The inablility to stop the US and Isreal from doing what they bloody well feel like should be grounds for the UN to be suspended.
Ok those smaller blunders are worth mentioning too for sure mwm1331, but lets start with the big ones first eh?

Thats what got the League of Nations suspended, when they couldn't get themselves to stop Mussolini from walking all over Abbissinia (Etheopia today).

Originally posted by Corinthas
@ cavscout
What I was saying is this: thinking the UN is "in" the US (apart from physically -that's what the "s were for-) is the kind of megalomania we have come to expect from that side of the Atlantic.

Yes the UN biulding is in the US... but the US as a country is a member of the UN and not the other way round.

I know Americans want the Senate or whatever to be the Worlds governing body but sadly that role was given to the UN.

So when Americans want to kick the UN out of America I say: Fine! Just lets kick the US out of the UN first!

Your extraordinary arrogance is staggering. The people of the US understand our relationship with the UN and we also know that the body is ineffective and mostly openly hostile to the US. When we say that the UN is in the US we know that we are speaking of the building and the representatives of the nations of the world. We know all these things and we still wouldn't care if it packed up and moved to Antartica. In fact, if you want it you could probably collect enough money from citizens to pay your expenses and agent fees.

[edit on 04/11/24 by GradyPhilpott]

Gradyphilpott... the UN hostile to the US?!?! AAAAWWW! An for no reason as well.. why the US is the sngle most likable country on the planet. Those crazy, ungrateful people at the UN, tsk, tsk!



The US never payes its dues, ignores international law (Reagan and Nicaragua)so why doesn't the UN love you for all the good work you have you have put in towards world peace, equality, and the distribution of wealth and resources? Hmmmm... i wonder...

Tsuribito, has a point we need to expand the security council that would return the UN to the position that it historically held. Then we need to quit paying more than we should; 30% of the funding from one nation is just too large a contribution. Less than 4% of the world’s population gets hit with 30% of the taxation and gets hostile representation.

[edit on 24-11-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by Corinthas
@ cavscout
What I was saying is this: thinking the UN is "in" the US (apart from physically -that's what the "s were for-) is the kind of megalomania we have come to expect from that side of the Atlantic.

Yes the UN biulding is in the US... but the US as a country is a member of the UN and not the other way round.

I know Americans want the Senate or whatever to be the Worlds governing body but sadly that role was given to the UN.

So when Americans want to kick the UN out of America I say: Fine! Just lets kick the US out of the UN first!

Yeah, fine kick America out of the UN... oh wait i think we would be dropping it ourselves by kicking it out of our country. But beyond that, fine kick us out of the UN, lol, have fun writing that check to cover the 1/3 of the funding for the UN that the US pays ALONE! Lol, and you talk about how arrogant America is you fail to realize that we are basically footing the bill for the UN.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

Yeah, fine kick America out of the UN... oh wait i think we would be dropping it ourselves by kicking it out of our country. But beyond that, fine kick us out of the UN, lol, have fun writing that check to cover the 1/3 of the funding for the UN that the US pays ALONE! Lol, and you talk about how arrogant America is you fail to realize that we are basically footing the bill for the UN.

mabye you should pay your bills first?
also pays for 1/3 of the services?
can i see proof?
basically footing the bill for the UN? yeah 1/3 isnt footing it. what about the other 2 thirds?

Originally posted by devilwasp
mabye you should pay your bills first?
also pays for 1/3 of the services?
can i see proof?
basically footing the bill for the UN? yeah 1/3 isnt footing it. what about the other 2 thirds?

- It's the power of propaganda.

Besides, the undercurrent to all this here is just breath-taking.
It seems some think that because they foot part of the bill for the UN that the UN should then basically agree with just about everything the USA says and become another 'arm' of American policy making and enforcement!

I think it is deeply sad that the current US right wing think they can go it alone in the world.
Pity they obviously can't read a balance sheet.

Oh well; the sooner they try the sooner they might wake up and come to realise the truth once and for all.

