Should the UN take over and oversee the worldwide pandemic fight

[RB TexLa]

6 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	1 (17%)
	No
	5 (83%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. How? It doesn't have any legal authority to do that.

All member-nations are sovereign. The UN has no power over individual countries; it can only advise.

[RB TexLa]

2. And that sovereignty can be relinquished.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. Do you seriously think it will be?

No country would give up its sovereignty to the UN or any other organization.

[Coleman]

7. It would be suicide for any politician to vote for this

Congress wouldn't approve it. IQ45 wouldn't. And UN has no athority to do it.

[Bev54]

3. I only vote No because

the UN is really quite useless at times. They are just one big bureaucracy that cannot get their act together. I have a friend who worked for them in clearing roadside bombs and he liked the work but hated the UN, they couldn't ever get people pay straight and it would take months for them to ever correct an error, so no. Be better off letting Gates or some group like his and Clintons to get this job done.

[milestogo]

5. Its not the sort of thing they do well.

[RB TexLa]

8. Member states would still be doing the work, just under the UN.

Sharing of all research, sharing of all resources. The UN monitoring the data or using the WHO to do so. And have the power to have the WHO or someone take over the reporting if a country is not being honest. The ability to have the IMF step in where needed.

[Coleman]

14. They did such a fine job in Rwanda

The UN soldiers were able to stand there and watch the genocide first hand. And you don't think the US government would not use us troops.

But if we are talking just bringing in medical workers, then probably not. 1. Those people are busy all over, and needed in poorer countries. 2. Republicans would see even that as a violation of our sovereignty and kill it.

[milestogo]

15. There was a Canadian General in Rwanda who told the UN exactly what he needed to stop the genocide

and they mostly ignored him. The help was too little, too late, and in the wrong places.

His name is Romeo Dallaire and he wrote a book about it called "Shake Hands with the Devil".

[Igel]

16. Data are pretty open now.

Resources, not always, but if you told the US, "Hey, we need 10,000 respirators for ____________" I don't see Cuomo saying, "Yes, UN, I see that their need is greater, here's 2000." Using "Trump" would be easy--but it's just as true with people that we don't want to bash, so let's not confuse actual truth telling with the need to bash.

Then there are places like Taiwan, where WHO looked at a report from Taiwan and said, "Nope, we're saying what a great job Member Country PRC is doing. You're not a member. You're not a country. Go and submit the report through your *true* government."

The IMF retains its independence. It can do what it wants--whether the rest of the UN tells it "you shall" or "you shall not," it can do what it wants.

[bdamomma]

6. I know this will

not happen but I would like to see the ICC call tRump a criminal for humanitarian crimes

[Coleman]

11. The US is not party to the ICC

The ICC has no authority over the US and its citizens.

[bdamomma]

12. nt

[Wounded Bear]

9. I vote "no" because without US leadership, it really can't do much...

and with Trump at the helm, well, you get the drift.

[TheBlackAdder]

10. They wouldn't be able to. The Trump would direct blockage or veto of the UN vote!

[sarisataka]

13. I have this mental image of Nigel Tufnel

Saying "This clusterfuck goes to eleven."