Who needs the UN?

Sear #19

The contrast between the elitist lifesytles of U.N. members with average Somali's would be enlightening.

The Hillpig is out which means all of our ambassadors are safe again.
 
sear said:
Our per capita proportion of the total budget might make sense, in an ideal world.

BUT !!

There are many nations that are so poor, if they had to pay their own freight @U.N. they wouldn't.

And that would eat into the utility of the U.S. having global approval for our numerous hegemonic exploits around the world.

We're not paying $MORE than our fair share for THEIR benefit. We're doing it for our own.

The alternative is to drop the fig leaf, and be openly acknowledged as the militaristic hegemone that we in fact are.

Do the math!

There are ~28 NATO member nations on Earth.
Not only does the U.S. spend more on military than any other NATO member nation.

The U.S. $spends more on $military than all the other NATO member nations COMBINED!!

The U.S. is not Earth's policeman.

The U.S. is the solar system's vigilante.

The U.N. is merely a fig leaf to provide the superficial appearance of legitimacy.

Who do you think we're kidding?
Click to expand...

and again thats my point. We USED TO be able to use it as a fig leaf. As morale justification for whatever the hell we wanted to do which is why i was fine with paying even 100%. Other countries have learned to use it as well so its value as a fig leaf is useless. It spends more time investigating israel and making it harder to defeat terrorists than it does doing anything useful.
 
G #25
fig leaf (fîg lêf) noun
Something that serves as a usually insufficient concealment or camouflage

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
Click to expand...
If you have an alternate definition you're welcome to post it.
 
"I do disagree with the assertion by the OP that that's how UN was being used." G #27
Click to expand...
In such a statistical spectrum it's a blunder to ascribe one single motive.

The U.S. uses the U.N. for more than one thing.
And each other U.N. member nation maintains its own membership AND participation for a reason as well.

To assert there is but one reason is preposterous.

AND !!

To assert " I do disagree with the assertion by the OP that that's how UN was being used "
is nearly as silly.

It's not an issue of whether or not. It's a question of: to what degree.
"Thanks for your help though professor."
Click to expand...
I've got "skills".
It's a privilege to share the fruits of those skills with those whose skill sets differ. We uplift and enlighten one another.
 
The U.N. is a failed example of a good idea gone awry. Politics, pettiness, lack of juevos. Needless people die. There should be a new charter drawn for this organization or just scrap it and start anew.
 
sear said:
In such a statistical spectrum it's a blunder to ascribe one single motive.

The U.S. uses the U.N. for more than one thing.
And each other U.N. member nation maintains its own membership AND participation for a reason as well.

To assert there is but one reason is preposterous.

AND !!

To assert " I do disagree with the assertion by the OP that that's how UN was being used "
is nearly as silly.

It's not an issue of whether or not. It's a question of: to what degree.

I've got "skills".
It's a privilege to share the fruits of those skills with those whose skill sets differ. We uplift and enlighten one another.
Click to expand...
Understanding sarcasm is not in your vast skill set.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top