Are a lot of Americans against the UN?

I can only answer for this American. Because they impose sanctions and the very countries who impose sanctions turn around and violate them. Why do you think some UN countries were so dead set against the US and Allies going into Iraq? Some were buying oil from Iraq, some were supplying machine parts, pumps, pipe and fittings. Some were even supplying older american made weapons and military gear, that they had bought from the US, leaving their countries markings in place. Because they allowed the UN inspectors to be put off for weeks and months at a time, while Hussein moved things around. Hussein told them what they could inspect and when they could inspect it and the UN allowed it. I am all for sanctions and diplomacy but there comes a time when you have to accept the fact that it isn't working and be willing and able to take aggressive action.

The UN though a needed body after the world wars has become obsolete. It has out lived its purpose and now serves as an obstacle in world politics. Think about it. How can a rogue country, known for acts of genocide within its own borders chair the Humanitarian committee?

There are a number of reasons: 1 The UN is impotent. They do things, but their sanctions have little to no effect because generally, they just get ignored entirely. Without any willingness to act behind their threats, why SHOULD anyone listen to them? 2. The UN is not a body over which we have any control. That is, we don't elect them, we can't impeach them, we don't get a say. We are used to having the ability to control our government somewhat. If someone does something unacceptable, we can get rid of them. If the UN does, we have no recourse at all. 3. As an inept body of unelected officials, the UN's "clout" comes almost exclusively from putting OUR troops in harm's way. Italy may send a few hundred men somewhere, and France a few dozen, but the US will be sending thousands and tens of thousands, all at the say-so of the UN. They don't mind ordering us around, using our military for their own purposes, they want to use OUR troops - and get OUR troops killed and we have next to no say... yet they won't use their own. 4. After all that, the UN is critical and disrespectful. They say the US is too powerful, too invasive and too willing to act "unilaterally". Dang right we are! If something needs doing, sitting about, imposing ineffective sanctions and then making half-hearted attempts at minor military actions, getting OUR people killed is NOT my idea of a good plan. We are criticized for getting up and just doing it in a way that will get a lot fewer of our loved ones killed. Any impotent, ineffective, unelected body to which we have to answer without recourse who has a habit of using us as their strength and getting our boys killed when they won't put their own up along with them... yeah, we're against it!

Because they are ill-informed by their media and education system. Not to montion their elected representatives. Some Americans claim the UN is "impotent", but completely fail to understand WHY that is so. The UN is unfortunately hamstrung by the VETO-power of the Security Council nations, of which America is a VERY influential member. I challenge all Americans to look at the record of veto's on UN action over the decades, to see who is the biggest obstacle to UN action. Ooops, oh dear, it's our very own United States of America. America consistently vetoes UN action over Israel/Palestine for example. America just wants the UN as another tool of manipulation, like NATO, the IMF, or the World Bank..

As a result of reading the answers to this question and various others with a similar theme, I can only assume that the news media in the USA are letting down Americans in a very big way, leading to so many of them repeating the same clichés.

what on earth makes you think that amigo? Anyway, what other type of heart is there?

Because the UN is probably the most corrupt organization on the face of the earth. Of course the US government is a very close second.

its not just Americans ..but Aussies and alot of other nations also have had a gutful of the UN doing jack shit except sending bloody notes to despots telling them their naughty boys ....the UN should be disbanded...well past its use by date !

Really I can only speak for myself, but I am against the UN because it is INEFFECTIVE. It reminds me of the League Of Nations, talks a big game, but gets nothing done.

Anyone who thinks the U.N. is not corrupt and incompetent is in total denial.

Because the UN is anti-American. The UN supports dictators and despises democracies. The UN is anti-semitic and we support Israel. Read Tower of Babble by Dore Gold. It is a factual read through of the anti-semitic bent of the UN. Plus, we saw what the UN did in Somalia, Bosnia and central Africa. We don't want any part of it.

I think most Americans are tired of paying the bill. Mugabe? How can you give the UN any credence anymore?

The links below are to reports on incompetence in the UN and possible corruption. I've lost count of how many times the US has watched the UN back down from Al-Bashir and beg the US not to impose sanctions against the Sudanese government for complicity in the Darfur genocide. To allow them (the UN) more time to negotiate. Everyone is looking to the US to solve the problem, but outside of the financial sanctions we have imposed (only to have China undo)the US would need to send in troops, which would give the anti-americans more opportunities to sling mud and insults. When all hell would break loose the rest of the world would blame America for doing what they were screaming we should be doing. I'm sure I will be downrated for saying why I'm sick of the UN. http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1330819&ct=1760293 http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1746395&ct=2691037 http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-10/2006-10-02-voa37.cfm?CFID=229612222&CFTOKEN=17121182 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902294.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/world/africa/19policy.html?_r=1&ore

The UN thinks it unfair for the U.S to act in its best interest as a nation but gives a free pass to others.

The world needs the UN to protect it from nations who have the following traits. - A fundamentalist/conservative religious majority. - A Nepotistic and corrupt government. - An expansionist/emperial attitude driven by greed. - A powerful military You're thinking... Iraq, Iran, China. True, but it also describes the US. Who will protect the world from the next Bush?

Re... "The world needs the UN to protect it from nations who have the following traits. - A fundamentalist/conservative religious majority. - A Nepotistic and corrupt government. - An expansionist/emperial attitude driven by greed. - A powerful military" The UN protects us from these? By all the evidence it empowers and enriches these beyound all reason. I can't speak for why the majority of Americans are against it, but - in addition to the reasons cited by others - I and many others oppose US involvement in the UN first and foremost because it is simply unconstitutional in that it surrenders US sovereignty to a group of people who are not themselves Americans, are not elected by Americans, are not sympathetic to Americans, and are not answerable to the American electorate (or for that matter the rule of law).