[edit on 25-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by devilwasp
mabye you should pay your bills first?
also pays for 1/3 of the services?
can i see proof?
basically footing the bill for the UN? yeah 1/3 isnt footing it. what about the other 2 thirds?

- It's the power of propaganda.

................

so are you saying the US doesn't pay roughly 1/3 of UN operations budget? and as there are 15 members of the security council and over 100 countries total why should the US pay 1/3, what is so proper about that.

Originally posted by keholmes
so are you saying the US doesn't pay roughly 1/3 of UN operations budget? and as there are 15 members of the security council and over 100 countries total why should the US pay 1/3, what is so proper about that.

- I don't know the detail of how this works out. Whether going on the basis of overall budgets or operational budgets, what is spent domestically or internationally (ie whether capital is actually 'exported' or just recirculated) in regard to which ever countries etc etc but I do know it was all originally worked out in the begining on the basis that 'the broadest backs bear the heaviest load'.

No doubt that is now anathema to many in the US.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
.......... - I don't know the detail of how this works out. Whether going on the basis of overall budgets or operational budgets, what is spent domestically or internationally (ie whether capital is actually 'exported' or just recirculated) in regard to which ever countries etc etc but I do know it was all originally worked out in the begining on the basis that 'the broadest backs bear the heaviest load'.........

well thats a nice rationalization and all but, my question was with regard to stating the fact that america pays roughly 1/3, why do you believe that is propaganda. or where you refering to the poster blathering on about the late payments....as most of the heavily taxed members pay late.

The only arguments I've seen on this thread in favor of the United Nations is that if provides goodies to Third-World countries and helps avoid wars.

I see no benefit to myself, as a citizen of the United States, in supporting a bunch of socialist Third-World mendicants whose corruption and foolish economic policies bring down upon themselves the bulk of their problems. Then, in return for our largesse, these same countries attack us for acting in our own interests and not giving them even more welfare, to which they think they are "entitled".

If these countries would be proper puppets and proxies to help us achieve our own national interests, that would be a quid pro quo; they could earn their funds. But as it stands now, they are reaping the benefit of my country's wealth, and what do we have to show for it? Nothing, as far as I can see!

And as far a preventing wars, it appears to me that the UN has been an abject failure in all of its military or peacekeeping endeavors since 1953. Most of the hot spots are handled by either the major powers, ad hoc coalitions, NATO, and similar combinations.

I have nothing against the UN per se, but I see no benefit to the United States in being involved with it in any way.

What has the UN done lately, or at all, for the US. Compare that to what the US has done lately for the UN.

Originally posted by Frosty
What has the UN done lately, or at all, for the US. Compare that to what the US has done lately for the UN.

What has the US done?

Originally posted by Frosty
What has the UN done lately, or at all, for the US. Compare that to what the US has done lately for the UN.

the UN is not out for the US its out for the world.
also if the UN task force in korea and in GW1 where not by NATO but by the UN.
so you cannot say they where not in the name of peace because they where both defending another country.
the US tried it lately but it went in agaisnt an army for no real reason.
the WMD info was proveded by escapeing people not defectors or spies.

What is so bad about the UN? Does it not give a forum for nations to come together and express their complaints, views, and opinions? Who doesn't want something like that? One thing that I do disagree with is that the UN is perfectly fine residing in the USA...NYC is the financial "capital" of the world, and the UN is the political "capital" of the world. (And, please, all you people who would like to read into this and feel that I am saying the US is the financial capital of the World, hold your tongues b/c that is not what I am saying.) So, the UN has its flaws. What organization doesn't? Does that mean that since it isn't perfect we disband it, or kick it out of its home. Heck no. What good would that do? The collective members need to sit down and figure it out and then revamp it. Perhaps even take a page out of the fledgling EU. I don't think the UN is anti-american, and I dont think that it is necessary to remove it from the USA.

Originally posted by Kriz_4

Originally posted by Frosty
What has the UN done lately, or at all, for the US. Compare that to what the US has done lately for the UN.

What has the US done?

Tell me, where are the UN HQ?