It is said the League of Nations failed because the U.S. wouldn’t join. Nope, it would have failed in its mission just as the United Nations has. Aside from the lesser successes, especially feeding starving kids, world health, etc., the U.N. is little more than watching the “talking heads” go after each other on TV.
If the latest example of passing a non-binding resolution isn’t a wake-up call, I don’t know what is.
The result of 141-7 with 32 abstentions (to tell Russia to leave Ukraine) supports my position. That, not unexpectedly, is how they voted (or not) along “party lines” to condemn the worst atrocities since Adolf Hitler.
Perhaps money spent on such useless gatherings could be spent on starving kids. Additionally, I wish that not one red cent of U.S. aid goes to any of those 39 countries for any reason. We must invest where we get a return on investments.
My calling the U.N. useless is not an original idea. In the 1960s, Kent Courtney, presidential candidate for the ultra-right John Birch Society, pointed out that the U.N. police action (the Korean War) required U.N. approval for the American GIs to engage the enemy. Oddly enough, friends of that enemy were party to such approvals and could easily inform their friend.
We all know how that conflict “worked out” … the one that still isn’t over and the world has yet another “leader” with crazy ideas.
To sum this up, ask yourself as I have: Is the U.N., supported mostly with U.S dollars, with a track record of un-useful, questionable actions to say the least, really in our best interests?
By the way; John Birch was the first American soldier to die in the Cold War at the hands of a Communist soldier.