Close Topic Options

United Nations or USA's Nations? - Page 17

No, I don't think the average US citizen sees it this way. I also don't believe politicians have designed it this way either. I believe we get involved in financiall assiistance to these countries because a lot of people, especially the politicians believe we have a moral obligation to help those in need if we have the ability to do so. Yes, when the Soviiet Union was a factor, we also were afraid if we didn't help then they would. Yet, even with no Soviet Union we spend billions in aid to foreign countries. We have plenty of social problems here. I would be quite happy to spend all my money taking care of US citizens first. Fortunately for those smaller nations, I am not in charge and so they continue to get my tax dollars. Don't forget, every penny that goes to another nation from the US government came out of the pocket of a US citizen, whether it be a from my taxes or the fact that the money isn't available for use at home in the US. I am not inclined to be as generous as many politicians want to be.

Nations USAs Nations United

Are you just naive or are you just willing to see things from one perspective? No offence meant, ok?

What I want to say is that the aid that the US gives out now, comes with a lot more strings attached. Surely you know that? And to say that it comes out of your tax dollars is only half right. What about the other half of the equation? The deals that the US govt is able to muscle out from the other countries, especially those that receives aid from it. It may not be military deals alone. It could be trade preferences, access to the market for the US goods, cheap access to raw materials, etc. That is what trade and economics are all about. And the US has been very unabashed in twisting arms where this is concerned.

You would know that too, right? Every tax dollar you pay that gets channeled to some third world countries, come back to you multiple times in favorable trade terms, employment for the people, profits for the US companies, etc.

United Nations or USA's Nations? History & Civil Business Politics

I have never ever met a politician that believes that help others is a moral obligation.

Page 17 Nations USAs Nations United

Well, I do believe there are some politicians in existence that are not all bad. I believe a number of them are in fact very socially conscious, especially with the American tax dollar. They don't mind spending my money, their self interests do come in to play, quite often, but that doesn't mean everything they do is evil or with bad intent.

Nations USAs Nations United

The U.S. has been given a lot of power ever since the U.N. started. Being a permanent member, it's say is one of the ones that is listened to, and since Russia is no longer a huge opposition to the U.S., its permanent member status doesn't do as much to stop the U.S. as it once did.

However, the U.S. isn't pushing the U.N. where it wants, it's simply going around the U.N. and doing what it wants. I would love to see what the U.S. would do to a country that did that.

United Nations or USA's Nations?

We would work with the UN to issue a blockade or boycott if you will of things being imported and exported into and out of that country's borders. We have done this sort of thing in the past. "Economic sanctions." I don't think they work, at least if they do, it takes many years.

The UN will not do that to the US at this time, because this kind of action would hurt others at least as much as it hurts the US. In addition, since the US has veto power, it could just veto any such sanction vote.

United Nations USA's Nations - Page 17

The only way to get to that situation is for the world to transform itself into a bipolar world. One that is either 'with us or against us' sort of scenario vis-a-vis the Soviet era. That counter-balance of power was very, very effective in preventing or at least curbing blatant flexing of military muscle by either side.

I seriously think that is the best way for the world to evolve, if it seriously wants to live in peace. Right now I don't see any one particular country that can stand up against the US, but a collection of countries may be able to do that. I am not advocating a provocative stance against the US, but to have a bloc akin to the Cold War era, will help keep the US in a more honest and less belligerent mode.

After much thoughts, I begin to agree that the UN may not be that effective an organization to have anymore. The rest of the nations of the world should consider bilateral or multilateral pacts that is strong enough to stand up to the US, and tell the US when a wrong is a wrong, and have the military might to counter-balance it.

Bush is slowly transforming the US into a real world policeman, and with himself as the 'emperor' of it all. Funny thing is, the Americans themselves (who so proudly fought all these years for individual rights, freedom of this and that), have become more shackled by this Administration and the people are losing a lot of their personal liberties ........ the very ones they want to export to other countries. And its all thanks to Bush, and they do not even know they are being made suckers of. Welcome to the new millenium.

United Nations USA's Nations Politics Business Civil & History - Page 17

I didn't think this day would ever come, but I actually agree with something Fireduck has said. I believe we need a balance in the world and it isn't going to happen any other way that I can see. It can't happen within the UN because the majority of the money and troops in the UN comes from the US, plus the US has veto power to prevent any decision they don't like. To be truly balanced, there must be a force powerful enough to demand respect from the US. To date I don't think one exists. Without one, the entire world is held hostage to a certain extent to the "Goodwill" of the US to not do bad things. As many have expressed, there is not exactly agreement on what that goodwill is and how it is or isn't being asserted.

I don't believe a "but to have a bloc akin to the Cold War era, will help keep the US in a more honest and less belligerent mode." is likely though because I think it would hurt the countries trying to enforce the bloc more than it would the US economy. I am not saying it wouldn't hurt us, but I am saying I think we are involved heavily enough in the import and export of just about every major commodity that the effect of just punishing the US, wouldn't be accomplished.