I personally feel there is a place in the world for an international forum for mediation, arbitration, dispute resolution, and collaboration. Currently the UN is that place. I was not aware of so much malice towards the UN. If even half of the reasons given are valid, what would you replace it with?

It is very logical. Look at the 200 or so countries that make up the UN. You probably would not want to live as a citizen in 80% of those countries because their governments are totally inept and corrupt. Yet these countries control 80% of the votes. Their solution to almost every problem is "America must give us more money, BUT don't tell us what to do." People vote with their feet. Look at how many Mexicans sneak into the USA. How many from the USA try to sneak into Mexico to become citizens? Very, very few. Mexicans are voting with their feet and saying they do not like their government. If China, South America or Africa or the Middle East were our neighbors just across the border with only a fence or a small river separating us, 90% of their citizens would do the same thing many Mexicans do, vote with their feet. If their own citizens do not want their leaders ruling their lives, it is hard to imagine why USA Americans would want these other country leaders telling us what to do.

Because the UN is against the US and the west for the most part. The US does not need the Un for anything yet donates more money than anyone else to their causes, and still the UN is always trying to undermind the US and England. The corruption of the UN is far greater than any US politicians and givew merit to countries that have brutal dictators and Maniac warlords running them. Not to mention the UN has no balls to back up their stupid sanctions and does nothing about trouble in the world then bitches about it when the US actually tries to enforce their sanctions, like the 17 resolutions against IRaq. The US needs to pull their funding and their representation out of the UN and end their lease on our soil. Let them put up somewhere in North Korea or Mugabi's Zimbabwe, it would be a better fit. ALL Americans should be against the UN unless they are against the US themselves.

The United Nations General Assembly voting procedures on important issues is by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting. Other questions are decided by majority (51%) vote. Each member country has one vote. The One State, One Vote power structure theoretically allows states comprising just eight percent of the world population to pass a resolution by a two-thirds vote. As the majority of countries are third world countries, their bosses call the shots. Would you want a third world dictator deciding how your money is spent?The UN also has a Security Council (with concerns over peace and security matters) has 15 members (10 elected and 5 permanent members). The five permanent members of the Security Council (the US, China, Russia, the UK & France) have certain veto powers that give them an advantage over all the other countries. This can and often does lead to a stalemate on sensitive issues. The current UN Secretary-General is South Korean. He was a compromise candidate. Immediately after election, he started to appoint many of his South Korean cronies and family to high-ranking (big pay check) positions. Who is paying these people? You are. Before him, the UN Secretary General was Kofi Annan, who appears to have looked the other way on the sexual harassment allegations against several UN Bigwigs including his Commissioner for Refugees (the guy who is suppose to protect helpless refugee women). Finally, the Refugee Commissioner had to resign, as the dirt kept coming out. Then Annan’s son became rich, quite rich, thanks to Daddy and the UN’s Iraq “Oil for Food” Scandal. Then Annan came out with a position tantamount to being against freedom of the press and also publicly attacking UN members who disagreed with him. When Annan stepped down after his second term, he appeared to be more of a dethroned dictator than a wise leader. So, these people are not elected by you, but get to spend your money. Do you like that?

Because they think one day the UN will take over America. I can't wait :P

Because America has had a long history of not legitimizing the UN by acting within it in accordance with its spirit, and then moans when the politics of it has fallen out of their power to control whenever they need the UN to do something.

Because of the core mission and goal of the UN: establish a new world order for the slavery of the societies. My 2 cents.

Im not against the idea it's just that most countries flat out ignore the UN and I think that at this point it's a waste of money. Although it is a good place for smaller countries to bring up problems to the world.

Because the UN not doing anything about oil prices (putting sanctions on the right countries and so on) is pissing us all off.

Because basically, the UN is made up of a few civilized nations, a number of big dictatorships, and a teeming rabble of corrupt and oppressive Third World regimes. I had the specific numbers a while back but have misplaced them at the moment. It's something like 90% of the members are countries sponsoring terrorism, dictatorships, and oppressive control of their people though. Hardly a group who should be calling the shots on international order. The real basis of the United Nations is the concept of global collectivism--the belief that America's judgment and interests must be subordinated to the collective opinion of the "world community." Yes, there is a value to cooperating with other nations--but only with free nations who share a commitment to standing up against the threats of terrorism and dictatorship. Any time free nations agree to subordinate themselves to a collective consensus with hostile dictatorships, it is only the free nations that lose--and it is only the dictatorships that gain. Indeed, the dictatorships run the United Nations. Within weeks of September 11, terrorist-sponsor Syria was invited to chair the United Nations' Security Council. Iraq and Iran are scheduled to trade chairmanship of its disarmament committee, while Libya is set to chair its human rights commission. This is the same pattern Ayn Rand identified decades ago, when she compared the United Nations to "a crime-fighting committee whose board of directors include[s] the leading gangsters of the community." Yet the only thing that can give such a commission any pretense at legitimacy is the participation of the city's upstanding citizens. Similarly, the only thing that gives the United Nations any legitimacy is America's cooperation: our might, our money, and our moral sanction. we should withdraw from the United Nations altogether, letting that organization complete its collapse into a Third World debating society. original article at - http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2581

It may not be as effective as earlier.