SHOULD the USA get out of the UN?

[el_profe]

Since the USA is the major provider of money to the UN, that makes me think the UN is not an unbiased organization, obviously because they receive most of their money from the USA. The USA wants to conquer their world with their "semi very semi - capitalist" ideas.
Which is why i think the USA should get out of the UN and stop giving the that money whcih the UN only uses to spread US (the evil empire) ideals.

do you think the USA should get out of the UN and stop funding them and also bailing that miserable UN peace keeping force which gets run over in every country they go to (somalia and in kosovo)?

here is a link of the funding contributions to the UN by the more well known countries.
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/allied_con...ib2001/E-6.html

[Misodoctakleidist]

I think the UN should throw the US out, overthrow their tyranical government and hold real elections.

[el_profe]

Okay, I wil take that as a YES they should get out. the UN will never kick out the USA, they need the money.

[apathy maybe]

heh el_profe you dumb shit, do you know how much money the USA pays to the UNO? Basicily nothing!! They havn't paid the membership fees in years. So maybe the UNO should kick the USA out for not paying what it should. Even if the USA did pay the membership costs it is a percentage of GNP, i.e. what a country can afford. So Tuvalu pays shit all but the USA (should) pay a heck of a lot more.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 28 2003, 07:05 AM
heh el_profe you dumb shit, do you know how much money the USA pays to the UNO? Basicily nothing!! They havn't paid the membership fees in years. So maybe the UNO should kick the USA out for not paying what it should. Even if the USA did pay the membership costs it is a percentage of GNP, i.e. what a country can afford. So Tuvalu pays shit all but the USA (should) pay a heck of a lot more.
LOL. what a moron. OMG lol, too bad the link does not work, lol, get your stats right shitface. LOL.
Anyone knows this lol.
GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT, here are some links, asshole.

This is a quote from the 1st link:
"It is in our national interest to remain vigilant in pushing for UN reform. But it is also in our national interest to continue to lend our vigorous support to the work of the UN and other international organizations. Without U.S. financial and political support, these organizations would not be able to perform their functions. Furthermore, the U.S.'s status as the largest contributor to the UN allows us to ensure that UN actions are consistent with our national interest."

http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rm/2001/2853.htm
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/usandu...un/03092209.htm (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/usandun/03092209.htm)
http://www.toronto.ca.emb-japan.go.jp/poli...butions-un.html (http://www.toronto.ca.emb-japan.go.jp/political/foreign-relations/Statistics/contributions-un.html)
http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/assess...mt/dues2000.htm (http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/assessmt/dues2000.htm)

http://www.reliefweb.int/fts/
http://www.un.org/unrwa/finances/cont-dec02.html

p.s. dont call somoen a dumb shit, if you dont even know the facts.

[Guest1]

The organization's budget officials say the American debt constitutes more than half of its $2.3 billion in outstanding dues. Nearly half of the 185 members owe at least some money, but the United States, the largest contributor, owes the most by far. The next-largest debtors are Russia, which owes $266 million, and Ukraine, which owes $252 million.

their actual debt is 1.3 billion, which they still haven't paid, because they have been using it as a "veto-lite". a veto without the same reprecussions of using an actual veto.

they still pay up for things like reconstruction fo kosovo, cleaning up after a purely american fuck up in somalia (whichc you so nicely blamed on the UN), things liek that, but they definitely don't pay their dues, and haven't for years.

now shut the fuck up.

[Maynard]

Since the USA is the major provider of money to the UN, that makes me think the UN is not an unbiased organization, obviously because they receive most of their money from the USA. The USA wants to conquer their world with their "semi very semi - capitalist" ideas.
Which is why i think the USA should get out of the UN and stop giving the that money whcih the UN only uses to spread US (the evil empire) ideals.


I do not understand the argument being posed here, somehow I think it's a little "dig" at leftists. So, You believe they should leave because they pay the most and make it biased ? Well, then Japan would be contributing the most spreading there "evil" ideas, so they would have to leave according to your logic. No matter what, they will be receiving most of there money from somewhere.
I also don't understand the idea to link all negative externalities to governments rather than capitalism itself, most wars are fought for economic reasons to benefit capitalists along with governments. The US is a mixed economy, not "Pure" capitalism but the means of production are overwhelmingly in the hands of the private sector, so it is overwhelmingly capitalist and there moves should be linked to capitalism because a lot of them are done to benefit capitalists and the markets in which they operate.


do you think the USA should get out of the UN and stop funding them and also bailing that miserable UN peace keeping force which gets run over in every country they go to (somalia and in kosovo)?

