2007-02-07 01:31:36 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
It certainly didn't set a good example.
2007-02-07 01:35:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I don't believe that most Nations view the US as a role model at all, how can "we" set an example for a nations that could care less what we do as long as it does not directly affect them, OK so this might affect them a bit. but in the grand scope of things they will benefit in learning what not to do when trying to radically reform a nations who would have been better off with their previous policies and probably not had the question of a doubt about the US being a horrible nation. I'm glad the US or should i say the Bush administration killed some terrorists, they could have stopped there. The UN being an advocate for global economy and international welfare should be setting an example for the US, first by showing them how to use world political leverage (the allied powers) to make a power (Bush administration) stop acting heinously as they (presidential administrations) have done in the past (World war II). you would thin Bush would have sought advise from the General Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social Council, Secretariat, Trusteeship Council, and the International Court of Justice AKA the UN. Dear UN don't ever take after th US you don't have to but if there is a Nuclear war you might get bombed for yous sisters mistakes. oh I am not "we" mabey i'll side as UN.
2007-02-07 09:58:58 · answer #2 · answered by Jordan 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not.
If you look at what the UN does, it's the most Anti-American, socialist organization on the planet. Thank god that we, the most sucessful and productive nation on earth, have a VETO there - or there would be UN troops in OUR streets taking the fruits of OUR labors and exporting them "to the needy". The UN already wants a global 'income tax' for just those types of things. Charity should be voluntary, not forced by any person or government.
The UN is not the US. Of course, without the US there would be no UN at all, but that's another story all together.
2007-02-07 09:37:48 · answer #3 · answered by politicalcorrectnesskills 1 · 4⤊ 3⤋
We followed the UN's rules under security council sanction 1373, which grants "all means necessary" to stop Iraq from continuing to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments.
2007-02-07 09:52:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the guy on top, but then again, what would the UN approve. The UN is next to useless now.
2007-02-07 09:36:18 · answer #5 · answered by Daniel 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
How many genocides happened under the UN's "watchful cross eyes"? Get back to us as soon as you can.
2007-02-07 09:45:58 · answer #6 · answered by bugeyes 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Did the UN set a bad example allowing the slaughter of 600,000 Rwandans when it was within their power to stop it?
2007-02-07 09:38:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
The UN is so impotent it couldn't blow it's nose. The U.S. need to be looking out for it's own interests. Would you rather leave our fate in the hands of a bunch of corrupt paper tigers?
2007-02-07 09:37:14 · answer #8 · answered by aiminhigh24u2 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
her is my thing what if one day we are not th predominant super power and and the sp @ issue wants to change the way the GOP and Dem's fight and get no where so the decide to invade us unilaterally then what
2007-02-07 09:46:49 · answer #9 · answered by VHEE 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
errr...look im from bulgaria ....yes i think it was a mistake going in iraq and afghanistan. I hope you dont go any further
2007-02-07 15:45:32 · answer #10 · answered by lubomirbotev 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