Since we pay most of the bills it would seem he is right and you are dead wrong.
You may wanna check the math on this, because I could have made a mistake in the calculations, but I was curious, so I looked it up to see if your statement was true. In 2008, the United States contributed around 24% net to the general budget of the UN (
http://globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/UN_Finance/assesment2007.pdf). In 2009, we ponied up roughly 23% (
http://globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/UN_Finance/assesment2009.pdf). In 2010, roughly 23.8% (
http://globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/Member_States_Assessment_for_Regular_Budget_for_2010.pdf).
Just so we are on the same page, did you mean the largest single contributor? Because in the last two and a half years, we haven't 'paid most of the bills' - we paid a little less than a quarter of them. So if your speculation that the organization would fold is based upon your assumption that the United States was the only contributor, or that our contributions alone totalled up to the majority of the net budget, then you may wish to recind. Either way, we are both engaging in speculation here, so I vote we dismiss the theoretics and move forward with the discussion.
I searched those links you provided, and I can't find anywhere within them something that points to the goals of the United Nations being anything other than what I expressed, which is half of what he disagreed with, and which I asked for plainly. However, I did want a source which shows that the United Nations is a 'cesspool' as well, which you put forward in his defense. Let's discuss those, and see where we might agree or disagree with one another.
I think you and I would both agree that Libya being on the council for human rights is a joke; however, we both realize that the country was democratically elected to be there by the 192 nation general assembly. I disagree with the election, though, as I think Libya has a pretty poor track record when it comes to such things. I think there are other nations with better records that would make fine councilmembers, and I think you'd agree with me there, too.
Where I think we disagree is on the conclusion. You think this illustrates that the UN is a cesspool, whereas I think it's just a stupid manuever despite it being done democratically. I think this stems from our differences in what we view the UN to be. For me, the UN is a place where countries that disagree can have a platform to discuss those differences between them, and like the link says, facilitate cooperation on international law, human rights, and world peace. Consider the good that organizations like UNICEF, and WHO have done for the citzens of the world, or at least attempted to in good faith. Hardly the mark of a 'cesspool' organization, given their goals.
Gang rapes in Africa. Un workers and soldiers do nothing Some 200 women gang-raped near Congo UN base - World news - Africa - msnbc.com
Reading that article, would you REALLY say that they wanted to do nothing, or were limited in what they could actually do? The story said that was only 25 U.N. peacekeepers within five villages occupied by 200 - 400 rebels. While I think both of us agree that we wish there was more that they could do to have prevented such an atrocity, I think we disagree on the conclusion. But I would be curious as to
why you come to the conclusion from this that the U.N is a "cesspool". After all, it wasn't the peacekeepers raping these villagers, and they did attempt to help. Is that the mark of a cesspool organization?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec04/oil-for-food_12-3.html
While we both agree that scandals should be dealt with, would you say that this is reflective on the U.N being a cesspool? I remember the S& L scandal, The Whiskey Ring, Teapot Dome, and Iran-Contra, yet I would hardly call the United States a cesspool. We are a great nation, but we've had our share of scandals.
Thanks