Horse with no Name
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-19-06 09:50 AM
Original message |
A proposed new direction for the United Nations |
|
Since the US(via John Bolton and GWB) is dead set against bringing it down, why don't the rest of the participating nations just leave New York, exclude the US, and set up shop somewhere else? Why do they need the US? I know that part of it used to be money, but with GWB at the helm--he just wants to attach conditions to any money he gives (like teaching Africans abstinence in order to get funding for AIDS)and ends up never giving promised money anyway--what good are they?
|
Solo_in_MD
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-19-06 11:01 AM
Response to Original message |
1. The repukes would love that approach |
|
and it would require a level of solidarity unknown since the existence of the UN.
US provides the largest hunk of UN funding. When its been witheld, its hard times at Turtle Bay
|
mmonk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-19-06 11:04 AM
Response to Original message |
2. I would prefer it to stay here |
|
and somehow decide to remove the US veto power until it complies with the charter.
|
sweetheart
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-19-06 11:08 AM
Response to Original message |
3. It would save them a lot of money |
|
New York is very expensive to station a gazzillion diplomats and all that, and all that offical tourism dumps money on the US economy as free gift, why shouldn't that free gift go to a nation that better merits it, "Niger" comes to mind. I'm sure Niger would be an excellent place to have a new United Nations building for a while, and if the US government is to cheap to be generous with anything except bombs, fuck 'em.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 30th 2024, 11:34 PM
Response to Original message |