NationStates Jolt Archive

Why are people so against the UN? Is it because of them not supporting our decision to invade Iraq? Is it because they are not heavily militarized to deal with situations like in Rwanda? It seems to be like the hate the French thing. Why isn't the UN a good idea, at least in theory?

Why are people so against the UN? Is it because of them not supporting our decision to invade Iraq? Is it because they are not heavily militarized to deal with situations like in Rwanda? It seems to be like the hate the French thing. Why isn't the UN a good idea, at least in theory?

[conservative republican hat]
They're corrupt. Evil. EVILLLLLL EVILLLLL Corrupt!

That will focus peoples attention so they aren't watching us!

[/conservative republican hat]

Be prepared for the flamefest over that question ;)

The UN is ineffective because it let all those WMDs into Iraq. :rolleyes:

I hate do-nothing bureaucracy, period. And yes, they are corrupt. I won't harp on that, but there's no denying it.

I hate do-nothing bureaucracy, period. And yes, they are corrupt. I won't harp on that, but there's no denying it.

Same label could be put on any government or governmental institution, pretty much.

I dare anyone to show me a bureaucracy that is free from corruption.

It just seems like a good idea that kind of lost it's way a little bit. I just don't understand the animosity directed at what is basically supposed to be a way to reach world wide agreements to preserve peace.

I dare anyone to show me a bureaucracy that is free from corruption.
The Wemberly Aged Pensioner's Society's Bureaucracy is uncorrupted.

[conservative republican hat]
They're corrupt. Evil. EVILLLLLL EVILLLLL Corrupt!

That will focus peoples attention so they aren't watching us!

[/conservative republican hat]

Be prepared for the flamefest over that question ;)

Usually I just come on here and read and hold my tongue. But the Republicans really are attacking like the UN stole their lunch money or something.

Any liberals against the UN?

Why are people so against the UN? Is it because of them not supporting our decision to invade Iraq? Is it because they are not heavily militarized to deal with situations like in Rwanda? It seems to be like the hate the French thing. Why isn't the UN a good idea, at least in theory?

Good question. My guess is that it's because in the UN, we are forced to deal with other nations that don't want to allow us absolute power and kind of resent us for both our ultrapower status and what they perceive as our "arrogant" awareness of it. Other nations want to feel like they have some dignity, and our current administration just wants to steamroll them instead of at least treating them with perfunctory respect (which might actually make it easier to get what we want out of them than trying to run them over). Why else would they try to send Bolton, just about the most un-diplomatic person they could, to the UN? And as the social security attack shows, our administration isn't really big on allowing other people to retain dignity anyway.

I have a theory that a lot of international problems we have are due to other nations wanting to retain some self-esteem. For instance, Kim Jong-Il wants his nation to be recognized and respected as a world power, which I think is his main motivation for acquiring nuclear weapons.

But that's just my theory.

The hostility towards the United Nations, and global government in general, in the United States comes from three sources.

1. The Christain Fundamentalists, who see the Anti-Christ springing forth from that organization (see Left Behind series).

2. The Neo-Conservatives, who view this organization as a threat to Americas status as a Superpower and their own view of Empire.

3. The Conspricy Theorists/Militia Members, those who are hostile to government in general for many "reasons", rangeing from the Federal Government and U.N. wants to strip the citizenry of its right to bear-arms to (my personal favorite) its all controled by aliens or secret societies....

Politicans from conservative areas often win easy votes/contributions by pandering to these groups. There is no pro-U.N. voting bloc, so the organizations defenders are few in number, which is unfortunate, as only harm to humanity results from the U.S.'s current policy of hostile apaty...

Good question. My guess is that it's because in the UN, we are forced to deal with other nations that don't want to allow us absolute power and kind of resent us for both our ultrapower status and what they perceive as our "arrogant" awareness of it. Other nations want to feel like they have some dignity, and our current administration just wants to steamroll them instead of at least treating them with perfunctory respect (which might actually make it easier to get what we want out of them than trying to run them over). Why else would they try to send Bolton, just about the most un-diplomatic person they could, to the UN? And as the social security attack shows, our administration isn't really big on allowing other people to retain dignity anyway.

I have a theory that a lot of international problems we have are due to other nations wanting to retain some self-esteem. For instance, Kim Jong-Il wants his nation to be recognized and respected as a world power, which I think is his main motivation for acquiring nuclear weapons.

But that's just my theory.
I pretty much agree with that theory. Of course Kim Jong-Il might just want to have things that make big bang but other than that, I agree. What I really don't understand is that the UN has basically been proven to be ineffectual in stopping us (short term, anyway), so why the rally cry to go against them? It just would seem to me to be smarter to just ignore them if thats basically what we're doing anyway. <--- said from "their" point of view

I have a theory that a lot of international problems we have are due to other nations wanting to retain some self-esteem. For instance, Kim Jong-Il wants his nation to be recognized and respected as a world power, which I think is his main motivation for acquiring nuclear weapons.

The cult of self-esteem makes another convert! So just because Kim Jong-Il doesn't feel properly appreciated, or maybe because he wasn't held enough as a kid, he's justified in running one of the most brutal police states on the face of the planet? If only he'd explain that to his people as they rot in jail cells on made-up charges, or scrounge for food for their starving children, or lie awake at night, waiting for the knock on the door, doubtless they'd understand and sympathize.

Sorry if I went a little hard on you there, Scratchie, but I don't think Kim's going after the nukes because he's not getting enough love from the international community.

I realize that, even though I'm a pretty die-hard conservative, I don't necessarily represent every reason why we should hate the UN. Nevertheless, I'll give you my personal reasons, and hope that maybe someone else will latch on and run with them.

I suppose reason #1 is that so many people think the UN's stamp of approval gives something moral legitimacy. Before Gulf War II, one Anglican bishop said he thought the Anglican Church's doctrine on what constitutes a just war should be changed to include that it was approved by the Security Council. If that had been implemented a couple of years before, during the run-up to GW II, a devout Anglican would have required the assent of two atheists and a lapsed Catholic (the representatives of Russia, China and France, respectively) to decide whether the Iraq war was, in fact, moral.

Let's not forget that the United Nations is composed of many member states, some of them not too savoury. A nation-state, by its nature, is self-centered, calculating and ruthless. I think it was Kissenger who said, "We have no friends, only interests." When a bunch of these entities are asked to vote on something, generally they'll go along with it if it's in their interests, and otherwise, they'll vote against. Right and wrong generally have nothing to do with it. The US basically went against half the world to bring freedom to Iraq, and how about Darfur? We're seeing a lot of talk from Europe, but genocide hasn't yet been resolved by hot air, and I doubt Darfur will be the place where the precedent is reversed.

