Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Drew
The contributions of a country as a percentage of their GDP is pretty irrelevant in terms of the question that is being posed.
What you are saying is that the United Nations could survive as a relevant world entity after losing approximately a fourth of its budget, a third of its peacekeeping budget, its $450 million HQ building (which would cost $1.2 billion to replace) and the membership of the most influential (whether anyone likes it or not) nation in the world.
Please help me understand that logic.
|
Go look up the League of Nations, it was a disaster but its proof such an organisation did exist without the USA. Pakistan & Canada also technically contribute more to U.N. operations than USA, it's more a matter of peace keeping & law enforcement than money, naturally money is needed for these operations but a combined force can contain third world countries, all you need is a relatively well trained army like that of Nigeria, Canada or Pakistan to do this.
~