# What is the cause of anti-UN fervour in the US? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 15, 2002, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-cause-of-anti-un-fervour-in-the-us/132304 "2002-10-15T12:17:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2002, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-cause-of-anti-un-fervour-in-the-us/132304/21 "2002-10-15T16:14:54Z")
I heard a right-wing conspiracy theorist explain it like this: “Worldy” is the opposite of “Godly”, therefore the World is inherently evil and Satanic. Anything which symbolizes or represents the World–be it environmentalism (“Gaia worship”) or the United Nations–is Satanic. The USA is God’s Country and is set apart from from the rest of the world, and any effort to unite the World will be an evil conspiracy. I can’t remember if this guy mentioned the Anti-Christ, but certainly a lot of Americans believe the UN will be the vehicle for the AC’s bid to take over the World. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart\_v3.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart\_v3.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart_v3.0)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2002, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-cause-of-anti-un-fervour-in-the-us/132304/22 "2002-10-15T16:50:57Z")
**DDG** > [@](#): > > I don’t see that you’ve established that there was a change in attitude. You’d have to prove that back in 1945 when the UN was founded, most Americans agreed that it was not just a waste of time and money. OK. This is the best I can do, sorry. Baehr and Gordenker’s book, “The United Nations at the End of the 1990s” (3rd ed.) (MacMillan Press, 1999) refers to the enormous US government effort to facilitate the San Francisco Conference, which included representatives from every US governmental department which had survived the war: > [@](#): > > "More than 2500 press and radio correspondents churned out the news…More than 40 citizen’s organisations, encouraged by the United states, sent representatives. " So there was enormous interest, at least, which suggests some public support in the US. Certainly I doubt Truman would have stuck his neck out as far as he did to support the UN unless he had some goodwill from the American public behind him. But I concede that I haven’t conclusively proved this. I tried to do a google search on this, but most of the stuff which comes up is from kooky anti-UN conspiracists. **Mojo** asks: > [@](#): > > How can you characterize #3 as “incorrect…(in) regard to the actual function” of the UN when that’s what actually occurred? I was quite amazed at how American press, and people on these boards, reacted to this, when The Economist on 8 September 2001 reported it so differently. The Economist heaped blame on various NGO interest groups. (I’ll post a quote from this edition on this in a few hours.) **SuaSponte** : > [@](#): > > Dave the reason for U.S. indifference/hostility to the UN is simple - the Soviet and U.S. vetos. This meant that, for the first 45 years of its existence, the UN could not come close to meeting its Charter - collective security, protection of human rights, and the like. It was a fruitless and effectively useless organization. But that - collective security, I mean - was only one aspect of its charter. And in that regard, the establishment of a Military Staff Committee to lead UN armies has never been utilised, despite some murmuring from Russia in the Gulf War. This is a key element of its charter which has never been initiated post Cold War, because of American disinclination to allow its troops to be placed under a foreign commander. You can’t blame Cold War rivalries for that failure. > [@](#): > > One important thing to recognize, however, Dave, is that US indifference/hostility does not extend to constituent member organizations within the UN. UNICEF, the WHO, UNHCR, etc., have always been accorded respect (and one 'ell of a lot of funding) from both the US government and US individuals. > 'Course, with these, we actually see the money being put to good use. Except of course money towards those organisations within the UN has yet to be paid by the US, because the UN has a central budget - [http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch6/ch6.htm](http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch6/ch6.htm) This link provides the UN’s answers to questions on its spending. Incidentally, security and peace-keeping go hand in hand: see Jett’s book, “Why Peacekeeping Fails” (1999, Palgrave Press), where he says, correctly: > [@](#): > > Given the nature and victims of today’s intrastate conflicts, providing humanitarian relief is often an integral component of many peace-keeping operations…However, humanitarian relief has inescapable political and military consequences. You can’t have the “good” humanitarian stuff without the “bad” security stuff, in many situations. **december** says: > [@](#): > > IMHO the change in attitude occurred in many of us because we see the UN as not accomplishing the goals we hoped it would. Even during the Cold War, many key negotiations between the USSR and the West took place outside the UN. The UN did take action against aggression in Korea, but that was a long time ago. Since then, it’s not easy to find where the UN contributed to ending the Cold War. > > In the more recent conflicts, the UN did not deal effectively with conflicts over Cuban missiles Not true. Shawcross’ book, "Deliver Us from Evil: Warlords and Peacekeepers in a World of Endless Conflict (2000, Bloomsbury Publishing) says: > [@](#): > > “During critical moments such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, it [the UN] had been an essential talking shop, helping defuse the strains.” The [exchange](http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1962-cuba-un1.html) between