Why do many Americans dislike the UN?

[YoungIreland]

What good is a peacekeeping force which is not allowed to keep the peace?

It has had some success. Look at the Congo. Cyprus. Bosnia.

What good is a mulitnational organization in which evil nations outnumber the good?

How do you define evil, just out of curiosity?

What good is a multinational organization which pays employees to drink beer and lay on the beach?

The same could be asked of the US Congress.

What good is an organization which refuses to take sides against terrorism, and indeed cannot even agree on what terrorism is, since it might offend one of their member states?

Do you not think that nations acting unilaterally would have its own problems, which might be even worse.

What good is an organization which places human righs violators in charge of the commission on human rights?

What about Guantanamo Bay? Extraordinary rendition? 50 million unborn children killed?The US Government is nobody to give lectures on human rights.

Does U.N. money get spent for good purposes, or for bad?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

It has had some success. Look at the Congo. Cyprus. Bosnia.

How do you define evil, just out of curiosity?

The same could be asked of the US Congress.

Do you not think that nations acting unilaterally would have its own problems, which might be even worse.

What about Guantanamo Bay? Extraordinary rendition? 50 million unborn children killed?The US Government is nobody to give lectures on human rights.

Again, the same could be asked of the Obama administration.

The second point is fair enough, but the other questions could easily be applied to the US Government in the form of:

Another thing to take into consideration is almost no one here and 1/2 of all Americans don’t like the present administration: Of course the Obama Administration disrespects subsidiarity!

 

[Semper_Zelare]

I do, however as the US is a federal entity, and most UN opponents fear a world government, my example is reasonably fair.

The U.S. is a country. It is a nation. The United States has 310+ million people living in it. I think your description of the United States as “a federal entity” is too simplistic.

Why don’t states secede? Because there isn’t enough will to do so.

I think I found a hole in your logic. You believe that the U.S. and U.N. are comparable (most would take exception to this, but you believe this). You also believe the U.S. should split into smaller entities. But, you don’t seem to believe that the U.N. should split into smaller entities.

Moreover, this is the problem. Something has to exist in the United States. There are 310+ million people here, there is a lot of land here, something has to exist, you are just offering alternatives (though they are currently unlikely, that is what you are doing).

Nothing has to exist in the place of the U.N. The U.N. is an idea. It doesn’t have land, it doesn’t have people. It just has a number of nations which subscribe to this idea, so those tangible nations give this intangible idea tangible things. The nations supply it with money, land, buildings, politicians, diplomats, bureaucrats, and lawyers.

The nations don’t have to do this. The U.N. doesn’t have to exist. Whereas, something certainly has to exist amongst the land and peoples currently occupied by the nation of the United States.

3. If there are no checks on an individual country’s power, we effectively have a survival-of-the-fittest scenario that would benefit neither the invader or the invaded (this applies to any country).

There are checks on national power outside of the U.N.: Other nations, the Church, natural law. Even in the absence of the U.N. there are plenty of checks on national power. However, the argument can be made, and has been made on this thread many times, that the U.N. only tries to be a check on national power. In reality, it is an abject failure, and historically it has a long record of failing to do anything to stop wars, genocide, etc.

P.S.
I wonder if your support for the U.N. has anything to do with hailing from a small country (Ireland), which ostensibly is not a gun-toting country. You see, America is a large country, and America is a gun-toting country. Why worry about the struggle of nations, when you have firearms?

 

[JimG]

It has had some success. Look at the Congo. Cyprus. Bosnia.

How do you define evil, just out of curiosity?

The same could be asked of the US Congress.

Do you not think that nations acting unilaterally would have its own problems, which might be even worse.

What about Guantanamo Bay? Extraordinary rendition? 50 million unborn children killed?The US Government is nobody to give lectures on human rights.

Again, the same could be asked of the Obama administration.

Obviously, the U.N. has not condemned U.S. abortion policy, which is the most lenient in the world.

Yes, the U.N. has had some successes, usually when one one nation, often the U.S., takes a led role in getting something done. NATO is more effective. And yes, acting unilaterally, or in concert with a few other nations is quite often more effective than trying to do anything through the U.N.

 

[maryjk]

I do, however as the US is a federal entity, and most UN opponents fear a world government, my example is reasonably fair.

The US is the United States of America, a country with citizens, land and yes, a government. It is not a “federal entity.” Comparing the US to the UN is NOT reasonably fair and to compare them is a joke.

 

[YoungIreland]

The U.S. is a country. It is a nation. The United States has 310+ million people living in it. I think your description of the United States as “a federal entity” is too simplistic.

Why don’t states secede? Because there isn’t enough will to do so.

