To give up any part of our sovereignty to such a gang is playing the fool. To fund this mess is also foolish, in my opinion. Corruption in the UN has become an art form, it seems.

Of what good was the UN to us in the case of Iraq? Tell me what good it has served in the GWOT. Of what good has it been in the case of Iran and its thrust for nuclear weapons? Of what good would it be if China decided to invade Taiwan, or Russia went into one of its former nations? My take is that it would be zero. Huge discussions, votes and sanctions in the UN Security Council would not change the facts on the ground, even if they had a quorum on the issue.

We delude ourselves that UN approval of our actions conveys legitimacy, when the members themselves are not actually legitimate, in the sense of being rational, relatively altruistic players, and democratic in their very nature.

We delude ourselves that having such a forum prevents war. It didn't prevent the Korean War; it didn't prevent the Vietnam War, and it didn't prevent the first or second Gulf Wars. The UN most certainly does not prevent a nuclear war, if it comes to a major conflict between two nuclear powers. The power to halt such a conflict, by diplomacy and threats of retaliation, comes from each major nation acting in its own interest and banding together at the time. Normal diplomatic channels serve this end quite well, and they are not cluttered with tens and hundreds of pipsqueak diplomats from amoral nations that want a say, or want a delay for their own benefit.

The UN is a failure, and its participants are at fault, including the US, for giving their trust to gangsters and thieves for handling massive sums of money that simply disappear without adequate accounting.

The UN wants to extend its control over the US, if my reading of their proposed gun control measures and their LOST treaty are any indication.

I vote NO!

Oh, get real. Our voice counts the same as Burundi in the General Assembly, which is not the body that has any ability to restrain our power, or to do much of anything. Our voice is extremely powerful in the Security Council, given that it can do nothing without our assent.

"Its entire purpose is to build international consensus."

Actually, not really. Its entire purpose, or at least its core purpose, is to provide a forum for diplomacy that could reduce the risks of another World War. That was the central motivation for the LON after WWI and the even more pressing motivation for the UN after WWII.

Consensus is great. But the most important goal is to give antagonistic powers every avenue possible for a peaceful resolution of their conflicts.