"reflexive antiamericanism"

[LegalSmash]

Interesting article about another of the president's adventures.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090923/wl_mcclatchy/3318019

I feel that since the end of the vietnam war the united states has experienced a marked increase in obstructive conduct by the UN, which is largely baseless, and in many cases (Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, and several other "flare ups") led to a larger loss of human life than what would of occured should have the UN's other members been more forthcoming with aid and support to the aforementioned operations.

Any views on this?

[PotshotPolka]

It's the UN. It's kinda like a multinational facebook with a couple trolls like Achmadinejad.

[trakaill]

Thats was interesting article! Isnt that a good thing what he is trying to do?? I understand he is calling other nations to help if needed be if these people dont stop their nuclear programs right?
Isnt that similar to what president Bush did with Iraq? I find it sad many countries arent willing to help..
However I didnt really understand the two arad leaders response...it seemed irrelevant to what Obama said..

[phatman76]

I would say that the U.N. is useless at best, and obstructively evil at worst. It's finances are wrapped in corruption and failed initiatives, it gives a bully pulpit for despots and dictators, and it legitimizes the regimes of non-democratic nations. Legal, while I would love to say it, the U.N. has done little to actually obstruct our actions in those foreign policy failures, rather politicians in our own country calling for multilateral action. We have been held under a dangerous illusion since the end of the Cold War that unilateral action is universally unpopular and bad.

The U.N. has outlived its usefulness as a negotiating table between us and the USSR. The United States should remember to put more stock into NATO, and perhaps consider the expansion of the charter or the creation of a new organization to include democratic but non-european nations.

We SHOULD NOT rejoin the Human Rights Council, under any circumstances, until everybody now a part of it is kicked out on their asses. You cannot have human rights and a non-democratic nation in the same sentence. It is also foolhardy to expect the U.N. to participate more because we make concessions. The sad truth is we have the most to lose, and reducing arsenals or reducing our influence in the Middle East would hurt us a lot more than it would hurt Italy or Poland. We don't "participate so actively in international affairs" because of our good will, but because we have a large stake in what goes on. Smaller nations do not, and their stake will not get larger even if we take a smaller role. Until they see a profit in participating, the dream of multilateral international action will remain just that.

[Red]

Seriously the UN is an antiquated lumbering giant with no actual muscle.

The Security Council is a joke, with just 1 veto required nothing ever gets done. Why the fuck are we even in the UN?

[trakaill]

You guys are really good at telling us why the UN's argument is invalid...but you guys didnt really debate about Obama's position and comments on the matter?! I was interested to see/read...

[PotshotPolka]

You guys are really good at telling us why the UN's argument is invalid...but you guys didnt really debate about Obama's position and comments on the matter?! I was interested to see/read...

What about it? It was essentially a run around argument saying: look, we already pay 23% of the UNs budget, we got our own goddamn budget problems, go shove it, nukes are bad (when bad people have them lol).

What what defines as antiamericanism really depends on how deep in the sand their heads are.

[Repeat]

The U.N. is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.