Adlai Stevenson and the Soviet Ambassador Zorin in the UN helped turn the tide of world public opinion against the Soviets. > [@](#): > > , Israel-Arab, The United Nations Emergency Force II monitored the Egyptian -Israeli border from 1973-1979. These countries are now at peace. From 1978-1982, the UN Interim Froce in Lebanon maitained peace between Lebabon and Israel, until Israeli forces"cut thorugh UNIFIL lines on their way to Beirut" (Baehr and Gordenker at 72-73). That’s not peace in the region, but its some peace. > [@](#): > > Cambodian genocide, In 1993, UNTAC tried to bring peace to the country, at a cost of US$2 billion, with some success (described by some sources as a “high point in multi-dimensional peacekeeping” , although hardly universally so - Jett at 153). In relation to the atrocities under the Khmer Rogue, the UN and the US together did not act commendably: [http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~hns/articles/2002/022502b.html](http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~hns/articles/2002/022502b.html) > [@](#): > > After the Vietnamese toppled the Khmer Rouge in 1979, neither the United Nations nor the Carter administration supported efforts to try the Khmer Rouge leaders. The United States voted repeatedly, in the 1980s, to permit the genocidal regime to retain Cambodia’s seat in the U.N. General Assembly. Although he had been sentenced to death in absentia in a 1979 show trial, Khmer Rouge leader Ieng Sary served as Cambodia’s representative at the United Nations. So, the lack of political will to oppose the Khmer Rogue was not confined to the UN. > [@](#): > > Vietnam, Lost me on that one. > [@](#): > > Haiti, Incorrect. From Shawcross at 102-103: > [@](#): > > “In June [1993] the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 841, which placed an arms and fuel embargo on Haiti in order to try to oust the military regime which had overthrown the democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The shock of these mandatory sanctions brought the military leader, General Raoul Cedras, to talks on Governors Island in New York harbour.” An agreement was reached to reinstall the democratically elected government, which fell through when US forces were scared away by threats from dockside workers touting placards saying they would turn Haiti into another Somalia. Not the US military’s, nor Bill Clinton’s, shining moment. > [@](#): > > Kosovo. This was a mess, but wasn’t it a NATO mess? > [@](#): > > George Bush 41 chose to bring the UN into the Iraq-Kuwait conflict, although he was prepared to form a coalition without them. His son is trying to do the same today. > > The points mentioned in the OP do piss off a number of Americans. However, they are only adding insult to injury. The real problem is that the UN is not a major force in maintaining world peace. I disagree, again. The creation of the International Criminal Court, with its inherent deterrance on would be war criminals, brings the world closer to peace through the exercise of impartial law upon dictators and war criminals. And if you don’t agree with that, surely you’ll agree that something is better than nothing: East Timor and Cyprus immediately spring to mind. **sqweels** writes: > [@](#): > > The impression I get is that many of those who make this complaint are at the same time helping to undermine its effectiveness or block it from becoming more effecive. Yes, I see that too. Jesse Helms, especially, who has described the UN as “the nemesis of millions of Americans”. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart\_v3.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart\_v3.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart_v3.0)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2002, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-cause-of-anti-un-fervour-in-the-us/132304/23 "2002-10-15T16:57:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\* > Under Article 1, the Contracting Parties, which include the Netherlands and the United States, have an affirmative obligation to “undertake to prevent and to punish” genocide… > > So, why is the Netherlands failing to live up to its obligations under international law to prevent Iraq’s ongoing genocidal acts against the Ma’dan? > > …Why is the Netherlands failing to live up to its obligations under international law to punish the “constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals” (Article IV)who engaged in genocide against the Iraqi Kurds? > > I really can’t believe that the Dutch people have such contempt for international law. > > Sua \*\* The Dutch, of course, are gun-shy after their handling of the Serb war crimes in Srebrenica - [http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/nelson/rohde/peacekeepers\_dutch.html:](http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/nelson/rohde/peacekeepers_dutch.html:) > [@](#): > > In the Netherlands, the home of the peacekeepers assigned to guard the civilians massacred at Srebrenica, the mere mention of the former Muslim enclave still inspires anguished questions. Despite long parliamentary debates, many Dutch complain that they don’t know what exactly went wrong. But in the Netherlands and elsewhere, the episode has come to be called the worst war crime in Europe since the Second World War. > > Jan van Benthem, executive producer of “2 Vandaag,” a current affairs TV program in Holland, has continuously followed investigations on the role of the Dutch peacekeepers. Explaining Holland’s obsession with the issue, Van Benthem says, “It’s a national trauma for us. We still feel responsible for the deaths of Srebrenica.” > > van Benthem also defends the Dutch peacekeepers, however. “It is clear that our lightly-armed soldiers were unable to guarantee the Muslims’ safety in Srebrenica. Their mandate was only to observe. They were peacekeeping troops, not peace-enforcing troops and simply didn’t have the arms to protect the Muslims of Srebrenica,” he says, adding, “However, after their requests for military support were refused by the UN, our soldiers should have left, just to avoid further responsibility and involvement in the massacre.” ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2002, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-cause-of-anti-un-fervour-in-the-us/132304/24 "2002-10-15T17:01:54Z")
> [@](#): > > _from Dave Stewart_ > > ## quote: (by me) > > One important thing to recognize, however, Dave, is that US indifference/hostility does not extend to constituent member organizations within the UN. UNICEF, the WHO, UNHCR, etc., have always been accorded respect (and one 'ell of a lot of funding) from both the US government and US individuals. > 'Course, with these, we actually see the money being put to good use. > > * * * > > Except of course money towards those organisations within the UN has yet to be paid by the US, because the UN has a central budget - [http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch6/ch6.htm](http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch6/ch6.htm) This link provides the UN’s answers to questions on its spending. **Dave,** read your own link, please: > [@](#): > > How much does the UN cost? > > In 1999, the regular budget of the UN amounted to some **$1.26 billion. The regular budget – which does not cover peacekeeping operations – pays for UN activities, staff and basic infrastructure.** All States that are Members of the UN are obligated by the Charter – an international treaty – to pay a portion of the budget. Each State’s contribution is calculated on the basis of its share of the world economy. > > How much does the UN system cost? > > The **UN system spends some $10 billion a year, taking into account the UN, the programmes and funds, and the specialized agencies, but excluding the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).** **About two thirds of this amount comes from voluntary contributions from the Member States; the rest is received from mandatory assessments on those States.** > In 1996, the UN system spent some $4.3 billion on operational activities for development–mostly for economic, social and humanitarian programmes to help the world’s poorest countries. In addition, the World Bank, the IMF and IFAD provide billions more annually in loans that help to eradicate poverty, foster development and stabilize the world economy. The central budget accounts for only 12% of UN spending. Two-thirds of UN funds come from voluntary contributions from member states, not from mandatory assessments. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart\_v3.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart\_v3.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart_v3.0)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2002, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-cause-of-anti-un-fervour-in-the-us/132304/25 "2002-10-15T17:13:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\* > **Dave,** read your own link, please: > The central budget accounts for only 12% of UN spending. Two-thirds of UN funds come from voluntary contributions from member states, not from mandatory assessments. > > Sua \*\* Sorry, you are correct. Serves me right for relying on faulty memory. I am trying to determine whether the US actually pays for any of its contributions to these organisations… ---
**Author:** ![I\_am\_Sparticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c68b51/32.png) [@I\_am\_Sparticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_am_Sparticus)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2002, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-cause-of-anti-un-fervour-in-the-us/132304/26 "2002-10-15T18:30:44Z")
Most Americans are not anti UN, but most don’t really spend any time on it. The “know nothing” crowd likes to have a few objects of paranoia around, and the UN is a perfect target for their narrow minded xenophobia. There are those politicians who play on this, and there you have it. The UN is very useful, even as just a “debating society” in that any country can feel as if is being given a hearing. Well, any country that is a “country” by UN standards. Taiwanese need not apply, as an example. ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2002, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-cause-of-anti-un-fervour-in-the-us/132304/27 "2002-10-15T19:36:29Z")
> [@](#): > > Most Americans are not anti UN, but most don’t really spend any time on it. The “know nothing” crowd likes to have a few objects of paranoia around, and the UN is a perfect target for their narrow minded xenophobia. There are those politicians who play on this, and there you have it. Oh, please. So anyone who actually knows about the UN’s actions must support it, by virtue of the fact that they’re intelligent and informed individuals? Most of the “know nothing” crowd has no opinion, because they - like the name implies - know nothing. Dislike for the UN isn’t based on xenophobia, it’s based on skepticism that the UN is actually doing anybody any good. > [@](#): > > I can’t remember if this guy mentioned the Anti-Christ, but certainly a lot of Americans believe the UN will be the vehicle for the AC’s bid to take over the World. …and then we have this. Could I get a cite, please, confirming that all these people think the UN is a construct of Satan and will bring on Armageddon? Jeff ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2002, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-cause-of-anti-un-fervour-in-the-us/132304/28 "2002-10-15T21:55:42Z")
