jump to last post 1-35 of 35 discussions (231 posts)

Why exactly does the US fund the UN?

  1. profile image0
    A Texanposted 8 years ago

    Its members are made up of thugs and dictators who hate America so why do we give the UN 5 Billion a year?

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image80
      Eaglekiwiposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Thats not true and you should not give anyone that amount , not before, first of all closing down all the blood sucking banks in America!! they are the real arrogant theives , are they even American owned ,probably not!

    2. profile image0
      ryankettposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Why dont you go and learn how UN membership works? The permanent members are the Nuclear Nations. Who are the thugs and dictators in the eyes of the rest of the world? The nuclear nations of course, of which the USA is one.

      The UN Security Counsel also sent a bloody large force to Afganistan for 3 years. Do you think they had change from $5bn? It probably cost $5bn a fortnight.

      1. profile image0
        A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Why do I care how other Countries perceive the US? Jealousy does not concern me.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
          Uninvited Writerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Then I'm sure a lot of those countries don't care how the US perceives them either.

          1. profile image0
            A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Thats good!

        2. Eaglekiwi profile image80
          Eaglekiwiposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Texan what exactly would they be jealous of?

          1. profile image0
            A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Who knows jealousy is not a preoccupation of mine. But what I find most interesting is the people who want to come to America, I never hear of anyone wanting to leave.

            1. BristolBoy profile image78
              BristolBoyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              You have never been to many areas of London then!

              1. profile image0
                A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                ???

                1. BristolBoy profile image78
                  BristolBoyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  I have met many people in London (and other areas of the UK) who claimed to be American, but on second thoughts they must not have been since they would never leave the great country of their birth.

                  1. profile image0
                    A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Who knows why they are there,business,travel,people who prefer Britain. I have never met anyone who said they so hated this Country they would leave, Barbara Streisand and Alec Baldwin threatened it but sadly never left. If you or others don't like the US then don't come, believe it or not we don't care! Misha have you left yet?

            2. Misha profile image77
              Mishaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              I want to leave. smile

              1. profile image0
                A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                BYE!

                1. Misha profile image77
                  Mishaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Having a bad day Tex? NP, ttyl. smile

                  1. profile image0
                    A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Nope, not having a bad day. What is NP?

              2. Harvey Stelman profile image61
                Harvey Stelmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                That's what is great about America, leave! You won't.

            3. Sue Adams profile image96
              Sue Adamsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              I have heard of people leaving the States, I have many Expat American friends who have left their country for Europe because they were sick of the ignorance, arrogance, lack of culture and the emphasis on money over there.

              1. profile image0
                A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Then leave! If you can't make it here then I suggest you go to a Nation of your choice. I don't think you will be missed by a majority of freedom loving people. The good thing about this country is you can just get up and go, seeya!

                1. LondonGirl profile image86
                  LondonGirlposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  DOn't let the door bang your arse on your way out.

                  1. profile image0
                    A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Am I going somewhere?

                  2. profile image0
                    sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Well I haven't seen you say anything constructive that contributes to the discussion maybe you and Miss Canada can come up with something to warrent your attitudes. I mean other then selfrighteous remarks but please don't pull a brain muscle.

                2. Sue Adams profile image96
                  Sue Adamsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  I don´t actually live in the US, never have and never will but I know it well because my brother lives in California and my sister in Boston. Have you ever been outside America Texas boy?
                  To get back to your original question, I think that the UN is a good thing and all its members should fund it in proportion to their wealth.

        3. Harvey Stelman profile image61
          Harvey Stelmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Tex, They are all jealous of the US, why shouldn't they be?

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
            Uninvited Writerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            That is such a simplistic statement... I don't know anyone who is "jealous" of the US

      2. Harvey Stelman profile image61
        Harvey Stelmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Why don't you do some research. When the Security Council was established, only one country was nuclear. You dare to belittle someone when you have know idea of what you speak.

    3. Misha profile image77
      Mishaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      as if Hubpages is a decision maker. IDK. lol

    4. sannyasinman profile image60
      sannyasinmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      To control it, which the USA undoubtedly does. You pay 40% of the budget and you get 40% of the posts (quota system), including most of the key posts.

      1. profile image0
        A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        That is how it should be!

        1. sannyasinman profile image60
          sannyasinmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          So you have yout answer and all is well!

          1. profile image0
            A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Not really. I do not want my Country involved in this fiasco any longer, so if its ok with you I'll keep complaining!

            1. sannyasinman profile image60
              sannyasinmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Ok, that is your privilege. But I don't think that you would really want the USA to contribute less money, and therefore have less influence would you?. This is not the American way, and . . . watch out . . or China might fill the gap, and we may all have to learn Chinese.

              1. profile image0
                A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                We are a wholly owned subsidiary of China now!

                1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
                  Uninvited Writerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  That explains why Sarah Palin was in Hong Kong giving a speech...