One last bit on this point: if the US should decide that it's in their best interests to take out Saddam Hussein, then why should they let France's interests -- and Security Council veto -- block what they want to do?

Reason #2: the UN is corrupt. Not just as in, Western government corrupt, but like the absolutely spectacular corruption you find in the Third World, which is what most of the UN is. When Cuba can be chair of the UN Committee on Human Rights and Iraq held the chair of the Committee on Disarmament, is it any wonder that ordinary Americans were ready to vomit with rage? Oh, and let's not forget the Oil-for-Food fiasco, where billions of dollars that were supposed to help feed hungry Iraqis went to buy Saddam new weaponry and the to kickbacks needed to grease the deals. Yet at the UN, all that is basically a normal day at the office.

By the way, I give you guys credit for recognizing #2, but if you're true-blue believers in the UN, how do you reconcile that with #1?

Reason #3:Finally, I can't believe the kind of crap resolutions that come out of the UN. For example, the Arab bloc regularly gangs up on Israel, and gets all kinds of resolutions passed condemning Israel's "horrendous" human rights record, the West Bank fence, the way it treats terrorist suspects, or what have you. Yet even Israel-haters can't deny that the Jewish state is lightyears ahead of its accusers on all those matters. I know that Israel's hands aren't lily-white, but they're still way, way better than the assorted dictatorships, corrupt monarchies and theocracies that govern the rest of the Middle East.

I guess it's the hypocrisy that gets me most. When some Arab whose state-run media broadcast that 10 000 Jews evacuated the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 because they were part of the Mossad conspiracy that orchestrated the whole thing, can then turn around and piously lecture me about the West Bank fence or prisoner conditions at Guantanamo Bay, it makes me want to take a shit all over his Gucci loafers. You know, one pair of the hundreds that he got by brutalizing the people under his rule.

Sorry about the length, guys. I'll try and answer any comments you might have, but only after I've gotten some sleep.

I don't particularly hate the UN, I'm mostly indifferent to it, because it's mostly incapable, and tend to agree with the view that it is a "gizmo." The only things they could be good for, preventing and punishing crimes against humanity, and solving disputes between nations, they can't do.

It's good to have an international forum for nations and as such it's good that the U.N. exists, but to have it erected as an international super-state or confederacy as is some people's wish is clearly a bad thing, because national sovereignty and statehood is something which should be treasured. Without becoming supernational, the U.N. could play a great role in helping nations build a State, in halting genocide and all those things, but since it's so powerless it can't do any of these things. It's had a few successes in its time, but very few.

Kofi Annan recently announced a plan to reform the U.N. He thinks there's actually a chance that it'll happen, even though it won't. The reform is basically expanding the security council (stupid, it'll immobilize the U.N. even further) and reforming the Human Rights Council. This latter measure, however, could be a real step in the right direction, as the human rights council is currenly being occupied by the worst human rights abusers so that they don't get investigated by it.

So basically, the UN has a role for good to play in the world, but it needs to understand that it can only play it through the will of the nations that make it up.

P.S. : I agree with the above poster on all counts, except that I think it was De Gaulle who first said "France has no friends, only interests" -- the thinking is as old as Machiavel, though.

Why are people so against the UN? Is it because of them not supporting our decision to invade Iraq? Is it because they are not heavily militarized to deal with situations like in Rwanda? It seems to be like the hate the French thing. Why isn't the UN a good idea, at least in theory?

The UN ROCKS ASS! Why? Cos I intend to be sec gen someday!!
Yes the UN has a vast number of faults. But would people honestly like to live in a world without.

Just a question. What kind of power do the UN actually have over the world? I mean, US just went ahead and bombed the crap out of Iraq even though UN said no. Its not like UN can do THAT much aout it, is it? Oh, and, someone futher back said that UN let Irag have all those WMD. Well, what is it that you Americans call all those bombs that you have? Thats right, tactical weapons. Sorry, i keep getting mixed up :P And while im on the subject, did anyone actually find these 'weapons of mass destruction?' (i hate that term, it just causes mass histeria)

Just a question. What kind of power do the UN actually have over the world? I mean, US just went ahead and bombed the crap out of Iraq even though UN said no. Its not like UN can do THAT much aout it, is it? Oh, and, someone futher back said that UN let Irag have all those WMD. Well, what is it that you Americans call all those bombs that you have? Thats right, tactical weapons. Sorry, i keep getting mixed up :P And while im on the subject, did anyone actually find these 'weapons of mass destruction?' (i hate that term, it just causes mass histeria)


No, nobody found anything.
In fact the official search for them in Iraq, has been officially halted.

The U.N cant do jack shit, and will only write you a nasty letter.
Its a great theory, but little actual authority to back up its demands.
When this happens, you have the biggest bully on the block, go and beat up the guy who isnt playing by the rules.
Problem is, the bully kicks the holy crap out of the guy, and ends up looking like the bigger prick.
So you end up hating the bully even worse.
America is the bully.

Yes, we are a buch of assholes, yes, we believe our crap doesnt stink, and we have a huge military wich we use to kick the crap out of various third world nations that arent playing by the rules.
But you know what?
Ultimately, someone has to.

I would much prefer if the U.S military were more like the U.N's attack dog.
When the collective council agrees that military action is called for, they let the pack of dogs loose to do thier thing.

Sick em Dubya!

That would be fine with me.
Instead, we act on our own, against protest, on shitty information, and dubious circumstances, and make a big fekkin mess of it.
Now we have to clean it all up.
Now were stuck there a long time cleaning up the shitstorm we started.

If any of you have seen Team America, the end monologue about there being three kinds of people(nations)...dicks, pussies, and assholes...is actually pretty close to the mark.
I'd paraphrase for you, but it would probably get me banned.

Why are people so against the UN? Is it because of them not supporting our decision to invade Iraq? Is it because they are not heavily militarized to deal with situations like in Rwanda? It seems to be like the hate the French thing. Why isn't the UN a good idea, at least in theory?
The U.N. doesn't even have its own military. The Blue Helmets are only those troops made available by the different member states.

The U.N. is more like a forum than it is anything close to a world government.

