UN approves resolution condemning US recognition...

They do tend to have mixed results in their "aid" projects, cholera and Haiti come to mind.

 

Ya, well, we ain't still doing it.....

 

1. Yes, it has formidable armed forces that are of the first rank in the world....at present, and it is a country with a substantial economy, and natural resources. However, even that power would be hard pressed to maintain present continuous operations in Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa, both logistically, and financially: Continuing to support such operations (and enlarging upon them with new theatres of operations) with materiel, and personnel will be a significant challenge, without resorting to the draft, and without harming the USA's domestic economy. As great as the USA's resources are...they are not limitless.

2. Does not harbour terrorists??? I guess it depends upon who one considers to be terrorists / agents of terrorism It (The USA), historically has been a firm supporter of authoritarian dictators / regimes, who (were /are) want to share their repression, domestically, and in some cases, internationally. List of authoritarian regimes supported by the United States - Wikipedia The USA has a firm alliance with the Saudis who have bankrolled a significant quanta of terrorism....as became apparent during 9/11, and in other instances. US support of the Shah of Persia's regime had consequences leading to the rise of the theocracy in Iran....the support of Saddam Hussein against Iran, led to the invasion of Kuwait, and the subsequent destabilisation of Iraq when the 'coalition of the willing' (instigated by the USA)freed the sh!t out of Iraq, by deposing the dictator that the USA bankrolled and supported in the first place. The USA may not harbour terrorists of the 9/11 ilk, but it does tend to subcontract that kind of dirty business to others.

3. Stable interior politics? That stability seems to be diminishing somewhat in recent years. It hasn't reached the Italian / Greek government level of volatility yet, but, with TRump, it's heading definitely in that direction. TRump's a lame duck President, leading a lame duck administration. Instead of making America great again, his administration is white-anting the organs of government, creating chaos, where there once was, in some cases, simple inefficiency and ineptitude. It is interesting to note that the professional diplomatic corps has declined in capability since the TRump-Tillerson team started work on it. Top U.S. Diplomat Blasts Trump Administration for ‘Decapitation’ of State Department Leadership The State Department in Crisis Present at the Destruction: How Rex Tillerson Is Wrecking the State Department

4. Those 'friends' are becoming fewer, and not so inclined to march lock-step with America as enthusiastically on as many issues, as may have been the case in the past....there are a number of former soviet bloc nations who are wondering nervously whether they will be back into the Soviet ahem...Russian Federation sphere of influence, sold out by the kind of appeasement that saw Germany swallow up Czechoslovakia, and The Memel Territory, prior to WW2. Donald might like to posture and sabre rattle with North Korea, but take it to bro Putin??? That would be bad for business.

5. Countries that have tried militarily going it alone (or with weak, insubstantial allies), against the world, have found that their hubris has been one of many seeds leading to their own destruction. Economically, although it is still a power to be contended with, it is declining, with other players snapping at Uncle Sam's heels. Far from MakingAGA, TRump is merely accelerating America's decline....not such a good thing: for America, nor the free world.

 

We need to find some new tenants for that ugly building on the East River.

 

Pretty much no opinion on Jerusalem.

The UN however, deserves not a single dime from the US Taxpayer.
Use the money to pay down the national debt.

And why are we offering foreign aid when we can't even pay our own bills?

It's like having thousands in credit card debt, and then borrowing money to give to your neighbor so he can buy a new boat, only to have his dogs crap on your lawn.

WTF...over?

 

While I do not care for the UN and feel that over time their mission has changed, I believe the US should continue to be part of the UN. There is a saying about keeping your enemies close. But also, to be part of and continue- to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security. It just seems odd to me that instead of trying to figure out what to do with North Korea, the UN is focused on where America is putting our embassy. Just because one nation declares something, it does not make it true.

I remember when Haley was selected for that position I wondered why her. She is/was a star in the Conservative party but I was always unsure why. And I agree, that speech she delivered was very much Trump. But I believe her words, name will be taken and this vote and how countries voted will have consequences in the future. Whether good or bad, this administration is sticking to its word.

 

A big meh.

The US has made the same kind of threat for decades.

What do we pay?
Based on the last Obama administration budget, the United States provided $1.2 billion to the U.N. over two years.

But that’s just for the U.N.’s regular budget. There are over a dozen other U.N. agencies and operations that American dollars also support. The single largest is peacekeeping with a price tag of about $7.8 billion this year alone. The U.S. share of that cost is over 28 percent, or $2.2 billion.

The next three U.N. agencies -- Cost the US taxpayer 'about' $100 million per year range, each-- are the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

All told, the United States provides about $3.3 billion a year to finance U.N. activities. A 40 percent cut would save taxpayers about $1.3 billion out of the current $4.1 trillion U.S. federal budget. The impact on the U.N. would be substantial, although the precise effect would depend on how the cuts are spread around.

In addition to that, the US spends an additional 50+ billion in "foreign aid. Fifty Billion.
United States foreign aid - Wikipedia By country cost to the taxpayer

For comparison, the US spends:
SNAP benefits (food stamps) cost $70.9 billion in fiscal year 2016 and supplied roughly 44.2 million Americans (14% of the population) with an average of $125.51 for each person per month in food assistance.