                  1. profile image0
                    A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Must be,plus she got a butt load of money,did you expect her to write hubs?

                  2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                    Ron Montgomeryposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    She was hunting pandas.

                2. sannyasinman profile image60
                  sannyasinmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  I thought that Saudi Arabia was the parent company of USA inc?

                  1. profile image0
                    A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Not anymore!

              2. Harvey Stelman profile image61
                Harvey Stelmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                You keep saying influence, do you mean when they need our money? The 22 Muslim countries in the UN vote against us about 70% of the time. It must be our influence. Check this to see our influence http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0704/p … stats.php3

                1. Make  Money profile image82
                  Make Moneyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Harvey when you say "us" are you talking about the US or Israel? 22 Muslim countries out of 192 UN member States is not many.  Those are quite the impressive statistics about the UN resolutions, although I'm sure the numbers are low by now.  They are not as high as they are for no reason.

            2. LondonGirl profile image86
              LondonGirlposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Why stop something you are so good at?

              1. profile image0
                A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                I won't!

          2. Harvey Stelman profile image61
            Harvey Stelmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            What is yout?

            1. sannyasinman profile image60
              sannyasinmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              The opposite of mite

      2. Harvey Stelman profile image61
        Harvey Stelmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Sure we control everything, that's why they vote against us.

        1. sannyasinman profile image60
          sannyasinmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          The posts in the UN are alloacted in direct proportion to the amount of money contributed. The USA pays more than anyone else, and so it has most of the posts inside the UN (did you think it was a charitable donation?). The top people can only be appointed with US approval (or direct nomination).  To me this amounts to control, although even the US super-rich, superpower cannot have its own way 100% of the time.
          Is this reply to yout liking? Neverthlesess, this is mite opinion.(:-)

    5. LiamBean profile image89
      LiamBeanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The U.S. is a charter member. We helped form the U.N. and Dwight David Eisenhower was a prime mover in that decision. As many here may recall Eisenhower was a Republican.

      1. profile image0
        sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Circumstances change and to simply say what happened 60yrs ago applies today is nothing short of ignorant.

        1. LiamBean profile image89
          LiamBeanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          So I guess that bringing up the formation of this nation two hundred thirty years ago is equally stupid to you. Because, I've got a red hot news flash for you. Circumstance in this country have changed, radically, in that amount of time.

          So if Eisenhower had not pushed for charter membership we'd be talking about this now right?

          And you call me stupid!

          1. profile image0
            A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            233 years ago

          2. profile image0
            sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            No I called you ignorant but with alittle logic and some serious reading you may be able to overcome your lack of knowledge. See, I have hope for you!

            1. LiamBean profile image89
              LiamBeanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Dude. We are charter members. If Eisenhower had not pushed for membership, and congress was pretty evenly divided on that, we wouldn't be there and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

              Maybe YOU should do some serious reading, because frankly you are coming across as a real moron.

              1. profile image0
                sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Ok, I tried, you have to admit, I tried. We need to get the hell out of the UN and I don't give a rats ass what happened 60yrs ago! We are hated around the world and why should we care let them starve, fight and whatever makes them happy! That was then this is now, so you can't see where circumstances change and a change in course could be called for? So let me see, if you run into a wall you would keep running into it hoping that stupid wall would open up and let you through. When if you looked to your right you would see a doorway, it's sad.

                1. LiamBean profile image89
                  LiamBeanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Tried what? We are charter members. You don't think that gives us some sort of advantage? Whether you like it or not we sell to the world and the world sells to us. And because of our charter membership we have the distinct ability to veto what we don't like.

                  And without our charter membership in the UN what we have to say to the world is diminished.

                  There is one thing you don't quite understand.

                  Many may hate America, but oddly those very same people love Americans. Our government scares people, but our people are respected and cherished around the world. See the difference?

                  We are generous, the first to donate when there's trouble, and the first to volunteer help when help is needed, whether that help be personnel, hardware, or cash.

                  1. profile image0
                    sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Your points are well made and well taken. I know we trade and I know some of our good friends put tarrifs on our goods to protect their own industries and are given favored trade status with us. We are too generous and sometimes we have to put our interests first. We want health care reform and all Americans are entitled to be free of fear of illness but, we can't have it all we can't afford to support the world and do whats good for Americans. The bubble will burst then it will all be for naught because we'll be in survival mode.

    6. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
      Vladimir Uhriposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      After WWII UN was founded bu US and Soviet communists. All secretaries were socialists but all under-secreataries were Soviets. All Russian names.
      They decided we would not have a wars but will negotiate. Since their existence were more wars than in history before.

  2. profile image0
    ryankettposted 8 years ago

    Why does the US give $5bn to the UN?

    To become one of only 5 veto-wielding permanent members, alongside China, Russia, UK and France?

    It would be a poor strategic decision for the USA to pull out, as the 5 members are effectively the 'Nuclear Nations'.