Why are people so against the UN? Is it because of them not supporting our decision to invade Iraq? Is it because they are not heavily militarized to deal with situations like in Rwanda? It seems to be like the hate the French thing. Why isn't the UN a good idea, at least in theory?
I'm opposed to any sort of world government......

The US and Japan essentially fund almost 50% of the cost of the UN. Now, what have we got for that investment? For that matter, what has the world received for that investment?

Essentially it is a gargantuan waste of money. Diplomace does not require the UN to work, and in fact could go much smoother without.

Someone asked if I'd prefer to live in a world without the UN... For all intent and purpose, we already do.

Why are people so against the UN? Is it because of them not supporting our decision to invade Iraq? Is it because they are not heavily militarized to deal with situations like in Rwanda? It seems to be like the hate the French thing. Why isn't the UN a good idea, at least in theory?
Lots of things that are good "in theory" fail miserably in practice. The UN has done a number of good things ( UNICEF springs to mind ), but when it comes to enforcing strictures against "rogue nations," it's nothing but a paper tiger.

Example: Iraq's representative was on the UN Human Rights Commission! DUH!

Same label could be put on any government or governmental institution, pretty much.
That's exactly why there shouldn't be a government or governmental institution.

The US and Japan essentially fund almost 50% of the cost of the UN. Now, what have we got for that investment? For that matter, what has the world received for that investment?

Essentially it is a gargantuan waste of money. Diplomace does not require the UN to work, and in fact could go much smoother without.

Someone asked if I'd prefer to live in a world without the UN... For all intent and purpose, we already do.

That is just plainly wrong. The U.S. are the ones who owed the U.N. money.

In 1998 the U.S. still owed the U.N. $ 316 million which equaled 76% of overall contributions still due.

The debts the U.N. itself had at the end of 1998 were $ 1.594 billion, the U.S. not having covered their share which is $ 1.001 billion which equals 60 %.

The U.S. is not paying its bills and you claim you pay 50% of all the costs? Wrong.

Any liberals against the UN?
Yes, me. I love the concept of the United Nations, but I despise the way it's run in the status quo. I spent functionally this whole year learning about the UN, so I'll write some of it and see where it goes:

1. Peacekeeping, while again a noble idea, functionally inevitably fails given certain structural flaws in the UN system: The Security council veto prevents effective deployment, the troops don't have the capacity to deploy rapidly enough to deter anyone from doing anything, an ineffective command structure prevents mission success, Chapter VI (which most PKOs are chartered under) prevents the troops from using force to protect anyone but themselves, and peacekeepers often rape women in countries they're deployed in. There's more, too.

2. The UN has consistently been biased against Israel. http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Articles/AIPAC-2002-05-20.asp

3. Preventing action outside the UN by US forces is a really, really bad idea.

Again, there's more, but I need to go.

That is just plainly wrong. The U.S. are the ones who owed the U.N. money.

In 1998 the U.S. still owed the U.N. $ 316 million which equaled 76% of overall contributions still due.

The debts the U.N. itself had at the end of 1998 were $ 1.594 billion, the U.S. not having covered their share which is $ 1.001 billion which equals 60 %.

The U.S. is not paying its bills and you claim you pay 50% of all the costs? Wrong.
That's just US arrears. And you have the picture wrong. The US is paying it's funds, just really late. Imagine if someone was renting a house from you, and they were supposed to pay monthly, but instead, they pay roughly 9 months later than they were originally supposed to, causing a lot of debt to accrue.

Additionally, your stats don't cover operating funds (the UN is in New York), emergency appropriations for peacekeeping, etc, etc.

they dont like the UN because americans want to get what they pay for and the UN refuses to be our bitch.

we are either afraid they will usurp our power by actually DOING something or pissed that they DONT do something.

they dont like the UN because americans want to get what they pay for and the UN refuses to be our bitch.

we are either afraid they will usurp our power by actually DOING something or pissed that they DONT do something.
ROFL! Well said! :D

The UN ROCKS ASS! Why? Cos I intend to be sec gen someday!!
Yes the UN has a vast number of faults. But would people honestly like to live in a world without.
Abso-fucking-lutely.

That is just plainly wrong. The U.S. are the ones who owed the U.N. money.

In 1998 the U.S. still owed the U.N. $ 316 million which equaled 76% of overall contributions still due.

The debts the U.N. itself had at the end of 1998 were $ 1.594 billion, the U.S. not having covered their share which is $ 1.001 billion which equals 60 %.

The U.S. is not paying its bills and you claim you pay 50% of all the costs? Wrong.


I love it when someone who has no clue what they are talking about tries to counter fact with their propoganda distorted perceptions. I mean, really, even your factoids contradict your conclusion (as well as each other). Do you really not know the difference between debt and dues?

Regardless, I can only support the decision of the US to not pay. It is, as I clearly state before, a HUGH waste of mony with no payoff for the US or anyone else.

Posts like this make me think maybe voting should require a license...

I hate do-nothing bureaucracy, period. And yes, they are corrupt. I won't harp on that, but there's no denying it.

So then you must feel the same way about the United States? How un-American! :(

That's exactly why there shouldn't be a government or governmental institution.
If we DIDN'T have a Governmental institution, we'd have ANARCHY. If we have Anarchy, then the human race will probably kill itself out, or they'll clump together and form a new government. No matter what you do, there's going to be a government. It's just time we took out the pressure washer and cleaned it all up.

Heh. I could totally see myself dousing GWB with a pressure washer.

To answer the question most accurately, the reason people buy into all this UN hatefest is because most people I have found don't have a clue of what the UN mandate is or what their role is suppose to be. Too many people are under the false impression that the UN is suppose to act on what countries decide. It's not up to the UN to do so, it's up to the countries. The UN is only a venue, it is only as strong or weak as the 5 members with Veto power basically. So if you want to blame the UN for anything, you would have to look at the inability of those 5 nations that basically rule the UN to agree on situations at any given time.

Any liberals against the UN?
I am. They're not doing their job properly. They allow genocidal states like Sudan to kill with impunity. They and their peacekeepers have been implicated in numerous scandals including oil for food, Jordanian peacekeepers molesting East Timorese children while on duty, and peacekeepers in DRC running child sex rings.

Another problem is that each country has the same rights in the general assembly. If a nation can't bring itself to allow it's population to have basic human rights it shouldn't be treated as an equal. It should be treated as a pariah.

Three words. CORRUPTION, INEPTNESS, CORRUPTION. Time to put it out to pasture.

