White House : “The U.N. provides a real return on our tax dollars”

“The U.N. provides a real return on our tax dollars by bringing 192 countries together to share the cost of providing stability, vital aid and hope in the world’s most broken places,” Rice said in prepared remarks.

“Because of the U.N., the world doesn’t look to America to solve every problem alone. … We’re far better off working to strengthen the U.N. than trying to starve it — and then having to choose between filling the void ourselves, or leaving real threats untended.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49319.html

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to White House : “The U.N. provides a real return on our tax dollars”

  1. Tufty says:

    “and then having to choose between filling the void ourselves, or leaving real threats untended.”

    How about leaving fake threats untended too?

  2. Jeff K says:

    The U.N. is the world’s busy-body poverty pimp.

  3. Justa Joe says:

    The USA shouldn’t monopolize all those wonderful returns. It’s just not fair. In the spirit of peace and unity we need to share those returns with the rest of the world. So we should opt out and allow the rest of the world all the wonderful benefits of financing the UN.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Justa

      you are right I MUST be a UN lover. In the bizarro world here, if someone finds anything positive about the designated evil forces in the world that means that you love them.

  4. suyts says:

    I can’t recall one positive thing the U.N. ever did. I mean, oh sure, they provide peacekeepers that don’t keep the peace and rape and pillage the local communities that they’re at, and they do divert funds from food programs to help prop up despots like the ones in N. Korea, but other than that, what good are they?

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Actually there are quite a few positive things The UN has done. Of course now that small pox has been eliminated it can be used as a weapon agains the US so maybe that one was a mixed bag

      • Justa Joe says:

        The UN cured small pox? Who knew?

      • Baa Humbug says:

        The UN has been in existence for over 50 years.

        Start listing their (positive) achievements Tony. Just one per year will do.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Ahh Baa,

        We have been through this and I thought you lost interest when I posted some.

      • Justa Joe says:

        Looks like we have a genuine UN lover.

      • suyts says:

        Tony, I disagree. I think what ever positive things you may attribute to the UN could have been done better and more effectively and would have been done without the bureaucracy created by the UN themselves. But most importantly, the idea that there should be a centralized authority for all the nations is an insidious thought to begin with. The U.S.’s interest and the interests of any other nation may or may not be the same. Through our funding of the UN, we have funded people that work against the interests of not only the U.S. but many other western nations.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        SUYTS,

        that is a far cry from saying the UN hasn’t done anything positive.

        And of course anything the UN did could have been done batter another. The question is WOULD it have been done better.
        You view makes ideological sense, I don;t think the reality fits it nearly as closely as you believe. The UN has in many many instances acted in the interests of the US against the interests of the rest of the world. Of course the media and sources you look at never mention those.
        I don;t see corporations or government organizations or other ors as being these monolithic things that are “good” or “bad’ they function in specific ways in specific circumstances. The UN is a mixed bag, as is every other organization.

      • suyts says:

        Tony, then we look at it differently. I say, if it was deemed necessary, the world, would and has acted, without the UN acting as an impetus. So, the net effect of the UN is simply cost. My position is that the world would be better served without the UN rather than with. Then, there is usurpation of autonomy. As mentioned, the interests of each nation are unique to the people of that nation. The U.N.’s role, either as an arbiter or mediator, is inherently in conflict with the sovereignty of each nation. A passage from the Book of Romans comes to mind. Let us do evil so that good may come? Evil doesn’t spawn Good.

  5. Latitude says:

    This is total UN BS again…

    192 countries – share the cost???

    No

    The few countries the UN designated as “developed” have to pay the vast majority of countries the UN says are developing…

  6. DJL says:

    They just left off that it is a negative return on our tax dollars

  7. R. de Haan says:

    Global Government anybody?
    Screw the Obama Government, screw the EU, screw the UN and screw Iran and the Botherhood of Islam.

  8. Andy Weiss says:

    In the near future, China will be solving all the worlds problems, including our own.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s