    $5bn is cheap when considering the inevitable underlying strategic and political interests that it protects.

    Can I put this forward as a candidate for stupid question of the day, or do you want to try and beat it? I wouldn't bother, nobody else is going to beat you.

    1. lostgirlscat profile image62
      lostgirlscatposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      You're quite correct in your assessment of why the U.S. cannot just summarily pull out of the U.N., but a little sympathy at
      peoples outrage at their total incompetence and ineffectiveness is not out of order.

      1. profile image0
        A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        The majority of people wanting the US to stay a member of the UN are not US citizens, maybe your stance in the world would change? Its not a stupid question to ask why we continue to be the only Country that deems it necessary to fund this group of thugs at the highest percentage!

  3. Sasha S profile image72
    Sasha Sposted 8 years ago

    America contributes something like 22% of the UN's annual budget.

    America recieves somewhere in the region of 25% of the UN's contracts.

    It's not some charitable donation.

    1. Harvey Stelman profile image61
      Harvey Stelmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The U.S. does not contribute all that is stated. When medicine is donated by the U.S. it is not our country donating it. Pharma companies (which most of our people say are heartless, donate the medicine to the U.S.)donate the meds, and the U.S. gets all the credit. Think, does the government produce commodities that it donates. Yes, hate the Big Companies, they save millions of lives.

  4. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 8 years ago

    Did the US pay all that they owed to the UN yet?

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The question should be Why do they think we owe them anything? We are the only Country that provides them funding at the highest %!

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
        Uninvited Writerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        I guess you missed this:

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          It does not interest me! The US should get out now! We do not need to be a party to the constant whining and antisemitism flowing from the member nations! Was the 65 Million repaid to the US for the construction of the UN building? That 22% is the ceiling that any Nation is required to give and ONLY the US gives it!

          1. Misha profile image77
            Mishaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            LOL Sounds like a sandbox in kindergarten. Gimme my blocks back. NOOOOOOOOW! lol

    2. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Are we counting everything the US pays or the dues they say we owe. The US takes more taxpayer money for foriegn aid than any country has ever or ever will contribute. Don't ever question who we are you need to examine your countries policy for taking in suspected terrorists then setting them loose pending an imigration hearing. We need the wall along the northern border as well as the southern. Shame on you!!!!

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
        Uninvited Writerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        The operative word being suspected...

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          That is all you took from his post?

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
            Uninvited Writerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I'm sorry, in Canada we believe that people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...

            1. profile image0
              A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Really? wow a novel approach. Is the US holding "suspected" terrorists in this country without benefit of a trial?

            2. profile image0
              sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Is that before or after they blow something up? I hope you have the privlage of explaining why you felt a terrorists rights were more important than someones Mom or Dad. I suppose you release child molesters and murderers as well that would be perfectly progressive. Let them get in a few more victems before they make it to trial. Thats why America needs to close it's borders.

            3. LiamBean profile image89
              LiamBeanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              That excludes Glenn Beck right?

        2. profile image0
          sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          You and that witches brew of liberal looney tunes need to come correct on this issue. If one of these bonehead moves leads to an attack on the US it will create real problems in any civil relations. Why would you even take that chance?

    3. Make  Money profile image82
      Make Moneyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      "In June 2009, the President requested that Congress pay the full amount the U.S. will owe the UN in his Fiscal Year 2010 budget request.

      U.S. Debt to the United Nations

      United States debt to the United Nations, in both the regular and peacekeeping budgets, exceeded $1.5 billion at the start of 2009. By far, the largest amount of debt is for peacekeeping, which is more than $1.3 billion. These arrears make the United States the largest debtor to the United Nations and threaten its ability to leverage the international community toward achieving key U.S. national security priorities."

      Source

      1. Flightkeeper profile image74
        Flightkeeperposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        We shouldn't give any money until the UN's books are audited.  That place is very corrupt.

    4. Harvey Stelman profile image61
      Harvey Stelmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Have all the foreign countries paid their parking tickets and other monies they owe NYC? How much do you think we should give? Please include land, parking and anything else you can think of.

  5. BristolBoy profile image78
    BristolBoyposted 8 years ago

    America's light is fading relative to many other countries (China, India, Brazil etc) as it is and leaving the UN will just hasten this (for a start it is harder to export or import any item from/into the UK from/to a country that is not part of the UN).

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I'm pretty sure we would be ok

  6. profile image0
    A Texanposted 8 years ago

    I see you have edited your post so do ya or don't ya?

  7. R P Chapman profile image60
    R P Chapmanposted 8 years ago

    I feel a sudden urge to play the banjo! tongue

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
      Uninvited Writerposted 8 years agoin reply to this
    2. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      And your point is?

    3. profile image0
      Leta Sposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      lol

      I find some brilliant political commentary coming from our fellow countrymen here. I really really do.

  8. LiamBean profile image89
    LiamBeanposted 8 years ago

    Hmmm.

