US UN Relations, US PoliticsFormer U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright defends the United Nations against charges that it is bureaucratic, ineffective, undemocratic, anti-U.S. and useless in this Foreign Policy magazine story Think Again: United Nations. "for $1.25 billion a year—roughly what the Pentagon spends every 32 hours—the United Nations is still the best investment that the world can make in stopping AIDS and SARS, feeding the poor, helping refugees, and fighting global crime and the spread of nuclear weapons"
Visitor Feedback
You all should have more in formation regaring this subject. I hope to hear from you soon. Posted by: David Zimmer at November 3, 2003 04:51 PMToo bad the UN still doesn't do anything when the going gets tough. Too bad the U.S. is the UN. Too bad nearly all of that 1.25 billion comes from US, the country the UN loves to critique. I sure didn't see the UN in Vietnam, when the reason for it existing was happening' namely, the invasion of a country by it's neighbor. And who went over there to establish freedom? The U.S. The UN is for the main part useless. I will explain why only briefly since I have better things to do. Whenever the UN wants something done, and granted it's objectives are good, it's is a good organization in theory, but when it wants to accomplish something, who does it ask to back its exploits? The U.S. taxpayer. If the UN wants so much done, but at the same time want to smack down people like Bush, why don't they get their funding from the Europeans or Asians? Because they won't pay, even though they all think the UN is such a worthy cause. I will be happy to pay for little starving children in Africa to eat or go to school, but I want to do it under an American flag, and for people that don't backbit America as they reach out their hands for money. Posted by: Geoff Scott at November 17, 2003 01:49 AM |