Do you believe America should only fight wars approved by the UN in the future?

Question

Haven't we gotten into enough trouble in Iraq with our unilateralism?

earlybird - US imperialism is not a panacea. Strengthening and empowering the UN to regulate the global system is the only way forward.

ruth and others - the US only funds 22% of the UN's budget. So it is false to claim we fund "the majority" of it. And we are hundreds of millions of dollars in arrears in our commitments.

As Alexandr has pointed out, we have ratified the UN charter which obliges us to only use force when authorized by the UN Security Council, and ratified treaties are supreme laws of the land under our Constitution. That "sovereignty" was given up in 1948. The only issue is - should we follow our own Constitution, or not?

Answer 1

You have to remember those international treaties exist because we signed them. It is against our own constitution to break them.

Answer 2

Yes I think it is entirely reasonable for an organization who has a human rights council that consists of countries like Pakistan, Mexico, Cuba and the Russian Federation to control a sovereign nations self-determination and foreign policy. Why not let them govern everything we do? This freedom thing is certainly overrated. The UN has done such a fantastic job in everything they do, why shouldn't we just roll over them. Look at Somalia and the Sudan. How can we argue with the results in those little skirmishes. Yes the UN should certainly tell us what to do.

The UN wouldn't exist if it weren't for the US, they would have even less teeth than they have now if not for our support. The UN doesn't get to tell us what to do.

You offend me with your ideas.

Answer 3

I do not think we should, as our own country, have to ask any ones permission to do anything. That being said, we should however consider the thoughts of our citizens and at least have a rightful review of the situation before we go willy nilly into another illegal war. The Iraq war is wrong and should have never happened. This administration took advantage of the fear it instilled in the minds of the American public to gain acceptance in the beginning, but we all know how that one played out. The US only uses the UN to excuse it's own volitile behavior. They do not take it seriously otherwise.

Answer 4

The UN is a useless organization that uses up huge amounts of funding that could be used for more useful things like health care in AIDS stricken Africa and global vaccination programs. But instead the monies are used for lavishly appointed UN offices and expensive travel and dinners and entertainment and all that other bull crap that is so important to the global welfare. I think the US should pull out of the UN, tell them to go F-off and bomb the hell out of the middle east, then we can go into Sudan and wipe out all those crazy Islamic murdering butchers who are killing woman and children. And the rest of the countries in the UN can just sit around on their thumbs arguing about whether or not it is Genocide while the US save yet another country from themselves.

Answer 5

If the US is based on democracy as it claims it would support the UN rather than undermining it. It appears that the Americans have been brainwashed into believing the UN is corrupt and useless - I suppose they would prefer to let Israel run their country, them, the oil trade and whoever else has a wad of cash. What can you expect from such an immature civilisation? If they weren't so powerful we could just ignore them.

However bad you may think the UN is, it is all we have got (or should I say had post operation kill Saddam and steal his oil) and all of the World except America would rather see them running things.

Sorry yanks, but God is not an American.

Answer 6

It depends. if america was really threatened and the UN still said no, then yes we should. But if something like iraq comes up again then no. for all the UN bashing by the right wing, it's turned out that the UN knew what was going on better then america.

Answer 7

I am not a believer in going to war to enforce UN sanctions. Besides the UN is the ultimate in corrupt bureaucracies.

Iraq was in violations of multiple UN violations and was under sanctions for expelling the weapons inspectors who knew the WMD were present. But Annan, his son, and several companies were making money off the Oil-For-Food program. France, Belgium and other countries were buying embargoed Iraqi oil illegally through Syria. Russia and Germany were contracted to build nuclear reactors in Iraq. Everyone had finanacial reasons not to disarm Iraq.

The UN didn't go into Iraq because they would be losing money. Just like the UN doesn't go into a country unless they will be making money.

Koffi Annan, an African was the Secretary General for 10 years. He ignored the starvation, epidemics and genocide in Africa while he was busy lining his pockets. Why, because those countries are too poor and Europe is bilking them out of their natural resources. Annan is no humanitarian, he is a businessman.

So as long as corruption will be tolerated by the career diplomats of the UN, the US should not enter any war unless our national security is directly at stake.

Answer 8

NO. I am sad to say that the UN is corrupt and badly broken. The idea is good, but the current configuration is terribly flawed. The UN should be replaced. It should not be a puppet of the US or Europe, but it should also not be a puppet of the Third World either.

Answer 9

The UN is useless. Why didn't they intervene and stop the genocide in Rwanda? Why didn't they quit screwing around with Saddam and actually *enforce* those 17 failed resolutions, one of which was to use force, if necessary? Where is the UN in Darfur? What about the scandals with UN "Peacekeepers" raping little girls?

France doesn't ask their permission.

Answer 10

Heck no. That would be ridiculous. We are a free country with the rights to declare war on a nation whether the UN likes it or not.

Answer 11

I've a better idea... get the US out of the UN, and give 'em a big ol' F-you.

The United Nations isn't a holy panacea for all the world's ails. Can't you see this? I've read some of your answers here before, you seem to have a brain.

EDIT: I didn't say the United States "imperialism" was a panacea either. I just don't think we should allow a bunch of foreign leaders to determine our foreign policy for us. If we need to have a military operation, we shouldn't have to get the okay and green light from ambassadors appointed by thugs and tyrants.

It is called sovereignty. The founding fathers strived for it, yet you are so quick to hand it out to a group of internationals. Hmmm... makes me wonder.