As someone who has worked alongside the UN, they must be the most corrupt organization on earth.
Poe’s Law.
With Americans you can’t tell if it’s parody anymore.
Or what he said. 
I’ll have you know that here in Oklahoma we address those people as, "Senator … ".:eek:
Anti-UN paranoia always reminds me of that Wile E. Coyote cartoon where he sets a caged mountain cat next to the sheep dog and then retreats far over a hill before opening the cage via a string. Instead of attacking the dog, the cat charges straight back over the hill to attack the coyote.
Meaning, some Americans think that if we gave the UN military power in order to attack evil dictatorships, the first thing it would do instead is attack the US.
OTOH, righties also like to mock the UN’s lack of military power and inability to exercise control. If you hate someone and want to badmouth them, it hardly matters whether you denounce them as evil or mock them as ineffectual.
The General Assembly is representative of member states’ opinion. It is an organization of governments.
Certainly democracy has a long way to go in many of those states; we’re not exactly lacking for room to improve, ourselves. At least a substantial majority of UN member states are on record as embracing democracy as an ideal and goal, by ratification of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
While I couldn’t care less about the UN, and I think the US should abandon it and reform any of it’s agencies that are actually worthwhile, I have no more fear of the UN than I do of the Pope’s divisions.
And we can’t forget the Left Behind books, which go that route as well, and have sold hundreds of millions of copies.
What gets me about the whole idea is that the U.N., as an organization, is really pretty toothless. The U.N. doesn’t remotely have the power to force us to abide by a U.N. treaty we are a signatory to (e.g. the one about torture), and the idea that it somehow could take away our guns, force home-schooled kids to be taught [fill in blank], etc. is really pretty ludicrous. It’s slightly more believable than the notion that the Duchy of Grand Fenwick could take over the United States, but only slightly.
I mean, how’s this going to work? They’re not going to send blue-helmeted troops into the U.S. to enforce a hypothetical treaty’s hypothetical edicts. Some treaties (e.g. a nuclear arms limitation treaty) can be implemented on our side by executive action alone; others (e.g. the take-your-guns-away treaty or the force-your-homeschooled-kids-to-eat-vegetarian-meals treaty) would require Congressional legislation to implement. And Congress could pass those sorts of laws anyway, if that was so inclined.
I’m not sure you’re right in this. It appears that treaties have some legal standing under US law. Apparently the boundaries area bit fuzzy (at least to me :)), but international treaties do appear to offer some opportunity to “sneak” in some uncontemplated changes to US laws and policies.
No sneaking involved. Treaties have no force of law unless they’re ratified by our own government. If they fail to contemplate all the implications, well, that’s no different than their ordinary domestic lawmaking. And we always have the option of withdrawing from a treaty if our own successive governments come to see it as intolerable.
None of what you’re saying makes it irrational to be suspicious of the UN and other similar entities, for the reasons given.
Of course they have legal standing. What would be the point of a treaty that didn’t? But they don’t supersede the Constitution.
It is irrational to be suspicious of the UN in any way or to any degree except that to which one is suspicious of our domestic government. Because the UN has no practical power over the United States beyond that which we deliberately and explicitly give it.
I think you’d agree that a distrust of the UN is generally found in people who also have a distrust of our domestic government. They tend to go hand-in-hand.
Not really. As mentioned, the UN General Assembly has a good number of members who represent shithole dictatorships, some of which are openly hostile to the US and its interests. So I would be a lot more suspicious of them than of Congress. I didn’t vote for Obama and the Democrats, but at least they don’t wind up their deliberations by chanting “death to the United States”.
As far as I know.
Regards,
Shodan
Do they ever explain why any of that is a bad thing?
Cite that this has happened during UN deliberations, please.
I don’t think that’s true. Even WRT laws that the government passes there are very frequently many ramifications which were not fully anticipated by those who passed the laws. I think a lot of these treaties tend to be even vaguer, and furthermore, their interpretation is often heavily influenced by groups who are not friendly to US interests.
[Note: this is not to say that the sum of US suspicion of the UN is the issue I happen to be discussing - others - most notably tomndebb and John Mace - have raised other issues which are parts of the equation.]
It doesn’t. It happens after the deliberations of one of the member states of the UN General Assembly. No, you don’t need a cite for that.
If you don’t understand why it makes sense to be suspicious of an organization with members who behave in that fashion, someone else will have to explain it to you. I don’t feel like wasting the time.
Regards,
Shodan
Cite some examples please - preferably those that are significantly different from unforeseen ramifications of normal laws or of treaties not involving the UN, like NAFTA.