Why are people so against the UN? Is it because of them not supporting our decision to invade Iraq? Is it because they are not heavily militarized to deal with situations like in Rwanda? It seems to be like the hate the French thing. Why isn't the UN a good idea, at least in theory?
My belief is because they have no teeth. They can pass any resolution they want, but unless someone actually enforces it, it means nothing. Because of that, they're quite pointless and ineffective. Also, the buracracy and corruption within them is great.

Not saying I hate the UN, in fact I support it. But I believe it's in need of a massive overhaul and change to actually give them authority and streamline processes.

Because they're too damned scared hiding behind their desks to call Darfur a geneocide, because that means they might have to get off their high horse and actually DO something about it.

If you like the whole Bill or Rights, the UN is not your friend.

Reject UN Gun Control

The gun control movement in America has lost momentum in recent years, as evidenced by the Democratic party’s conspicuous silence on the issue in the 2000 and 2002 elections. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11th terrorist attacks only made matters worse for gun control advocates, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals.

Perhaps the biggest threat to gun rights in America today comes not from domestic lawmakers, but from abroad. Even as support for gun control wanes at home, globalist bureaucrats are working to override national sovereignty and craft international gun laws.

For more than a decade the United Nations has waged a campaign to undermine Second Amendment rights in America. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France! Meanwhile, this past June the UN held a conference with the silly title “Week of Action against Small Arms.”

It’s no surprise that UN bureaucrats, who are predominantly European and third-world socialists, want to impose gun control worldwide. After all, these are the people who placed a huge anti-gun statue on American soil at UN headquarters in New York.

They believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals. They certainly don’t care about our Constitution or the Second Amendment. But the conflict between the UN position on private ownership of firearms and our Second Amendment cannot be reconciled. How can we as a nation justify our membership in an organization that is actively hostile to one of our most fundamental constitutional rights? What if the UN decided that free speech was too inflammatory and should be restricted? Would we discard the First Amendment to comply with the UN agenda?

Contrary to UN propaganda, gun control makes people demonstrably less safe, as any honest examination of criminal statistics reveals. In his book More Guns, Less Crime, scholar John Lott demolishes the myth that gun control reduces crime. On the contrary, Lott shows that cities with strict gun control--like Washington DC--experience higher rates of murder and violent crime. Gun control simply endangers law-abiding people by disarming them.

More importantly, however, gun control often serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.

The UN seemed an excellent idea at the time, but it seems to have shot WAY off the rails. If it could return to its original goal, i think it could salvage the situation, but it appears nowadays to simply be a stage to allow central european countries a stage to try and flex their political muscles.

Shame noone cares to watch.

Speaking of the UN corruption, one point and one question:

Point: Is there actually a UN president? All we seem to hear from is Annan.... Hes only the secretary ffs

Question: About the corruption, what is everyones opinion of the oil-for-food scandal, and do you think the UN's been covering it up?

I pretty much agree with that theory. Of course Kim Jong-Il might just want to have things that make big bang but other than that, I agree. What I really don't understand is that the UN has basically been proven to be ineffectual in stopping us (short term, anyway), so why the rally cry to go against them? It just would seem to me to be smarter to just ignore them if thats basically what we're doing anyway. <--- said from "their" point of view


Uhm, this just reminded me: Isn't he the guy who outlawed toast as an Ameican invention, claimed that he invented hamburgers, and publicly humiliates people with long hair?

and the U.N. is actually pretty god if you ingore some of the worse corruptions. After all, it IS doing decently with what it has in disarming one of the south african civil wars...

To answer the question most accurately, the reason people buy into all this UN hatefest is because most people I have found don't have a clue of what the UN mandate is or what their role is suppose to be. Too many people are under the false impression that the UN is suppose to act on what countries decide. It's not up to the UN to do so, it's up to the countries. The UN is only a venue, it is only as strong or weak as the 5 members with Veto power basically. So if you want to blame the UN for anything, you would have to look at the inability of those 5 nations that basically rule the UN to agree on situations at any given time.

EXACTLY! Xanaz, you put it well. The UN isn't supposed to be a proto-world government, and when they try, the results are horrible, mostly because its constituent states aren't trying to do right by the "governed." Hell, even the crappiest Western politicians realize they've got to keep people happy so they get re-elected. These guys at the UN don't even care what the plebs think.

If people started seeing the UN as basically a big debating club, where nations can easily get together to solve problems between themselves, a lot of the UN-hate would go away. The thing is, the United Nations is a supplement to normal diplomacy, not a replacement.

I don't hate the UN. Sure, it's got corruption, and sure, it's ineffective. It's not doing its job quite correctly. But just throwing away such a potentially powerful tool of international cooperation seems rather a rash decision to me. I feel it would make more sense to get the UN back on track than to do that.

Of course, reform on the level of what it needs is easier said than done.

I can see how the current situation would bring some people to dislike the UN. Combined with real or percieved threats to natonal sovreignity, I could see it looking pretty bad to some people.

In the early 1960s, President Moise Tshombe tried to secede his province of Katanga from the Congo. The UN sent "peacekeeping" forces to try and prevent this. Ironically, Katanga was the only part of the Congo where there was peace, prosperity, and stability; the rest of the country was in chaos. Yet, it was Katanga that needed "peacekeeping." How did the UN soldiers "keep the peace?" They bombed the shit out of hospitals and ambulances. They bayoneted children. They raped women. They conducted a campaign of mass slaughter at the Katangese people, until Katanga was forcibly re-integrated into the Congo. Read all about it in Rebels, Mercenaries, and Dividends- The Katanga Story by Smith Hempstone; 46 Angry Men (an article published in American Opinion, written by 46 civilian doctors who witnessed the events firsthand); Who Killed the Congo? by Philippa Schuyler.

Why are people so against the UN? Is it because of them not supporting our decision to invade Iraq? Is it because they are not heavily militarized to deal with situations like in Rwanda? It seems to be like the hate the French thing. Why isn't the UN a good idea, at least in theory?

The real reason for the dislike is if left unchecked the UN can override our soviernty. I don't care about their dislike over Iraq or whatever problems the institution has. I simply don't want them saying "we are the new world order. US, we don't care about your decisons anymore. They are a violation of the UN order"

People died for our soverienty. Potentially giving it up to a new world order in the future due to ultra-liberalism is ludicrous. So even though neo-cons, repubs, and bush humpers have lame ass reasons for hating the UN as they do with hating half of Americans, it DOES helps to have more Americans weary of the organization.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1212-23.htm

Not sure what to believe on the "Oil for Food" scandal but just thought this might open debate further.