In FY 2015, Pentagon and related spending totaled $598 billion, about 54% of the fiscal year 2015 U.S. discretionary budget. For FY 2017, President Obama proposed the base budget of $523.9 billion, which includes an increase of $2.2 billion over the FY 2016 enacted budget of $521.7 billion. Keeping in mind some of this money (DoD budget) is targeted pork and 'military aid' to favored Nations.)

Social Security: Last year, 24 percent of the budget, or $916 billion, paid for Social Security, which provided monthly retirement benefits averaging $1,360 to 41 million retired workers in December 2016

Medicaid expenditures do not include administrative costs, accounting adjustments, or the U.S. Territories. Total Medicaid spending including these additional items was $574.2 billion in FY 2016.

So, the cost of support to the UN is basically a rounding error in the overall budget. But, I still support very deep cuts - most of the UN money is lost to theft and corruption - the same kind of losses applies to 'foreign aid'..

People wonder why taxes are so high.

 

As Ambassador Haley said; who cares. Liberals may have been looking at their first woman President if they were watched. She has the experience, temperament, leadership skill and credibility to pull it off if she wants.

 

I'll vote for whoever I think will best do the job. Sex, race, and party don't count. "Firsts" don't mean squat. Their plan, their policies, and track record do. Haley is on my watch list.

 

I wonder how the UN would do if based out of say Russia ?

 

Russia wouldn't put up with their disrespect.

 

UN?

Stanelyville, Belgian Congo...there was much fighting...

between those that wanted democracy/republic type gov... and those that wanted socialism/communism...

UN came in and disarmed one side said they would protect them...

the democracy/republican types trusted and gave up their weapons...

said was to prevent blood shed... etc...

then pulled out... and did not return the weapons to those disarmed... those people were slaughtered by their opponents...

who were the socialist/communist revolutionary types...

UN... USA needs to stop payin this broken organization... ya remember but for once DO SOMETHING other then talk...

they take our money then spite in our face and tell us to F off... they figure we will keep payin em anyways...

I am of the opinion... ENOUGH! NO MORE!

as to Israel... ABOUT FUCKIN TIME!

to those that say this will cause terrorism and bloodshed... OH REALLY?

the enmity that is there is religious in nature... their profit said... read their book!

What was done by this president concerning Israel and the Embassy... will make NO DIFFERENCE!

the radical Islamic types will continue to attack Israel... they have too... their profit said...

there is NOTHING that will appease the radicals on this issue... so why bother trying?

 

Don' forget the U.N. weapons inspectors during and after Gulf 1! They stood around with their thumbs up their asses broadcasting to the whole world where they would be inspecting while Sadam played with all his toys and guess what, nothing was ever found, that is until Saddm used them on his own people up north!
Then we have the anti piracy trap on both coasts of Africa, the U.N.don't allow any one to do any thing to stop it internally, they just sail around taking pictures of every one they capture and send them home. Then there is Somalia, what a U.N. joke, talk about no teeth, it should have been so easy to save Somalia from it's self, and to remove/prevent the warlords from taking over, but they stood around and did nothing!
BOSNIA!!!! Nuff said! About the only thing worse then the U.N. being involved was having the French in charge! Talk about F.U.B.A.R!
Korea, won't even talk about that!
Yea, the U.N. is so effective, they can surely count all the cash, and have no problems spending it, but they don' actually do any thing good with it, certainly carry out the mission they were formed to do!


And let's ask our strongest allies why they voted against the U.S.of A! Great Brittan, WTF, Germany, Italy, Australia, Japan,...........come on you fukers, you have am awefull lot to loose if you don' back our play, and we might have to reevaluate our alliance, would suck if our allies had to supply there own mil. Equipment instead of purchasing 1st teir U.S. mil equipment, I'm talking Germany and Japan here! How bout we repossss those DDGs and F-15s?!?!?!? How bout we block all the top secret mil tech we provided!!!!

 

@DKR "the cost of support to the UN is basically a rounding error in the overall budget."
This is what is commonly said concerning budget expenditures but personally I never look at money management that way...and deeply believe that neither should our government. I tend to see what that money, our money, could be used for here in the states for our citizens. Idaho could put $3.3 Billion a year to good use as I bet Alaska could!

@ghrit "The US should pull out of the UN, but let them keep their HQ in New Yawk."
I think that there are times the UN serves a greatly needed function - mainly - allowing discussion on world events, but the UN goes far beyond what it should be doing and seems to want to dictate rather than discuss. I would go the other way around from your opinion and remove the UN from New Yawk but continue to remain a member - but - I would severely hamstring them by cutting their budget...let the Chinese, Russian or even Australians pick it up...yeah, right, like that would happen.