Are you kidding, **ElJeffe**? This kind of thing is second only to porn on the internet. [http://eth.faithweb.com/nre3.html](http://eth.faithweb.com/nre3.html) > [@](#): > > The Antichrist’s policy of false peace, currently being promoted by organizations such as the United Nations, will eventually destroy many. But before this, Antichrist will manage to unite the entire world into a New Roman Empire, over which he will be the ruler for 3 1/2 years. This is shown in Revelation 6:2 by the crown that is given to him (as opposed to his having to gain it by force), and in Revelation 17 by the ten kings which yield to him “their power and authority”. also [http://www.revelationofjohn.com/Revel46.html](http://www.revelationofjohn.com/Revel46.html) just do a seach with “united nations” + antichrist and start jerking off. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart\_v3.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart\_v3.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart_v3.0)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2002, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-cause-of-anti-un-fervour-in-the-us/132304/29 "2002-10-16T03:47:06Z")
See also [www.getusout.com](http://www.getusout.com) for some standard paranoia: > [@](#): > > Why Get US out! of the United Nations? > > World government through the United Nations is a serious threat to the freedom of all Americans. Imagine being held prisoner in a foreign land and tried in an international court with judges from such countries as Afghanistan, China, or Iraq. > > Fact: The United Nations (financed by American taxpayers!) has long been a safe harbor for terrorist and oppressive regimes which target America as the enemy. > > Even more alarming, the United Nations is beginning to take aim at the God-given rights enjoyed by Americans since our great nation was founded. The right to self defense, use your own property, or even the right to have children may all be trampled if the United Nations is allowed to have the power it seeks. These guys have billboard ads. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Calculus\_of\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/aeb1de/32.png) [@The\_Calculus\_of\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Calculus_of_Logic)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2002, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-cause-of-anti-un-fervour-in-the-us/132304/30 "2002-10-16T04:20:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dave Stewart v3.0 \* > \*\*See also [www.getusout.com](http://www.getusout.com) for some standard paranoia: > > Why Get US out! of the United Nations? > > World government through the United Nations is a serious threat to the freedom of all Americans. Imagine being held prisoner in a foreign land and tried in an international court with judges from such countries as Afghanistan, China, or Iraq. > > \*\* 1. You have to ratify the ICC to be able to work as a judge (neither afghanistan (which wasn’t even recognized as a government by the UN, not that it matters anymore anyway), iraq or china have any intent to do so). The american bar association sent someone to talk to congress in 2000 to try to set the record straight about the lies. I guess he wasn’t listened to. 2. Any time an american sets foot on another countries terratory he becomes subject to that countries law. Doesn’t anyone remember Michael Fay? or those 2 girls in afghanistan who were arrested for selling bibles. Or the american seargent in a japanese jail right now for rape? Anyway, this post isn’t directed at anyone, i just don’t understand how arguments that weak are taken seriously. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2002, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-cause-of-anti-un-fervour-in-the-us/132304/31 "2002-10-16T06:50:37Z")
Of course a “one world government” isn’t realistically going to happen for upwards of a century, but imagine for a minute if the U.S. Constitution applied to the entire world. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2002, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-cause-of-anti-un-fervour-in-the-us/132304/32 "2002-10-16T06:59:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Calculus of Logic \* > \*\* > 2. Any time an american sets foot on another countries terratory he becomes subject to that countries law. Doesn’t anyone remember Michael Fay? or those 2 girls in afghanistan who were arrested for selling bibles. Or the american seargent in a japanese jail right now for rape? \*\* I don’t remember anyone here objecting to the marine being convicted of rape in a Japanese court. Most people objected to someone being punished for selling bibles or canned for vandalism because we consider it barbaric. For the most part I don’t think Americans have a problem with the laws of a foreign land applying to American citizens while they are there. I don’t think the ICJ can really be compared to the above situations. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart\_v3.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart\_v3.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart_v3.0)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2002, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-cause-of-anti-un-fervour-in-the-us/132304/33 "2002-10-16T07:32:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Calculus of Logic \* > \*\* > > Or the american seargent in a japanese jail right now for rape? > \ > > Anyway, this post isn’t directed at anyone, i just don’t understand how arguments that weak are taken seriously. \*\* To echo **MGibson** , rape is a serious crime, and I don’t care whether the accused is an American soldier or not. Are you arguing that because he is an American soldier, he should not be triable for rape under Japanese law? ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart\_v3.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart\_v3.