Why not support the US paying its debt off to the UN? If the US paid dues as other countries do then they would have the moral right to criticize the UN efforts.

I realize that you used the phrase 'pay equally'. However, if you don't like the funding formula then work to change it, instead of simply withholding dues.

How about other countries pay off their debts from WWII to the US?

I thought Britain just did, to both Canada and the US. Only took them 50 years. Didn't the US forgive most of the others, at the time of Truman and Roosevelt?

I think I read somewhere that it took the US over a century to repay loans to France after the War of Independence.

All that aside, I am not sure how that justifies withholding dues from the UN.

Because all that BS is just that BS, no country has every paid on time accept for a very few and they are not the big countries.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4757181.stm

And since the US supplies, IMO, the bulk of the forces for the UN...bodies are payment enough. I'm bias though as I see the UN as a useless collaboration in stupidity with no goal, force or purpose.

I will save the cut and paste, but here is a link that refutes that payment assumption. I think it comes down to whether you count as peacekeeping all of the non-UN US military activity. The UN doesn't.

http://web.mit.edu/CIS/fpi_peacekeeping.html

Maybe this should be a new thread, as it appears to constitute a hijack.

That is why I said IMO, UN setting up positions and then leaving to call US forces in doesn't count.

The UN does a ton more than "peace-keeping" military actions. There are millions of children who don't starve to death each year because of the UN. Look up UNICEF which is a division of the UN: http://www.unicef.org/

Thanks UNICEF has been around since I was in 1st grade...I'm aware of it. You could also watch Joe Dirt :rofl:

My personal opinion is that the UN should not be involved in anything military unless they are to be given some kind of real authority by the members. If the member countries were to sign a treaty saying that the UN military forces have authority over their own, then it would work. But otherwise, it is of no use. Combine that with the 5-perminant security council members having veto-power over any military action, and you have all the ingredients for complete failure.

So for now, I think the UN's responsibilities should be limited to non-military actions. There is still plenty of good they can do in the world.