I think I found a hole in your logic. You believe that the U.S. and U.N. are comparable (most would take exception to this, but you believe this). You also believe the U.S. should split into smaller entities. But, you don’t seem to believe that the U.N. should split into smaller entities.

Moreover, this is the problem. Something has to exist in the United States. There are 310+ million people here, there is a lot of land here, something has to exist, you are just offering alternatives (though they are currently unlikely, that is what you are doing).

Nothing has to exist in the place of the U.N. The U.N. is an idea. It doesn’t have land, it doesn’t have people. It just has a number of nations which subscribe to this idea, so those tangible nations give this intangible idea tangible things. The nations supply it with money, land, buildings, politicians, diplomats, bureaucrats, and lawyers.

The nations don’t have to do this. The U.N. doesn’t have to exist. Whereas, something certainly has to exist amongst the land and peoples currently occupied by the nation of the United States.

There are checks on national power outside of the U.N.: Other nations, the Church, natural law. Even in the absence of the U.N. there are plenty of checks on national power. However, the argument can be made, and has been made on this thread many times, that the U.N. only tries to be a check on national power. In reality, it is an abject failure, and historically it has a long record of failing to do anything to stop wars, genocide, etc.

P.S.
I wonder if your support for the U.N. has anything to do with hailing from a small country (Ireland), which ostensibly is not a gun-toting country. You see, America is a large country, and America is a gun-toting country. Why worry about the struggle of nations, when you have firearms?

Sorry, you misunderstanding me. My point about the US splitting up was merely extending the logic of those who oppose the UN. I don’t believe this myself. My origins probably have something to do with it, yes. Many Irish people would be very anti-US foreign policy. We don’t have a strong military and don’t particularly want one either.

 

[YoungIreland]

The US is the United States of America, a country with citizens, land and yes, a government. It is not a “federal entity.” Comparing the US to the UN is NOT reasonably fair and to compare them is a joke.

Yet many opponents fear that the UN will morph into a world government, like the US on a grander scale. I think it is reasonably fair to ask why they oppose something that is the logical extension of the American model.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

It has had some success. Look at the Congo. Cyprus. Bosnia.

How do you define evil, just out of curiosity?

The same could be asked of the US Congress.

Do you not think that nations acting unilaterally would have its own problems, which might be even worse.

What about Guantanamo Bay? Extraordinary rendition? 50 million unborn children killed?The US Government is nobody to give lectures on human rights.

Again, the same could be asked of the Obama administration.

You need to explain how the US is valid subject to use for a comparison for the UN. Last I checked the UN’s form of governance wasn’t based on a direct social contract between the government and the populace. A good example of how the US is not a good subject to use for a comparison for the UN would be the US Congress and the UN General Assembly. US Congress- directly elected by the populace; General Assembly- appointed to office by sometimes elected, sometimes not representatives. For the US is similar to the UN comparison to work, members of the US Congress would have to be appointed to office by state governors. That’s just one major flaw in trying to compare the UN to the US.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Yet many opponents fear that the UN will morph into a world government, like the US on a grander scale. I think it is reasonably fair to ask why they oppose something that is the logical extension of the American model.

The American model is that all levels of government are elected by the populace. I don’t ever remember voting for my UN General Assemblyman/woman or UN Security Councilman/woman.

 

[lynnvinc]

As an example take the EU, which on paper has nice principles. But in practice every hater of life and friend of murderes has now another court to appeal to in trying to achieve unjust results.

Whoa now, the U.S. has a much much higher murder rate than European nations…

And that we also have a very high abortion rate just goes to show how very anti-life we are.

 

[Robert_Sock]

What would it take to make the UN more effective? A world-wide UN has a certain appeal to it. So much of the corruption and human neglect could easily get fixed if the UN had humanitarian leaders and legitimate power over nations.

 

[carn]

But just because something is broken doesn’t mean it can’t be fixed.

If something is currently broken, its currently broken and there is nothing wrong to distrust the reliability and usefulness of the thing, its even reasonable.

Whether something in the future may or may not be fixed is often with complex things an often open question. If something is broken and one assumes, i cannot be fixed, it should be discarded.

Therefore i cannot see anything wrong, especially from a catholic perspective, in the position many here in the thread have. They have good reasons to think, that currently the UN is broken and the words of the Pope in this matter are not in disagreement with that. And if they look at the hard to repair te mess the people they call liberals supposedly create in the US, they are not unreasonable if they assume the even more “liberal” UN is beyond hope. As the potential for sucessful reform of the UN is a political question, they are free to disagree with the Pope. (If he even disagrees with such a position, his call for reform at the UN might simply be the most sensible option, its the Popes job to tell people what they ought to do, even if there is little chance they suceed.)

