[FesterUSMC]

why do we still give the UN over $300 million dollars a year? FAR MORE than ANY other country? IF we are going to be a part of the UN we should only give as much as say... France or Russia...

[DB]

Id bet it is far more than $300 million a year.

[txzman]

Remember that our other ally - Japan - also gives an inordinate amount, and do not even sit on the Security Council.

[snowsislander]

why do we still give the UN over $300 million dollars a year? FAR MORE than ANY other country?

We don't give "far more" than Japan; for 2004, we are scheduled to give $363 million, and Japan is scheduled to give $280 million.

Seeing as our population is well more than double Japan's, we actually give less per capita than Japan does:

• Per capita, using a population figure of 293 million for 2004, that comes to $1.25 apiece for us.
• Japan is listed with a population of 123 million, so that will be $2.27 for each Japanese.

As to why we give any money to the U.N., it certainly isn't because it is a good idea or because we get good value for our money.

The U.N. is proving to be a malignant version of the old League of Nations, which was just as impotent, but not so uncivilized as to cheer baldly murderous dictators like Robert Mugabe.

Perhaps President Carter or President Clinton feels comfortable in the U.N.'s halls, but President Bush did exactly the right action, and not a criminal one as Secretary General Annan recently suggested, when we took unsanctioned multilateral action against the evil dictator Hussein. Had we waited on that knitting society to take action, Hussein would still be in a palace, not in a jail cell.

[bvw]

Or we should only give as much as Zimbabwe does.

[JesseHousman]

Ah, Fester, its only a mere drop in the bucket.

Congress pisses away twice that much on bottled water and toilet paper.

Let's simply evict the UN and make certain that hallowed body is transferred to a country where their largesse can help the local economy. Zimbabwe would be an excellent location.