Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It looks like at least half the responders have said that the UN is Anti-American... Please tell me how. I am not trying to be sarcastic, I just don't see how the UN actively mandates policies that are against the US. I think they tend to put the collective world first which is sometimes against the US's interests, but I don't think that makes them "anti-US", just not "Pro-US".
The "Oil for Food" scandal is also a frequently cited issue (which is essentially circumventing an embargo that was supposed to limit the "discretionary money" of Iraq and make the rest be for more "humanitarian" spending). How is the UN responsible for causing it? I understand that they did not do enough to stop it, but would that not require an increase in their power and authority, which I doubt anyone opposed to the UN is arguing? Don't the companies involved in actually selling the oil and breaking the embargo bear more responsibility since they did the deed? If you hate the UN for the oil for food scandal, shouldn't you also boycott Chevron for being involved, and demand Condi Rice's resignation since she was on the Chevron board of Directors (and was important enough to have a tanker named after her), in charge of "political issues" at the time?
It just seems like the starting point for the anger is "I don't like the UN" and I'll figure out why later... I think that is wrong, just like when Liberals start out with "I hate Bush..." I guess I am really looking for the deep-down reasons and not the excuses.
I think it was a big mistake for the UN to be headquartered in NYC because I think it gives many people the impression that the UN is supposed to be an international advocate for US policies. It's not, and never was intended to be.
It's okay to disagree with US policies by the way...dissent is healthy. Does anyone else see a problem with blind jingoism and patriotism with no careful interpretation/analysis? The law of averages alone state we cannot ALWAYS be in the right...so maybe it's a good thing that we have an international forum like the UN.
I agree that the responsibility of these non-Americans' lives is theirs and theirs only. If they want a better life then they should fix their country.
I am glad that you totally agree with my viewpoint. Cut off funding and help to all other countries. Use that money and manpower to better our own country and then let them come running to us when their world falls apart.
I am glad you see things clearly. Thanks for your support.
I follow your reasoning here. I would prefer that the UN be relocated to a country that considers itself neutral--say, Belgium or even Switzerland.
The UN sitting on the East River has lost its impartial face and like many other agencies that become behemoths, it is outdated and needs to be revamped and reduced in scope.
But, and this is important to me, an oversight agency like the UN, does need to exist to watch-dog international politics and policy making, including those of the United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 525600minutes
I think it was a big mistake for the UN to be headquartered in NYC because I think it gives many people the impression that the UN is supposed to be an international advocate for US policies. It's not, and never was intended to be.
It's okay to disagree with US policies by the way...dissent is healthy. Does anyone else see a problem with blind jingoism and patriotism with no careful interpretation/analysis? The law of averages alone state we cannot ALWAYS be in the right...so maybe it's a good thing that we have an international forum like the UN.
Any organization that assigns countries such as Libya and similar nations to head a Human Rights committee (or something of that nature) is totally whacked. What's next, Iran leading a Women's Rights or Anti-Semitism committee?
So arent you upset that Bush is doing nothing to protect our borders???
I don't see how you would come to that conclusion from what I wrote. I hate hate hate hate that nothing is being done to protect our borders. It's the absolute worst thing happening in this country today and nobody is doing anything about it. Each day this country is being invaded and another country (Mexico mainly) is taking it over litte by little. It needs to be stopped ASAP!!!
I don't have any major problem with the UN. I'm not concerned about our nation's soverignity, and I don't think we should nessecarily pull out of the UN. However, my perception is that they are probably the most bureaucratic organization on the planet. Even though there are about 200 member countries, the US and Japan provide about 45% of the UN's funding.
I guess I just don't understand how it is beneficial to the US. We give this inefficient and weak organization a billion or so dollars, and in turn, smaller countries get to tell us what to do.
We techically provide a large amount of funding to the UN, but did you know that we are in arrears in our UN payments, and have been for several years?
The United Nations is not designed to be a mouthpiece for the United States in the international forum. It is not designed to be a mouthpiece for Isreal in the international forum. It's mission is to make sure international law is followed, economic development occurs throughout the world, social progress is fostered globally, and that human rights are not being violated by any nation.
I am a UN supporter. I think that it is important that there be a non-partial international forum to debate matters of diplomacy. I think it is unfortunate that people assume the UN is supposed to exists to foster the US agenda. Rather, we pay into the system because it is beneficial to have feedback about our actions on the world scale. The idea that we can do anything we want to do with no ramifications is flawed. And as such, the UN provides a good barometer of how our actions will be recieved abroad.
I am a former Model UNer, though...maybe I am too partial
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I understand that they did not do enough to stop it, but would that not require an increase in their power and authority, which I doubt anyone opposed to the UN is arguing? Don't the companies involved in actually selling the oil and breaking the embargo bear more responsibility since they did the deed? If you hate the UN for the oil for food scandal, shouldn't you also boycott Chevron for being involved, and demand Condi Rice's resignation since she was on the Chevron board of Directors (and was important enough to have a tanker named after her), in charge of "political issues" at the time?
