Lordy, I don’t even know where to begin with that. As far as I’m concerned, governments don’t have rights, constitutions don’t grant them, and no one represents me. Except maybe Ron Paul. Somewhat.
Do you want the real reason or the left wing loonie reason?
The real reason that many conservatives don’t like the UN because it conflicts with their notion of sovereignty. To the most extreme, it sounds to much like world government.
In fact most people still do not understand what the purpose of the UN is. It is not a world government or police force. It is simply a forum where countries can get together and talk. Problem is that people tend not to like such forums unless everyone is talking about something they agree with. In the end, however, if the UN tells you “we want you to do something”, they don’t really have an answer to the reply “you and what army”?
To say that Republicans hate “hate the UN because it gives a voice to crummy third world countries populated by dark-skinned people who are only looking for a hand out” really only displays your bias and ignorance.
Conservatives have for a long time been wary of the influence of the U.N. because of the “one world” government concept which is seen as a threat to America’s operating freely in its strategic interest. This fear is tempered by the occasional usefulness of the U.N. in legitimizing and mobilizing support for some U.S. activities (well, before the current Administration anyway).
It has little to nothing to do with racism, though you gots to watch them furriners.
Especially when stuff like this is allowed to go on.
I’m somewhat conservative, and I’m no fan of the UN.
First of all, as others have pointed out, the UN is corrupt, inneficient, and can’t seem to get out of it’s own way, never mind actually doing any good when you need it. The organization also gives too much credibility and power to third world dictatorships and warlords.
There are deeper reasons why I don’t like the UN, though, I must admit. Even if it were an effective organization who actually did some good in the world and wasn’t corrupt, I’d still be wary of it. Government tends to be a bad thing at the higher levels. Local government and control is the least likely kind to be tyrranical, IMO. The farther away the government is from the people the more likely it is not to represent those people well. It’s for this reason that most conservatives tend to favor local and state governments and rights over those of the fed. It’s also for this reason that many conservatives are wary of the UN. An international body like that is even worse than the bloated and innefficient US government, and even more removed from the people that it represents.
A further problem with the UN for many conservatives is it’s efforts to ban guns. It’s bad enough when we have our own government constantly trying different methods of taking our second ammendment rights away. The idea of a huge international entity doing so gives conservatives the chills, and rightly so.
Oh, and I’d agree with this sentiment as well. If the OP did want to start a serious discussion, he should not have started it with an ignorant, insulting statement to muddy the waters.
The OP basically says that conservatives hate the UN because they are racist. Why isn’t this thread in the Pit? Would anyone mind if I started a thread suggesting the same for liberals?
I’m surprised no one has mentioned this yet. Personally, what I don’t like about the U.N. is that, as far as I know, none of its members are elected by the people of the country they represent. They are all appointed by those in power. Worse, a lot of the countries are still monarchies or dictatorships, so not even the leaders who are doing the appointing were elected. At least here in the U.S. we can choose not to vote for Bush if we don’t like John Bolton. But I would still prefer to elect John Bolton ourselves.
In spite of this, I do find I agree with them on many issues. They usually try to find a peaceful solution to things before they escalate into war. UNICEF does its best to help people. Whenever there’s a scandal though, I can’t help but think how much I wish we could vote those idiots out.
Of course, the U.N. has so little real power that this doesn’t really matter too much.
“U.N., you got a problem with that, know what you should do? You should sanction me. Sanction me with your army. OH! WAIT A MINUTE! YOU DON’T HAVE AN ARMY! I guess that means you need to shut the fuck up! That’s what I’d do if I didn’t have no army, I would shut the fuck up! Shut. The. Fuck. Up.” --David Chappele, “Black Bush”
Fair enough. And Republicans believe that kicking ass ought to be a fully legitimate form of geopolitics. For us.
For everyone. Everyone should go out and kick ass and be productive and creative and nice.
It’s an area where I break somewhat with conservatives–though I do think that it is an admirable desire, if unrealistic.
I’m sorry, but this sounds too much like a tinfoil-hat argument. Is Alger Hiss controlling the ambassadors and staff of the United Nations from the grave?
Add in to that the appearance that the non-elected members of the U.N. are more interested in making the other countries look bad (“We’ll put Libya in charge of the Human Rights Commission! Then we’ll put up more bills condemning Israel while ignoring equal human rights complaints about Palestine/Egypt/Iran/Iraq/etc.!”), and it’s hard to understand why people insist we take this body more seriously.
I am fine with the righteous kicking ass. In fact, it is, IMHO, kicking ass by good people which prevens the kicking ass by evil people.
The UN has made itself pointless by becoming the domain of small-minded and corrupt people.
You and I don’t share the same definition of “kicking ass.”
Unless what you really mean is: “Everyone should go out and bully others and be productive and creative and nice.”
How often do they think America should get its ass kicked, I wonder?
As often as needed, of course. After all, “every kick in the ass is a shove in the right direction.” 
Not to mention that probably very few people know who Alger Hiss is or what he did.
There are a lot of conspiracy theories that float around about the UN. That their black helicoptors are behind cattle mutilations, that they will declare marshall law in the US and basically take over.
Also many people seem to think that putting US troops in a UN force with a Non-American commander is bad thing.
The UN is just an international talking club. This of course places extreme restrictions on its utility in actually resolving international issues. Saying that it’s just a talking club, however, overlooks the fact that “To jaw-jaw is better than to war-war”, as a man who knew a good deal about both said.
As for why US conservatives don’t much care for the UN, I think it’s a straight sovereignty deal. They don’t want to cede any sovereignty to any international body.
I’ve never heard “going out and kicking ass” to mean anything like bullying.
Kick ass ride!
Dude ths kicks ass!
Going to get out there and kick some ASS!
If you wanted to say you’re going to litterally kick someone’s ass it would be:
Dude, I’m going to kick your fucking ass.
So, “kick ass” vs. “kick your ass.” Very different meanings, but the latter requires for a specific ass to be specified. While it is still just the generic, unspecified and global ass it just means “work hard and be competitive.”
Could it be that they also have fundamental differences with the idea that talking is better than fighting? After all, war is action. Action is always better than talk.
Shortly to be released under the inspired leadership of Kofi Annan, the 2006 Babes of the UN Calendar.
That should fix it.
In other words, its a soft-power organisation. There’s a homoerotic strain of the right wing that is seduced by images of hard-power.