Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does the US Belong in the UN?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Does the US Belong in the UN?

    Guess I'll just jump right in.

    I heard a bit of news yesterday that sent me out checking facts on the internet. As it happens, the US contributes 22% of the annual budget of the UN. This does not include the money used in peacekeeping missions, of which it would appear that the US contributes over 30% of the total money used. Think about that. We have an organization with over 100 members, yet we contribute more than one fifth of its total budget. Not that I have a specific problem with that. We are the wealthiest nation on earth. As such, I can at least see the argument that our contribution should be larger than other nations.

    What gives me serious pause is what happens with this money. Remember the Iraqi “Oil for Food Program?” As it turns out, something like 20 billion dollars spent by the UN on this program ended up in Saddam Hussein’s personal coffers. No, that’s not a typo. 20 billion dollars. And, thanks to the meticulous record keeping of Hussein, it appears that there were even some kickbacks paid to UN officials.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110004801

    http://www.aaenvironment.com/OilForFood.htm

    Worse, there are also indications that the Oil for Food Program was used to support Al Qaeda:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0404182336.asp

    And this is only one example. The list goes on and on. The UN even seems to mock itself. Remember, before the invasion of Iraq? Although it did not agree with the US on the best method to resolve the issue, the UN itself knew Iraq was in violation of several UN resolutions, many regarding arms control. What was the UN response? To appoint Iraq the head of the UN arms control commission. At the same time, it appointed Libya to head another commission. If memory serves, Libya was appointed to head the commission on human rights. All that was left for the UN to complete the trifecta was to appoint Rwanda to head the commission to prevent genocide.

    In it’s dealings with the US, the UN appears to have had only two goals. First, make sure that the US fully funds the UN. Second, undercut everything the US does internationally. Try and imagine this. You own a large bookstore, and belong to an organization of bookstore owners. Yours is the largest, most profitable bookstore in the organization, and accordingly, you provide the lion’s share of the money to support the organization. But, along the way, the other members begin to use that money to undercut you, to encourage customers to avoid your store, and patronize others. If you have a single brain cell in your head, you are going to pull out of that organization, and in a big hurry. You will also stop allowing that organization to hold it’s meetings in your store, regardless of how big, comfortable, or centrally located your store is.

    I would not expect the UN to slavishly follow every desire of the US, regardless of how big our contributions were. By the same token, I would not expect the US to stand quietly by while this organization actively works to undermine the US internationally. Our continued membership in this organization is tantamount to slow national suicide. Perhaps we as a nation should show the common sense any bookstore owner has. It’s time we withdrew from membership of this organization, and time we expelled it from our nation.

    Kevin McHugh
    If you didn't pay any taxes, it's not a rebate. It's welfare.

  • #2
    I have to agree. Every member of the UN should be there for the same purpose and under the same oath. This is obviously not the case.

    Comment


    • #3
      I'v said this forever, we should pull outa the UN and kick them outa New York. All the HQ is is a way for spys to enter the nation anyway. I say send the UN HQ to Paris. The French love the UN so much.... Let them run and fund the show.
      "Our citizenship in the United States is our national character. Our citizenship in any particular state is only our local distinction. By the latter we are known at home, by the former to the world. Our great title is AMERICANS…" -- Thomas Paine

      Comment


      • #4
        I think we should stay in the UN, as useless and embarrassing as the security aspects of it are, and form a new security organization based on democratic governments only, by invite only.

        -dale

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Veni Vidi Vici
          I'v said this forever, we should pull outa the UN and kick them outa New York. All the HQ is is a way for spys to enter the nation anyway. I say send the UN HQ to Paris. The French love the UN so much.... Let them run and fund the show.
          Nah, we'll have em, great source of foreign income for us... :)
          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

          Leibniz

          Comment


          • #6
            this just to hand..

            CAIRO, December 1 (IslamOnline.net) – In the first major overhaul of the world body, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is expected to give his backing of the use of pre-emptive military strikes against certain countries with the approval of the Security Council, a leading British newspaper reported Wednesday, December 1.