I don't know how "Miserable" it is. I am no particular defender of the UN system but you are more likely to hear of it's failings, than it's successes. Wouldn't you agree ? Like East Timor for example. Somalia was mainly a US issue for this (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Project%20Censored/CensoredNews_1993.html) reason
If the UN were to exist , I don't mind the US being involved with it but all laws should apply to all countries no matter how powerful they are. The United States knows if they have control over large parts of the funding that they basically can do "whatever they want". So, I would hope one day the UN could take action against the US for it's actions as it has other countries but we know it won't happen.
The US will be involved with the UN to give the illusion that they are "working" with other nations, rather than controlling them. If the US were to quit the UN it would be disastrous politically for the United States and George Bush, that will not be risked as they already know the control they already have.

The funding is not out of US generosity as well, it's calculated through a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, so they are not putting themselves out more than any other nation at all.


LOL. what a moron. OMG lol, too bad the link does not work, lol, get your stats right shitface. LOL.
Anyone knows this lol.
I don't know if it's that funny, really but he is in fact correct about the debt that the US owes, it owes as Che y Marijuana pointed out more than any other nation and constantly pays there fees late.

"The United Nations is on the brink of financial ruin - largely because the United States has refused to pay over a billion dollars of due fees"- James Paul

"For more than twenty years, the United States has been regularly delinquent in the payment of its annual assessed contributions to the United Nations and its agencies. U.S. contributions are often ten or more months late owing to the government's practice of seeking congressional appropriation of the funds after the date on which they are actually due; the result is payment of U.S. assessments in the final months of the organizations' budget year. Under legislation enacted into law in September 2002, Congress called on the administration to "initiate a process to synchronize the payments of its assessment to the U.N., its affiliated agencies and other international organizations over a multi-year period so the U.S. can resume paying its dues at the beginning of each calendar year." The State Department has not yet submitted the outlines of such a plan to Capitol Hill, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently reminded the Department of its desire to see such a plan implemented.

So, the US could lose all voting privileges if the UN applied there laws but they will not do it, nor would I add would the US like it to happen

[truthaddict11]

sorry but the United States can never leave the UN because it was a founding member, why the hell do you care about a do nothing organization anyways? when has the UN done anything good? besides i think sanctions on South Africa almost nothing? has it placed sanctions on Israel for the occupation of Palestine and the aparthied there? did it try to stop the US from invading Iraq? The "United Nations" is nothing but another lackey for US imperialism.

[Guest1]

maybe so, but it would be a very grave mistake to condemn it.

the UN is to international capitalism as congresses are to national capitalism...

they are a forum of discourse amongst the bourgeoisie. while we bind together and rise together in organizing and revolting, they fight each other to the ground in elections and sanctions.

without it, we would see a complete laissez-faire system, with no nation seeking to limit another's capitalism in order to support its own, and no congress putting velvet ropes on the capitalists at home in order to win elections.

like or not, despite all of its failures, the world would be much worse without it. besides, every day developing nations grow more tired of corporate capitalism and sporadically explode in fits of rage and diplomatic attacks against the US. like kicking them off the human rights commission. now that was a shot to the groin.

[airavata]

The UN is a weak organisation that panders to the will of a few. Five members can go against the wishes of the other 180 + members. That's completely unfair.

[cubist]

i think bush and blair should be held with out charge in cuba for war crimes but hey that ain't gona happen,


El_profe sort yer life out

hmm undermining UN ruling by ignoring the Veto rights of france and russia i do believe that would be gross mis-conduct under most contractual laws so yes kick em out,

[The Feral Underclass]

I dont think it is relevant whether or not the US are in the UN or not. It makes no difference. The agenda would remain the same whether the US was there or not. The UN is an organization where all the capitalist nations join together and discuss resolutions which have no baring on the world. Except in the security council which is dominated by the most powerful nations in the world argue with each other in order to perpetrate their control over the world.

By claiming that the US should leave the UN is implying that the other countries are more morally just than the US. It isnt true. They are all as bad as each other. Who cares whether the capitalists get angry with other capitalists.

The US actually owes the UN money. They signed an agreement which by law obliged them to dedicate 1% of their GDP to developing countries. They give a tenth of that. Out of 10 countries who signed the agreement, the US comes last. Denmark gives the most with 1.1% Although the US was a founding member of the UN they have nothing but contempt for it. When it is necessary for them to be involved they use the UN and champion its cause. When they dont need it they hold it to ransom or ignore it all together.

[Bolshevika]

I really hope the UN liberates us from the tyranny of George W. Bush.

