I’m trying to be rational about this, but I must admit, I could have easily framed this in one of the “Confronting My Biases” posts. I was emotionally through with the U.N. when it stood back and allowed the U.S. to virtually go it alone in Iraq, though Saddam Hussein had breached the cease-fire agreement by blocking U.N. inspections. It was also clear that U.N. officials were taking bribes from Iraq to undermine blockades of the country. What has the U.N. done for peace and security lately? It didn’t stop Putin from invading Ukraine twice. It not only did nothing to support Israel after Hamas’s terror attack, it has been aggressively anti-Isreal since, while U.N. workers have been outed as pro-Hamas agents. The membership is largely hostile to the U.S. and U.S. interests. Why should this country pay to support a largely useless, anti-American organization whose goal is world governance?

Your first Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of February is…

Would it be unethical to let the United Nations go under?

On the other side of the argument, having an international organization with the U.N.’s mission is obviously a good idea. The question is how much it is worth to the nation, ours, to keep it going. I regard the U.N. as a slightly more defensible use of taxpayer funds than the Corporation for Public Broadcasting