Prove this wrong

[Dr.Who]

The United Nations has no real power, is a puppet of the United States, and in no way undermines the sovereignty of the US. those who say the UN is a threat are just right wingers with a political axe to grind.

 

[dogtowner]

well the only power it has is when countries aquiesce to what it says.

many do and largly because they stand to benefit from it. think wefare organization for the 3rd world.

if they were our puppet why do they constantly do things contrary to our intetests ? you could say that we ignore or veto it and its just trying to placate whiners. but really why bother ? the are determined to hate us and nothing will stop that.

so no real proof but a few observations.

 

[Gipper]

The United Nations has no real power, is a puppet of the United States, and in no way undermines the sovereignty of the US. those who say the UN is a threat are just right wingers with a political axe to grind.

I would agree with that is some respects. However, the UN promotes big centralized one world government (much like what our current government is doing), with the UN controlling all things. Why else would the UN promote silly unproven theories like AGW, gun control, and socialism?

 

[steveox]

Remember it took a liberal to create the UN. Harry Truman!

 

[dogtowner]

I would agree with that is some respects. However, the UN promotes big centralized one world government (much like what our current government is doing), with the UN controlling all things. Why else would the UN promote silly unproven theories like AGW, gun control, and socialism?

why ? to secure more of other people's money to redistribute and skim. mainly skim. they are blatant in their skimming.

 

[cashmcall]

other than bashing Israel.. they had no real Power until Obama, our other leaders I think understood what and who they are and at that time I would have said in no way did they have the power to undermine the sovereignty of the US... BUT today , I just don't know...

 

[Dr.Who]

What is we agreed that a binding treaty obligates those who sign and ratify it to meet the terms of the treaty. If the terms undermined the US sovereignty then would we say that the UN undermined US sovereignty?

Would the opposing argument be that the UN has no army and can't make the US do anything?

Would the counterargument be that the US is a nation of laws and if we ratify a treaty then we abide by it. Would it also be true that the UN does not actually make treaties it just "brokers" them so that the treaties are actually enforced by the other member states?

 

[dogtowner]

clearly the UN has zero enforcement capability and has to rely on member states deciding to "go along" with their ideas. kind of explains why they seldom if ever put forth anything of a hard and fast nature. if the un disappeared tomorrow only the skimmets and parasites woul.d notice

 

[Cruella]

clearly the UN has zero enforcement capability and has to rely on member states deciding to "go along" with their ideas. kind of explains why they seldom if ever put forth anything of a hard and fast nature. if the un disappeared tomorrow only the skimmets and parasites woul.d notice

And New York. They probably make a few bucks on the U.N. being in their state.

 

[dogtowner]

And New York. They probably make a few bucks on the U.N. being in their state.

maybe. but new yawkers would rejoice. major thorn in the side for the citizens.

 

[Dr.Who]

clearly the UN has zero enforcement capability and has to rely on member states deciding to "go along" with their ideas. kind of explains why they seldom if ever put forth anything of a hard and fast nature. if the un disappeared tomorrow only the skimmets and parasites woul.d notice

So if the us ratifies a binding treaty the UN cannot make them abide by it but 1) we are a generally law abiding nation and once the terms of the treaty are written into us law we would generally follow it - it would impact US law, 2) as a multilateral treaty the other nations that sign it could deliver consequences as they would in the case of any broken treaty. There won't be UN troops rolling across our borders but there will be pressure to follow the terms.


Sound about right?

 

[dogtowner]

So if the us ratifies a binding treaty the UN cannot make them abide by it but 1) we are a generally law abiding nation and once the terms of the treaty are written into us law we would generally follow it - it would impact US law, 2) as a multilateral treaty the other nations that sign it could deliver consequences as they would in the case of any broken treaty. There won't be UN troops rolling across our borders but there will be pressure to follow the terms.


Sound about right?

if the US ratifies a treaty worked out between itself and some state or collection of states (NATO or NAFTA for example) we follow it as long as it is beneficial for us to do so. there is no treaty to be had with the UN as the UN is nothing, neither a state or a sovrign anything. it would be like making a treaty with a cloud.

and lets behonest with ourselves, noone can compel us to do anything. so there canreally be no instance of a treaty impacting a law the country might enact or already have onthe books. states can not be impacted as they ceded international matters to the central govt.

 

[steveox]

And New York. They probably make a few bucks on the U.N. being in their state.

And and we should evict the UN. Let em go to China seems they support China so much.

 

[Aus22]

The Un does not support giving arms to any side in Syria. They are thus oppose to Russia and the USA. They are not puppets.

 

[dogtowner]

The Un does not support giving arms to any side in Syria. They are thus oppose to Russia and the USA. They are not puppets.

theUN are mainly whores