Talk:United States and the United Nations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject United Nations, an attempt to provide information in a consistent format for articles about the United Nations, its various comittees and the resolutions it passes. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
Contents |
[edit] PLEASE BACK UP THIS STATEMENT...
Please back up this statement: "Arguably, the United States has only cooperated with the United Nations on two major issues."
What constitutes a "major issue"? What are the major issues? -- Jiang 23:30, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This statement is factually incorrect and is just one example of the POV issues that pervade the article. I've edited to a statement that reflects the facts at hand in a NPOV way. Raymond Arritt 04:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A shame
At least the author is sincere when describing US intentions in the UN. "I wont pay what I own, so that if you want to keep me, submit to my demands." They dont pay what they own, they make foolish and childish trhreats like that, and they expect the UN to bow and wiggle its tail like a good puppy.
What a nice example the nation that loves democracy, that is the most humanitarian and well-developed in the entire planet sets for us, the less favored of the world! LtDoc 12:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
hmmm maybe thats cause The US is the UN, why the hell should we give them all the money,equipment, and soldiers that we do if they wont do what we say. Oh and by the way, we would stomp your country into the ground, hell just Texas would do that
[edit] TWO MAJOR ISSUE
Hi there,
I suppose the use of the words "two major issues" was imprecise. I meant that the United States has only executed a major military operation within the context of a Security Council resolution twice.
If you look at Use of U.S. Forces Abroad, it is clear that US and UN have worked together on major military operations just three times (Korea, Iraq, and Somalia, with the last of these on a much smaller scale).
Since the United States does not make major contributions to many other UN operations (e.g. peacekeeping operations), I felt that saying the US and UN have arguably worked together on two major issues was a fair assessment.
Why did you remove the secion on peacekeeping operations? -- Acegikmo1 05:14, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
The section on peacekeeping has been moved to the main UN article since only one sentence in it is specific to the US. -- Jiang 05:19, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] US ABUSE OF UN VETO
Hi, So this is a redirect from "us abuse of un veto". i m the original author and i am quite happy to see that the topic has not survived. its proved many things to me.
once again thanks very much :)
[edit] REMOVED TWO PARAGRAPHS
This paragraph was removed for NPOV issues:
- Following the overthrow of the former Iraqi government, U.S. forces conducted an exhaustive search of Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. Had the weapons been found, their presence would have legitimized the invasion. No such weapons were found, which essentially proved that Iraq had not violated any UN Security Council resolutions, that the Iraqi government could not have chosen to take any action of disarmament to comply with Resolution 1441, and that the invasion of Iraq was not legitimate or legal. As of Q1 2006, U.S. President George W. Bush continues to state in public speeches that Saddam Hussein had a "choice", and that he "chose to go to war".
Failing to find WMD does not "essentially prove" that Iraq had not violated any UN Security Council resolutions. For example, they may have had them but moved them to Syria before the war, or they may be in Iraq but just not found yet (unlikely but possible). Also, even if Iraq did not have WMD, they could still have failed to comply with the resolution by not being adequitely cooperative (which is arguably what happened).
I also removed this paragraph because it repeats content introduced in the 'The U.S. arrears issue' section:
- One area in which the United States has been involved in a long-running struggle with the United Nations is over its finances. Due to its status as the most powerful nation at the time the United Nations was established, the United States has always been set down for the largest contribution to the United Nations budget. However, the United States has on occasion delayed payments and has therefore built up a debt in its contribution to both the regular budget and the peacekeeping budget:
Milquetoast 14:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph was re-added; I've removed most of it again. As the previous poster suggested, 1441 created various obligations for Iraq: letting inspectors in, granting them certain privileges, submitting a "currently accurate, full, and complete" declaration of weapons, etc. Even if it had never even dreamed of making WMDs, Iraq would have been in breach of its obligations if it had failed to do any of those things. The big debate prior to the war was whether Iraq has fully complied with those obligations and, if not, whether the Security Council should give it more time to do so or if it should authorize armed intervention (or whether 1441 itself authorized unilateral armed intervention).
