Without the US , would the U.N. suffer?

Answer 1

The u.s. is indeed the glue that holds the u.n. together. Considering we hold only one vote in a general assembly of one hundred ninety five members, but pay twenty two percent of the u.n.'s budget, which comes out to about 1.3 billion dollars a year, they would suffer tremendously.

Also, the U.S. and Great Britian are the only two nations that seek to make any real change for the better. Its sad that so many people responding to your question have not a clue as to what reality is, and think the U.N. would be so much better off, because america is so violent. Saddam Hussein ignored the U.N. resolution that demanded he withdraw from Kuwait and made the world spend a whole lot of money to get him out of Kuwait. For twelve years he violated seventeen U.N. Security Council resolutions, and America (being the country that spent almost two trillion dollars to contain Saddam) as well as Britain were the only two nations trying to get Saddam in compliance.

Genocide is happening right now in Sudan and the U.N. doesn't do anything. They've even classified it as "mass murder with ethnic characteristics". What the hell is genocide? Nations are mandated by the U.N. to stop genocide, and they are playing to the Sudanese government. America, in part, is allowing this to happen for the time being becuase Sudan has been providing us with intel on many terror groups.

The U.N.'s failure to act on criticle situations has relegated it to a dust bin like status, they've told the world that they are a relic of an era come and gone and are no longer capable of dealing with the worlds problems. I can't think slow enough to debate the idiots who actually think the U.S. is evil and the U.N. is fantastic, so we'll just leave it at that.

Answer 2

There would be no UN without the USA, The USA is the worlds hyper power, The US pays far more than any other State for the UN and also hosts the UN headquarters in NY.

The world would suffer if there was no US support for freedom, democracy, constitutional liberties and a free market economy. Although US policy is often far from perfect it has far more of a positive effect than a negative effect.

USians should be positive about their nations role in the world but not get complacent or believe that they are infallible.

The USians should attempt to learn the lessons of history - the first of which is that no one learns from history. The lessons of the Roman Empire and the British Empire are good lessons to learn, as we now live in an age of the American Empire. The Romans Empire had provinces, The British Empire had colonies, and the American Empire has satellites

Answer 3

I don't think so. The US seems to spend the whole time forcing the UN to legitimise existing US foreign policy.

It drags the rest of the world into pointless conflict, just because the US has a desire to punish any nation that stands up for itself.

For example, the whole world was getting on very well with Iran and Syria before the US started the Axis of Evil rubbish. The result was Iran became nervous and moved into nuclear engineering, Syria armed Hezbollah etc.

They pushed the Iraq war against the UN. They were behind the Israeli destruction of Lebanon, armed them with cluster bombs to target civilians & refused to allow peace.

They financed the Taliban, hired Saddam as a CIA assassin & later gave him Iraq to run, supported the Contra's in Nicaragua, Supported General Pinochet & his torture. They also veto any security resolution against Israeli's constant war crimes, etc. etc.

Answer 4

At present probably. though this is a sad state of affairs. The UN needs teeth to be effective. And unless other nations are prepared to put resources (armed forces) in to problem areas then it simply becomes a talk shop. Don't get me wrong diplomacy is high importance but when there is genecide happening just outside your door - diplomacy to too slow. I think to be a member of the UN each country should deploy a percentage of its armed forces to the UN for the UN to manage & control.

Answer 5

Without the U.S. the U.N. could not survive. They would end up with one goal: get back at and team up against the U.S.

Unfortunately our country is so divided the liberals would encourage them.

Answer 6

Without the financial contributions from the U.S. The U.N. would not survive.

U.S. out of the U.N., U.N. out of the U.S.!

Answer 7

No,the UN would be much better off without the USA.They try to dominate it,& use it to their own ends,instead of for the common good.In fact i think they should be isolated as much as possible from the rest of humanity.

Answer 8

The US would be better off without the UN. The US is the major contributor to the UN in funding, gives them a rent free building, and a free lease on the land, diplomatic immunity to all UN representatives, etc.. etc.. The UN has racked up millions of dollars in illegal parking tickets alone and has paid none of it nor will they. Name one thing the UN has done in the world worth talking about in the last 20 years? I for one would be happy to see them go. We have enough crooked politicians of our own without having to put up with more from the rest of the world too! Let them go to France for awhile

Answer 9

Things could improve. The world may use diplomacy rather than brute force.

Answer 10

how arrogant..why would you think that the UN would suffer with out the americans? of course it wouldn,t..the USA is not the only country in the world