 

[carn]

Whoa now, the U.S. has a much much higher murder rate than European nations…

Which is something i did not say anything about. I stated that the EU does not - in my eyes - improve human rights conditions much in any member state - they are already quite good without EU interference - but offers additional legal and judical framework.

Take for example Ireland, which has a constitutinal amendment outlawing all abortion except in case of the life of the mother being threatened (this does not match the wording of the catechism, which bans abortions, but allows medical treatment to save the mother even if as a side effect kills the child, but its for practical purposes pretty close). Pro-abortionist failed to challenge this in Irish courts. But now they can toward EU courts and since these courts are much more “liberal” (in the US sense of the word), the probability is high that one day an EU court will find Irland guilty of infringing on a womens right by not allowing abortion. That alone would not change Irlands constitution, but it isnt helpful either.

Now the EU also has some positive things - though as a german its currently sometimes hard to remember -, but this is just an example how another supranational layer can have negative impacts, as it can open additional loopholes somebody might exploit.Many of the international treaties consist in large part of empty words, which then are filed by the best lawyers, that does not improve anything.

 

[carn]

Yet many opponents fear that the UN will morph into a world government, like the US on a grander scale. I think it is reasonably fair to ask why they oppose something that is the logical extension of the American model.

Cause it will either be a dictatorial extension, which would be bad, or a democratic extension, which would be worse (just think about whom people in some other countries elect, the UN head would not be someone like Obama, but more someone like Chavez with a strong islamic touch, to get the 500 million islamic faith voters)

 

[YoungIreland]

Which is something i did not say anything about. I stated that the EU does not - in my eyes - improve human rights conditions much in any member state - they are already quite good without EU interference - but offers additional legal and judical framework.

Take for example Ireland, which has a constitutinal amendment outlawing all abortion except in case of the life of the mother being threatened (this does not match the wording of the catechism, which bans abortions, but allows medical treatment to save the mother even if as a side effect kills the child, but its for practical purposes pretty close). Pro-abortionist failed to challenge this in Irish courts. But now they can toward EU courts and since these courts are much more “liberal” (in the US sense of the word), the probability is high that one day an EU court will find Irland guilty of infringing on a womens right by not allowing abortion. That alone would not change Irlands constitution, but it isnt helpful either.

Now the EU also has some positive things - though as a german its currently sometimes hard to remember -, but this is just an example how another supranational layer can have negative impacts, as it can open additional loopholes somebody might exploit.Many of the international treaties consist in large part of empty words, which then are filed by the best lawyers, that does not improve anything.

Allow me to clarify the point about abortion in Ireland. It is currently illegal in all circumstances, and the law is fully compatible with the catechism.

 

[carn]

Allow me to clarify the point about abortion in Ireland. It is currently illegal in all circumstances, and the law is fully compatible with the catechism.

However we interpret the relevant paragraph of the Irish constitution (i am confident, that “competent” lawyers can read into that amendment that abortion, if its the only option to save the mothers live, is legal), the EU opens another option of people favoring abortion in trying to get around that part of the constitution.

The same is true about binding UN treaties, if the treaty covers a subject, where a minority opinion diverges from the constitution and the majority opinion, the legal framework often contains options to at least the national regulations. Since the UN has a strong “liberal” bias, this would be to the advantage of US “liberals”, hence US “liberals” are “correctly” in favor of UN treaties, while US conservatives correctly are sceptical about such treaties.

And i would bet a rather high sum, if there is ever any UN treaty accidentally favoring conservative ideals, the “liberals” would change sides in the blink of an eye and suddenly be full anti-UN, just to turn around, when the next more favorable treaty arrives.

As a bottom line, these UN treaties often improve little but open lot of options for undemocratic and dishonest political maneuvering.

 

[maryjk]

Yet many opponents fear that the UN will morph into a world government, like the US on a grander scale. I think it is reasonably fair to ask why they oppose something that is the logical extension of the American model.

Because not everyone, believes it is a logical extension of the American model.

If the UN morphs into a world government it won’t be the like United States government. Members of our government are elected by their constituents. Not only did I not participate in an election for the US Ambassador to the UN, I also did not participate in an election for the Secretary General of the UN.

So, you like the UN, why would you care what people in the United States think about it???

 

[liturgyluver]

So, you like the UN, why would you care what people in the United States think about it???

I can’t speak for the OP but as a non-American it always interesting, often shocking and sometimes amusing to read what Americans think.

 

[maryjk]

I can’t speak for the OP but as a non-American it always interesting, often shocking and sometimes amusing to read what Americans think.

That’s funny because I feel the same way about Europeans.

 

[liturgyluver]

That’s funny because I feel the same way about Europeans.

Haha. I thought you might.