Yes. It's in the US's best interests to just do things on its own. (Cue the haters who will attack me and put words in my mouth by saying I advocate agrarian and isolationist societies.)
Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
Yes.
No.
Other answer.
Now that the security bill alone for the G8 and G20 summits this year in Toronto has reached 1 billion Canadian dollars in response to the regular disruptions of these summits every year around the world (and that it's likely to be expensive for each future summit too, not to mention the local disruption to traffic and other urban disruptions in the host city, along with the violence it attract each time), and considering that the existence of the UN really makes these summits redundant anyway, should the US resign from the G8 and G20?




Yes. It's in the US's best interests to just do things on its own. (Cue the haters who will attack me and put words in my mouth by saying I advocate agrarian and isolationist societies.)
How much to rent a cruise ship these days?





Had to vote yes... anyone see much come out of these G8 and G20 summits lately?
- Frustrated Independent
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people.” - Penn Jillette amazingly enough, and I agree.

How on earth does the UN replace either the G8 or G20?
All of the members of the G8 are members of the G20. That alone makes the G8 redundant. And all members of the G20 are members of the UN. That makes the G20 redundant and the G8 doubly redundant.
Could they not just have their ambassadors get together now and then in a room at the UN buildings now and then when they have some free time? Or if they insist on having national leaders get together, then rather than spend 1 billion (that's a thousand million) dollars on security at just two summits, then why not just hold them at the UN buildings instead where regular security is in place already. This would also save money on transport since they could hold multiple meetings consecutively for the G8, G20 and UN General Assembly.
So I see redundancy on three levels:
1. The fact that the members of the smaller organizations are all members of a larger one,
2. The fact that separate security costs are being incurred for these separate meetings when they could all be held in an already regularly secured building, and
3. The fact that they are spending on transport to different locations when they could all go to one and the same location and hold multiple consecutive conferences there.
That alone would save billions.




New revelation:
Tories 'transparent' on security costs: watchdog
As it turns out, the cost of this G8/G20 summit might not in fact be out of line with those of previous summits; only that the government has been more transparent with regards to these costs and previous such meetings!
So looking at it that way, this is might not be the worst summit in terms of cost, but rather the best in terms of transparency. Now we know the real costs of these summits.





At least all the countries involved are trying to come up with new ways to waste money under the pretense that something is getting done. G20s initial meeting was back in what, 2008? Perhaps next, since the G8 is older, they will come up with a G30 or <insert name here> and include more. Why not three, or four different ones... just cause...
This is much like watching UN resolution #10 try to do more than resolution #9 did not do, on the same subject. What a total waste.
- Frustrated Independent
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people.” - Penn Jillette amazingly enough, and I agree.
Bookmarks