In the early 1960s, President Moise Tshombe tried to secede his province of Katanga from the Congo. The UN sent "peacekeeping" forces to try and prevent this. Ironically, Katanga was the only part of the Congo where there was peace, prosperity, and stability; the rest of the country was in chaos. Yet, it was Katanga that needed "peacekeeping." How did the UN soldiers "keep the peace?" They bombed the shit out of hospitals and ambulances. They bayoneted children. They raped women. They conducted a campaign of mass slaughter at the Katangese people, until Katanga was forcibly re-integrated into the Congo. Read all about it in Rebels, Mercenaries, and Dividends- The Katanga Story by Smith Hempstone; 46 Angry Men (an article published in American Opinion, written by 46 civilian doctors who witnessed the events firsthand); Who Killed the Congo? by Philippa Schuyler.
Peacekeeping needs to be massively reformed and reorganized before it can be effective. Right now, it does a hell of a lot more harm than good when it's deployed.

I'd like to see the evidence for the UN conducting genocide in the Congo. I distrust hyperbole whether I agree with the purpose it was deployed or no.

That's all fine and dandy Roach-Busters, but the UN is not a country nor does it have an army or a government. If the UN messes up, it's because the countries who are members of the UN messed up. The UN as said is simply a venue. FDR and Churchill had a good idea, but some where along the way people have expected the UN to be more than it was suppose to be. What is further, is no one had a problem with the UN until they didn't agree with us and we didn't get "permission" to invade Iraq, so we broke international laws to get what we wanted. Don't blame the UN, they stayed true to their mandate. It was us, the United States who went out and broke laws to which we're signatory members to. I just think we should not cast stones when we live in glass houses.

If the UN messes up, it's because the countries who are members of the UN messed up.
The rest of your post makes a good deal of sense, but this part is factually incorrect.

The multinational makeup of UN forces and unclear command structures cause poor integration in peacekeeping units and often prevents the execution of orders. This often causes different soldiers to interpret orders given by the same commanding officers different ways, and they go and do different things. Also, troops are often not permitted to enter combat by virtue of Chapter VI of the UN charter, preventing them from even trying to do what they want to do.

The rape percentage among amalgamated UN foces is much higher than that of any industrialized military's soldiers on their own.

Any liberals against the UN?
Drunk commies reborn is against the UN and is liberal.

One last bit on this point: if the US should decide that it's in their best interests to take out Saddam Hussein, then why should they let France's interests -- and Security Council veto -- block what they want to do?
Although I support the Iraq war, I must take issue with this. Countries live in the world, and ideally an international consensus should be reached before we go around changing the regimaes of sovereign governments. It's kind of like the way we don't just let people do anything they want. We have to take account of the rights of other people and the rights of society.

The rape percentage among amalgamated UN foces is much higher than that of any industrialized military's soldiers on their own.
Probably because the UN pays money to nations that provide troops for peacekeeping. It's alot of money for third world nations, but not enough to cover training and other expenses for industrialized countries. That means they get alot of undisciplined, poorly trained third world savages as peacekeepers.

I agree with most of the critiques of the UN expressed here, but something confuses me. Many critics say they hate the UN because it is a big bureacracy, yet they also imply that they want it to have more power.

Although I support the Iraq war, I must take issue with this. Countries live in the world, and ideally an international consensus should be reached before we go around changing the regimaes of sovereign governments.

60-odd other countries backed the US in the war on Iraq. If that isn't enough, then what is?

60-odd other countries backed the US in the war on Iraq. If that isn't enough, then what is?

Oh, you mean those small tiny countries that wanted something from us? How many countries sent troops? Or money? I can count it on one hand and have a finger or two to spare. It's a joke to say 60 odd countries supported us. It was more like a few and the rest wanted something. That my dear is a fact!

I love it when someone who has no clue what they are talking about tries to counter fact with their propoganda distorted perceptions. I mean, really, even your factoids contradict your conclusion (as well as each other). Do you really not know the difference between debt and dues?
Regardless, I can only support the decision of the US to not pay. It is, as I clearly state before, a HUGH waste of mony with no payoff for the US or anyone else.
Posts like this make me think maybe voting should require a license...

I know exactly what I'm talking about, and sadly enough, you seem not to.
Instead of arguing to the point, you're just becoming insulting - do you always do that when running out of arguments or not have a clue?

And I made a paragraph in between debt and dues, dummy. The numbers are from here http://www.dgvn.de/publikationen/dgvn-bi-un-finanz.htm

And yes, voters should require a license - yours has just been revoked.

Hey guys, don't resort to name calling. When you start name calling you've already lost the argument. Chill pill!

If we DIDN'T have a Governmental institution, we'd have ANARCHY.

That's exactly it. Anarchy can work, depending on the size of the nation. I mean, look at Somalia! There is no government to speak of, and everything is no worse than any U.S city. Hell, they have telecomunications buisnesses f'chrissakes! Once you take the idea that people can never live in a state of nature out of your heads, you can see that people can coexist without a ruling class. Read "Anarchism: What it Really Means", and you will get the idea.

As for the U.N. hate, they don't get ANYTHING done, and they are helpless in the face of Americorp. What good is a League Of Nations if they can't stop a tyrannical monster government from invading a small nation, pillaging it, and leaving? Hell they ADD to that pillaging.

Gotta hate something. ;)

The UN will:

Vehemently oppose the US invasion of Iraq
Vehemently oppose Israel

But:

the UN waited until 500,000 Rwandans were dead before saying that "acts of genocide MAY have been committed" and even longer before anyone intervened - the UN force in Rwanda was reduced to 260 men for god's sake

do nothing about Sudan when already at least 70,000 have been slaughtered

The UN will condemn the US and Israel - that's about as far as it goes when it comes to human rights. Any other atrocities are not important to the UN. Oh, and they may write a letter to brutal dictator to please stop being brutal. The UN is no better than the US. The US will help when it benefits them; the UN will help when it benefits them as well.

That's exactly it. Anarchy can work, depending on the size of the nation. I mean, look at Somalia! There is no government to speak of, and everything is no worse than any U.S city. Hell, they have telecomunications buisnesses f'chrissakes! Once you take the idea that people can never live in a state of nature out of your heads, you can see that people can coexist without a ruling class. Read "Anarchism: What it Really Means", and you will get the idea.

Do you really think the situation in Somalia is great? If so, I recommend moving there. I'm sure you'll enjoy the starvation and fighting.

