basically if something happens to the UN building
2007-01-15 10:54:14 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
How about we send them to Mars to re-build. When they are done, they can get back to us.
2007-01-15 10:57:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The UN is an ineffective and obsolete organization leeching off countries resources...
I would hope that if they do rebuild it they locate it in Istanbul,Turkey...
the Turks cant join the Eu but they should enjoy playing host to the pompass delegates who wont have free parking,fancy digs ,limo service,no phone bills and maybe not even air-conditioning...
a good dose of reality in a country that would not be awed by their deceit...just waiting to toss their tails in jail for any infraction of the law...
last I heard, the Turks don't accept various interpretations/opinions or newly created definitions on what is defined as a crime....
2007-01-15 19:14:45 · answer #2 · answered by cyansure 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
bmw should rea before he voices his opinion because his facts are wrong
We provided more than $3 billion in contributions, both cash and in-kind, to the UN system in 2002. (In-kind contributions include items such as food donations for the World Food Program). The United States funded 22 percent of the UN regular budget, as well as more than 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget. Additionally, the United States provides a significant amount in voluntary contributions to the UN and UN-affiliated organizations and activities, mostly for humanitarian and development programs.
This question is worthless because it does not address any problems and the people who speak against the UN could not even identify the function of this body. They only spew the rhetoric they hear on FOX without any understanding of the organization, international law, or the international political condition
2007-01-15 19:02:45 · answer #3 · answered by in2320 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Despite the UN's continuing disagreements with the US government the US is (and would be) still the safest location for its headquarters. But, would the US still want them there?
2007-01-15 18:59:33 · answer #4 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Based on your scenario...no. I think the only reason America permits the UN to stay where it is, is that they have so much invested in the building. If the building is destroyed, that excuse is eliminated and they can comfortably say, "you are no longer welcome here."
2007-01-15 18:59:31 · answer #5 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
God forbid that happens, then the US will know that the world will not support building it in New York. Maybe, this time, Beijing will be the right choice.
2007-01-15 18:58:05 · answer #6 · answered by The Greek Alpha 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
They would rebuild here. No other country would be willing to foot the bills they run up. Also the members would want it here because they receive so much from it, no other country would allow them the perks we do.
2007-01-15 19:00:25 · answer #7 · answered by Ron B 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They should build it elsewhere but they will build it here because we make up like 60% of their income.
2007-01-15 18:56:31 · answer #8 · answered by bmw4909 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think the International Space Station would be a good place for it.
2007-01-15 19:03:53 · answer #9 · answered by truli u 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i think yes, but for your information they have prevent that, they have a headquarters in the Hague and Vienna, they just have to move and hire more personal
2007-01-15 18:58:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