Dude, the Nazis were THE most conservative party that has ever been on the face of this earth. Conservative as in they are fanatical about conserving and protecting the values they believe in to the point where they'd murder millions and start wars. The fact they have 'socialist' in their party name means nothing.
They nationalized their industry--that puts the "socialist" part at somewhat more than name. Likewise their actions regarding 'green space', forests, animal rights, etc., puts action behind the "green" part. An authoritarian government is neither conservative nor liberal, nor is Hitler what you get when you gin up a conservative.

I called the facists because they are far to the right and facisim is the furthest thing to the right.
So someone farther to the right than you, you call fascist? Well, now that we've got that cleared up.....

Sure...why not? Look at it the other way around it the US is Anti-World.
Which is why we send them our evil medicines and our evil, evil food when they were very happy dying....

About avoiding the facts. Once again, I learned from you and your lack of stuff on everything from the economy to the confederacy.
Well, seeing as you've managed to avoid every fact I've put in front of you, you're learning well.

edneck you say the US wasn't in rwanda to do somthing about it. the UN were only there in 80 peacekeepers.
Actually, the UN admitted to "lacking the political will".... In many cases, they simply stood aside and allowed the slaughter to happen--while they may not have been able to stop all of it, they didn't bother to even stop what was going on right in front of them.

raq and iran both had a right to be on the council for arms control. iraq having had it exercised against them with great effect and iran who at that time (and in my mind right now) were not considered a threat.
Iraq being the country that kicked out the inspectors, and Iran being the country currently working on attaining nuclear weapons?

libya on the other hand must e on the human rights council to prevent another versailles like problem with her being forced to sign a treaty she had not seen.
Libya has to be the head of the UN Human Rights committee to stop them from having to sign a treaty they hadn't seen?

the us needs to be "lumped in" with countries that you may count as inferior.
Wrong. We do not need to be 'lumped in' with dictatorships and islamofascist nations that long for our destruction, nor do we need to lend legitimacy to their actions.

you cannot set up a higher plateau for the us for which it can shout "we're better than you and can do what we want" because as world events have shown. you can't.
Yes, we can, and we should. That's how Iraq got liberated and Communism defeated. And while the United Nations was created too late to be useless against Nazism and Fascism, the League of Nations had plenty of time.

In other words, they have plenty of ability to do what they shouldn't do, and apparently none to do what they should. Moreover, there's no reason the United States should continue to support and fund a group that is essentially anti-American. While they have every right to be anti-American, our government should not use our money to pay people to downtalk us.