            A team of 16 high-level experts, formed by Annan a year ago, is to present a report on Thursday suggesting solutions for dealing with the challenges to global peace and security in the 21st century, The Independent said.

            The report said the international community should now be concerned about the “nightmare scenarios combining terrorists, weapons of mass destruction and irresponsible states and much more besides, which may conceivably justify the use of force, not just reactively, but preventively and before a latent threat becomes imminent”.

            The 93-page report further tackles major failures of the international body, namely the Rwandan genocide and the massacres during the Bosnian conflict, arguing that “there is urgent need to stop the killing and prevent any further return to war.”

            Russia said on September 8 it was willing to launch pre-emptive strikes on “terrorist bases” worldwide few days after the hostage-taking tragedy that ended in a bloodbath at a school in the southern city of Beslan.

            “Last Resort”

            The report, however, stresses that military action should be used as a “last resort.”

            It further suggests the creation of a peace-building commission that would improve the UN’s dismal record in rebuilding countries after wars.The UN panel was formed a year ago in the midst of the Iraqi crisis following the fierce polarization of positions in the run-up to the Iraq war, that pitted the US and UK against France and Russia, the British daily added.

            The United States has launched war on Iraq without a UN authorization under claims that the Arab country possessed weapons of mass destruction.

            At the time, observers hit out at the world body, accusing it of proving impotent, obsolete and a handy tool of the superpower to be used when convenient and discarded when unwieldy.

            Outgoing US Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted in October that Iraq had no “actual stockpiles” of WMDs.

            In April, Powell only acknowledged that the pre-war intelligence he gave the United Nations to justify the invasion-turned occupation was not "solid", heaping the blame on the intelligence community.

            Eighteen months into the occupation, Annan called the US-led onslaught “illegal” and contravenes the UN charter.

            The UN report includes 101 recommendations to overhaul the United Nations, including a proposal to enlarge the 15-member Security Council to 24 nations, with Japan and Germany expected to be first in line for a permanent seat, albeit without veto power, the paper said.

            The report further calls for strengthening measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear material by calling for a moratorium on the construction of any further enrichment or reprocessing facilities.

            The UN chief Secretary General is expected to hold consultations with influential governments over the next three months to see what ideas have traction so he can press for firm decisions at a special summit in September next year.
            In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

            Leibniz

            Comment


            • #7
              I've said this once and I will say it again. For the money the US puts in, it gets a hell alot more out of it. Where else are you going to find dirt cheap troops to do the crap jobs no one else wants to do but needs to be done? Hell, you even got world class troops at rock bottom prices. I've got $100US a month for my tours in UNPROFOR. For Canadian Forces members, that ain't exactly going to get me a new car. For Russian soldiers, that's the difference of having smokes and ONE drink at the end of the week or not.

              I've been also told that some Indian soldiers could buy a house at the end of their UN tours.

              Ray and Lemontree were former Indian Army. I was Canadian Forces. While it's impossible to judge what kind of soldiers we were from the internet, you judge what kind of people we are and are we worth that $100 a month.

              I have my beef against the UN in which I still think it is one of the worst clusterfucks on this planet ... but what's going to replace it? The US? Even if the US soley takes interest in those missions to which her strategic interests are at stake, you're out of troops even you begin to do a quarter of the deployments.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                I've said this once and I will say it again. For the money the US puts in, it gets a hell alot more out of it. Where else are you going to find dirt cheap troops to do the crap jobs no one else wants to do but needs to be done? Hell, you even got world class troops at rock bottom prices. I've got $100US a month for my tours in UNPROFOR. For Canadian Forces members, that ain't exactly going to get me a new car. For Russian soldiers, that's the difference of having smokes and ONE drink at the end of the week or not.

                I've been also told that some Indian soldiers could buy a house at the end of their UN tours.

                Ray and Lemontree were former Indian Army. I was Canadian Forces. While it's impossible to judge what kind of soldiers we were from the internet, you judge what kind of people we are and are we worth that $100 a month.