    The nation was formed in 1779. The revolution was declared in 1776. Common mistake.

    1. LiamBean profile image89
      LiamBeanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Sheeze. I'm replying to myself.

      The constitution was adopted by all states on September 17, 1787. That means the nation is two hundred twenty two years old.

      We both got it wrong.

      1. profile image0
        A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Well we celebrated the bicentennial in 1976 so we are going by the date of Declaration of Independence, seems logical to me.

        1. LiamBean profile image89
          LiamBeanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          We weren't a country until we won the war* and got all the states to ratify the constitution. Certainly the declaration of independence was important, but one followed the other.

          And sure I celebrate that day too.

          * With a little help from 'cheese eating surrender monkeys.'

          1. profile image0
            A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I'm the sure the King of England did not think we were a sovereign nation on July 4th 1776, but our founding Fathers did! The United States celebrates its birth-date on July 4th every year, so who are we to second guess those great men? I know you have a point but I will not cede my position, its the Rebel in me!

            1. LiamBean profile image89
              LiamBeanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              You spoke to the founding fathers? Wow! Got that time machine running do you?

              So their going to all that work to craft a constitution was what; for fun? Man I really have sooooo much to learn. hmm

              Don't cede it. You are wrong, but flail away anyhow. It's fun to watch.

              smile

              1. profile image0
                A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Whatever you say, sure don't remember a bicentennial in 1987! But all the documents must cement your position, huh?

  9. Flightkeeper profile image74
    Flightkeeperposted 8 years ago

    The UN was a grand experiment but sadly it is a failure.  I agree, the US should not be part of it.  The UN can keep going without the US and our money since it's devaluating so much.  It can easily relocate to Brussels.

    1. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Do you really hate the Belgums that much?

      1. Flightkeeper profile image74
        Flightkeeperposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        LOL! I just thought that the EU and the UN kind of belong together because they both seem so contrived to me.

        1. profile image0
          sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Ah! Looks and brains thats a dangerous combination! I couldn't agree more!

  10. mintinfo profile image78
    mintinfoposted 8 years ago

    Differing opinions lead to conflict as is obvious here. Now since man has the ability to rationalize we somewhere along the line of our existence have decided to live civil to insure mankind's survival. We formed a unity of nations of which the self appointed "morally just" host and regulate. Therefore it is only fitting that those nations that are the wealthiest and stand to gain the most from this unity contribute the most to its stability.

    1. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Well I don't see why we can't unappoint ourselves and wish them the best. We are the one country that doesn't need the worlds blessing and we wouldn't get it anyway!

    2. Flightkeeper profile image74
      Flightkeeperposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Host and regulate what? Basically the UN has become a place that somewhat gives thugs and dictators a cover of respectability by letting them be members.  The other things is that the US is already so unpopular that these thugs and dictators can capitalize on it by declaring their demands and when denied they can cry victim to US imperialism.

      1. LiamBean profile image89
        LiamBeanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        The UN is a model of the U.S. Don't you get that?

        Sure thugs and miscreants get to speak there. The same thing happens here. Everyone gets a say...whether everyone likes it or not.

        We have people on the air here all the time who are diametrically opposed to one another. Yet, they all get to speak. Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck, Rachael Maddow...they all get to talk...like it or not.

        This is what we are all about. We get to discuss and disagree and it's great!

        How many nations have become democracies since the U.N. was formed?

        1. Flightkeeper profile image74
          Flightkeeperposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          You're going to have to explain that more.  The UN is not a model of the US.  It is not at all structured in a similar way.  And what do you mean thugs and miscreants speak here?  Are you talking about our legislative body? I hope not. There are some that have misused their position in order to get rich but as far as I know they haven't behaved like dictators and mass murderers.

          Also, I don't see the parallel between the talking heads and people like Amawhatshisface.  The talking heads are not "elected" leaders.

          1. LiamBean profile image89
            LiamBeanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Read back and follow the thread from the beginning.

            So what pray tell IS the U.N. modeled after. Soviet Russia? A British Monarchy? It's parliamentary, which is what the U.S. is modeled after.

            Didn't they teach history where you went to school?

            1. Flightkeeper profile image74
              Flightkeeperposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              There's no need to be snarky just because I disagree with you. The UN was not modeled to function like a country the way the US does or Soviet Russia was.  It was created on the hope that it would prevent future world wars by creating a forum where representatives from each country can try to settle their differences through diplomacy rather than through war.  It really functions as a club, unfortunately the membership requirements are very substandard.

              1. LiamBean profile image89
                LiamBeanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                I'm being snarky because you don't know what you are talking about. Read some history.

                By the way; has there been another world war since the U.N. was created? If there has I'd be surprised as I didn't hear about it.

                But that's not an indication to you that it's WORKING?

                You said: "It was created on the hope that it would prevent future world wars by creating a forum where representative from other countries can try to settle their differences through diplomacy rather than through war."

