A proposed new direction for the United Nations

[Horse with no Name]

Since the US(via John Bolton and GWB) is dead set against bringing it down, why don't the rest of the participating nations just leave New York, exclude the US, and set up shop somewhere else?
Why do they need the US? I know that part of it used to be money, but with GWB at the helm--he just wants to attach conditions to any money he gives (like teaching Africans abstinence in order to get funding for AIDS)and ends up never giving promised money anyway--what good are they?

[Solo_in_MD]

1. The repukes would love that approach

and it would require a level of solidarity unknown since the existence of the UN.

US provides the largest hunk of UN funding. When its been witheld, its hard times at Turtle Bay

[mmonk]

2. I would prefer it to stay here

and somehow decide to remove the US veto power until it complies with the charter.

[sweetheart]

3. It would save them a lot of money

New York is very expensive to station a gazzillion diplomats and all that, and all that offical
tourism dumps money on the US economy as free gift, why shouldn't that free gift go to a nation
that better merits it, "Niger" comes to mind. I'm sure Niger would be an excellent place to have
a new United Nations building for a while, and if the US government is to cheap to be generous
with anything except bombs, fuck 'em.