[scandium]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Would you care to explain what you mean by that? I assume you have done some research on this and thus are aware of why some countries cannot veto and some can, right? ...Right?

Fair enough if you have a gripe with the UN, and fine, dislike the veto system all you want, but to call them terrorists is a tad bit over-the-edge.

First, calm down. Get in your medical cabinet and find a 25mg chill pill. Then, tell me why you think the UN is plotting to take over the world.

Actually, I wouldn't grieve too much if the USA did abandon the UN. It'd decrease the corruption significantly:p.

The US systematically vetoes every UN attempt at bringing Israel to justice; they don't follow UN regulations and rules; and they pretty much hate the whole organisaiton. Until the US government gets its act together, it shall not be missed*.

And to use corruption as grounds for leaving the UN is very hypocritical in the US's case, what with the US being ruled by the exceedingly corrupt Republican Party. And let's not get into the Guantanamo torture, ordered by the Bush Administration, the Downing Street Memos (more sources), or how the US has a huge debt it's not doing much at all to counter.

But sure, let's bail poor old innocent USA out of the evil United Nations, lest they might be a bad influence.

Couldn't you find a more biased and strange-minded site? "The Human Rights Council was Kofi Annan's flagship of UN reform. But only two weeks after it began, it took up where the discredited Human Rights Commission left off - Israel-bashing."

So they think it's a bad thing that when Israel breaks just about every rule on warfare and occuption there is to break, the UN condemns them? Isn't that what the UN is supposed to do? Or is there some rule that I'm not aware of that makes Israel immune to all attack? Please link to it if that is the case - thanks in advance.

EDIT:
First of all, it's worth mentioning that the UN isn't a nation. In a sense, "the UN" didn't pull out of Rwanda, the member countries did.

What I'm trying to say is that the Rwanda pull-out isn't a problem with the UN, but with the individual member nations not caring about the conflict.

The link points to an unproven report. Speculation, no more.

"Setting up a system of rape and torture" is pretty different from rogue peacekeepers raping and torturing. Nice try. Next time, don't link to an article that effectively disproves your statement:p.

*Just in case someone feels inclined to call me anti-American, I've lived in Houston for three years and found the Americans to be a great bunch. It's the government, namely the Republicans,I have something against.

Well said, and you make some very good points here that are pretty hard to refute.

Sadly, too many have trouble wrapping their mind around the fact that the UN is not the United States of America but the United Nations, and thus they have trouble understanding why the UN sometimes tries to act in the common interest of all 192 member nations rather than bending to the will of just 1.

But I suppose we ought to expect as much at a time when even the US President can't tell the difference:

I need to be able to move the right people to the right place at the right time to protect you, and I'm not going to accept a lousy bill out of the United Nations Senate. -- G.W. Bush

John Thune has got a common-sense vision for good forest policy. I look forward to working with him in the United Nations Senate to preserve these national heritages. -- G.W. Bush

Any time we've got any kind of inkling that somebody is thinking about doing something to an American and something to our homeland, you've just got to know we're moving on it, to protect the United Nations Constitution, and at the same time, we're protecting you. -- G.W. Bush