UN playing a decisive role

On which side of the fence will UN stand in the end, will it take any sides.
I personaly see the UN at this time the only governing body in the world that can stand against israel, and not give in to the presure of the US administration.
After israel bomb red cross ambulances, UN positions, killing un peace keepers, I think the UN is a bit pissed off , I dont see any resolutions being passed at this moment, I dont think members would agree with bush's proposals.
I wish the UN would stand up just once for it's self at least.


[edit on 26-7-2006 by pepsi78]

UN stands exactly for what ? United Nothing ??? United Nazis??? United Numbeness??
What exactly do they Unite ? Nothing.

A bunch of hypocrites who wastes no time in poiting the finger to Israel for defending itself, but than put the Suddan in charge of the Human Rights Commite..., Iran in charge of the Nuclear commite and the late Arafta as the poster boy for PEACE ... Oh yeah .. I also forgot that they always scream against the "evil America" but keep thei headquarters in NY and keep taking the hefty check from the USA every year/month/week... wichever.

United Nations...yes indeed... without the US money, the UN wouldn't last one month ...lol

Biting The Hand That Feeds

Originally posted by pepsi78
I wish the UN would stand up just once for it's self at least.

The grand irony of the U.N. is that the very principle which has made the U.S. liable for the most dues has also given it the most control.

With so much of the U.N.'s budget dependent on the U.S., the power of the purse strings makes it possible for the U.S. to undermine virtually any U.N. initiative -- without even needing to use a security council veto.

And indeed, the U.S. is doing just that, with over a billion dollars in dues outstanding and no rush whatsoever to pay them.

I'm not a big fan of the U.N., but despite all the propaganda here in America about the U.N. being "anti-American", I see it as yet another tool of U.S. power.

If it didn't serve U.S. interests, we would have withdrawn a long time ago.

Originally posted by Majic
With so much of the U.N.'s budget dependent on the U.S., the power of the purse strings makes it possible for the U.S. to undermine virtually any U.N. initiative -- without even needing to use a security council veto.

My views on the UN aside…

In 2005 two-thirds of the 191 nations failed to pay their contributions in full. These complete financial contribution failures by member nations are allowing the magnification of the financial pressures of the US (22% of the UN Budget) and Japan (19% of the UN budget) to exert tremendous influence.

It is far too hypocritical for most member nations to cry “foul” when it is ‘they’ that are complicit as well. In May of 2006 the US stood at 47% of total arrearages in the UN member nation debt or US$ 1.28 billion vs. US$ 2.75 billion overall outstanding dues (down form US$ 4.5 billion overall in January 2006)

mg