                I have my beef against the UN in which I still think it is one of the worst clusterfucks on this planet ... but what's going to replace it? The US? Even if the US soley takes interest in those missions to which her strategic interests are at stake, you're out of troops even you begin to do a quarter of the deployments.
                Ahmen and pass the scotch. I have nothing but respect for any soldier who has worn the blue beret. United we stand...
                In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                Leibniz

                Comment


                • #9
                  Well said, Colonel.

                  I have heard an English saying - 'Lookinh a gift horse in the teeth'.

                  But a better one is what my US Army student told me - In the US sir, it is not just looking at a gift horse's teeth. We check up if it is made of GOLD! :)

                  I told this to my brother who is a US citizen and he got wild!


                  "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                  I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                  HAKUNA MATATA

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                    I've said this once and I will say it again. For the money the US puts in, it gets a hell alot more out of it. Where else are you going to find dirt cheap troops to do the crap jobs no one else wants to do but needs to be done? Hell, you even got world class troops at rock bottom prices. I've got $100US a month for my tours in UNPROFOR. For Canadian Forces members, that ain't exactly going to get me a new car. For Russian soldiers, that's the difference of having smokes and ONE drink at the end of the week or not.

                    I've been also told that some Indian soldiers could buy a house at the end of their UN tours.

                    Ray and Lemontree were former Indian Army. I was Canadian Forces. While it's impossible to judge what kind of soldiers we were from the internet, you judge what kind of people we are and are we worth that $100 a month.

                    I have my beef against the UN in which I still think it is one of the worst clusterfucks on this planet ... but what's going to replace it? The US? Even if the US soley takes interest in those missions to which her strategic interests are at stake, you're out of troops even you begin to do a quarter of the deployments.
                    Doesn't the US provide around 80 percent of the troops in the UN? I beleive they do.
                    "Our citizenship in the United States is our national character. Our citizenship in any particular state is only our local distinction. By the latter we are known at home, by the former to the world. Our great title is AMERICANS…" -- Thomas Paine

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Veni Vidi Vici
                      Doesn't the US provide around 80 percent of the troops in the UN? I beleive they do.
                      No, historically speaking, the largest force contributors are India and Canada.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                        No, historically speaking, the largest force contributors are India and Canada.
                        I'm going to check up on this one. I don't want to preemptivly argue with you but I must say that I disagree. You may well be right though. I have been wrong before. :)
                        "Our citizenship in the United States is our national character. Our citizenship in any particular state is only our local distinction. By the latter we are known at home, by the former to the world. Our great title is AMERICANS…" -- Thomas Paine

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Veni Vidi Vici
                          I'm going to check up on this one. I don't want to preemptivly argue with you but I must say that I disagree. You may well be right though. I have been wrong before. :)
                          Save you a step

                          For the month of Oct, 2004, the US had 350 military and/or civilian police person under the UN banner, out of a force of 62,790.

                          Source: Ranking of Military and Civilian Police Contributions to UN Operations

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Thanks. I was just comming to say that I had found similar statistics. I read that the USA(and the UK has a similar policy) absolutly refuses to have troops directly commanded by a foreign power (which I most firmly agree with). The USA will not allow a non american to put our men/women in harms way(and for good reason). The USA does however participate in many of the UN endevors with troops but the only thing is that the US forces helping in the mission will only be commanded by American generals. I like it like this. I don't trust Kofi and his bunch of yahoos commanding our military. Thanks OoE fot the link.
                            "Our citizenship in the United States is our national character. Our citizenship in any particular state is only our local distinction. By the latter we are known at home, by the former to the world. Our great title is AMERICANS…" -- Thomas Paine

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                              Save you a step

                              For the month of Oct, 2004, the US had 350 military and/or civilian police person under the UN banner, out of a force of 62,790.

                              Source: Ranking of Military and Civilian Police Contributions to UN Operations
                              Would that be due to the fact that we now have 150,000 in Iraq?? Just guessing.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X