US Contribution to UN Budget-Worth It?

[ChinaBandit]

America currently contributes 22% of the general budget and 27% of the peacekeeping budget.

Many argue that this is chump change and worth it as the UN usually advances US interests.

Some say kick them the hell out of New York.

A) I'm not sure how much the chump change really is
B) I'm not sure how effectively the UN is at advancing US interests

What do you think?

I have no opinion at this point but as a taxpayer would like to know more.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

No.


It just makes us weak and tyranny strong.

 

[run_silent]

No. Most of the countries there don't like us and complain we don't give enough money or manpower to the UN causes. However, I think we should stay in because of the old saying "keep your friends close and your enemies closer". I would give them less money though.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

New York makes it easier to spy on them.

 

[Sean Renaud]

It's chump change. It's hardly worth looking further into.

 

[oggbashan]

As Churchill said: "Talking jaw-jaw is always better than war-war." (Speech in White House 26 June 1954)

It is also much cheaper.

The UN may have many failures because nations disagree, but it also has successes.

 

[coachdb18]

As Churchill said: "Talking jaw-jaw is always better than war-war." (Speech in White House 26 June 1954)

It is also much cheaper.

The UN may have many failures because nations disagree, but it also has successes.

What about the UN has ever been successful? We need to pull the plug...

 

[RobDownSouth]

What about the UN has ever been successful? We need to pull the plug...

The Kuwait war coalition for one, you ignorant son of a bitch.

 

[oggbashan]

What about the UN has ever been successful? We need to pull the plug...

Start: Korea and the 49th parallel. US and UK troops died fighting for the UN but stopped the Red tide.

Cyprus where the Blue line monitored by UN troops still holds warring sides apart.

Famine, earthquake, volcano, flood relief - without the UN agencies many more would die and/or remain homeless for more years.

 

[coachdb18]

Start: Korea and the 49th parallel. US and UK troops died fighting for the UN but stopped the Red tide.

Cyprus where the Blue line monitored by UN troops still holds warring sides apart.

Famine, earthquake, volcano, flood relief - without the UN agencies many more would die and/or remain homeless for more years.

The 'success' of the UN is simply US troops being used with a blue helmet, nothing more. The US continues to intervene in the internal struggles of most of the little countries all by itself. The US needs to back out of backwater wars, and the UN. UK troops? The UK has troops? Almost all the aid is coming from the US for disasters anyway.

 

[eyer]

Top 10 Donators to the UN budget, 2011

USA.............................22.000%
Japan...........................12.530%
Germany.........................8.018%
United Kingdom................6.604%
France...........................6.123%
Italy..............................4.999%
Canada..........................3.207%
[Communist] China...........3.189%
Spain.............................3.177%
Mexico...........................2.356%
Other member states.......27.797% (183 countries)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations

 

[run_silent]

Start: Korea and the 49th parallel. US and UK troops died fighting for the UN but stopped the Red tide.

Cyprus where the Blue line monitored by UN troops still holds warring sides apart.

Famine, earthquake, volcano, flood relief - without the UN agencies many more would die and/or remain homeless for more years.

I agree with the humanitarian efforts but your first two points are countries that are still at war. The UN didn't seem to help with the basic problem. Is it the UN's place to put troops into places with no end in sight?

 

[run_silent]

Here is a wacky non-PC suggestion. Let's let those countries fight their battles and deal with the winner. That way only the people killed are the ones involved in their own battles. Yes, I know that is an oversimplification but the where and when the UN gets involved seems pretty arbitrary.

OH WAIT! If the USA would give more money the UN could solve all the world's problems.

 

[coachdb18]

Here is a wacky non-PC suggestion. Let's let those countries fight their battles and deal with the winner. That way only the people killed are the ones involved in their own battles. Yes, I know that is an oversimplification but the where and when the UN gets involved seems pretty arbitrary.

OH WAIT! If the USA would give more money the UN could solve all the world's problems.

The UN only functions as an old style overseer, using US money and US troops to do third world fighting and throwing our money down a rathole. The only thing the current regime in DC gets is cover for its own leftist agenda. We don't need a leftist regime here, nor to send our troops and money to banana republic weenies at the UN.

Time to take back the UN building and turn it into condos. Let the UN find another place to run into the ground.

 

[richard_daily]

I love how wingnuts demonize the UN, but are perfectly ok with the bloated military budget of the US armed forces.

 

[kbate]

I love how wingnuts demonize the UN, but are perfectly ok with the bloated military budget of the US armed forces.

You mean they should somehow adore or hate two things that are not even remotely the same?

 

[richard_daily]

You mean they should somehow adore or hate two things that are not even remotely the same?

Wastes of money are similar things, especially in regards to "humanitarian peacekeeping missions", no?

 

[kbate]

Wastes of money are similar things, especially in regards to "humanitarian peacekeeping missions", no?

Now you expect them to hold dear your opinions about what are wastes of money?

 

[coachdb18]

Now you expect them to hold dear your opinions about what are wastes of money?

I'm sure with their Iranian and Syrian leadership of their human rights efforts, they won't miss us in the least (or our money)!

 

[TexasWife25]

No. Most of the countries there don't like us and complain we don't give enough money or manpower to the UN causes. However, I think we should stay in because of the old saying "keep your friends close and your enemies closer". I would give them less money though.

I agree.

The US basiclly carries the UN, we contribute the most in money and manpower. I'd rather the world fought their own battles and didn't come complaining to us anytime they have an issue, but I don't see that happenening. I'd like to see a push for other countires to contribute more, but leaving the UN isn't an option, and since our GDP is the highest in the world by leaps and bounds, it stands to reason we would shell out the most.

 

[run_silent]

I love how wingnuts demonize the UN, but are perfectly ok with the bloated military budget of the US armed forces.

When the name calling starts I know the poster has run out logical debate ideas.

 

[richard_daily]

Now you expect them to hold dear your opinions about what are wastes of money?

Can you give me a detailed cost analysis of what the military budget has provided the american people in the last 10 years? Or better yet, since Vietnam?

Then compare it to the UN budget.

I'll eagerly await your response.

 

[oggbashan]

The 'success' of the UN is simply US troops being used with a blue helmet, nothing more. The US continues to intervene in the internal struggles of most of the little countries all by itself. The US needs to back out of backwater wars, and the UN. UK troops? The UK has troops? Almost all the aid is coming from the US for disasters anyway.

The UK's troops have fought and died beside US troops in Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

The UK contributes more than most countries of its size to disaster funds, and despite its economic difficulties has maintained its Overseas Aid budget.

 

[run_silent]

Can you give me a detailed cost analysis of what the military budget has provided the american people in the last 10 years? Or better yet, since Vietnam?

Then compare it to the UN budget.

I'll eagerly await your response.

I'm not going to do a cost analysis for you but how about the US military spending more money than the USSR and bankrupting them and ending the cold war. Not a shot was fired to cause this.

 

[richard_daily]

I'm not going to do a cost analysis for you but how about the US military spending more money than the USSR and bankrupting them and ending the cold war. Not a shot was fired to cause this.

And look at the benefit to the average american!