What do you think about dissolving the U.S. Military except what's necessary for U.N. peacekeeping?

While I am often troubled by our status as police force for the world, there is no way this would ever work. In addition to the Constitutional and Nationalist issues that might be raised, there is a huge security threat to this idea.

Why? Consider the UN Security Council. They continually sanction Israel, when she is the only Middle East democracy, and they do nothing about true terrorist states. The reality is that Israeli Arab citizens and even many Palestinians have a much better life than the average person in Saudi Arabia, Libya or any other Arab state. Some will argue that Iranian citizens are okay, but I'm not sure I agree.

In any case, with the UN being so controlled by a couple of Blocs, including the Former Soviet Bloc (including China), the Islamic Bloc (Arab states, Iran, Turkey) etc., it would be far too easy for a corrupt UN leader to conspire with these corrupt folks to take over other countries.

Without our standing military, and with the UN in control of all forces, we would cease to exist as a country, and end up either speaking Arabic, Russian or Chinese... I'd rather not learn those languages under compulsion, thank you very much...

The UN is the one that should be dissolved. It's not a good idea for the US to ever relinquish sovereignty nor agree to be subject under any other national power. If the UN, or any government, tries to disarm us, they'll have a massive fight on their hands. Some of us hold tight to our weapons and ammo.

Covered this a while back: https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/are-you-aware-of-the-true-nature-of-our-government-s-agenda

"The document is genuine, but should be taken in context. The U.S. and the Soviet Union were looking for a formal approach to disarmament talks. They finally agreed that the U.N. could be helpful in this respect. The state department wrote this U.N. proposal which was introduced to the U.N. Quite, obviously,as the negotiations progressed, neither side decided that this particular plan was going to meet their needs, so both sides backed away from it. Fortunately, however, the discussions from this U.N. proposal paved the way for nuclear weapon treaties in the next 20 years. The document does not (as some claim) carry the weight of law and was not a goal of any administration in the past 25 years. Nowhere does the document refer to privately owned arms."