In my internet searches, there seemed to be a clear distinction between UN "dues" and UN "funding". I do agree the US has played a cat and mouse game with their dues, but there seems to be more to it than that.
I suppose I should clarify, that I wasn't just talking about money though. Also, I did point out that even after the cost of running the UN, the US generally just deploys, and has to foot the bill for its own participation.
Quote:
|
Ummm... are you trying to say that because we are big and bad that other nations should shut up about what we do to other nations? Or maybe that the cost of such conflicts justifies the fact that the conflicts provide some cost-benefit back to the US?
|
Absolutely not. All I was saying, was that with the amount of money that the US pours into helping keep some semblance of world order (not just through military means, really!), that in general terms, if each action were in fact justified, but America could only address 50% of all problems, that it's somewhat justifiable that they focus on the problems that will garner monetary rewards, that will help offset the cost of operations - it only stands to reason our military can achieve more if that's the way things are approached.
Again, I agree that at times the US and the rest of the world have not seen eye-to-eye on what is actually a problem, and where military force is justified at all. I was positing more on how we could handle ourselves in the future, considering the mistakes of the past to apply the same economic principles (go figure), but without the ethical standard that we should be adhering to.
My point was Not that we can do whatever we want, just that if more nations contributed more (and if their economy is weaker, they can contribute more materials and manpower - not saying grunts on the front line to die, but support personnel, truck drivers, mechanics - I don't care as long as they show up for the party), eventually we could get the system worked out to where UN actions could effectively occur at all real trouble spots in the world.
Granted, I agree in some aspect with the attitude that I often hear - that the UN is broken and/or dysfunctional. First, the UN spends far too much time legislating. Our own government is already too large, and pushing too many rules on too many people - the last thing we need is some body making more and more laws to affect 6 billion people. Simple things, sure, like not dumping toxic waste into international waters, and not torturing people. But the list of things that should really be set as "law" are kind of short. If the UN refocused, and made sure that it didn't do anything unless it was the right thing, -and- made sure that when it decided that the right thing was to end a terribly wrong thing, it did so very decisively - I think worldwide support would expand rapidly.
I have a new slogan for the UN - "Stop killing eachother before we kill you!". Okay, that's a little tongue in cheek, and a little dark, but seriously, we (the world "we", not the US "we") allow some really disgusting people to stay in power, and to do horrendous things to millions of people, every day. I'm not saying that killing solves anything, but they should be deposed, forcefully if necessary. I used to believe that a populace should handle that themselves, but try telling that to North Koreans, who are almost entirely sheltered from outside influences, so they can be fed a diet of raw unpasteurized fascism juice.
Honestly, I think if the UN had the balls and the spine to take care of business, they would have approached GW Bush several years ago, thusly - "Evacuate your unlawful occupational troops from Iraq, or we will be forced to remove you.". Of course in such a case, it only stands to reason that things would not come to a forceful conclusion - for economic reasons if nothing else.
But if 95% of the world had stood up and told us that it cannot continue, I think a lot of us would have breathed a sigh of relief.