large contributor manages his/her involvement in a political party. But for now, throwing them out would be like throwing out the bath water with the baby. It would be wrong, no matter how insolent and annoying the baby might have been.

The land that the U.N. is located on is not American soil, it is U.N. soil. The U.N. is considered it's own sort of Nation so technically you would not be removing them from the U.S. because they're not in the U.S.. As for relocating them, No.....The USA is part of the US. We helped form it and need to stick with it , even if we do have disagreements around what stance we want it to take. The U.N. represents an ideal that all countries are United in this world for the greater good of us all. The U.N. also achieves some goals around the world. It's not just about providing Peace Keeping Forces.

Good idea - move it to another planet, where the U.N. won't be such a nuisance.

I'm not so sure about this one. Remember the quote Keep your friends close, keep your enimies closer. No matter where they were located, it wouldn't change a thing.

I don't know what pupose would be served by moving it out of the US. It would be the same institution no matter where it were located. Add to that that since UN membership dues are based on a country's GNP (or some such economic indicator) the US pays a disproportionate share of the upkeep. I assume that means that the US would have to pay for the move and for the construction of a new headquarters somewhere else. I don't think so. Thanks but no, thanks. We can deal with it right where it is.