Should the U.S. stop funding the United Nations?

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Posted for P.O.T.U.S.

Should the U.S. stop funding the United Nations?

I haven't voted, but I want to vote for yes... simply because if the US doesn't provide funds to the UN, then the UN will no longer be scared to stand up and say "hey! What the hell are you doing?"

I voted yes, cuz I just don't like the UN.

Voted no. That's just cooky talk.



-HECK!

We need an "I don't really care option" because I just don't care!

That might make me an ass... but, I'm just sick of all this political in the world.

When we've finally reached the point that a room full of international freeloaders are applauding wildly as our president is called the Devil and our demise is predicted, then it's time to seriously reassess whom we want to deal with, in what manner and in what international forum.

Be assured that after this week's antics in New York, more and more Americans will come to believe that expensive, do-nothing diplomatic assemblies such as the United Nations are something we can live without.

Only in your mind, hombre.



-HECK!

Don't think that taking away your ball is the most adult way of dealing with things. The thing is you Americans crack me up over your love hate relationship with the UN. First you were falling over yourselves to get it, then you hated it ( iraq), then you demonised it ( oil for food), then you needed it ( Iran) now you don't want it.

Hugo thinks the UN should be in Venezuela, I think sure why not. Let some other nation deal with the UN Headaches.

So what exactly is is that people like Joe, Dekka and Edward wantout of this? do you want out of the UN or do you want to be part of the UN but just not pay to be part?

Also you all seem to forget where this money goes I know that at least one person here hnestly belives that the cash goes in the UN's back pocke never to be seen again but that cash in reality goes in to children,s fund, the IAEA, refugee fund, peacekeepers fund, rebuilding fund etc etc basically anything that has got UN inf ront of it thats where the cash goes. Now admittiedly there are admin costs ( those resolutions don't type themselves) and security costs but show me an organisation that does not have these things.

I would like to see the US out of the UN. United Nations has proved itself to be utterly worthless.

care to give a few examples?

It is worthless; in theory it's a wonderful idea, but when it all comes down to it it's a body of countries trying to police the world but with no power. If it had any real power, America would've gotten a great big spanking for invading Iraq. And an even bigger big spanking for the human rights violations when it came to torturing prisoners...

But, well, as long as their money keeps flowing... ri...right?

Well again give me some examples.
Is the international court worthless and what cases made it worthless is the high commison on refugees worthless also, the peacekeepers in Lebanon and the Balkans are they worthless, is it the security council and it's outdated veto system, the general council who make descions on things like the HCR, is it the office of legal affairs, office of humanatarian affairs, department of disarmenent, is it the department of pecaekeeping, departrment of political affairs, department of economic and social affairs. Waht exactly is worthless about all of these departments?

If you don't think the UN is worthless, read Wretchard's description of the UN's struggle to define terrorism. If it doesn't remind you of decision by committee, you haven't worked in a large, bureaucratic organization.

This month, the United Nations Security Council voted to condemn terrorism ...but the convoluted text and the dealings behind the scenes ...reveal is that even after Beslan and after Madrid and after 9/11, the UN still cannot bring itself to oppose terrorism unequivocally. The reason for this failure is that the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which comprises fifty-six of the UN's 191 members, defends terrorism as a right...

True, the final resolution condemns "all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation." This sounds clear, but in the Alice-in-Wonderland lexicon of the UN, the term "acts of terrorism" does not mean what it seems. For eight years now, a UN committee has labored to draft a "comprehensive convention on international terrorism." It has been stalled since day one on the issue of "defining" terrorism. But what is the mystery? At bottom everyone understands what terrorism is: the deliberate targeting of civilians. The Islamic Conference, however, has insisted that terrorism must be defined not by the nature of the act but by its purpose. In this view, any act done in the cause of "national liberation," no matter how bestial or how random or defenseless the victims, cannot be considered terrorism. This boils down to saying that terrorism on behalf of bad causes is bad, but terrorism on behalf of good causes is good. Obviously, anyone who takes such a position is not against terrorism at all-but only against bad causes.

The UN will always be this way.

There is a moral high ground. You do not deliberately target and kill civilians for any reason. Can someone explain to me why the Arab states think this is OK? Every despot since the beginning has believed it was alright to target and kill civilians as a matter of policy. Every freedom lover in the world knows damn well it is not alright to do so.

Here's the UN's moral clarity for you.

14. While terrorist acts are usually perpetrated by subnational or transnational groups, terror has also been adopted by rulers at various times as an instrument of control. The rubric of counter-terrorism can be used to justify acts in support of political agendas, such as the consolidation of political power, elimination of political opponents, inhibition of legitimate dissent and/or suppression of resistance to military occupation. Labelling opponents or adversaries as terrorists offers a time-tested technique to de-legitimize and demonize them. The United Nations should beware of offering, or be perceived to be offering, a blanket or automatic endorsement of all measures taken in the name of counter-terrorism.

15. The phenomenon of terrorism is complex. This does not, however, imply that it is impossible to adopt moral clarity regarding attacks on civilians. Terrorism deserves universal condemnation, and the struggle against terrorism requires intellectual and moral clarity and a carefully differentiated implementation plan.

Right. We don't know what it is, and we refuse to define it, but we condemn it outright.

Why do we still pay dues to this organization and allow it to exist on our property?

I don't know is this rant is aginst Arabs, Muslims, the Middle East, the UN or all of them.

However that may be seen as a problem with the general council but at the same time it asks the age old question is one mans terrorist another mans freedom fighter.

But what about the other departments people just say we should get rid of the UN yet we don't even acknowledge how big an organisation we are talking about here. To be honest joe that post is a weak arguement at best some of the other articles you post at least try and build a strong case this one lacks that I am actually a little dissapointed.

Serioulsy though he have not answred any of the questions I asked you those questions being:
1. Do you want out of the UN or want in but just not to pay your way?

2. Exactly what is wortheless about the departments of the UN I listed earlier and if there was no UN how would those deopartments be run?

I voted yes.

What exactly does the UN do for "world peace?" What exactly does it do for anyone or anything? The UN is mainly composed of dictatorship countries that hate Zionism, that hate Israel. The ironic thing about this is that the UN voted to make Israel home for Jews in 1948.

The EU is its favorite stepchild.

How many faux governments does the world need exactly?