U.N American: Hey U.N, we bought you into this world, we can take you out!Get Rating Widget!

Overall Rating:2.40 based on 5 ratings
ItemImage (Add description)

Your rating:     (Roll over your star rating, then click) (5=Great)
Notify me by email when someone comments on my review
Notify me by email when someone reviews this item
 

Reviews for U.N American: Hey U.N, we bought you into this world, we can take you out!  1-4 OF 4

Browse next item:
War Is NOT The Answer! Unless Your A Socialist Gue
Sort items by:
REVIEWERRATING & REVIEW
HistoryFan (98)
01/06/2006
The U.N. is one of the most corrupt organizations today. It hobnobs with ruthless dictators, calling it "diplomacy."

  (2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
Daccory (15)
08/17/2005
Ah heykate, the neo-con propaganda has got you convinced, hasn't it? The UN is not perfect by any means, but since it was a creation of the US (and America lobbied hard for it to be put on American soil...so they could keep tabs on it), and of other countries like Britain and France, it seems a bit strange to say you don't like it just because the rest of the world wouldn't play patsy with the US administration's false agenda. I agree entirely that the UN shouldn't be located in America...it needs to be relocated to a free, neutral country. It also needs to be reworked from the roots up. It needs to be fairer, giving everyone a voice in comparison to the populations and economies of each country it represents; it needs to be made stronger so that every country feels their voice is heard. And if the rest of the world disagrees with a country on an issue, that country should abide by the rules and accept it. If the US feels it does not want to participate in a world organisation to help the planet (for that is what a global body should be for...and let's not forget the UN is only supposed to be a PEACE keeping body, not a war-mongering one) it has every right to leave...but it will still have to abide by the decisions the rest of the world makes. People worldwide no longer wish to tolerate one country trying to lord it over the rest, whichever country that happens to be. Now, here is the enigma. Only by working together can we get rid of the despots that do the lording, but the US argument has been that the UN has never acted quickly enough to do precisely that, so it has had to act accordingly. This has scaled new heights with pre-emptive attacks, (for which a peace-keeping body was asked to condone.) Therefore, when (not if) we create a new world body, the exact rules and reasons for that body must be made absolutely clear and remain fundamentally unchallenged. Do we want a body to bring a uniting voice to all the peoples of the world, or one which has to accept the rulings of just five countries through the Security Council? We would also need to address how voting can be speeded up to make decisions. It could be that there are local forces who can react very quickly to trouble in their representative areas, under the UN umbrella; or we might decide another way would be more suitable. One thing is for certain, withdrawing altogether from the table actually does nothing to change things, unless whichever country is only sulking for more attention (which certainly does happen). Yet thinking one can turn one's back on global issues is a fallacy, as much as one might like to. UPDATE: Believe me, it is not with nationalistic pride I have written what I have. Britain is equally to blame and we have to take the consequences. Instead of the tired old line of going on the defensive, it would be better to realise we have made a mistake and set about rectifying it. I also agree with Mr P that dealing with despots is distateful, but how else are you going to get that country's viewpoint if they are not present at the table? Besides, it hasn't stopped Bush's government dealing with their so-called new friends, the Pakistanis and the Saudi Arabians, has it? Also, I can't see where I called anyone any names!

  (3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
EschewObfuscation (61)
08/16/2005
I like the satire, but most Americans (including myself) would prefer a body like the UN to exist, and see great value in its potential to assist in developing global dialogues and coordinating worldwide relief efforts. Today's UN is simply dominated by a conglomeration of 3rd World countries and communistic former world powers whose primary agendae seem to be the inhibition of American influence, the appeasement of the Arab world through the extermination of Israel and the concealment of a shameful track record of corruption when it comes to disaster aid and hunger relief. And, Daccory, how easy it is to accuse heykate of a neo-con brainwashing when you march in such lockstep with a nearly homogenous liberal worldview. Name-calling doesn't help in establishing the logical credibility of your, or anyone else's, views.

  (3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
Mr.Political (18)
08/08/2005
Taking advice on moral and ethical humanitarian conduct from the United Nations is as intelligent a choice to make as if H&R; Block were to hire Leona Helmsley as its CEO. First off, I don't recall the UN being particularly intertested in peace keeping when 300 of their heavily armed soldiers started shooting into homes, a church and a school using machine guns, tanks and tear gas in one of the poorest communities in Haiti. Second, let us not forget the sexual abuses committed against underage girls in the Congo, who often were left to raise a child as a result. Moving onward we can all recall the UN's failure to act on the genocide in Rwanda, the second Congo War (which killed 5 million people btw), the Srebrencia killings (UN called it a safe haven for refugees), and inability to deliver food to starving men, woman and children in Somalia. And it would be a terrible mistake to forget the now infamous Oil-For-Food scandal that did nothing but soldify the loss of integrity in the United Nations building. Do we really want to base our conduct on the actions of an organization who has on its Commission on Human Rights countries like Sudan, Cuba and Libya? These are more than just mistakes Daccory, these are catastrophic failures that have come at the expense of a countless number of human beings. The problem lies not in the voting process but in the mentality; peace can only be accomplished through a position of strength not latency and a wish to please even the worst of dictators.

  (2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
1-4 OF 4View All
Add a rating badge for U.N American: Hey U.N, we bought you into this world, we can take you out! to your site!
Add a rating badge to your site!
test