US quietly maneuvers to cut UN dues

a reply to: Bluntone22

This is simply due to ever changing economic realities.
Based on the size of the economies it is rather strange that only 15 percent of the 193 UN states pay almost 90 percent of the costs.
The US is not the biggest, the EU (member states combined) pay about 37,5 percent.

But isn't this discussion rather laughable? a few billions tops which can be safed by the US, or EU if they get the same ceiling as the US.
This on a budget of hundreds of billions and knowing that the FED and ECB have been printing trillions, knowing that no effort was spared to keep the big banks and wallstreet from toppling over after their scams with derivatives.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: intrptr
Like I said to you originally…

Considering you agree that the United Nations is ineffective and inept what does that make you besides a hypocrite?

The difference is I want to fix it, while you want it disbanded. In your distopia there is no voting, just might makes right. Squash all dissent. Sweep away the last vestiges of the old republic.

I know you understand microcosm vs. macrocosm.

Just like individuals, all nations have the right to self govern, remain independent and respect each others national sovereignty. Any nation who's aforementioned rights should be violated in any way will be put to a vote among nations where all nations have an equal say to cast a vote for or against such action before any action shall be undertaken. This is what arose out of the ashes of world war II in order to prevent those with notions of empire building to do that again.

Thats the way it is for individuals in the US constitution and the way it should be among nations on the global stage.

You have to get a warrant first, signed by all the nations. Open, public, venue within the UN is the only way to ensure no nation will have ultimate power over another.

Sadly, the US thinks just like you. Since NATO couldn't get a legal mandate to Libya-ize Syria they are going ahead and waging illegal covert and proxy warfare, including massive airstrikes in order to effect overthrow of the legitimate government of Syria and replace it with a puppet of its own.

Eliminating the UN isn't going to happen, the US is just doing what its always done, rape, pillage and burn. The UN is purposefully kept up to give lip service to democracy and voting on the surface of it while underhandedly destroying nation after nation anyway in another same old bid to dominate the world.

Just like In Roman times Augustus, in Hitlers day and now today. Unbelievable you should be so educated, religious and intellectual and yet so base in your apparent disgust for human rights (besides your own, that is).

Just why was it, that the Ford truck plants in France and Germany were never bombed in WW 2? trucks much favoured by the German army? With 5,000 being made per year by the French truck plant just outside Paris, would the loss of so many hampered supplies to the German army/waffen ss/Luftwaffe?

We should stay in the UN, even at the prices we're paying. The UN has prevented several conflicts and our membership dues are doing some good and helping to make the world a more peaceful place.

Additionally, the cost of those dues are much less than even a single deployment to fight a war the UN couldn't stop would cost us.

originally posted by: intrptr
The difference is I want to fix it, while you want it disbanded.

And how in your infinite wisdom are you going to 'fix' the United Nations? Are you going to address its charter? Not allow dictatorships into the organization? Have its contributions, both material and financial, be pro rata?

Any of that going to remedy the rampant corruption?

Thats the way it is for individuals in the US constitution and the way it should be among nations on the global stage.

You have to get a warrant first, signed by all the nations. Open, public, venue within the UN is the only way to ensure no nation will have ultimate power over another.

Ooooh, a warrant. Let me know when this brilliant idea becomes workable and when the member nations with abysmal human rights pedigrees adopt something even remotely similar to the Constitution.

Sadly, the US thinks just like you. Since NATO couldn't get a legal mandate to Libya-ize Syria they are going ahead and waging illegal covert and proxy warfare, including massive airstrikes in order to effect overthrow of the legitimate government of Syria and replace it with a puppet of its own.

While your tiresome cynicism and constant banality are tolerable your detestable habit of putting words in people's mouths is not. Show me anywhere that I have agreed with the current tact in Syria or Libya. You make far too many assumptions about people which leads to the predictably loathsome result of you over-generalizing to suit your sorry personal agenda.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The UN has kept us out of several wars, and it only costs us about $2 billion per year. Wars cost how many hundreds of billions? If the UN only keeps us out of 1 war every century it has been a financial success.

originally posted by: Aazadan
We should stay in the UN, even at the prices we're paying. The UN has prevented several conflicts and our membership dues are doing some good and helping to make the world a more peaceful place.

Additionally, the cost of those dues are much less than even a single deployment to fight a war the UN couldn't stop would cost us.

