If the United nations is funded greatly with American $'s should we stop funding it?

Question

I have heard that the U.N. money is as much as 80% funded from U.S.. Then as we all know it really causes more problems then solves plus is very corrupt as well. If the U.S. stops contributing to it I think it would be a good thing and then money would go to a better use elsewhere. What say you.

Answer 1

yup thats great TeePee, did u also notice that most of the money taken out of the UN is given to Americans, thanks to bright americans living in appealing areas such as Tornato Alley and the world fault line! Did you also notice that America is independent, thus meaning the rest of the world wouldnt have to help you when under attack unless we were forced to by the UN, the USA needs the UN more than other countries such as Australia that are bitish colonies as we work together not independantly like Amercia who then begs the world to save it when under attack for trying to be world police!

Answer 2

I wrote a review on the UN not too long ago. THE US only provides about 23 - 25% of the UN's total funding. However, if America stopped providing that 23%, it would be devastating to the UN.

America allready uses the UN to promote its goals worldwide. The UN is America's invention...why would we want to undermine it?

The UN was naturally going to have some corruption due to the fact that it is a peacekeeping organization BACKED by the largest, most powerful war making organization in the world.
The oil for food scandal and the UN's inability to interdict problems in SUDAN and ethnic cleansing - without direct intervention by American/Nato forces, is my biggest problem with it.


In my opinion, the UN needs its own army and technology. Seems kind of an anachronism to have a peace keeping force that can't protect itself or rescue people from the worst of the worst situations.

Answer 3

The best data I could find was that the US is assessed for 22% of UN costs. Given the size of the US economy relative to the global economy, that's probably reasonable. A similar percentage of UN expenditures are to US companies.

I stress assess, rather then pays, since the US is consistently behind in paying the UN.

The UN budget is pretty small. There are a lot of things I don't like about the UN, but I wouldn't say its sucking the economic life out of the US.

Answer 4

I don't know about the 80% figure and I'm too slothful to Google it or look on the http://www.state.gov site.

But I know that if the US cuts off funding, all the American employees -- who absorb most of the funding at least for the NYC headquarters staff -- will be fired.

Have you got jobs for them?

And what if other countries, without a place to talk about their frustrations, go to war instead. And nationalize American factories, mines, oil wells and property?

Answer 5

Sure why not? The US does not give a f*** about the UN's resolutions anyways. And when you say the money would go to a better use elsewhere, I am sure George Bush is not thinking about Katrina victims nor the AIDS epidemic around the world.

Answer 6

The UN is correctly named:

UNequivocally ineffective when it comes to uniting the nations and promoting peace throughout the world ~ therefore UNnecessary. However I do not believe funding should stop as we still might have to depend on the UN to settle a matter or two among nations one day.

Answer 7

there would still be a need to have a international body to solve countries dispute even if the UN was disbanded. I don't think we should cut funding at all until we have a good grasp as to how we can replace it. Even then, it may be better to try to reform it instead of trying to destroy it and hastly put something else in it's place.

Answer 8

Hell yes!!!! You couldn't give a monkeys about the Geneva convention, so why not go the whole hog!!!! Why not try and put a stop to the worlds only international debating chamber. Peace is a pain in the a55! They only complain about the U.S starting wars anyway!

Answer 9

yes, but then we would be under attack by those countries that we no long pay up-front-bribe money to.

actually i think that organization should be disbanded, but even as an american, i cannot justify putting into place an organization that only preaches "my way" to the rest of the world.

i would rather that we give our money to other nations and give them support, but not through the u.n.

-eagle

Answer 10

Those of you with a guttural opposition to the UN should check out some of the good works it is doing through such agencies as UNICEF, WHO, UN AIDS, UNHCR, FAO, UNDP, etc.,etc.
The world would be a poorer place without this vehicle for international cooperation.