Why is America funding the United Nations?
 

I just got this scathing letter from the Libertarian Party. Should the US tell the UN to go fuck itself? Why should or shouldn't the US tell the UN to go fuck itself?

The UN is a joke. We owe hundreds of millions in late dues.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

The UN listens to Mr. Moore :glugglug

http://www.funnypictures.dk/data/media/1/93.jpg

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Pure Propaganda

In response to the thread title...good question. The UN has a dismal record overall...and I personally would not be the least bit bothered if the US withdrew from the org and kicked it out of our country...but I do not recommend our withdrawal. It is basically a debating society and debate does have its place...and as it is we have veto power over any action that it chooses to persue and can propose actions we think it should persue.

Withdrawing is the only solution to the problem. I would agree with the libertarians on this!

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Have you considered that some of the countries lending the US money do so on the condition that the US continues to fund the UN?

You can only act independant when you are indepenant.

You really think America gets nothing for lending money out? There's always interest when you lend money out :glugglug

Interest . . . yeah, did Germany, France and England ever finish paying us back for WWII?

We fund our national debt by funding the UN? We should pay off the national debt and never get into debt again anyway, so fuck it. Pay off the national debt and tell the UN to get stuffed. I like it. :thumbsup

But on the topic, good fucking question.

At least move it to another continent. I don't know about withdrawl, but I think we have paid our share, time to let one of these wonderful EU members to foot the bill for a while.

All in favor say. "Aye"

That doesn't count, their debts were zeroed out and their countries rebuilt due to the Marshall Plan.

Every country owes money, America has trillions in debt

Was a pretty interesting comment. Not sure what he was trying to suggest.

Ummmm, 60 year old debts to whom?

In a nutshell, America should pay off the national debt and tell the UN to get stuffed.

I don't think that is what he was trying to suggest.

I thought you meant me. In that case, who is "he"? :helpme

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

China owns you, grow up.

Douches.

shhhh

and then watch the dollar fall even harder

Paul (Charly)

I guess the UN has it's uses, what I have no ideal any more.

Huh? Paying off debt reduces the value of a dollar? How do you figure that?

The UN is not a singular entity. It should be seen more as an ideal than a traditional organization, as it lacks a specific agenda or central leadership; it is basically an agreement to try and resolve problems though debate and/or aid. For many nations, this is their most democratic commitment.

IMO, the existence of the UN is why we have not had another world-wide war. That is it's main purpose, and all the little scandals don't mean shit in comparison. Representatives of varying character will come and go, but to reject the UN in total is to reject peaceful dialogue between us and the rest of the world.

Americans who believe that leaving the UN will mean that we can then act unilaterally and do whatever we want are delusional. The UN will continue with or without us, and America cannot stand up economically or militarily to the combined resources of the rest of the world.

In addition, I believe having the UN headquarters here has greatly helped us "americanize" foreign diplomats. :2 cents:

I don't see why we HAVE to have a UN to have foreign relations. I believe the best foreign policy and ambassadors come in the form of the free market. No talk of wars, laws, genocides, playing footsie with diplomats and hoping someone doesn't take something the wrong way. Offering free trade means economic benefits for both countries involved. It's hard to go to war with a trading partner. That's why there will not be an American/Chinese war.

Libertarians don't give a shit about acting unilaterally, libertarians believe that the military is for defense only. That means the military stays on Amercian soil, period. The only possible exception would have been for something like Pearl Harbor. This "war on terror" doesn't count.

I'm sure the UN will continue without us, but who says we have to take on the combined economies and militaries of the entire world?

Further, the UN is screwed up through and through. You have nations that commit regular attrocities on the board in charge of investigating crimes against humanity. That's putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop. The UN says it wants to prevent war, but it has a blatantly miserable record of doing so. Never mind Iraq, what about the Sudan and the Ivory Coast, just to name two places off the top of my head in turmoil to say the least? Before that, what about Bosnia, or Vietnam (which we went into to save France's ass . . . again)?

What does the UN want to do? They want to expand the security council to include countries like Egypt and Iran. This is going to go over like a fart in church. If you thought there was inaction in the past, just you wait until they expand the security council. If they do that, then almost nothing will ever get done about anything. Sorry, but I don't see the UN being a great humanitarian organization as it was originally intended to be.

In order to pay off the debt you would have to print a crapload of money which is nothing but paper and ink since there is no gold to back it. As more money is printed, the dollar goes down.

Thanks for being the voice of reason in this thread. Knowledge is rare these days.

I was thinking much the same. A truly amazing display of ignorance in this thread. It's interesting how few know what the UN actually is/does. It doesn't seem to stop them spewing crap about it though. :glugglug

why would they? prescot bush, you know george 1 and george 2's daddy bankrolled the nazis...america started it america paid and all of the american war material factorys made a shitload just like the wanted and are doing again now

That is exactly how not to pay off debt...also the US is not on the gold standard anymore. The debt can be paid in any four year period or even less...via income tax or a sales sur tax. The US is the least taxed nation in the Western world. The debt is of little consequence at this point in time...and will remain so as long as the GNP exceeds the percentage of increase of debt...which it is currently doing. The same principles of debt applies to the government as it does to private income and increase of debt. One gets a raise then one can increase the debt one carries...relatively.

