While the United Nations may leave a lot to be desired, I think it performs a valuable mission in the world. Anything that helps promote world unity, peace, and health can't be all bad. But Raymond Wilson and Charles Atkins seem to feel differently. Is isolationism in vogue in San Benito County?
Wilson states that we "dam (sic) sure can't afford the United Nations". While we may be paying more than our fair share, we can and should be part of it, if only to help cement our role as a world leader.
Atkins complains that U.S. troops are serving under the U.N. insignia even though they are sworn to defend our country. He then states with pride that his father served in Korea and Vietnam (for which his father does deserve our admiration and thanks). However, given Atkins logic, his father should not have served in either war, because defending South Korea and South Vietnam from Communism isn't really defending our country -- certainly not directly. Is Bosnia that much different?
Atkins also claims that a world government "would give other countries authority over us". That's simply not true; even if a world government could be created, no one country would have authority over any other. This is like saying the U.S. government gives other states authority over California. It would take a coalition of countries to be able to force anything down our throats, just like it takes a coalition of states in the U.S. to affect another state. And, if the government is structured like the U.N., the U.S. could veto anything in the Security Council, so it would be difficult to force anything on us.
Is the U.N. perfect? Of course not, but neither is our California government or the U.S. government. This does not mean we should simply abandon them; we should try to fix the problems while keeping the best aspects of them.