@chelloveck "Far from MakingAGA, TRump is merely accelerating America's decline....not such a good thing: for America, nor the free world."
Well, personally, I believe nothing can stop our fall but we can prolong our decline; however, you say that President Trump is 'accelerating America's decline.' Please elaborate. I ask because recently I have started to keep note of things that are happening under his administration and frankly I am finding a lot of good things. Things like the GDP is rising beyond expectations, small businesses are growing, and the stock market is soaring.Perhaps the biggest thing is consumer confidence is at a 17-year high so I am a bit confused how you see America's decline accelerating... Biggest tax cuts in 30 years, cutting regulations ten for every new one added and an executive order guaranteeing America has a reliable supply of critical materials. The latter one was a huge one since China supplies most critical materials now but not in the immediate future. I mean, I could go on and on...
How about arrests of people trying to cross illegally into the United States from Mexico are at the lowest point since 1971? Or, the labor market has exceeded expectations by adding hundreds of thousands of new jobs? It seems to me things are finally starting to turn around. However, given the economics, I don't doubt a fall of the USA is inevitable but I do doubt Trump is accelerating it, in fact, I think he is delaying it. And, if he pees in the UN's rice bowl - well - that's okay in my book. I frankly don't care and as I'm sure you noted neither does anyone else on this forum. And, the reason for that is obvious and has nothing to do with Trump but the UN itself.

"Those 'friends' are becoming fewer, and not so inclined to march lock-step"
Our friendships are still as strong as ever and we never have required them to 'march lock-step' just to follow...as we would do and have proven during their hour of need.

"The USA 'historically has been a firm supporter of authoritarian dictators / regimes..."
Yes, I fear our record is not as good as one would wish and I do hope we do better in the future, probably simply the result of bad foreign policy, bad decisions, and realpolitik. How do we compare to other world powers/empires (better/worse) of the past in that regard like UK, Greece, Rome, Spain, The Netherlands...? I will have to look it up.

As far as "the professional diplomatic corps has declined in capability"...they needed it. Also, look a little farther back and you would see that they had almost an unlimited budget for about the last 10 years building new or completely remodeling (started under Colin Powell) all embassies and/or consulates throughout the world...and we're talking huge, bombproof facilities with ultra-modern communications and security. Also, the President dictates our foreign policy not our diplomats - no matter what they think or say - so if they do not like it then they can quietly retire and I do hope they do so because there are plenty waiting for their jobs. Hell, maybe even me...

 

@OldDude49 "there is NOTHING that will appease the radicals on this issue... so why bother trying?"
You know, that is a valid point and should have been brought up at the very first. Why indeed try to appease them? We cannot. And, by trying to appease them we play to their hand. Better to negotiate from a position of strength...which is exactly a carbon copy of Russian foreign policy and one that works very, very well.

@Ura-Ki "BOSNIA!!!! Nuff said! About the only thing worse then the U.N. being involved was having the French in charge! Talk about F.U.B.A.R!"
Amen, brother. I was in on that one. How about Sarajevo for an example, the French controlled the airport...my God, what a mess. Frankly, I think that would still be going on if the USA had not stepped up as the French, British and Germans just didn't have enough to get the job done - and all their comms, air lift and major logistics was USA provided anyway.

As far as "And let's ask our strongest allies why they voted against the U.S.of A!"
My guess is simply...politics. Think about it. Big friggin deal if the UN condemns our recognition of the Israeli capital, like that means exactly what? It means zero, not worth the paper it's printed on or the time it took to vote. So, why should our friends occur the wrath of some countries (talking about contracts, trade, etc.) for a meaningless vote? We as a sovereign nation will recognize who we want whether the UN likes it or not so...this vote was meaningless, actually did nothing but show how ridiculous the UN truly is and gives us a very good reason to chop away at their budget, and not only the UN but anyone that voted for it. We have justification because we warned them. Will we chop our friends? No, we will not but they are few anyway but the rest...

 

Yes, actually, we are. All land rights currently in this world are based on right of arms. This theory that land somehow "belongs" to the first genetics that are dated to it is stupid. In fact, let's play that out. Every single human on the planet can relate their genetics to a single "mitochondrial Eve" and best archeological guess is that she was in the fertile crescent. Who is the only people who can currently document their bloodline back to the fertile crescent? You guessed it. The Jews. Let's rewrite all those legal boundaries from the '67 lines right now because Israel owns a whole lot more than they currently are being given credit for. This entire argument is foolish. When Israel stepped out of Gaza a couple of years ago, they left some of the most profitable labs in the world intact. When the Palestinians took over the strip, they immediately destroyed the labs and also burned down all the synagogues despite a written promise to allow freedom of religion on the strip. If you've ever been to Palestine and Israel, you'd want to live in Israel. Put simply, when you remove ideological blinders from everyone involved, the best thing for Palestine would be an unconditional surrender. It's the only humanitarian answer.
As far as the UN, I don't get it. If the League of Nations closed their doors because of WWII, shouldn't the UN close their doors because of Syria? Or North Korea? I think the existence of the UN is indecent.

 

@Seepalaces "...the best thing for Palestine would be an unconditional surrender."
I couldn't agree more! It truly would be to their benefit and certainly to their children's. In truth, the entire Mideast dislike the Palestinians and considers them animals, don't want anything to do with them. They just use them.