Why do you like/dislike the UN

[Wakie]

I've seen a lot of conservatives on here complain quite a bit about the United Nations and insist that the US should "pull out".  Now I'll admit that it isn't a perfect system but it certainly does encourage dialogue between nations (instead of war).  What I'm wondering is why the conservatives dislike it so much?

[Keystone Phil]

I'm not one of those pull out of the UN conservatives but I do dislike the way they handle certain situations like the situation with Iraq and the Oil for Food situation.

[PBrunsel]

If they would elect an American as Secretary General I would be content with the United Nations.

[Dr. Cynic]

I feel the UN could be better, but I do like it.

[Jake]

We let them use prime Manhattan real estate and we pay them massive amounts of money. Both wastes.

[Bono]

We let them use prime Manhattan real estate and we pay them massive amounts of money. Both wastes.

And it's an infrengment on the US soberany and attempts to creat world government(something neo-cons would love, although in a shlightly different modus opperandi).

[Richard]

This is why:




While I have nothing against a place where nations can come to the table to negotiate, I do have issues with the way the United Nations are run.

- Kick out all countries that have dictatorships.

- Kick out all countries with no women's rights, that persecute and kill gays, minorities, and so on.

- Kick out all countries with less than 5 million people.  They're so irrelevant it isn't even funny.  The exception here is, of course, if you're going to create a bicameral-type UN.

- Quit putting morons such as Kofi Annan up there.  If he was CEO of a company, he would have been expected to resign a long time ago.

- Security Council: I object to the EU having two seats with veto powers.  This issue of "permanet" seats are stupid.  So is the issue of "veto" power to certain nations.  In fact, I object to the Security Council.

[Nation]

I tolerate them because they provide a vehicle for us to defend Israel.

[Richard]

I tolerate them because they provide a vehicle for us to defend Israel.

HAHAHAHAHA.  You can do that without the UN.

[Wakie]

Richius, the "you're too small" argument could be applied to US states in the Senate then.

I mean Barbara Boxer can't really say "I'm sorry Senator Hatch but Utah is insignificant compared to California so shut up."

[Richard]

Richius, the "you're too small" argument could be applied to US states in the Senate then.

Note the exception I put in.

[Cashcow]

I agree with Keystone. The U.N. has enormous potential, but hasn't made nearly enough progress with it.

Intervention in Rwanda would have been nice.

[Richard]

Kofi Annan:  I'm proud to report that Darfur is STILL SAFE FROM AMERICAN IMPERIALISM!

[12th Doctor]

Because there is no "United Nations", just 180 countries that are all looking out for their own self interests.  In the Balakans, UN involvement has cost far more lives than it has saved. 

The UN does not defend human rights if doing so is a violation of the "rights" of a soveregn nation. 

The UN does not get involved in civil wars. 

The UN "Peace Keepers" cannot us their own weapons to acctually keep the peace and save lives.  But, they can shoot the dogs that are feeding off the corpses of people killed right in front of them, because flesh eating dogs are a sanitation hazard.

So, I ask this.  What is the UN actually good for?

[Richard]

Because there is no "United Nations", just 180 countries that are all looking out for their own self interests.  In the Balakans, UN involvement has cost far more lives than it has saved. 

The UN does not defend human rights if doing so is a violation of the "rights" of a soveregn nation. 

The UN does not get involved in civil wars. 

The UN "Peace Keepers" cannot us their own weapons to acctually keep the peace and save lives.  But, they can shoot the dogs that are feeding off the corpses of people killed right in front of them, because flesh eating dogs are a sanitation hazard.

So, I ask this.  What is the UN actually good for?

It creates a few jobs in New York City.

[David S]

If the UN is simply a place where nations can peacefully resolve their differences I have no problem with that. But I absolutley oppose the idea of the UN becomming a world government. I also oppose any plan for the UN to levy taxes on American citizens or create treatys which conflict with the U.S. constitution or laws.

BTW treatys  can carry the power of constitutional amendments. That makes them especially dangerous since they require only the approval of the president and 2/3 of the Senate.

[A18]

A treaty can be overturned by a new executive and Senate at any time.

[The Duke]

I hate the UN because they occupy a spot that would be perfect for the new NY Jets Stadium.

Oh, and they coddle dictators, steal food from Iraqi children, do nothing about genocides, and complain whenever America dopes their job for them.

But mostly, I don't think the Jets and Giants should have to share a stadium.

[Bono]

Badnarik's plan to blow up the UN building seem to appeal tolots of people.

[David S]

Badnarik's plan to blow up the UN building seem to appeal tolots of people.

I supported Badnarik, but I think he made a serious mistake on that. Although he was very careful to say that he would make sure  everyone was safely out of the building, he did but explain why he wanted to end the UN in such dramatic fashion. Most people have no idea why he would do such a thing. He should have explained that. Also it would make much more sense to sell the building and use the proceeds to help pay down the debt. That's a more financially responsible solution. Why waste the money? The way Badnarik did it, he came off looking like Bill Murray in Caddy Shack, blowing up gopher holes.

Despite his faults he was the only candidate who actually supports the constitution.

[patrick1]

Because there is no "United Nations", just 180 countries that are all looking out for their own self interests.  In the Balakans, UN involvement has cost far more lives than it has saved. 

The UN does not defend human rights if doing so is a violation of the "rights" of a soveregn nation. 

The UN does not get involved in civil wars. 

The UN "Peace Keepers" cannot us their own weapons to acctually keep the peace and save lives.  But, they can shoot the dogs that are feeding off the corpses of people killed right in front of them, because flesh eating dogs are a sanitation hazard.

So, I ask this.  What is the UN actually good for?

It creates a few jobs in New York City.

yeah traffic cops who write parking tickets that are never paid.