                How much different is that (other than the lack of war) than what Republicans and Democrats do in the senate every day? Are they not trying to settle differences?

                I don't think it's a club, but do agree that the membership requirements suck. But do you really think we'd have fewer wars if those people weren't let in? I don't.

                1. Flightkeeper profile image74
                  Flightkeeperposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  I think you're snarky because you're so full of yourself.  And the creation of the UN hasn't prevented wars from happening so no the UN is not working. Hellooooo! Vietnam War, Iran-Iraq War, China annexing Tibet, Soviet Union attacking Afghanistan, Iraq invading Kuwait which started the Gulf War, then Gulf War Part 2, the US invading Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.

                  1. LiamBean profile image89
                    LiamBeanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Whatever. Feel better? smile

                    Nice dodge. I said WORLD WAR!!! Not any war.

                    This is why I'm snarky. Reading for comprehension problems or do you just need to grow a brain?

          2. profile image0
            sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            You miss the point, they give despots, tyrants and dictators a stage. Which in their circle of friends gives them credibility and hero status to come to America and stand up to the Americans. We don't need this.

            1. LiamBean profile image89
              LiamBeanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              If the despots, tyrants, and dictators are running a country of course they do.  As to credibility I don't know. When one is afraid of getting shot between the eyes for disagreeing with a leader one does not hear a lot of disagreement.

              Maybe if the building wasn't in NY? An island somewhere set up just for the U.N.

  11. sannyasinman profile image60
    sannyasinmanposted 8 years ago

    If the USA were to leave the UN, the greatest club on earth, (which it will never do anyway), it would lose its status as a Superpower even more rapidly than it is already doing.
    Imagine the USD no longer as the worlds reserve currency and imagine China, Brasil and India as the new super-rich world superpowers. This is already happening.

    1. LiamBean profile image89
      LiamBeanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      China is becoming the midget with the big right arm. And WE owe THEM money. Lots of it.

      1. sannyasinman profile image60
        sannyasinmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        There are already moves afoot to drop the USD and install the YUAN as the worlds reserve currency, although the EURO makes more sense, and is a bit more familiar.

    2. Flightkeeper profile image74
      Flightkeeperposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Why should the US cling to the position of superpower since it is as you say declining?  Why shouldn't the new up and coming currencies take our place and have their money as the reserve currency.  You talk like that's a bad thing.  I would think most people would prefer it now that the US is not as imperialistic as before.

      1. sannyasinman profile image60
        sannyasinmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        It's all about power and world influence. Nobody in power ever relishes a diminishing of power, and rarely lets go of it without a fight. Why do you say that the US is less imperialistic. I don't see any evidence of this.

        1. Flightkeeper profile image74
          Flightkeeperposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Well that's an assumption on your part that no one let's go without a fight.  I'm hoping that we do fade away and let the Chinese, Indians, and the Brazilians get a crack at it.  I refer to being less imperialistic once those countries are on the rise.

          1. sannyasinman profile image60
            sannyasinmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Well good for you! How refreshing to hear an American say that it's time to let someone else have a go at dominating the world. I agree with you in fact. Especially if Brasil were to become the dominant player. . .

            1. profile image0
              sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              But no do-overs. When Iran gets nukes and threatens Europe remember their on their own. Let Brazil handle it.

              1. Flightkeeper profile image74
                Flightkeeperposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Not having to handle it is a huge plus.

            2. Flightkeeper profile image74
              Flightkeeperposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              I think most Americans would agree. As a group we're not really well suited for the global thing.  I actually think we were better off as a country before we got engage in the World Wars.

        2. profile image0
          sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          We could take any country we want including China and Russia. What country has America taken(in modern times) and what country do we covent?

          1. sannyasinman profile image60
            sannyasinmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            We are not talking about children fighting in a playground here. 
            Let's invert the question. In what country does the US not have a military base? On what country in the world does the US not collect intelligence? On what country in the world does the US not spy with its satellites?

            1. profile image0
              sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              And we pay to use them and we have to pay civilians to work on them. They don't just let us use them, we pay England and Germany both for the bases we maintain. I believe our technology is on the verge of ending that rip-off! So why not pull out? Our Bombers and missles can reach any country on this planet we don't have to cow to them.

              1. sannyasinman profile image60
                sannyasinmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                The US will not pull out from its bases around the world for the same reason that it will not pull out of the UN. The game is called "world dominance", and the US has until now been winning, but all that is about to change.

                1. Flightkeeper profile image74
                  Flightkeeperposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Actually, it was during the Bush Administration when Cheney had decided to start closing some bases in Europe.  I think more of that will happen under Obama.

    3. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      More power to them I'm sure we'd make a great large version of Switzerland. We can protect our country and we need to refresh the worlds memory of what we can do if bothered.