--219.94.78.226 10:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
In addition, there are still chemical and biological weapons tagged by UN inspectors before 1998 that are unaccounted for, and Iraq never provided any evidence of their destruction. To this date, the tagged items have not been found, nor any evidence that they were destroyed. Even if Iraq did not have an operating program to manufacture WMDs, it failed to provide proof that it had destroyed WMDs that were known to exist in Iraq prior to expulsion of UN inspectors.
[edit] UN coined by..
From the UN article:
- The term "United Nations" was coined by Winston Churchill during World War II, to refer to the Allies (see History of the United Nations). Its first formal use was in the January 1, 1942 Declaration by the United Nations, which committed the Allies to the principles of the Atlantic Charter and pledged them not to seek a separate peace with the Axis powers. Thereafter, the Allies used the term "United Nations Fighting Forces" to refer to their alliance.
From the United States and the United Nations article:
- The term "United Nations" was first coined by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the Declaration by the United Nations where, on January 1, 1942, 26 nations pledged to continue fighting the Axis powers.
Do we know which is correct? Rex the first 13:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The future of the U.S. in the U.N.
Re the statement that movement for U.S. withdrawal from the U.N. is "growing": is this supported by objective references such as opinion polls? If not, it should be reverted. Raymond Arritt 02:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Trust me, I live in Texas, and that is a HUGE movement- Real_Texan_08
[edit] Expansion
 |
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007. |
There seems to be a lot of material missing between 1945 and 1991. -- Beland 04:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Balance to US finiancial obligations
The section titled "The U.S. arrears issue" might better be titled "U.S Financial Obligations to the U.N." so as not to suggest a bias. This section could then describe the financial contributions made to the U.N. by the U.S. as well as those that have been withheld. A source for contributions made by the U.S. To the U.N. is the US Office of Management and Budgets' Report on US Contributions to the United Nations System dated July 31, 2006.
We might also want to put a note about the contradiction of the U.N not want to be dependent on 1 nation for it's funding yet expect the U.s and Japan to cover 40% of the budget.65.96.132.149 01:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rick Santorum and WMDs found in Iraq?
The section entitled "The Iraq issue" has what looks rather dubious claim. Specifically the following paragraph:
In June, 2006, Senator Rick Santorum, R-Pa., announced in a quickly called press conference that "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons." Since 2003, he reported, "coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist." He added a warning about the hazarda the chemical weapons still pose to coalition troops in Iraq. For more in depth detail and analysis of the report, go to FoxNews.com and find the article titled "Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq".
This directly contradicts the section on the occupation of Iraq here [1]
I did track down the Fox News article[2], but it even states the following:
The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s.
and
Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.
While this article does seem to show that Rick Santorum did make that statement, it isto very poorly written and possibly misleading propaganda in an election year for Mr. Santorum. I could not find any similar articles for this claim on CNN, NYT, BBC, or other news agencies.
Recommend deleting or rewriting that paragraph. --Jeremyh113 21:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
How can you call anything poorly written with phrases like "it isto very poorly written and possibly misleading propaganda in an election year for Mr. Santorum." Grammer? Spelling?
[edit] Bias
"The September 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S. and subsequent military conflicts have clarified the desire of other countries to use the UN as a vehicle to rein in what they see as American unilateralism."
I wonder if a paragraph could hold more bias towards the US? This seems to be tops.201.19.185.68 00:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
"The U.N. has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the U.S. For a number of years, the U.S. Congress refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force U.N. compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment."
Perhaps an ending phrase of "a.k.a. blackmail" is adequate?201.19.185.68 00:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] suggestions for new material
What were issues involving the United States between 1945 and 1990's. It's not well covered. One thing I can think of was the UN police action in Korea, commonly known as the Korean War in the US. The Allies fought for the UN, including the US, Turkey, Australia, and some others.Dereks1x 21:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
