Why do many Americans dislike the UN?

[Erich]

The American model is that all levels of government are elected by the populace.

It wasn’t always.

Originally, power at the national level was split among the three branches, each reflecting a different constituency. Representatives were directly elected by the people (they still are), Senators were chosen by their respective state legislatures (they aren’t anymore, but in my opinion they should be again), and the President was elected by Electors who were appointed by each state (for the time being they still are).

“All levels of government elected by the populace” would only serve to reflect the will of a majority. It would not allow for representation for both the population at large and the states.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

It wasn’t always.

Originally, power at the national level was split among the three branches, each reflecting a different constituency. Representatives were directly elected by the people (they still are), Senators were chosen by their respective state legislatures (they aren’t anymore, but in my opinion they should be again), and the President was elected by Electors who were appointed by each state (for the time being they still are).

“All levels of government elected by the populace” would only serve to reflect the will of a majority. It would not allow for representation for both the population at large and the states.

Correct, but “the American model” would lead you to assume he is referring to our current setup. My answer would have been different had he wrote “the American model as it was practiced during X time period” or “the American model as it was originally designed.”

 

[SuperLuigi]

I am just curious since it has done much to ensure peace in the world for the last 65 years. I can see that it does support objectionable causes and of course this should be resisted. Yet I hear on LifeSiteNews and similar sites that the UN shouldn’t exist at all, that “world government” is evil when the Church has no objection to it. I would like to understand the reasoning behind these arguments agianst it from an American (and indeed any other country) perspective. Thanks.

The original role of the UN was collective security. If you read the UN Charter, you’ll note that it has specific directions about interfering with nations sovereign rights.

The Church has a dim view on central planning. The UN was never meant to be a global government, but a supranational organization like NATO.

It was meant to prevent another World War by making diplomatic access easier and I suppose the idea was more transparency.

Boy, have we ever come a long way from that!

Google Agenda 21 and Iraqi Oil for Food Scandal to start…

Other than that, Americans won’t be happy if proposed UN treaties force them to share oil drilling technology, pay global taxes and have the internet taxed for Third-World dictators to piddle away at oppressing their people.

Prior to the very successful marxist, environmentalist and socialist infiltration of the democrat party (even more so than the KKK in my view), the UN was an organization with a small budget and as good as its member states.

Now its just another self-serving, corrupt institution funded by the USA.

At the very least, you’d think Russia and China and France and the UK would (drum roll…) pay their FAIR SHARE!

 

[Burdensome1]

1. Given that the majority of US states could survive as independent nations, why don’t sovereignty advocates support Texan, Californian or Floridian independence, since these would be more in keeping with subsidiarity.

I do.

 

[liturgyluver]

The original role of the UN was collective security. If you read the UN Charter, you’ll note that it has specific directions about interfering with nations sovereign rights.

The Church has a dim view on central planning. The UN was never meant to be a global government, but a supranational organization like NATO.

Now its just another self-serving, corrupt institution funded by the USA.

At the very least, you’d think Russia and China and France and the UK would (drum roll…) pay their FAIR SHARE!

The Vatican seems to have had very positive things to say about the UN - no evidence at all of the dim view you suggest they should take.

And it looks like the US contributes proportionally less per capita than the other states you mention (except China)

 

[epan]

My uniform has an ISAF patch on it. I have not read all the posts in this thread, but of the posts I skimmed, I didn’t see anything about the current UN action, which is here in Afghanistan.

 

[lynnvinc]

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.

As an American it is not amusing, not shocking, just very sad.

I’m thinking one of the many new strategies of the powers that be (the multinationals that have inordinate influence in our government, media, education, and churches) is to defund public education (with private corporate funds stepping in), esp at the college level, so we’ll be even less informed and less critical thinking, like the sheep following those Animal Farm pigs.

It’s not that we don’t have the public money here in the U.S. for better education, roads, bridges, and many many things that would make this a better country, it’s just that the multinationals thru their institutional influence have convinced Americans that taxes are the root of all evil and selfishness (including low or no taxes) is the highest of all virtues. And also that the UN is an evil conspiracy to take over the world and put everyone in chains.

Why do the multinationals hate the UN so much? Because it is making people aware that the multinationals are poisoning the earth and the people, and causing grave social and economic inequalities on a global scale, and if the UN had any teeth to tackle these problems (as BXVI would like) it might make the multinationals reduce or end these harms.

Luckily BXVI is pope of the entire Catholic community around the world, not just of American Catholics, so he is concerned about the world, which is why he would like to see the UN deal with horrible world problems more effectively, since simply preaching morality at the pulpit doesn’t carry much weight when people are more zonked into Fox News (a major multinational source of dissinformation) and other such sources, which tickle their selfish interests a whole lot better.

 

[epan]

The Vatican seems to have had very positive things to say about the UN - no evidence at all of the dim view you suggest they should take.

And it looks like the US contributes proportionally less per capita than the other states you mention (except China)

The US contributes 22% of the UN operating budget, or about $650M. Member contributions are based on GNP.

However, this does not take into account the cost of peacekeeping forces and other military and aid missions, of which the US bears the largest burden by a wide margin. As of 2010, the US has contributed 69% of the military costs for the ISAF, which is currently approaching $600 B.

To put that in perspective, the US has spent about $1.4 T on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. Afghanistan is particularly expensive because of the long supply lines.

 

[Brendan]

1. Given that the majority of US states could survive as independent nations, why don’t sovereignty advocates support Texan, Californian or Floridian independence, since these would be more in keeping with subsidiarity.
   ]

Trust me, I am a HUGE advocate of California being kicked out of the US

 

[epan]

Trust me, I am a HUGE advocate of California being kicked out of the US

The great irony is, that it is the red welfare states which are involved with the secession fad. The blue states and Texas tend to be net revenue producers for the federal government, while the red states drain the treasury… sometimes at a level exceeding 200% of what their state’s GDP would be without federal assistance.