      1. sannyasinman profile image60
        sannyasinmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        The major difference between the two countries is that Switzerland has no world political aspirations whatsoever - there is not even a full time army. Is the US prepared to follow suit?

        1. profile image0
          sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Keep the army, screw the world. Let them know we won't play by any rules if were attacked.

          1. sannyasinman profile image60
            sannyasinmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            It is interesting to note that, for a country which spends so much on, and it so obsessed with, defense, the US has never in fact ever been attacked or invaded by any foreign power, on its soil. Unlike most European and many Asian countries who know all too well what being attacked and invaded really means, and even more curious, these are the countries which vehemently oppose the accumulation of nuclear weapons. If you have ever looked at pictures of Hiroshima after tha bomb,, you would surely never even utter the phrase "nuke 'em" or anything which implies the same thing.

            1. profile image0
              A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              I guess the British don't count? War of 1812? ever hear of it? So we should get rid of our weapons because we have never been invaded? I really don't have any sympathy for Japan or its citizens who were bombed, just don't care!

              1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
                Uninvited Writerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                The War of 1812 when the US tried to take over Canada but failed?

                1. profile image0
                  A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Or when the Canadians allowed the British to invade through their territory? I don't know I wasn't there!

                  1. Make  Money profile image82
                    Make Moneyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Canada was a British colony in 1812 and the US invaded Canada.

            2. profile image0
              sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Well I'm abit of a history buff and I beg to disagree, we have been attacked by England in 1812 and they Burnt Washington to the ground. During the war with Mexico prior to the civil war. During the Mexican revolution numerous times. WWII Hawaii, Midway wre attacked, Guam and Alaska were attacked and occupied. The Philipines were attacked and occupied. Our consulates have been attacked around the world and New York.

              I'm quite familiar with our use of nuclear weapons and had we not considering the extreme measures the Japanese employed we would have suffered huge losses trying to occupy Japan. The US has exercised extreme patients while little piss-ant groups take pot-shots at us. We may not allways get it right but were a helluva-alot better then the alternative. If we're attacked again by an islamic group I feel we have to hurt them so bad they'll never do it again. I would suggest melting both mecca and medina to let them know we are serious.

              They know who we are and what we have, as I've said before, if you pull the tigers tail and you get mauled is it the tigers fault or the one who pulled his tail?

              1. LiamBean profile image89
                LiamBeanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Technically Hawaii wasn't a state when attacked. Consulates are considered the property of the country they belong to so that's true. I also think Truman did the right thing in dropping "the bomb" in Japan. They were literally training women and children to fight to the death.

                Melting Mecca or Medina would certainly insure a never ending fight with every adherent of Islam on the planet so that's just plain stupid.  And whether you believe it or not there are plenty or people who worship Islam who are also on our side.

                1. profile image0
                  sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Who? If they are so loyal to what they believe that they would fight us forever, what happened to our team? Wheres the outrage? Iran gets nukes this will sure be a safer world! They attacked us! They attacked us! The only way we can possibly get a handle on this is for them to turn over the bad guys! If they don't point them out there's no way we will ever know who were fighting. They don't wear uniforms so islamics are going to have to get the job done and they are not. So either we teach them what terror really is or we can do it your way and take the path of appeasement since it has a great track record.

                  1. LiamBean profile image89
                    LiamBeanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Ever hear of Turkey? We flew an unbelievable number of missions out of their bases during Desert Storm. How about Saudi Arabia? They helped us too. What about Kuwait and Qatar? All of those are Islamic countries.

                    Iran attacked us? When?

                    It is really really important to go after the right people when retaliating. If you don't you end up with more enemies than you started with.

                    By the way, how is Osama bin Ladin these days? Still making speeches from a cave?

              2. sannyasinman profile image60
                sannyasinmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Will you feel the same when you are no longer the tiger? It can't be far away now . . AND . . .I am so glad that you are not President of the USA or we'd all go up in flames. Goodbye Mother Earth.

                1. profile image0
                  sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Why? You can't behave? We'd need to take you out too? Are you a colaborator to murder? When pansies like you are the cat it will only be a kitten and then you can give it all away. Let me ask, would you fight for anything? Is anything worth preserving? Is there any part of our Judeo-Christian values worth keeping?

                  1. Misha profile image77
                    Mishaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Judeo-Christian? Obviously not! smile






                    Ooops, it's not a religion forum? yikes

                  2. sannyasinman profile image60
                    sannyasinmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    When all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. Think about it.

    4. BristolBoy profile image78
      BristolBoyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The USD is already well on the way to no longer being the world's reserve currency.  At the moment Chinese, Indian etc currencies are not replacing the dollar that much though, and foreign countries are turning to the Euro amongst other currencies.  In fact, it is felt that the Euro will become the global reserve currency.  Whilst at the present time the Eurozone is not the world's largest economy, it would be were the Eurozone to expand to include all of the countries in the EU.