That's exactly it. Anarchy can work, depending on the size of the nation. I mean, look at Somalia! There is no government to speak of, and everything is no worse than any U.S city. Hell, they have telecomunications buisnesses f'chrissakes!
Is't it exactly why Somalia is a permanent disaster zone, consuming humanitarian aid from all over the world like some kind of a friggin black hole? Seriously, suggesting Somalia as an example of how people should live goes even beyond ridiculous.


Once you take the idea that people can never live in a state of nature out of your heads, you can see that people can coexist without a ruling class. Read "Anarchism: What it Really Means", and you will get the idea.
LOL!

I know their idea. Ain't nothing good to look for there.

I know exactly what I'm talking about, and sadly enough, you seem not to.
Instead of arguing to the point, you're just becoming insulting - do you always do that when running out of arguments or not have a clue?

And I made a paragraph in between debt and dues, dummy. The numbers are from here http://www.dgvn.de/publikationen/dgvn-bi-un-finanz.htm

And yes, voters should require a license - yours has just been revoked.

Nope, you are still wrong. Your postulation was that the US and Japan were not the largest financial supporters of the UN. It was demonstrated to be undeliably wrong. Your persistance on the issue is like watching a dog chase it's tail.

Usually I just come on here and read and hold my tongue. But the Republicans really are attacking like the UN stole their lunch money or something.

Did anyone watch Babylon 5? It's pretty much the same thing. Right down to the corrupt Earth president claiming to "liberate" those planets he was conquering.

There was a great episode where they let reporters onto the station (the UN) and let them look at almost everything, and then they showed the news story that resulted and how it bore no resemblence to the truth despite having not a single untrue fact in it. That episode should have been titled "how to watch American news."

Is't it exactly why Somalia is a permanent disaster zone, consuming humanitarian aid from all over the world like some kind of a friggin black hole? Seriously, suggesting Somalia as an example of how people should live goes even beyond ridiculous.


LOL!

I know their idea. Ain't nothing good to look for there.

Somalia isn't a permanent disaster zone. Nothern Somalia is flat out shitty, but Southern Somalia is fine. Pictures:
http://www.hiiraan.ca/2004/feb/images/IM001086.jpg
Hell they even have a university!
http://www.mogadishuuniversity.com/IMAGES/MU_Building2.jpg

If you belive the lies the UN are putting out about this country, then you are a sad little man. Hell, even the BBC is full of shit on this issue. Heck, even the world bank says it works! Check here: http://blog.mises.org/blog/archives/002756.asp

Did anyone watch Babylon 5? It's pretty much the same thing. Right down to the corrupt Earth president claiming to "liberate" those planets he was conquering.

There was a great episode where they let reporters onto the station (the UN) and let them look at almost everything, and then they showed the news story that resulted and how it bore no resemblence to the truth despite having not a single untrue fact in it. That episode should have been titled "how to watch American news."
What an exceptionally bad analogy.

Oh, you mean those small tiny countries that wanted something from us? How many countries sent troops? Or money? I can count it on one hand and have a finger or two to spare. It's a joke to say 60 odd countries supported us. It was more like a few and the rest wanted something. That my dear is a fact!

...As opposed to the massive amounts of help that Russia or France would have given us? I was only applying the UN's own principle of "one nation, one vote," and avoiding discrimination against smaller nations on the basis of how much money/how many troops they can kick in. Let's be honest with ourselves. No matter how many other countries supported the US, the whole thing is an American operation, start to finish. Anything the others contribute is a drop in the bucket.

The fact of the matter is, a whole bunch of countries said, "Hell yeah, taking Saddam out is a great idea. Go get 'im, tiger," which pretty much takes the wind of of the sails of the people who go on screaming about "unilateral decision-making."

What an exceptionally bad analogy.

Sci-fi is almost always about real issues on earth. Invasion of the body snatchers was about communism. Alien Nation was about racism. Alien was about ecology. Is it so far fetched to think that Babylon 5 was about the UN?

The fact of the matter is, a whole bunch of countries said, "Hell yeah, taking Saddam out is a great idea. Go get 'im, tiger," which pretty much takes the wind of of the sails of the people who go on screaming about "unilateral decision-making."

No, a whole bunch of countries said "ok George, we'll vote your way because we owe you huge amounts of money and there's nothing we can do about it." Or "whaddya mean you're going to cut your aid package? hundreds of thousands of people will starve if they don't get that food. Fine [sigh] you've got your vote."

That's why Kerry called them the coalition of the coerced and the bribed.

Sci-fi is almost always about real issues on earth. Invasion of the body snatchers was about communism. Alien Nation was about racism. Alien was about ecology. Is it so far fetched to think that Babylon 5 was about the UN?
I wouldn't know, really. Never saw one episode. What you described though, fits some other governmental entities better than the UN, don't you think?

I think part of the hatred of the UN stems not from the fact that it can accomplish nothing, but from the fact that it has the potential to do incredible good, but instead its structure an attitude get it bogged down in trivialities and it thus accomplishes almost nothing it was created to do. Its a matter of frustration. It worked now an again (Korea, GW1, etc) well, sort of, but its clearly broken. Its time to move on and learn from the mistakes in the UN. Shut it down and begin anew with something that isn't so prone to uselessness. What good is it if it doesn't work. The UNs persistence in its continued existence makes it as popular as other equaly persistent species, like roaches and rats for instance.

I started questioning why the UN is allowed to continue its existence when it dropped the ball in Rwanda. Because the leader of and 50% of the tiny observation force in Rwanda was Canadian, we heard about the situation quite a bit more. We had people on the ground there but the UN wouldn't allow us to do a single thing besides helplessly watch the slaughter, nevermind sending a proper full fledged peace-keeping force. Having one of our few national heroes return from Rwanda a broken and embittered man and a huge number of the enlisted men who were on that Tour wind up in psyche wards didn't help either. The people and funds would have been available if the UN had made it a major issue, but instead they stuck their thumbs up their asses and enjoyed the kick-back we now find out they were getting from Saddam.

I wouldn't know, really. Never saw one episode. What you described though, fits some other governmental entities better than the UN, don't you think?

No. The premise of Babylon 5 was that the humans, though one of the youngest space faring races, set up a place where representatives from all worlds could come and talk out their differences instead of going to war. There were 5 permanent council seats for the 5 most powerful worlds and a "League of Non-aligned worlds." Though representatives from all worlds had a voice it was still located on Earth property.

