Why should the U.S. give the U.N. $5 Million a day to fund a forum for anti-Americans radical thugs to bark ?

Question

Why should Americans cough up $1.3 Billion a year to get insulted on our own soil ? Do you think it's time we leave the U.N. ?

Dear Weisheide,
The UN has stood by & watched the massive slaughtering of millions in Cambodia, Kosovo, Darfur, Rwanda...They failed to stop the recent conflict in Lebanon, blaming it on Israel, though terrorist group Hamas was the one that started it.
The UN protect & promote human rights ? What did the UN do during the event of Tiananmen, China ? Absolutely nothing ! The UN has designated countries with horrific human rights records in the UN Human Rights Council seats. It's nothing but a joke.

By the way, The UN Headqarter is located in NYC, New York, USA. This office project land was bought for 8.5 million dollars & donated in 1946 to the UN by John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

By the way, the UN Headquarters is located in NYC, New York, USA. This office project land was bought for 8.5 million dollars & donated in 1946 to the UN by John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

Answer 1

I think it's time for the "UN" members to truly be UNITED. And they are not. It is comical to hear Chavez or Ahmadinejad speak, for they do not speak as members of a group of UNITED NATIONS. In fact, they criticize or undermine the very organization they address (AND GET APPLAUDED).

The USA has great interest in global economies and their viability as peaceful, productive nations. As the saying goes: "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer".

The UN should meet and decide whether such nations who disparage and call for the end of the UN and Security Council should be suspended or expelled. They are free to speak, but why allow enemies of a peaceful globe to even participate when they are NOT productive, but divisive.

Chavez and Ahmadinejad are political neophytes. They are trying to cull favor with the young and impressionable Americans, who like what they hear because they are being addressed directly and the voice they hear is similar to what they hear in colleges and high schools around the country. "BUSH is evil, AMERICA is imperialistic, SOCIALISM solves the world's ills". This is dangerous rhetoric when it impresses upon a voting public who has no grasp of political history, or the utter failings of systems like Chavez's or Ahmadinejad's. As Churchill stated:
"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." The Venezuela/Iran appeal is to the 'heart' of the American youth (or politically immature liberalized camp of voters who believe evil is only found within). But as we age, and take responsibility for ourselves, our allegiances should naturally be to our homes, families, neighborhoods, countries and to ourselves. To worry first or more about the injustice in other nations, or worse, to blame yourself for it, takes you completely out of the picture as far as helping those people. America buys tons of oil from Venezuela and supports SCORES of nations with financial and military and social aid. WE are our brothers' keepers, yet Chavez and Ahmadinejad will have you believe we are self-serving devils seeking to subject the world to (GASP!) our form of government (which is the most free and open form in the history of the world).

We cannot leave the UN, but we should exert even more pressure on our allies and economic partners (Russia and China) to finally and decisively manage these political nuisances who, if left unchecked, can disturb the productive and peaceful balances in effect in the world today. No major nation clashes have occurred in the last 60 years, because the UN allows a slowing of the aggressive and unproductive rhetoric that led nations to war before. We get to hash things out, in an open forum, rather than secret our weapons and agendas away and strike without warning or provocation (a la Hitler). The UN must be viable again, and it can't be led by those who applaud the efforts and voices of Chavez or Ahmadinejad. They are not credible in their own nation, yet the anti-American crowd (domestically and internationally) give them a great stage and legitimize their idiocy. There is one aim in Iran, to destroy Israel and to bring about an apocalypse to end all mankind. There is one aim in Venezuela, profit from Iran's craziness by charging more for what will soon be even more precious oil (once Iran's comes off the market).

They both know how to manipulate the sheep, to their own benefit and interest. In this way, they are shrewd. For as long as the left and center of America and the Western World are doped up on anti-American rhetoric and self-hate, these men will be able to manipulate public opinion (and energy dollars) to their benefit. They are not productive members of a global society, but populist charlatans who are heavily scrutinized in their own nations and look to build power elsewhere by playing up their popularity within a growing Anti-American fervor.

People should stop and think about what life is like in Venezuela or Iran for the average man, woman or child. Then think about what life is like for the same demographic in the US, or UK, or France or Germany. There are DISTINCT differences, and those can be directly traced to how each nation is run, and on the societal foundations and standards in place in each nation.

Then you can truly judge the devil from the angel, and can be rest assured the UN is just where it needs to be, under our watchful eye, and still under the heavy influence of conservative America.

Answer 2

because America still gets more out of the UN than it spends to keep it running. America needs a certain amount of international goodwill to sell their products and services overseas.