      1. sannyasinman profile image60
        sannyasinmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Not sure exactly how they calculate it, but according to Wikipedia, The Eurozone has already overtaken the US in terms of GDP. It will be very interesting to see the league table for 2009.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … nominal%29

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          I am predicting that Spain will be the new world super power!

  12. profile image0
    A Texanposted 8 years ago

    Yes I have been out of the US many times, whats your point? I did not want to live in the places I went, Germany,France,and a few days in Italy. I have to admit of all the places in Europe Italy was the most pleasant! The other places in this World I have gone was at time of war or something similar, those places just sucked for obvious reasons!


    In response to this
    "I don't actually live in the US, never have and never will although I know it well because my brother lives in California and my sister in Boston. Have you ever been outside the US?"

  13. mintinfo profile image78
    mintinfoposted 8 years ago

    It is all a capitalist Chess Game for those who know how to play. Dictators are important for strategic moves and we created most for that purpose. There are capitalist dictators and socialist dictators. Pay little attention to the rhetoric and track the money flow. Our corporations flourish in either.

  14. Flightkeeper profile image74
    Flightkeeperposted 8 years ago

    Oops, LOL! I meant war.  It's kind of hard on everyone to keep having world wars.

  15. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 8 years ago

    See, I would like to hear what the thugs and dictators say so that I can hear for myself that they are ridiculous and/or dangerous.

    I mean Quaddafi spoke for 1 1/2 hours yesterday...everyone fell asleep...

    Most of the UN walked out when the President of Iran spoke...

    Just because the opposition is allowed to talk does not mean they are given a free ride in the world.

    1. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      What are you proposing to keep them in check after N.Korea and Iran get nukes? If you're wrong you put future in the hands of lunatics. Do you really feel we're the worst choice or is it you just want the world to be a big commune?

    2. LiamBean profile image89
      LiamBeanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Yup. Keep your friends close; your enemies closer.

  16. Bibowen profile image93
    Bibowenposted 8 years ago

    As for the concern that we need to keep an eye on the nuclear powers, we can do that without the UN--it's called espionage. As for the concern that international relationships will break down, we can do without the UN there also. Try diplomacy.

    The UN does not reflect American values. Several years ago, the US got tossed off the Human Rights Commission while leaving countries like Cuba and Zimbabwe on it!

    The UN continues to ask for more American money. A quarter on the dollar apparently is not enough (and that does not account for special events like peacekeeping missions in which the USA funds at a higher percentage). Secretary Generals have regularly called for the direct taxation of American citizens.

    The UN is for the mediocre, anti-Semite, and  financially incompetent socialist.  Other than that, it's not so bad.

    The UN is a Cold War relic. Given how globalists fawn all over the thing, we could end the UN, dedicate a museum to its history, and it would make a lot more money for world peace than the UN sqanders each year.

    Tex, you might sell your position if you could get creative about what to do with UN Headqarters if we could sell it off.

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Low income housing!

  17. profile image0
    A Texanposted 8 years ago

    You haven't left yet?

  18. Misha profile image77
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    Can you read my previous post? lol

  19. Eaglekiwi profile image80
    Eaglekiwiposted 8 years ago

    Time to brush up on ya Chinese then.

    Xìng huì!

  20. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 8 years ago

    The War of 1812

    http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ … RTA0008442

    The US declared war and attacked first.

    It's always interesting how a war is seen from different sides smile

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah that is strange especially since your source is thecanadianencyclopedia

      1. Make  Money profile image82
        Make Moneyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Well here's some more sources that say the same.  I'm sure there will be a US source amongst them.  Wikipedia is from the US isn't it.  Here's a quote from it, "There were several immediate stated causes for the U.S. declaration of war."

  21. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 8 years ago

    I could live in Australia if it's wasn't for the insects and scary things smile

    1. Misha profile image77
      Mishaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      *waiting for an Assuie to come and debunk the myths* lol

  22. Flightkeeper profile image74
    Flightkeeperposted 8 years ago

    Australia's baby-stealing dingos are enought to keep me away.

  23. sooner than later profile image56
    sooner than laterposted 8 years ago

    Man- this is the best question and i missed it. We should have been out of the UN 10 years ago... make it 15.

  24. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 8 years ago

    Where else should I have gotten it? I'm sure you got your information from an American encyclopedia or American text books.

    Like I said, each side of a war sees things differently.

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Thats a good point.

  25. lampar profile image50
    lamparposted 8 years ago

    US gave 5 billions to UN, that is refreshing news!! I suppose they found something really big in Texas oil well and southern gulf coast. Feel good to be generous again, lol!

  26. Harvey Stelman profile image61
    Harvey Stelmanposted 8 years ago

    Tex,

    You can't win with this brain washed group. Many are shameless and forget how America has saved the world many times. I would bet the people on this Forum have done well financially compared to the poverty line.

    Many suffer from the guilt our government now lays on us. When they are effected, second thoughts may prevail.

