SHOULD THE UNITED NATIONS MOVE OUT OF NEW YORK?

The majority of commenters underneath an article on the BBC website are of the opinion that denying a visa to Hamid Aboutalebi, Teheran's pick for UN ambassador, is an egregious offense, just not done, and it's high time that the UN move somewhere else.
I agree wholeheartedly with that last part.
All of you, please leave.

I suggest THREE possible venues: Geneva, Brussels, and Mecca.

Geneva was one of the original locations proposed, and had that been acted on over sixty years ago, we would not have had that bunch of third-world gangsters shoplifting, attempting rape, driving drunk, and scoffing at our laws, which at present we are blessed with. Additionally, we wouldn't have to host a whole herd of self-important European pencil-pushing pimps sneering at everything American on our soil while eating our food.

Brussels would also be perfect. Given that the French, Germans, Irish, Walloons, and Brits have utterly ruined what was once the cultured capital of Brabant, and none of those snob-educated poncy Eurocrats will even try to learn the local language -- which is Flemish, NOT French, that's strictly for poofters -- Brussels has devolved into a hellish crap-hole, and it would therefore be entirely fitting that woggah woggah shouting savages from Dirtwadistan be posted there to hobnob with the trash.

Mecca has the advantage that the paymasters of every depraved regime in Africa and Asia would be just across the street.


While we're at it, let's expel diplomats from a very large number of African, Asian, and Latin American countries, and tell the Europeans that they're on short notice.
Too many poxy blisters from the rest of the world enjoy trashing the United States while benefiting substantially from our economy and largesse; up theirs and the camels or knackered lipizzaners they rode in on.


The United Nations is an expensive and completely useless exercise in giving face to failures, while diplomacy, in the modern world, simply means that some syphilitic party-hack from a foreign country gets to snootily act superior.
Far better that our relations with most of the world are conducted on a cash or aircraft carrier basis.



ADDENDUM

Per Wikipedia, the top 10 contributors to the UN budget in 2013 were as follows:

United States: 22.00%
Japan: 10.83%
Germany: 7.14%
France: 5.59%
United Kingdom: 5.18%
China: 5.15%
Italy: 4.45%
Canada: 2.98%
Spain: 2.97%
Brazil: 2.93%

As expected, some of the noisiest tin-pot rinky-tink dungheaps contribute hardly anything. Which becomes even more significant when their special needs are taken into account: peace keeping. There are countries that just don't get along with anybody in this world, and barbarian tribes that really wish to slaughter their neighbors. The United Nations, while a miserable failure at actually preventing bloodshed, does have feet on the ground in a number of locations.

Significant cite: In 2013, the top 10 providers of assessed financial contributions to United Nations peacekeeping operations were the United States (28.38%), Japan (10.83%), France (7.22%), Germany (7.14%), the United Kingdom (6.68%), China (6.64%), Italy (4.45%), the Russian Federation (3.15%), Canada (2.98%), and Spain (2.97%).


We're not getting our money's worth.


Note: This is a rant. As such, it is not meant to prompt serious discussion, or a careful moot and rebut of points. Especially not by people who are literalists. Or logical positivists. Thank you.




==========================================================================
NOTE: Readers may contact me directly:
LETTER BOX.
All correspondence will be kept in confidence.
==========================================================================