Clearly Babylon 5 represents the UN and Earth represents the US.

Back on Earth a corrupt president began limiting traditional civil rights. He set up organizations dedicated to promoting patriotism and loyalty. When weaker worlds began protesting his behavior he invaded and "liberated" them.

And you did notice that SG Annan asked for the UN countries to really tackle the issues concerning Eastern Sudan (again). He has been continuously pressuring SC members to act... but what can the poor bastard do..? It's a fucking discussion forum, not an actor with troops to deploy, as some here seem to believe.

No. The premise of Babylon 5 was that the humans, though one of the youngest space faring races, set up a place where representatives from all worlds could come and talk out their differences instead of going to war. There were 5 permanent council seats for the 5 most powerful worlds and a "League of Non-aligned worlds." Though representatives from all worlds had a voice it was still located on Earth property.

Clearly Babylon 5 represents the UN and Earth represents the US.

Back on Earth a corrupt president began limiting traditional civil rights. He set up organizations dedicated to promoting patriotism and loyalty. When weaker worlds began protesting his behavior he invaded and "liberated" them.How interesting. If you don't mind, I still believe your first analogy sucked. Must (maybe) check that series though. Good night to you.

all the UN is good for is stealing my money and giving it to some african countrys who I dont care about.

Why do do many people in the U.S. hate the U.N.? Easy. They could (in theory, if not in reality) stand in the way of Pax Americana. After all, we have the sovereign right to invade anyplace we want, any time we want, for whatever reason our government wants to make up and force down our throats. Has anyone else noticed that we don't seem to care if the U.N. tries to tell some other nation what it can or cannot do, but the minute they do it to us, we want to dismantle the building piece by piece, sow the ground with salt, and try the entire staff for crimes against humanity? And we wonder why Americans are seen as arrogant.

Why do do many people in the U.S. hate the U.N.? Easy. They could (in theory, if not in reality) stand in the way of Pax Americana. After all, we have the sovereign right to invade anyplace we want, any time we want, for whatever reason our government wants to make up and force down our throats. Has anyone else noticed that we don't seem to care if the U.N. tries to tell some other nation what it can or cannot do, but the minute they do it to us, we want to dismantle the building piece by piece, sow the ground with salt, and try the entire staff for crimes against humanity? And we wonder why Americans are seen as arrogant.

The UN trying to stop crimes against humanity? HA! What a farce. and what a terrible and unfounded statement. The UN does SHIT for people -- the only "human rights offenders" it opposes is Israel and America. Anything else, they don't care about.

And of course, all Americans are that political in that aspect and think about how to establish an empire with every spare moment of their life. It's not like they're human beings like the all mighty UN which so greatly neglected Rwanda and Sudan, but played close attention to Iraq and the horrid Jews in Israel.

The UN trying to stop crimes against humanity? HA! What a farce. and what a terrible and unfounded statement. The UN does SHIT for people -- the only "human rights offenders" it opposes is Israel and America. Anything else, they don't care about.

And of course, all Americans are that political in that aspect and think about how to establish an empire with every spare moment of their life. It's not like they're human beings like the all mighty UN which so greatly neglected Rwanda and Sudan, but played close attention to Iraq and the horrid Jews in Israel.

Fine, you have a point about Rwanda and Sudan. Yes, the U.N. is inefficient, and probably corrupt. But don't pretend that conservatives give a rat's ass about the Third World. The point of my post was that the far right seeks only to further their agenda, and they view the U.N. as standing in they way of that. And did you even understand my "crimes against humanity" reference? That was sarcasm. I made no mention of the U.N. trying to stop crimes against humanity, I was merely making an ironic (and hopefully amusing, though I suppose that depends on your point of view) reference to the right's rabid hatred, even paranoia about the U.N. I have no problem with others disagreeing with me: after all, I'm stating opinion, not fact; but do try to make sure you know what you're argueing against. You seem you have completely missed my point. For the record, I think the U.N. Charter needs to be reformed but not done away with.

How interesting. If you don't mind, I still believe your first analogy sucked. Must (maybe) check that series though. Good night to you.

I wasn't drawing an analogy. I was pointing out the metaphor. If you actually have any reason as to why you think it was so terrible I'd like to hear it. Otherwise I can only surmise that you've had your bias demonstrated to be horribly flawed and you'd rather cry "I'm taking my marbles and going home," that actually try to present something one which to base your opinion.

What's especially galling is that you base such a strong opinion on your own admitted absolute ignorance.

I hate them for their clear anti-Israel bias. They condemn Israel constantly when what they do is miniscule compared to the targetted killing of civilians undertaken by the Palestinians.

That's all fine and dandy Roach-Busters, but the UN is not a country nor does it have an army or a government. If the UN messes up, it's because the countries who are members of the UN messed up. The UN as said is simply a venue. FDR and Churchill had a good idea, but some where along the way people have expected the UN to be more than it was suppose to be. What is further, is no one had a problem with the UN until they didn't agree with us and we didn't get "permission" to invade Iraq, so we broke international laws to get what we wanted. Don't blame the UN, they stayed true to their mandate. It was us, the United States who went out and broke laws to which we're signatory members to. I just think we should not cast stones when we live in glass houses.I certainly had a problem with the UN long before the US invaded Iraq, and I'm not alone. Have you ever heard of the John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)?

I agree with most of the critiques of the UN expressed here, but something confuses me. Many critics say they hate the UN because it is a big bureacracy, yet they also imply that they want it to have more power.
I've noticed this too. A lot of the posters here seem to be saying that the UN is rotten, so we should make it more powerful. Sounds like a government solution to me.

In a way, the United Nations is kind of like a prison. It's a place where criminals can get together and compare notes.

Of course, the food's better, they're free to leave, and the inmates have to constantly pretend they're not really criminals.

60-odd other countries backed the US in the war on Iraq. If that isn't enough, then what is?
I agree on Iraq. I was more refuting Gramnonia's assertion that the rights of the USA to exercise its military power were unlimited.

That's why Kerry called them the coalition of the coerced and the bribed.
Kerry said no such thing.

I hate them for their clear anti-Israel bias. They condemn Israel constantly when what they do is miniscule compared to the targetted killing of civilians undertaken by the Palestinians.
That's because the killing of Palestinian civilians is done by your namesake, the IDF, which is a branch of the Israeli government. The killing of Israeli civilians is done by terrorist groups like Hamas which are, at least not officially, branches of the Palestinian Authority.