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I don't even try to win what would be the point?

  27. livelonger profile image95
    livelongerposted 8 years ago

    If the non-Americans are puzzled by some of the discordant American voices vis a vis the UN and rest of world, take a look at this poll.

    Basically people were asked if they had a favorable or unfavorable view of New York, San Francisco, France and Europe.

    The percentages saying favorable and unfavorable for each was strikingly similar. So basically you look favorably of things outside your tiny little corner of the world, or you don't.

    Northeasterners & Westerners were the most likely to be positive, Midwesterners a bit less so, and the Southerners the lowest.

    This may explain why about 2/3 of Americans are open to what other regions of the country/world can offer and teach us, and 1/3 are basically insular xenophobes.

    1. Flightkeeper profile image74
      Flightkeeperposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Don't you think it might be misleading? All those places are fairly liberal.  What if the list was different like, Houston, Oklahoma City, Switzerland, and Australia?

  28. profile image0
    A Texanposted 8 years ago

    What was Patton's statement "I would rather have the German army in front of me than a French division behind me"

    1. Make  Money profile image82
      Make Moneyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      That's funny.  A German officer that was captured by Canadians during WWII was quoted as saying something like this, "when the Canadian cannons go off the Germans duck, when the German canons go off the Canadians duck and when the US canons go off everyone ducks". smile

      1. profile image0
        A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        If you are a Canadian then I won't tell you what many of my fellow Marines and soldiers call y'all. Unless you just want to know.

        1. Make  Money profile image82
          Make Moneyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Hey WWII was a long time ago too.  Yeah I would be interested.  I think our Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan should know who they are fighting beside.

          1. profile image0
            A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Are they fighting beside them? I am talking about my era of Marine, and its not a nice thing to say about them. I won't repeat it.

  29. Make  Money profile image82
    Make Moneyposted 8 years ago

    Well why would you mention it to start with then?  I hope some of our Canadian troops in Afghanistan end up reading this, they might not feel so devoted to their cause.

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Are they devoted to it now? If they read this and drop rifles because of it then they are exactly what has been said of them!

  30. Make  Money profile image82
    Make Moneyposted 8 years ago

    You couldn't expect much more than that from the hate state.  I had enough of you.  Go play your banjo.

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Running away? Ahhh it is true!

  31. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 8 years ago

    Petty! Name calling, partisan thinking, this is not what America needs. America looks after it's own interests as far as the rest of the world is concerned and 2 world wars have made it rich.

    Now wars will only make a few rich, smile

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Who is calling names? World Wars where we came to the defense of Countries who despise us simply because we have been sucessful.

  32. Make  Money profile image82
    Make Moneyposted 8 years ago

    Da, di di, di di, di di, da lol

    That deserves the Dueling Banjos again. lol

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqxzWdKKu8

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      That's a great song, thanks for the link.

  33. egiv profile image68
    egivposted 8 years ago

    The premise for this thread is an embarrassment to Americans. I don't blame the rest of the world for thinking we are idiots.

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Sure is ain't it? And strong Americans like you who CARE what whiny nations think make me proud!

    2. profile image0
      Leta Sposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      It is.  I'm happy that some are calling a spade a spade.

      1. profile image0
        A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Racist!

        1. profile image0
          Leta Sposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          This, I'd point out, is not a 'personal attack,' (possibly) under Hubpages TOS.  However, it most definitely is defamation under US law.

          1. profile image0
            A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Sue

            1. profile image0
              Leta Sposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              I am almost certain you have been sued in your lifetime.

              As for me, I'll just let you embarrass yourself further.  Evidently, you do not have the inner compass to realize how you sound and appear to others.  You should be ashamed.  Instead, you glory in calling people names.  Something is definitely wrong.

              1. profile image0
                A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                I didn't call you any names I called the statement racist! Couldn't care less what people think, and yes I have been sued 3 times for violation of suspects civil rights and was cleared 3 times! Happens to cops all the time

            2. profile image0
              A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              How many people have you called racist? How soon you forget

  34. Will Apse profile image93
    Will Apseposted 8 years ago

    You should definitely try some deep breathing exercises Texan and maybe an 'OM' or two in the mornings. Then say the UN is not going to get me, the UN is not going to get me, the UN is not going to get me... Several times, while concentrating on that diaphragm,

    You will feel much better.

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I feel great! Its game day

  35. profile image0
    A Texanposted 8 years ago

    "Clearly our expression to call a spade a spade was very well established long before the word spade had any racial sense. However, today the word does have a racial sense. If the expression is assumed to be offensive, it should be used with caution even if there's no real basis for the assumption. This is not an unusual event. The word bloody, for example, does not derive from a profane oath such as "by our lady," but that's what people thought, and the word was considered quite offensive. The incorrect etymological assumption did not change the word's offensiveness. Few people today would object to call a spade a spade, but some people might, and one should at the very least be aware of that."

Closed to reply
 
working