[BOZG]

The UN is merely an organisation for global capitalism and will more than likely follow the exact same course it has, regardless of US membership or not.

[Bradyman]

I think the idea of the UN is a great idea, but right now it's too weak and only a handful of countries have all the power in the UN.

I don't know if the US leaving the UN will do too much. The US does all its foreign actions regardless of whether the UN says it's alright or not. I agree with you el profe that it's terrible that the UN is biased because of money contributions. It's like every other "democratic" government in the world. All corupt by the politicians and money.

[Yazman]

The USA has ignored the UN on multiple occasions. So I think that the UN should kick the US out.

[suffianr]

do you think the USA should get out of the UN and stop funding them and also bailing that miserable UN peace keeping force which gets run over in every country they go to (somalia and in kosovo)?

The US doesn't 'bail out' the UN...rather, they exploit it's presence and undermine it's authority in conflict zones.

[Hoppe]

Let's be realistic here guys. The US can't leave the UN (or be kicked out) simply because no other nation has the same military capacity. If the US would change its foreign policy there won't be any other country (not even a combination of) that can intervene in any large conflict. In Europe countries are talking about a european military force that consist of 60.000 men, which is still peanuts.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 10:05 AM

do you think the USA should get out of the UN and stop funding them and also bailing that miserable UN peace keeping force which gets run over in every country they go to (somalia and in kosovo)?

The US doesn't 'bail out' the UN...rather, they exploit it's presence and undermine it's authority in conflict zones.
They dont bail out the UN peace keeping force?

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 28 2003, 09:54 AM


their actual debt is 1.3 billion, which they still haven't paid, because they have been using it as a "veto-lite". a veto without the same reprecussions of using an actual veto.

they still pay up for things like reconstruction fo kosovo, cleaning up after a purely american fuck up in somalia (whichc you so nicely blamed on the UN), things liek that, but they definitely don't pay their dues, and haven't for years.

now shut the fuck up.
Somalia? they UN was sent their to watch that the humanitarian aid would get to the people, the wrlords didnt give a shit about the UN and the USA had to step in.
You also need to get your facts right.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 11:20 AM
Let's be realistic here guys. The US can't leave the UN (or be kicked out) simply because no other nation has the same military capacity. If the US would change its foreign policy there won't be any other country (not even a combination of) that can intervene in any large conflict. In Europe countries are talking about a european military force that consist of 60.000 men, which is still peanuts.
Are you saying that the entire world couldn't take on the US?

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+Dec 29 2003, 03:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Misodoctakleidist @ Dec 29 2003, 03:39 PM)
[email protected] 29 2003, 11:20 AM
Let&#39;s be realistic here guys. The US can&#39;t leave the UN (or be kicked out) simply because no other nation has the same military capacity. If the US would change its foreign policy there won&#39;t be any other country (not even a combination of) that can intervene in any large conflict. In Europe countries are talking about a european military force that consist of 60.000 men, which is still peanuts.
Are you saying that the entire world couldn&#39;t take on the US? [/b]
hmmm. that would be intersting, the USA has the most aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined, i think.
So it would be hard to beat them. Plus they have the stealth bomber, but the size of the USA forces isnt that big so who knows.

[cubist]

El_profe,

the US jas an ultimately powerfull defence system but a united world would flatten it,

sthe stealth bomber can&#39;t be everywhere at once, wheres as the rest of the world only has to shoot at america, its a matter of target practice, 1 country has 100 targets 100 countries have 1 taget

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 05:51 PM
El_profe,

the US jas an ultimately powerfull defence system but a united world would flatten it,

sthe stealth bomber can&#39;t be everywhere at once, wheres as the rest of the world only has to shoot at america, its a matter of target practice, 1 country has 100 targets 100 countries have 1 taget
Yes. They would probably loose. The thing is no one in the continent of America can challenge them so the other countries would have to travel alot just to be close to the USA.
And after Europe only russia , china, Israel and maybe japan can really fight them. Oh and also north korea can help the rest of the world does not have the Air force necessary. It would be cool to see a sim of the USA against everyone on computer.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 03:39 PM
Are you saying that the entire world couldn&#39;t take on the US?
Nope, I don&#39;t think so. But I didn&#39;t mean that, the rest of the world is much to divided to take the same role as the US. Any time there is a need for military intervention all countries have to ask the US for assistance.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 03:39 PM
Are you saying that the entire world couldn&#39;t take on the US?
There was a list compiled within the last few years regarding America&#39;s military spending. America spent almost twice as much as the next five countries on the list combined.

I believe that this was either in &#39;99 or &#39;00, so it&#39;s probably even more now due to the occupation costs.