I am flabbergasted at the "arguments" to continue funding the UN because it is in our "interest" (we shouldn't even be a member, let alone fund it).
1. The US gets intelligence. OK, yes, there might be some low hanging fruit from time to time. But at the expense of giving moral legitimacy to despicable regimes that are emboldened and more…
I am flabbergasted at the "arguments" to continue funding the UN because it is in our "interest" (we shouldn't even be a member, let alone fund it).
1. The US gets intelligence. OK, yes, there might be some low hanging fruit from time to time. But at the expense of giving moral legitimacy to despicable regimes that are emboldened and more dangerous for the very fact that the US funds and is part of the UN? That is beyond absurd. And your example is Iran being "credibly accused" of smuggling guns? In 1989? Are you serious? There would very likely be less need for costly intelligence because these dangerous regimes and organisations would be weakened and less relevant overall if the UN did not exist.
2. NYC makes some money for playing host to the UN? Economically - that is beyond juvenile. It assumes that the land and space the UN building (and all of its uneconomic activity beyond diplomats spending money) would be 0 producing without the UN. You don't think that NYC would be able to generate more than those diplomats spend by having that space used productively? And for things that don't undermine America and its interests? Morally - that is just horrific. That you consider 5bn / year "worth" it for Americans to directly support regimes and terrorist organisations who condemn it and probably gain far, far, far more value from the UN's existence (that the US pays for) is appalling.
I am flabbergasted at the "arguments" to continue funding the UN because it is in our "interest" (we shouldn't even be a member, let alone fund it).
1. The US gets intelligence. OK, yes, there might be some low hanging fruit from time to time. But at the expense of giving moral legitimacy to despicable regimes that are emboldened and more dangerous for the very fact that the US funds and is part of the UN? That is beyond absurd. And your example is Iran being "credibly accused" of smuggling guns? In 1989? Are you serious? There would very likely be less need for costly intelligence because these dangerous regimes and organisations would be weakened and less relevant overall if the UN did not exist.
2. NYC makes some money for playing host to the UN? Economically - that is beyond juvenile. It assumes that the land and space the UN building (and all of its uneconomic activity beyond diplomats spending money) would be 0 producing without the UN. You don't think that NYC would be able to generate more than those diplomats spend by having that space used productively? And for things that don't undermine America and its interests? Morally - that is just horrific. That you consider 5bn / year "worth" it for Americans to directly support regimes and terrorist organisations who condemn it and probably gain far, far, far more value from the UN's existence (that the US pays for) is appalling.