You do realize the US is in Syria because of the UN. I'd argue it makes war easier. Even the Iraq war it gave a mandate for Bush to send troops. Had no UN existed its very likely the Iraq war wouldn't have happened.

originally posted by: dragonridr
You do realize the US is in Syria because of the UN. I'd argue it makes war easier. Even the Iraq war it gave a mandate for Bush to send troops. Had no UN existed its very likely the Iraq war wouldn't have happened.

You got it backwards. The US wanted to enter both wars and the UN wasn't able to prevent us from doing so. That's largely the way things go with the UN due to our security council position not to mention military might. It can't actually stop us from taking military action. All the UN does in those situations is serve as a place to organize other nations to come in and help us. Nations are more likely to help if the UN says it's ok, and every troop or bit of support another nation sends saves us money.

Where the UN really helps though is that it can prevent certain conflicts from starting. Once shots are firing the US is probably going to step in, but until that point it can be prevented. This makes the UN hard to evaluate for many people because when it works properly, nothing is happening. We only see evidence of it when it fails such as in Syria and Iraq.

a reply to: stumason

I agree, is funny when people talks about the UN like it is an entity completely independent of the US, like you said UN is just an extension of the US, just like the IMF is of the Federal Reserve.

If people just do their homework they will realized what is all about it.

originally posted by: Aazadan
The UN has kept us out of several wars, and it only costs us about $2 billion per year.

Which ones?

a reply to: intrptr

How does one "fix" the UN, an unelected, unaccountable, body of appointed bureaucrats? Many of those bureaucrats appointed by the same murderous, tyrannical third world dictators who hold a majority on the main council, so their appointees will hold a majority in other places.

It leads to strange things like some of the world's biggest human rights abusers sitting on the human rights council among other things.

But you can't "fix" something you have no accountable power over in any real way. Not even those of us in voting Western style governments have any power over it. OUR governments simply appoint our officials to the UN too.

a reply to: ketsuko

Let no forget the irony, UN headquarters are here in our own city of NY.

What that tells you.

a reply to: ketsuko

The whole notion behind the UN or before it, the League of Nations, formed after the world wars was to prevent another world war by settling differences in an open forum where every nation has a vote. Just like voting is supposed to be in US elections, too. One person one vote, one nation one vote.

The idea isn't "broke", the UN was never allowed to carry on as planed, manipulated at the outset by the same forces that are always around waiting to start the cycle of conquering for greed and power all over again.

The same thing happened prior to WWII, Hitler manipulated and schemed to defeat the safeguards to oppose Germanys rise again to the level of power that would be dangerous to the rest of the world. Well guess what?

Same thing is going on right now. When the US decided to ignore the UN security council vetoes and go ahead and bomb Syria anyway, they did the exact same thing Hitler was doing when he invaded Poland. After it was apparent he had broader expansionist ideas for Europe and the wider world (Germany For All), thats when the allies formed a base of cooperation, set aside their differences and teamed up to defeat him.

I just got done replying to several posts in another thread about that very thing. They want to believe everyone likes the US, invites them in to militarily occupy their countries and that global opinion is favorable, blah, blah, blah.

The Soviets and US were allies during WWII too, even though the two ideologies were diametrically opposed. Or where they? And what choice did the people really have?

a reply to: intrptr

Yes, well, you can have an idea and wind up with something that looks completely different.

The USSR was supposed to be utopian workers paradise where everyone owned everything equally and there would be no wants ... all happy and provided for! The wave of the future!

See how that worked out.

a reply to: ketsuko

US is heading down that same path to destruction. You can call it a National Socialistic Republic Democracy whathave you and its really all the same, in the end.

Ashes, ashes, all fall down.

Google "Ruins".

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Which ones?

Tough to say, you're asking to prove a negative. Here's some of their success stories though
fcnl.org...
www.crisisgroup.org...

a reply to: Aazadan

Those are relatively out of date. How have they fared in the past 10 years?

a reply to: intrptr

Yes, and some of us are going kicking and screaming.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Aazadan

Those are relatively out of date. How have they fared in the past 10 years?

Does it matter? Like I said, all it takes is one conflict per century and we're saving money. Even if the UN has done absolutely nothing in the past 10 years (something which I don't think is true) we're still coming out ahead.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Does it matter? Like I said, all it takes is one conflict per century and we're saving money. Even if the UN has done absolutely nothing in the past 10 years (something which I don't think is true) we're still coming out ahead.

Who is 'we'? The United States? None of the links had anything to do with the United States.