America still needs the world to do buisness with, and the UN is a platform to promote American causes.

Besides, better to know where the crazies are speaking. If the US walked out on the UN, all the countries would just gather somewhere else.

America still gains a measure of international prestige by being a safe haven for democracy and leadership. you can't lead if you are not playing the game.

No one takes the anti American rants seriously, unless they already hate the US.

Answer 3

Yes! Absolutely, we should leave. We don't need to pay billions in return for that kind of anti-American abuse. The far left liberals can do the same job here at home for FREE!

Answer 4

Because without all those commies and fascists telling America how screwed up they are the Democrats and Liberals would have no talking points against Bush.

Where do you think they all come from?

Answer 5

I think that it is time to kick the UN out of the USA.

Answer 6

I thought there was a motion to kick the united states out of the U.N..
I wonder what happened to that plan .

Answer 7

Dear Saigonese,

It was the US who were most instrumental in founding the United Nations. It was a very noble and progressive idea. It attempted to create a truly democratic body of world governance, and therefore put a stop to the trend in international relations for individual countries to simply do everything for their own self-interest, including causing harm to other countries.

Therefore, doing away with the United Nations (or leaving it) would be cancelling what is perhaps the noblest action ever taken by the US in the history of international relations. Far from merely being a "forum for anti-American thugs", as you put it, it was through the United Nations that most humanitarian decisions were taken, amongst many other achievements that have furthered the cause of peace and development throughout the world. Here are a few:

- The UN and its agencies have improved the health of millions - immunizing the world's children, fighting malaria and parasitic disease, providing safe drinking water and protecting consumers' health. As a result, longevity and life expectancy have increased worldwide.

- More international law has been developed through the UN in the past six decades than in the entire previous history of humankind.

- UN relief agencies together provide aid and protection to some 23.3 million refugees and displaced persons worldwide.

- The UN in 1948 formulated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - an historic proclamation of the rights and freedoms to which all men and women are entitled. Some 80 United Nations treaties protect and promote specific human rights.

- The UN and its agencies, including the World Bank and the UN Development Programme (UNDP), are the premier vehicles for furthering development in poorer countries, providing assistance worth more than $30 billion a year.

- The UN has helped strengthen the democratic process by assisting elections in more than 85 countries.

- UNDP is the UN system's principal provider of advice, advocacy and grant support for development. With an annual expenditure of about $1 billion, UNDP supports many development projects worldwide.

- UN appeals raise over $2 billion a year for emergency assistance to people affected by war and natural disaster. In 2004 alone, 31 inter-agency appeals raised more than $2.2 billion to assist millions of people in 30 countries and regions. In 2005, owing in part to the Indian Ocean earthquake-tsunami, inter-agency appeals raised $3.2 billion for relief efforts.

- The World Food Programme - the world's largest food-aid organization - raised nearly $3 billion to feed 113 million people in some 80 countries in 2004.

- The UN was a promoter of the great movement of decolonisation, which led to the independence of more than 80 nations.

- Smallpox was eradicated from the world through a campaign coordinated by the World Health Organization (WHO). Another WHO campaign, launched in 1988, aims to eliminate polio. In 1998, polio struck nearly 1,000 people per day in 125 countries. By late 2005, there were only 1,392 cases worldwide, and the disease had been eliminated from all but 16 countries.

- Every year, up to 3 million children's lives are saved by immunization, but almost 3 million more die from preventable diseases. UNICEF, WHO, the World Bank Group, private foundations, the pharmaceutical industry and governments have joined in a Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization that aims to reduce that figure to zero.

Would you support leaving an organisation which has promoted so much positive development around the world? Oh, and by the way, on the financial question that you raised: beginning in 1974, the UN fixed a maximum rate of 25 per cent of UN membership dues for any contributor - later reduced to 22 per cent from 2001. So far, this ceiling has benefited only the United States, whose share of total membership GNP is approximately 27 per cent.

Without this ceiling, its share would be even higher since, like other countries with high per capita income, it would have been required to contribute to the cost of reductions for the countries with low per capita income. The rates of other member states are raised to make up for the difference. Furthermore, US companies are consistently the largest sellers of goods and services to the UN. In 2004, companies from the United States earned nearly $316 million through procurement done by UN Headquarters in New York - more than 24 per cent of total procurement.

So who's really ripping off whom?

Yours sincerely,

P.S. The UN Headquarters is NOT legally on American soil, but on international territory.

Answer 8

So do you write down what you hear on Fox news and repeat it or are you smart enough to remember it all by yourself?