You have a warped view of history. In addition Prescot Bush did not have enough money to bankroll any nation...period.

Why would we HAVE to print money? Why can't we just budget a surplus and buy back the outstanding debts?

Then enlighten us.

remind me to give you a buck if i ever meet you :2 cents:

The UN can - and probably should - be seen as a centralized forum for international debate. It provides a somewhat neutral platform for discussions within the international community, allows global agreements to be made with relative ease (I'll get back to this later), keeps individual nations in check and makes sure that their actions don't go unnoticed, etc.

International debate is absolutely necessary, since nations have no choice but to have dimplomatic relations - their actions can have significant effects on other nations (e.g. producing lots of nuclear waste and dumping it in the ocean isn't just nationally significant), and as an absolute minimum, they need agreements in order to minimize the trouble they cause eachother.

If we need international debate, we also need a platform for it. Now, we could call a global meeting of world leaders every time a significant event rises, start from scratch and build a complete infrastructure for debate, an elaborate set of rules of discussion, a comparison of all scientific reports from the different countries concerning the issue at hand, etc. That would literally take years each and every time a significant event arises.
So creating an permanent structure for international debate doesn't seem like an all too bad idea. Just a place where world leaders can meet and discuss important issues. Even then, the debate will go excruciatingly slow because of all the participants and their respective positions and interests, but at least we've got most of the technical problems out of the way. It ofcourse speaks for itself that this structure needs its own bureaucracy to function. For that, it needs funding.

But now that we have such an organization, what about the agreements that come from it? It seems only logical that the central organization is able to check if these agreements are being followed by the participating countries, just like it only seems natural that when large amounts of expertise in certain areas are needed, the central organization has its own existing commissions for that, etc. Delegating tasks to single countries isn't an option because objectivity couldn't be guaranteed that way, and it seems just plain stupid to start from scratch every time you need to do something. So, once again, permanent structures are needed - structures, I have to add, which require funding to exist.

Now, your points about the free market being able to replace global debate is hopelessly naïve. There are two very strong reasons for that.
In the first place, the free market is not able to handle things like damage to the environment, risk of catastrophe (e.g. badly maintained nuclear reactors), human rights violations, etc. The free market is the most effective way to run an economy, and economically, there indeed is no viable alternative. It is not, however, the "magic pill" which can make everything right all at once.
In the second place, insofar as the free market works as a regulatory device, it can only work that way when dealing with other capitalists/libertarians, who share ideals like profit, the free market, freedom, etc. If everyone shared the same political and moral foundation, it would indeed all be a lot easier, but unfortunately that is not the case. Religious fundamentalists don't care about your free market, and neither do nationalist fanatics, power-hungry dictators, blinded idealists and the poor masses willing to follow any leader who promises them relief. The free market works wonders if everyone just happily cooperates, but so does every other theory. We have to deal with reality, though, and reality is a much less predictable thing.

Since this post is already way too long and I want to go back to playing Diablo II, one final point: International military intervention in relatively small-scale conflicts is often necessary not because we want to help, but because small conflicts have the tendency to escalate, and if entire regions are set ablaze, the west will also suffer consequences. Putting out a fire before it becomes an inferno is often a good idea.

The US hasn't payed the UN fully for the last 10 years.. They are in debt with them....

So what the fuck are you talking about?

Most of what you describe up to here sounds like a series of international summits, like the Geneva Conventions. I think international summits are good, but the UN is a government body and I see no reason why it needs to be a government body.

I feel you on getting back to Diablo II, I have the expansion and I couldn't leave that game alone for 6 months.

The free market allows nations to trade with other nations. All nations trade with their neighbors, that's just the way of the world, even the USSR had to trade. One of the ways they tried to get around needing to trade was to expand, which was also their only means of economic stability. This lead to the NATO strategy of "containment", which lead to such attrocities like the Korean war, Vietnam, Cuban missile crisis, etc. If we just left well enough alone and simply traded with friendly nations, the USSR wouldn't have been a threat at all and they would have collapsed anyway.

The free market can indeed address such issues as human rights violations, because countries that do such things can be collectively boycotted. Unfortunately, that is something we have not learned, and we continue to buy oil from OPEC.

I admit my ideas are a bit idealistic, but they're not completely out of the question. Working the free market works with human nature, it plays up to our natural instincts. We can better ourselves by using such seemingly destructive emotions as greed to our advantage. Systems that try to have us act against such emotions are contrary to human nature and therefore unworkable.

I have come to the conclusion that you dutchies have a higher IQ than these American idiots.

Damm....Moore lost weight.... :winkwink: :winkwink: Nice one!

The UN has been a joke for so long it's not even funny anymore. I say let France host the UN, since they have it all wrapped around their smelly, unbathed fingers. It would be a first for them to actually do something worthwhile.

no we didnt, but hollywood has made so much money from making innacurate films about OUR war we can call it quits

oooo get bum raped in france or something, why the hate?

Well said. Very well said :)


I just hope the many many many of the sheeps around here will take time to figure out what the UN is before making themself look even worse. But I won't get my hopes up too high.


Thanks again for a good post CamChicks :)

Because stupidity makes him think that the UN is a place where we go to find friends when we wanna go to war.

You must be one of those french morons. Take a bath already.