 

[Bill_7154]

Haha. I thought you might.

At least we kicked those money moochers out of our country…

Peace,
Bill

 

[Sarcelle]

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.

Amusing? In what way?

In a condescending way?

 

[SuperLuigi]

=liturgyluver;10108701]The Vatican seems to have had very positive things to say about the UN - no evidence at all of the dim view you suggest they should take.

The Vatican, per the catechism, has made it crystal clear that it is not in favor of central planning.

If the UN seeks to do that, it would be contrary to Church teaching.

And it looks like the US contributes proportionally less per capita than the other states you mention (except China)

I always love it when Europeans use the “proportion” argument.

All it means is that you twist numbers while pay for your defense, which is a moot point considering the advancement of neo-Nazism and Islam within your borders.

We pay the bulk of the bill. That’s what matters. And a lot of Americans do not want to do that.

Given Agenda 21 and the Oil for Food Scandal, which involved certain European nations, I don’t blame them.

 

[liturgyluver]

As an American it is not amusing, not shocking, just very sad.

I’m thinking one of the many new strategies of the powers that be (the multinationals that have inordinate influence in our government, media, education, and churches) is to defund public education (with private corporate funds stepping in), esp at the college level, so we’ll be even less informed and less critical thinking, like the sheep following those Animal Farm pigs.

It’s not that we don’t have the public money here in the U.S. for better education, roads, bridges, and many many things that would make this a better country, it’s just that the multinationals thru their institutional influence have convinced Americans that taxes are the root of all evil and selfishness (including low or no taxes) is the highest of all virtues. And also that the UN is an evil conspiracy to take over the world and put everyone in chains.

Why do the multinationals hate the UN so much? Because it is making people aware that the multinationals are poisoning the earth and the people, and causing grave social and economic inequalities on a global scale, and if the UN had any teeth to tackle these problems (as BXVI would like) it might make the multinationals reduce or end these harms.

Thanks for explaining your take on this which is very interesting.

 

[liturgyluver]

I always love it when Europeans use the “proportion” argument.

All it means is that you twist numbers while pay for your defense, which is a moot point considering the advancement of neo-Nazism and Islam within your borders.

We pay the bulk of the bill. That’s what matters. And a lot of Americans do not want to do that. .

Whether you love it or not, expenditure per head of GDP is the way that compares like with like. Each American per head pays less, as indeed they do in foreign aid.

Some would say that that the US represents a more malign influence than either Neo-nazism (confined to 4 countries in central Europe) or Islam (which is a staggering 3% of the population of Europe).

 

[lynnvinc]

Whether you love it or not, expenditure per head of GDP is the way that compares like with like. Each American per head pays less, as indeed they do in foreign aid.

Some would say that that the US represents a more malign influence than either Neo-nazism (confined to 4 countries in central Europe) or Islam (which is a staggering 3% of the population of Europe).

Yes, I agree Europeans are much more generous per capita than Americans. We pride ourselves on our high degree of selfishness, including robbing the land from the Native Americans and committing genocide agaisnt them. And we do contribute quite a bit more greenhouse gas emissions per capita than Europeans, and are more committed to annihilating life on planet earth. Bad is good – that’s our motto, that’s our creed. However, as you can see from this thread we are less Islamophobic and ergo better Christians at least on that score than Europeans

 

[epan]

Whether you love it or not, expenditure per head of GDP is the way that compares like with like. Each American per head pays less, as indeed they do in foreign aid.

Some would say that that the US represents a more malign influence than either Neo-nazism (confined to 4 countries in central Europe) or Islam (which is a staggering 3% of the population of Europe).

General member dues are assessed proportionally, as a percentage of GDP.

However, special projects are paid for with voluntary contributions. I think that if you look at UN projects of the past few years, then you will find that US spending has outstripped EU spending by many multiples. The US military costs for the ISAF are approximately $600 Billion, and still climbing.

I suspect that you will find that the US forces are also disproportionately more likely to be wounded or killed, because of the jobs that we do. At one point, the ISAF commander had to ask that the German forces not participate, because they were not in good enough physical shape, and because they were also often intoxicated on beer. Not exactly a fighting force. They have cleaned up their act since then.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The Vatican seems to have had very positive things to say about the UN - no evidence at all of the dim view you suggest they should take.

And it looks like the US contributes proportionally less per capita than the other states you mention (except China)

**Vatican condemns UN show of force

Vatican official condemns UN report promoting same-sex marriage**

US Bishops wrote

usccb.org/comm/archives/2011/11-137.shtml

‘As you consider appropriations language, we strongly support restoring the Mexico City Policy against funding groups that perform or promote abortion, and denying funding to the U.N. Population Fund which supports a program of coerced abortion and involuntary sterilization in China’

My emphases

 

[epan]

The UN High Commissioner of Human Rights claimed on her reports that governments are obligated to “ensure that unmarried same-sex couples are treated in the same way and entitled to the same benefits as unmarried opposite-sex couples.”

Archbishop Tomasi responded that such claim threatens the institution of marriage:

What is it about the word “unmarried” that the archbishop does not understand?

 

[lynnvinc]

General member dues are assessed proportionally, as a percentage of GDP.

However, special projects are paid for with voluntary contributions. I think that if you look at UN projects of the past few years, then you will find that US spending has outstripped EU spending by many multiples. The US military costs for the ISAF are approximately $600 Billion, and still climbing…

“From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”