The United States has hosted the United Nations since it's creation. The United States has always provided the largest financial support to the UN. I believe it's time to allow another country to have the privledge of hosting the United Nations...and I suggest Paris.
2006-06-12 15:45:09 · 14 answers · asked by darleyjr 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
You betcha...that UN building in New York would make for some pretty snazzy apartments. And no more unpaid traffic and parking tickets since those 'dip'lomats would be gone...the police force could maybe kick back a bit because all the criminals would be shipping out to Paris. And no more aid to be paid out to those embezzlers...we can use the cash here at home.
2006-06-12 15:55:23 · answer #1 · answered by Shaula 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Be careful what you wish for, it might just come true.
America has no tradition of altruism. It expects a return on its investments and, despite its anti-UN rhetoric, it puts a lot of cash into the UN because it gets a lot out.
While the US hosts the main HQ of the UN it gets more back than it spends and its political will tends to hold sway in the conference chambers.
Austria hosts the second largest UN facility and the city of Vienna gains hugely - economically, politically and culturally. Austria would fight tooth and nail against any attempt to shift the UN elsewhere - and so would America.
The Austrians have been fine hosts, taking great care of the diplomats of 135 countries and immaculately maintaining the impressive UNO City buildings complex on an island in the Danube. The Americans have let their UN facilities rot to the extent that a massive investment is now needed - and America must pay - the facilities belong to the host country, not to the UN.
Every now and then the US threatens to remove funding - usually when the UN has given it a bloody nose. Its all bluster and the UN member States know it. But if ever America did carry out its threat there would many countries ready to take over - China would be right at the front of the queue and sure, France would be in there too. Unlike the US, most of the countries that might play host are politically pro-UN. They would work with the UN rather than against it. This would NOT be in America's interest ...
Think about that ....
2006-06-12 17:01:13 · answer #2 · answered by speenth 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The US is the highest contributor to the UN. It's a pity they are so far behing in their payments. Of course, in tashion, the US will lend some money to the UN (by coincidence about the same amount as they owe) and charge interest on the money.
2006-06-12 15:59:41 · answer #3 · answered by Nemesis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Naw, not Paris. Geneva, perhaps. Maybe even Oslo. But certainly nowhere in Europe. How about Stockholm. That sounds good, too.
2006-06-12 15:48:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The french are a bunch of drunks and pussys, hell no, we are keeping the U.N. in The United States of America.
2006-06-12 15:47:23 · answer #5 · answered by Pandora Tommorow 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm with you, get them the hell off of my land! A good deal of the assembly are dictatorships, more appropriately hosted by France.
2006-06-12 15:49:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not a bad choice, but there are more countries that are far more deserving, but i agree that it should be removed from the US.
It may not have much effect because the people would still be there.
2006-06-12 16:32:05 · answer #7 · answered by sdo4tnr 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Heavens no, if you think the UN is messed up now in France they would be even worse.
2006-06-12 15:59:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll second that motion in the same note get us out of the U.N.
2006-06-12 15:49:50 · answer #9 · answered by CHARLES A 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why don't we just pull out of the UN altogether? It's just a waste of time!
2006-06-12 15:47:18 · answer #10 · answered by thepaladin38 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