Let’s leave the inflammatory rhetoric out of Great Debates.
[ /Moderating ]
Fair enough.
I’m reasonably certain though that no one here would disagree that democracies are more legitimate than dictatorships, though people will argue over what they think democracy should look like.
And yet you are part of an institution when a large number of its constituents are decidedly hostile to your interests. They call it “society”. At the most basic, every single individual is hostile to the interests of every other. I know I’m readily hostile to the interests of my neighbour - if it were up to me I’d take a sledgehammer to the separating wall, toss that parasite out on the street and enjoy my new living room, eating his food on his couch except they’d be mine then. That would further my interests a ton.
It turns out that by acceding to some of his more eccentric idiosyncrasies (like “prejudice towards continued existence”), I get some of mine acceded to in turn. It sucks, but there you go.
Or, put it another way and from another point of view, the US is hostile to the interests of a large number of UN members, too. And yet they’re still member states because whaddayagonnado ?
Nations are members of the UN not because they necessarily like it, but because it’s the only game in town. It’s the largest, most respected political forum in the world, and if you’re not a member, your voice won’t be heard.
Saying that the UN is corrupt, of inefficient, or has too much power is perfectly legitimate criticism.
It is, but that’d be quibbling over the intricacies and details of the game ; rather than objecting to its core principle or mission statement i.e. bringing every single nation to a table (including the “bad” ones), talking shit to death and setting up compromises (including re: the interests of the “good” ones) which it seemed to me John Mace or **Chimera **were about.
To go with the earlier metaphor: saying that a given society is corrupt, or inefficient, or has too much authoritarianism going on is also perfectly legitimate criticism of that specific society ; but there’s a gap between this and “therefore society is shit and let’s not have one”. Even more so w/ “society doesn’t let me pursue my selfish interests unilaterally so I’m out” :). Going Galt is for the reality-challenged birds.
Unlike a normal society, however, the UN does not supersede the rights and powers of its individual members. The UN is not a global government. It’s a clubhouse.
Then I am afraid that you really do not understand the UN and what it was set out to do. The UN is not primarily a problem solver, its a forum, a forum where all nations can put forth their opinions. Its a talk shop because that’s what it was set out to be on the theory that lines of communication will always remain open. Furthermore, you are quite ignorant of history. The UN did kick out a crazy racist nation like aparthied South Africa, who was suspended from the General assembly in the 1970’s till the 1990’s. Of course that might not count as the US was one of the biggest supporters and apologists for aparthied S Africa.
[ol]
[li]We actually have them here. UN Headquarters in New York City, & it is a pain in the tuchus. Reckless behavior, assaults, auto mayhem & rapes by UN Delegation members & staff happen with ugly regularity, & diplomatic immunity protects the guilty.[/li][li]Many World leaders would like to use the UN to anti-democratic ends.** Like the Internet Censorship efforts, being fronted by China & Russia.**[/li][li]Theft of funds is constant. This includes theft by the Secretary General. No accountability.[/li][li]Espionage on US soil. Obviously.[/li][li]US Military personnel on UN duty hate it. the US has a poor view, based on past experience, of putting US troops under foreign officers.[/li][li]And plain Hillbilly dumbassery. as per previous communiques.[/li][/ol]
I don’t expect the average citizen to have a detailed understanding of how UN peacekeeping forces work, but I’d expect most people to at least be vaguely aware that there isn’t some huge UN army somewhere, and certainly not one capable of threatening US sovereignty.
I get the feeling people who object to it in its current form would frickin’ immolate themselves if it were, though 
As would plenty of its supporters, too, don’t you think?
Probably, yeah.
OPEC. I’m sure I can come up with more.
With regard to diplomatic immunity, you do know most of these people are prosecuted in their home states, right?
As for the rest: cite?
It appears that you expect too much. In a similar vein, I’ve seen that the common view is that the US spends a large part of our budget on foreign aid, not the tiny percentage we really spend.
I’ve seen a lot of posts here that claim UN resolutions and treaties do not override the Constitution and cannot be enforced without ratification. This is true. I think the point of criticizing the UN is to remind our representatives of this fact, and encourage them to oppose ratification of treaties that their constituents oppose.
UN treaties can and will impact our lives, even if we do not ratify the decisions. We live in a very interdependent world, and decisions (economic, military, or whatever) do have an impact on us.
The UN has made a number of questionable decisions and recommendations lately, such as their call to legalize prostitution worldwide (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/un-commission-calls-legalizing-prostitution-worldwide) or the small-arms ban. Without going into whether they’re right or wrong, the fact is that many Americans disagree with these ideas.
Why would I trust an organization that does not share my ethics and values?
My last point is that I agree with Anchuldigs above. The UN hosts countries whose conduct has been reprehensible by any measure, and provides them a forum equal to that of civilized free-world nations. The UN’s credibility as an institution suffers every time they play host to these hideous ideologies.
And this doesn’t happen out of embassies and consulates also? And we don’t do it too?
This happens in NATO also. But how many US troops have been assigned to UN duty since Korea - when they were basically commanded by Americans? I can’t think of many off the top of my head. I thought Bosnia was a NATO thing.
Any country with Inhofe as a senior legislator in the upper house shouldn’t criticize others for hillbilly dumbassery.
It was both. We sent peacekeepers during the original Balkan conflict (the breakup of Yugoslavia, not WWI, I mean) under UN auspices, and bombed Serbia under NATO ones during the Kosovar uprising.
Not coincidentally, right-wingers got their collective panties in a huge bunch when one soldier refused to wear a UN uniform patch while on a peacekeeping deployment and was court-martialed. In fact, some of those panties are still bunched.
Because we span the continent east to west and have quiet neighbors to the north and south. The U.S. hasn’t really had to get along with other countries – or tried to – since before the UN was established.
Plus during the Cold War they let the Soviet Union in, and didn’t always tell them they were wrong about everything, so it’s clear to conservatives that the UN is a Communist organization.
Here’s one example, there are plenty more if you care to look them up. Some of the member countries on various councils are just as eye rolling.
Some bastions of freedom sitting on the UN human rights council:
China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Congo, Russia, Nigeria
I don’t know guys but that partial list kind of makes me wonder what sort of agenda the UN has.