Perhaps if you can’t help but bring previous discussions into new threads, it is you who should leave.

Membership was only by plebiscite, and each member country had to adopt a constitution that guaranteed individual freedoms, democratic process within the country, human rights, etc. Once a country (or portion of a country) became a member of the organization, there would be a military mutual defense obligation on all other member states against non-states. Member states could not maintain a military, but were part of the group military.

I’d much rather see that than the UN any day.

Donald Trump was interviewed on the subject of the recent (ongoing?) rehab of the UN Building, and he was scathing, without even trying. Huge fees had been paid to architects (far more than Trump had paid for the complete design of a new building), and yet there was no final plan. The head of the project did not even know what the building’s heating system was. The rents paid for temporary space were grossly excessive.

ISTM that the U.S. should have the CIA infiltrate the UN, copy records, hack computers and accounts, and trace all the money – producing the sort of real accounting the UN bureaucracy doesn’t want. Besides exposing boondoggles, it would also identify a great many thieves. The U.S. could use that information to “shape” UN policies and activities (IYKWIMAITYD).

To be efficient would be to call them to task. Perhaps the WWII winner states and their successful democratic brethren just want to keep the barbarians down on the farm. Or the lid on the boiling pot.

and i do not believe that non sequitor means what you think it does…..

Haven’t you disgraced yourself enough yet here to stop commenting?

To take just one example, you stated recently that because China has severe problems in the administration of criminal justice, we shouldn’t bother to address criminal justice problems in the United States.

Thanks,

I think you are absolutely right to point out waste. Spending $23 million on a ceiling mural is a waste of money. Couldn’t that money be used to bring fresh and safe water or food to people who lack such things, for example? I am not against public art either, but I do not think that extravagant public art should take a high priority when it benefits so few and when there are obviously more pressing needs.

However, while I agree with you concerning this particular expenditure, I don’t think you can generalize from that about the UN. (Which doesn’t mean you can’t make such generalizations. Only you would need a lot of other evidence. Unfortunately, I am far from an expert on UN finances.)