I am not exactly sure what one has to do with the other. Considering on one hand your talking about Americans in the political processes exercising there vote and there rights as an American. Wether I agree with them or not has nothing to do with it. If your willing to ELECT that type of person then you get the representation you deserve.
Yep I agree, America gets the representation it deserves, when a huge minority cant get off thier fat asses to even vote every once in a while. But that goes for all nations including my own, but at least we can muster over 70% of the population to the national polls for the most part.
On the other hand you have a useless organization in THIS country of UNELECTED people, ongoing scandals, all the while blasting this country on an ongoing basis. Fu.ck the UN and it's useless exsistence. Get this shi.thole of mediocrity out of here. The paper tiger needs to find a new home, let someone else strat footing the bill and taking the brunt.
So you are saying the UN is useless? Okay lets get rid of the UN.. that means no WTO, no Unicef, no CTBTO (nuclear testing), no IAEA, no IMF, no IMO, no UNHCR and loads of other organisations.. who should take up the "slack" or do you just want total anarchy? Or are you one of those right wingers that want the "religious groups" to take over charity?
Pete you can have the UN, I have no doubt you would be best buddies.
Why do you assue that I agree with how the UN is run? I dont, but I dont want to get rid of it as I see it as the only reason we have not been a nuclear winter for decades. Without a place to meet, to discuss, to talk behind closed doors, this world would be a wasteland. Fix it is what I want.
Yes the UN has its faults, but you can not deny that the UN has done a lot of good over the 50 years its been around. If it was not for the UN, womens rights in many countries would be worse if not still back in the dark ages. If it was not for the UN, millions of children would have died, polio would not have been beaten back and so on. The only place the UN has failed more times than its won, is on the "peace making" area.. something it was never ment to do and never geared political nore militarily to deal with.
Should the UN go into Darfur in force.. sure but where are the troops going to come from and are countries willing to send thier boys in harms way, in a religious and ethnic civil war? Did the UN drop the ball so to say, in Bosnia?
Yes and no, with Russia banding the veto button, the UN was powerless to do anything even if all other nations might have wanted to do something. And again, would nations want to send thier boys in harms way into a civil war?
The list goes on and in almost every case, the UN was only sent in as peacekeepers and not as combat troops... peacekeepers with an extremly limited mandate often, a mandate often demanded by a veto carrying member or the different sides of the conflict.
And then there is the mother of all "veto making" issues in the UN.. Isreal. The US has vetoed more things about Isreal than all other nations combined during the last few decades..and is the situation any where near getting resolved? Let me guess.. thats the UNs fault too?
If you and the right wingers want an organisation that can have the power to kick *** when countries break certain rules, then fine.. define the rules and the way such an intervention can be mandated. Define who is allowed to be a member of said organisation, define what criteria are needed to become a member...problem is ... would you as an American want to give any organisation that power? And would it be with or without veto power?..
