Why is America not punished by the UN  when it breaks all the rules?
375629
It is not a matter of the UN so much as it is a matter of the other member states. The rest of the world either cannot or will not "unite" against what much of it sees as an aggressor, America, that ignores its will. This is much like the argument about how much better the world would be if it was ruled by women. It might be, but neither is an inevitability because neither behaves in a way that indicates a true willingness to act. If America is such a male dominated imperialist power, the world should act, not just make pronouncements about how offended it is, and how morally superior, too. As things are now, even if you booted us out of the UN and payed our part in it, you probably would, and perhaps could, still do nothing but negotiate. You might be proud of your restraint, but that will not give you victory.
622632
it is not a new discovery. UN have been a puppet in USA hands for long time now. UN is useless when the subject concerns USA.
259964
It happens all over the world, even bad countries aren't held accountable.\n\nSuch as israel for instance in its occupation of Palestinian lands since 1967. Israel was caught breaking the law (occupying another people's land) why is it that it was protected by the US (through Veto Power) and not militarily kicked out like any other normal country would have been? (eg. Iraq out of Kuwait etc.)\n\nSo in conclusion, the proper answer to your good question would be that the world isn't fair and just because some people have GUNS and "protection", (like some states have BIG GUNS and "protection"), the law is lenient with them.\n\nLuv ya! :)\n\nBye Bye
552788
That's a very good question many seem to avoid! \nBut as you know, America is supposed to be accountable for all the wrongdoings and disasters on Earth. \n\nI have broken one of my coffee cup today. No wonder. That's George W. Bush's fault!
232308
A better question would be to ask why the government of the United States sends the US military into other countries in peacekeeping roles (Bosnia, for example) while the countries in the area - who's own best interests would be served by not having their neighbor self-destruct - do nothing.
927593
The UN is too corrupt to be much good.\nJohn Bolton is standing up to the UN, and trying to improve it.\nThat makes the Democrats mad, and they have taken an oath to get rid of him.\nDemocrats want an UN Ambassador that hates America, as much as they do.
819457
Well ,it is a good question.I believe that United Nations Security Consul has many obligations,in fact it is crated in order to prevent violations and atrocity and to keep peace and security in the world ,but unfortunately peace and security are not totally prevailed!in the world and we blame always US because it makes more decisions in UNSC. I think others permanent members in the counsel has responsibility too,we blame US, UK for there roll but in fact France china,Russia are also have did less or nothing for peace and security in the world which they should have done !!.and this is a big problem .of course it is right that US keep it,s interests but I believe without US ,there will be more dictators,terrorists,atrocity in the world. If we look the policy among different nations then we can understand that only US policy has significant diplomacy and bring nations to dialog which is in my view undeniable, it is all members responsibility in UNSC in order to functions be more acceptable.
710826
The us has one of the worst histories in upholding treaty obligations, they are made then broken when they can take advantage of it. My people, American indians engaged with the governement in 535+ treaties, all of which were broken by the US at their earliest possible convience, so no never trust a treaty
453924
Educate yourself on this issue. You will find that you are wrong. It is up to the United Nations Security Council, not America.\n\nI am American and I don't want war or nukes. I also don't want to be blamed for the actions of the security system set up by the global powers.
781979
If we adhere to the most basic of morals, that we must apply the same standards to ourselves, that we apply to others.\nThen there is no doubt that international law should also apply to us. \nUnfortunately the USA is alone in exempting itself from international law, the world court, and virtually every understanding that the rest of the world is expected to comply with.\nThe Geneva conventions were written in an attempt to criminalize the atrocities committed leading up to, and during WW2, this was not an easy task as allied forces had themselves done some immoral things.\nTorture was of course, an obvious war crime, and it has been so since Geneva.\nUnfortunately during this extremist Bush regime, the US has done the unthinkable, not only has it tortured, and contracted out torturing or anyone who it sees fit to accuse of being a terrorist, but it has tried to change the law to avoid prosecution, and to legitimize torture in the future.\nThe USA has unparalleled economical, political, and military power so it is difficult to hold them to account if they are unwilling to cooperate, I would be surprised if the charges filed in Germany will lead to anything, but the people filing seem to be confident that the court has no excuse this time to dismiss the case.\n\nThe world would be a better place if the USA had to conform to international law, the key players in the Bush regime should be tried for war crimes.
1069846
America doesn't feel this way and would welcome ...please! ... responsible behavior from other countries. Thank you coalition of the willing.\nMuch of the rest of the world knows America will step up to the plate and handle the undesirable work of preserving freedom and security for all.\nThese countries profit from and exacerbate the world's problems and sit on their thumbs...or worse ...while America (and coalition) cleans up their messes.
174406
The UN has always been a joke.  Recent US actions didnt change that they just pointed out what we all already knew.  I am visiting Bosnia and all the places that were designated UN safe zones where everybody got murdered because they were foolish enough to trust the UN.  Until the UN actually shows it is competant enough to do something (anything) the US and other countries like Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia will just keep doing whatever they want whether you agree with these actions is another question.
947643
1. The UN is for liberals who want to destroy America.\n\n2. Because liberals gave them to them in the courts.  And because Republicans refused to do anything about it.  Congress can tell the courts what they can and cannot rule on.  \n\nThis is why we need real Republicans. \n\nNewt in 2008
875469
Is America not the UN?To me they are because if the UN says NO they (the Americans) gone on and do things the American way.
33497
Bush going to war violates international law but it does not constutute war crimes such as genocide. According to the Un resolution 1441:\n\n"The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations."\n\nTherefore the US can not declare war alone, it must do so in conjunction with the UN, this is why there was a coalition of the willing not the UN as one body. And this statement cites sanctions as appropriate actions not an invasion. Also this statement in effect recalls previous resolutions that list it's expectations of Iraq and calls for continued weapons inspections to which the inspectors found no weapons and concluded the resolution had been abided by.\n\nWith that said the US has commited war crimes, I think obvious example might be (I apologize for the spelling) Abu Grahib or kidnapping suspected terrorists from other countries and not labeling them as prisoners of war and therefore not abiding by the Geneva conventions in providing those prisoners with what the conventions declare them access to. Bush himself declared this a war on terror. As to whether Bush ordered these events to happen despite some evidence is still somewat inconclusive. However when he uses the words dead or alive and attempts to have bills blocked that reiterate the US stand against torture then something is amiss, and as commander in cheif it is his responsibility to ensure this does not occur which has not been done. However, he will never be convicted or tried.
625487
Might makes right. And the US is the wealthiest and most militarily powerful nation at the moment, so the US gets to make the rules for everyone else.\n\nEspecially nations that have natural resources our largest industries/corporations want to control.
789296
Well I think you clearly answered your own question or maybe you have two seperate questions: \n\nCan the UN legally force a country to peform a military withdraw? \n\nCan the UN, if found to have legitimate power to do the later, do they have the "balls" to do so.. \n\nAnswer, NO and NO. The UN can apply "sanctions"(which we know how effective those are) but the history of the UN never was one of military force, rather a collection of governed nations helping one another provide assistance throughout the world. \n\nNATO on the other hand does have a standing military and was created for a totally seperate reason alltogether.