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart_v3.0)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2002, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-cause-of-anti-un-fervour-in-the-us/132304/34 "2002-10-16T07:35:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sqweels \* > \*\*Of course a “one world government” isn’t realistically going to happen for upwards of a century, but imagine for a minute if the U.S. Constitution applied to the entire world. \*\* The right to bear arms. Great. No thanks. I come from a country where the government taxed us to collect our firearms and destroy them, which was a very popular move amongst the electorate. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2002, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-cause-of-anti-un-fervour-in-the-us/132304/35 "2002-10-16T08:22:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sqweels \* > \*\*Of course a “one world government” isn’t realistically going to happen for upwards of a century, but imagine for a minute if the U.S. Constitution applied to the entire world. \*\* We’d see a lot of new and creative ways to shit all over it that haven’t been tried yet domestically. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2002, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-cause-of-anti-un-fervour-in-the-us/132304/36 "2002-10-16T10:59:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sqweels \* > \*\*Of course a “one world government” isn’t realistically going to happen for upwards of a century, but imagine for a minute if the U.S. Constitution applied to the entire world. \*\* If you mean a ‘One World Government’ in that the US declares an empire, and goes around planting the flag, you may have my tentative support. If you mean a OWG under that most useless of beauracracies, the UN, nope. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart\_v3.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart\_v3.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart_v3.0)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2002, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-cause-of-anti-un-fervour-in-the-us/132304/37 "2002-10-16T14:02:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > \*\* > > If you mean a ‘One World Government’ in that the US declares an empire, and goes around planting the flag, you may have my tentative support. > > If you mean a OWG under that most useless of beauracracies, the UN, nope. \*\* Define “most useless of bureaucracies”, with examples. I have a theory about many opponents of the UN: they don’t knwo what they’re talking about. Lets test my theory on you. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2002, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-cause-of-anti-un-fervour-in-the-us/132304/38 "2002-10-16T16:38:43Z")
> [@](#): > > If you mean a OWG under that most useless of beauracracies, the UN, nope. No I don’t. I’m just saying imagine. The UN is represents governments, not people. It might be characterized as a “global senate” whereas what is needed is a global “house of representatives” where the people elect representatives directly. (Let’s see… make it 1000 seats with “districts” of 6 million people each, so some smaller countries would have to be lumped together to form districts). The beauty part is that only countries that allow free and fair elections will be represented, so that leaves China et al out for the time being. Excuse me while I smoke some more opium. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Calculus\_of\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/aeb1de/32.png) [@The\_Calculus\_of\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Calculus_of_Logic)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2002, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-cause-of-anti-un-fervour-in-the-us/132304/39 "2002-10-17T02:29:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dave Stewart v3.0 \* > \*\* > > To echo **MGibson** , rape is a serious crime, and I don’t care whether the accused is an American soldier or not. Are you arguing that because he is an American soldier, he should not be triable for rape under Japanese law? \*\* no. im attacking the position held by the author of [getusout.com](http://getusout.com). he claims that it is immoral for americans to be tried in other countries, but that happens all the time. his position was World government through the United Nations is a serious threat to the freedom of all Americans. Imagine being held prisoner in a foreign land and tried in an international court with judges from such countries as Afghanistan, China, or Iraq. which is wrong on multiple leves. People are already tried in foreign courts by foreign judges for violent crimes. How is the ICC different? ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2002, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-cause-of-anti-un-fervour-in-the-us/132304/40 "2002-10-17T21:36:44Z")
I’ll reiterata an idea I’ve had for the last 17 years for improving international integration, and that is to encorage the development of _regional federations_. Europe is leading the way–the adoption of a common currency is a major step–and now there is an African Union. One can imagine regions such as Latin America, Southeast Asia, Southern Asia (excluding India), and the Arabs following the same path at their own pace. The U.S. is already a regional federation and would remain on its own along with China, India, Russia, Japan, etc. I’m glossing over a tremendous number of problems that would crop up both within and among these theoretical superstates, but the high profile of their governments would force them to be responsible actors, in contrast to fly-by-night dictators of backwater nations. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-cause-of-anti-un-fervour-in-the-us/132304.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-cause-of-anti-un-fervour-in-the-us/132304.md?page=3)