Part 1 .As america is allways in one conflict or another. Do you think it is right to have the United Nations headquaters in America and wouldn't it seem biased as America is not neutral ground and peace talks could sway towards America taking action against another country?.Do you think it is a good idea to relocate the United Nation to a neutral country so there is no error of judgement ?.Part 2 Terrorists should not be placed in American hands but in the hands of the united nations as judgement can be shared by all countrys not one country weilding a big stick and a judgement error cannot happen as one country has not the right to control an international problem like terrorism as it must be in the hands of the United Nations?What do you think on this topic of part 2?.
2007-02-20 20:23:45 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Its an international government body should make the decisions when it comes to conflicts and terrorism not one country .Support the United Nations as it is a collective judgement not an individual judgement .Then no one country can get the blame ? America should not hold all power to make judgements as human life is invovled.?
2007-02-20 20:28:37 · update #1
If you don't like the USA, don't come here
We don't want you spoiling our lands anyhow
2007-02-20 20:49:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
The land the UN was donated land and therefore not considered US soil. As for part 2. As the Afghanistan mission was a UN supported NATO mission and has had success. As apposed to the war in Iraq which is a disaster to say the least and was not supported by UN members. Perhaps it is the members not the body that needs correcting.
2007-02-21 04:34:11 · answer #2 · answered by Cherry_Blossom 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That assumes neutrality isn't a position. Neutrality is a strategic choice, just as aggression is. If aggression worked better for the so-called nuetral nation, it would be aggressive.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way. That old saying comes to mind. Neutrality is a myth which one takes to mean "peaceful". Switezerland was "neutral" in WW@, for example, because it had no strategic importance to Germany, would take away troops uneccessarily to occupy. It was "neutral" for the U.S. as it didn't materially contribute to the German war effort, although it allowed Germany to station troops, and allowed German troops to pass through it's boarders.
Whose "neutral"? And to which issue?
2007-02-21 04:35:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The UN is no longer bipartisan or neutral. The US has mastered the politics of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." That sums up the UN best. We should keep it here in our own backyard. I'd hate to see the UN end up somewhere like "neutral" Venezuela.
2007-02-21 04:37:02 · answer #4 · answered by gone 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think we should be a part of the UN. So I don't think it should be in this country. Did you know we have UN soldier's here in Yellowstone national park...??? What are they doing in our county? I say no to the UN!!! Wake up America!
2007-02-21 04:29:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I nominate Cambridge Mass
2007-02-21 04:28:19 · answer #6 · answered by Boston Mark 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
All those high living socialists should be thrown out of this country as fast as possible
2007-02-21 09:12:13 · answer #7 · answered by kato outdoors 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the un has no power it a bunch of delegates with nothing better to do the are a army of peace keppers after the wars to feed and rebuild war torn areas without war they serve no purpose who cares
2007-02-21 04:27:25 · answer #8 · answered by Are we using our brains today 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
every country has a small UN building
2007-02-21 04:26:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