Yes I know why it was out there in the first place, after WW1. BUT in many people's eyes the paranoid, christian fundamentalist regime which rules America is hated throughout the world. They have huge stockpies of nuclear weapons ( which they have used on civilians) and they spread havoc wherever they go. Surely the very credibility of the UN is compromised by having their headquarters in such a place.
Wouldn't Rome, Paris or London be a more fitting location? i.e., peaceful democratic countries which have separation of church and state?
2006-10-11 08:58:21 · 13 answers · asked by Not Ecky Boy 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
OOPs sorry WW2 then.
2006-10-11 09:05:52 · update #1
( when you done saved our sorry butts (yawn))
2006-10-11 09:06:36 · update #2
I say Paris should host the UN and see if they will support it like the US does. The UN has trashed its host long enough.
2006-10-11 09:04:14 · answer #1 · answered by al 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This should be done and the UN HQ established in a Neutral country like Switzerland.
The reason is that the USA has on many occasions refused entry visas for delegations from countries they do not like, so not allowing such countries to put their case or express their view on the UN floor.
"Case in point Yasserr Arafat was not allowed a visa, many others"
2006-10-11 23:05:42 · answer #2 · answered by ian d 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
how about North Korea ?anyway who is complaining its worked well so far its just the Head guys that don't fit. lets see how the new guy sizes up after Kofi has left!! Smorbific the UN did exist before WW2 and it was called The league of Nations but more less effective than UN is today
2006-10-11 09:49:07 · answer #3 · answered by srracvuee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't give a rat's caboose how much the other gimpy little nations of this world hate us. We are America and we ARE better! Secondly, by all means yes, let's move the UN building. I suggest we pack it up lock-stock-and-barrel (including all people except the US delegation) and place it on the Pacific island of Bikini Atoll. Then immediately resume nuclear testing at that location.
2006-10-11 09:05:19 · answer #4 · answered by Wayne H 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You really think that the United Nations would be more
credible by relocating to another place/country ?
I say move the U.N. to a small remote island somewhere, but for different reasons than yours.
2006-10-11 09:08:46 · answer #5 · answered by no nickname 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think the US should kick them out and never give them any more money, the US pays for 40% of the UN's wasted budget. Send them to Paris they deserve each other.
The US should also stop giving all countries,but Israel and England foreign aid. Lets see how the world gets along then.
2006-10-11 09:04:45 · answer #6 · answered by Zen 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
They should move to no man's land.
So they have more time in mastering our creator's universal communication system on planet earth.
Have more time to learn about the Fishing lines, hooks and sinkers on planet earth.
Instead of spending more time in "Downtown" New York window shopping for themselves while little children back home were crying and hungry on planet earth.
2006-10-11 22:05:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
World War II, actually. The UN didn't exist before then.
2006-10-11 09:02:08 · answer #8 · answered by x 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
problem one.
bush ignored all of them and with no positive proof started a big expensive war.
problem two.
its not very effective lately.
not a problem.
the travel is on the taxpayers sooo..doesn't matter where in the world..but we have the best weapons and offer the best protection available..
i think it should be as far from all the hubbub as possible.
2006-10-11 09:42:46 · answer #9 · answered by homelessinorangecounty 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't think its location matters. I think that what matters is that member countries support it and respect what it stands for.
2006-10-11 09:08:55 · answer #10 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