If you like the whole Bill or Rights, the UN is not your friend.
Correction: if you care about your dumb 2nd Ammendment rights, which really should be written out of your constitution anyways.

It's not like the UN is trying to eliminate your free speech or something.

Any liberals against the UN?

Yeh I am because of this...
Had the U.S not gone ahead with its plan to liberate Iraq, we would have never discovered the extent of the corruption in the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food program. But while Oil-for-Food is the biggest, scope-wise, of any known corruption in an international organization, it is merely the culmination of years of corrupt U.N. practices.
It would be interesting to find out how many more billions of dollars were stolen or misappropriated by U.N. agencies over the years. Anyone who has tried to decipher a U.N. budget for any given project knows, however, that simple, straight-forward calculation is not something the U.N. is familiar with.
The idea behind the creation of the U.N. was noble. Yet because it is not accountable to anyone, the U.N.'s organizational structure and legal framework are entirely flawed. The U.N. has its own system of global governance with no real constituency; it represents no one who can make genuine demands on it to account for its spending. The U.S., which contributes approximately 30 percent of the U.N. budget, should have some say in how U.N. funds are spent; but it does not.
The U.N.'s corruption is not limited to money. Sexual exploitation and trafficking in minors have been the routine in U.N. refugee-relief programs throughout Africa, the Balkans, and southeast Asia. In 2002, U.N. aid workers distributed food or loans and scholarships throughout refugee camps in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea — in return for sexual favors. The following year, the U.N. investigated a report that a ship chartered for peacekeepers in East Timor was being used to bring in child prostitutes from Thailand. And in the Balkans, U.N. peacekeepers patronized nightclubs where girls as young as 15 were forced to have sex with them. Confronted with one of the scandals, a senior U.N. official responded — in the words of the BBC — that "ending the sexual exploitation of underage refugees would be an uphill task because gender discrimination was deeply rooted in many cultures...all over the world." So you see, it's not really the U.N.'s fault.
What makes this all even more appalling is the fact that the U.N. claims to be at the forefront of the global war against AIDS. Yet U.N. officials' behavior helps spread the disease.
Since its inception and for the next 45 years, the U.N. functioned under a Cold War philosophy that divided the organization mostly along ideological lines. Transgressions and corruption were not only overlooked but often encouraged in order to gain political clout.

and now a little more from that article...

As Charles Duelfer's report on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction documented in September 2004, it was the U.N. that facilitated Saddam Hussein's transfer of $72 million to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine through the Oil-for-Food program. In addition, through its Relief and Works Agency, the U.N. keeps Palestinian refugees from settling in the Middle East, by keeping them in camps. A third of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees budget for 2004 — about $400 million — is dedicated to just 4 million Palestinians, while only $770 million remains for the world's remaining 16 million refugees.

In September 2002, at the very same time that the Oil-for-Food program was inflicting misery upon the Iraqi people, Kofi Annan boasted that the U.N. was at the forefront of fighting poverty in the world. He also complimented himself and his organization for achieving many of the internal reforms that the U.N. allegedly began in 1997. This was at the time when thousands of Christians were being massacred in Sudan every day, and when Palestinian terrorists were blowing up themselves up in buses and restaurants throughout Israel. All the while, the U.N. kept mum about Sudan and adopted resolutions condemning Israel for defending itself against terrorists.
Senator Norm Coleman, the chairman of the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, said recently that: "As long as Mr. Annan remains in charge, the world will never be able to learn the full extent of the bribes, kickbacks, and under-the-table payments that took place under the UN's collective nose." And Coleman was talking only about the Oil-for-Food program.

That is why I do not like the U.N. as a liberal

The card was Rachel Ehrenfeld and can be found at www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/ehrenfeld200412140829.asp although the url no longer works because I found this in December and saved it to my computer

Correction: if you care about your dumb 2nd Ammendment rights, which really should be written out of your constitution anyways.

It's not like the UN is trying to eliminate your free speech or something.
I very deliberately preceded "Bill of Rights" with the world "whole". So, you don't care about the whole "Bill of Rights", which shouldn't mean all that much to you anyway as a Canadian, I suppose. I have not found the UN to be an enemy of free speech, so far, but I would certainly not be suprised if that changed. Who is to blame for the European "hate speech" laws? Might some of these people have a say it what the UN decides?

I should say this: I'm not so terribly concerned that the blue-hat wearing thugs are going to bust into my house and forcibly disarm me anytime soon. I am much more concerned about them disarming the less fortunate peoples of the world, which is what they seem primarily concerned with. It appears to be the intent of the UN to come in the aftermath of little wars and take away the losers' guns and destroy them.

I very deliberately preceded "Bill of Rights" with the world "whole". So, you don't care about the whole "Bill of Rights", which shouldn't mean all that much to you anyway as a Canadian, I suppose. I have not found the UN to be an enemy of free speech, so far, but I would certainly not be suprised if that changed. Who is to blame for the European "hate speech" laws? Might some of these people have a say it what the UN decides?

I should say this: I'm not so terribly concerned that the blue-hat wearing thugs are going to bust into my house and forcibly disarm me anytime soon. I am much more concerned about them disarming the less fortunate peoples of the world, which is what they seem primarily concerned with. It appears to be the intent of the UN to come in the aftermath of little wars and take away the losers' guns and destroy them.
I see your concerns, but I still believe that the second ammendment is quite pointless in today's world.

[I'll add it in to avoid a new post]

What I mean is that today your country is not under millitary threat. Remember, the Bill of Rights was written back when you could easily have been invaded by Britain. Today, the ammendment is just useless. It's just an excuse for criminals to get guns.

Yeh I am because of this...
....


What of the charge that the US had some part in the Oil for Food scandal. In one of my previous posts, I put up a link to an article suggesting this. Again, I'm not sure about the Oil for Food scandal because obviously, it's a lot bigger than me.

What I mean is that today your country is not under millitary threat. Remember, the Bill of Rights was written back when you could easily have been invaded by Britain. Today, the ammendment is just useless. It's just an excuse for criminals to get guns.
There was a second reason why the 2nd Amendment was written:
-Besides the external threat of invasion, there existed, and still exists, the very real threat from within: the US government degernates into a tyrannical dictatorship (plz nobody give me that BS that Bush is doing that). BUT, this dictatorship faces the threat of an armed revolution from the populace.

And don't tell me that the government will still win b/c they have better weapons. While I hold that true, there are only 1 million people enlisted in the US military, compared to the 80 million legal gun owners in the US.