We use the U.N. for a imprimatur of international approval when we can get it; when we can't we ignore it.
2007-11-08 15:37:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I don't believe it's any more Christian than Canada or England. We have some groups that CLAIM to be Christians that THEY (lucky them) don't. For instance, we have cult-like Baptist churches that make up their own rules and try to control everyone and are racist and homophobic. There are also: Southern Baptists, Mormons, and those churches that preach SPECIFICALLY against blacks, and chruches that preach specifically against gays. And then there's those BIG groups of Catholics that claim to be Christians, but actually, only I'd say a tiny handfull of Catholics have actually been born again and are true Christians. When you narrow down true Christianity that way, no, I would say America's going to the dogs, and that we are not a Christian nation at all. There are true Christians there, but there are all over the world. We just happen to have a big population. You may as well say that Canada's a Christian Nation, or the UK is a Christian Nation, or Australia's a Christian Nation...Just because America was founded by lots of Christians doesn't mean anything...
2016-05-28 21:41:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The UN Failed to act on their own resolutions. Twelve of them to be exact. Plus the Iraqi's violated the terms of the cease fire agreement they signed with the United States making us justified to attack them.
Why don't you ask the people in Darfur, The Congo, Sudan jsut to name a few what they think of the actions (or lack of) in regards to the UN.
Did you know the the President of the UN's son was making millions of dollars a year of the food for oil program? Monsy that he wouldn't be making if Saddam lost power.
Did you know France Germany and Russia we collecting Oil contracts with Saddam worth Billions of dollars. These are the same people who voted against action against Iraq. Their oil contracts with Saddam would be usless if Saddam was removed from power.
Please research a little bit before you post. You won't look so stupid if you do.
NOW we can say they were right? Have you read the news latley. 46,000 Iraqi's have returned to Iraq (quoting the newspaper "becuase it has got safe enough to do so") Iraqi civilian deaths have been declining and last month was the lowest ever as was US troop deaths.
ADDITION: The UN you speak of is the same organization that puts Lybia, Syria Lebonon, China and countries like this in the human rights panels.
The UN is just a vacuum that suck money from the countries involved so they can sit around an discuss things they will never actually take action on.
The UN (and the people heading it up) should hang their heads in shame letting genocide go on while they fail to act. You follow the UN and let them look out for your welfare. I will take my chances with the good olde USA
2007-11-08 15:42:12
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
YOU DON'T GET TO REWRITE HISTORY!
The US invasion of Iraq WAS sanctioned by the UN. What's more, the UN does not have sovereignty over the US, so even if they had not passed 14 resolutions condemning Saddam and agreeing with us, its still wouldn't have been illegal to invade Iraq. In fact, even if the entire rest of the world voted against us in the UN and we acted unilaterally, we still would not have broken international law.
2007-11-08 15:39:54
·
answer #4
·
answered by smartr-n-u 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
the idea of the UN is great but the US shows why the UN doesn't work. the UN has no power to make any country do anything. the UN says don't go to war, US goes to war. UN can't do anything about it. as for respecting the UN's decisions, US would only agree if such decisions went along with its own ideas. otherwise it can take a hike.
2007-11-08 15:38:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
the few answers ahead of me are correct in stating we broke no international law and Iraq went against the ceasfire. and about respecting the decisions of the UN havn't you figured out by now the USA is the UN... without the US the UN would be nothing.
2007-11-08 15:46:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by halofan373 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
Like the UN respected the people in the Congo they were suppose to be protecting...not raping.
Or maybe the oil for food scandal.
The UN hasn't been right about ANYTHING.
2007-11-08 15:36:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don't. When the majority of the states in the UN follow the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, maybe it will deserve some respect. The majority of the states are run by criminals and dictators. Don't even pretend to condescend to us Americans. We aren't paying nearly as dearly as those muslim scumbags. Take your propaganda somewhere else pal.
2007-11-08 15:39:44
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
No and we shouldn't. The UN would crumble if we did the right thing for the U.S. and pulled out. Have you bothered to give thought to WHICH UN decision should be followed?
2007-11-08 15:53:37
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree,, with your thoughts...
democracy should be held as an ideal...
and the consequences are too high to ignore
edit
there is a lot of odd information posted here
Scott Ritter was an american UN inspector
watch him on youtube he explains that most of this data you are reciting is propaganda
it sure looks good on paper
the difference is whether you believe in the propaganda or not... oddly enough it is a divide of awareness
or libs vs. cons
2007-11-08 15:40:25
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Congratulations. Your question presents the most fabricated facts of the evening. Stay tuned to MSNBC for the Rosie
O'Donnell show. Their target audience are the intellectual giants of the left, of which you appear to be.
2007-11-08 15:37:40
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