The countries that will not support the US, take handouts from US tax payers, but will not agree with the US in the UN and help avoid possible wars. Why keep giving them money?
134653
I don't think we should be giving any other countries money.
8727
They do not dislike the US.  They dislike some of our policies that they perceive is not in their favor.
272608
Because the UN/US isn't interested in the African people other than as slave labour to mine the minerals for the corporations. By the 'peacekeepers' doing what they are doing, it will undermine their position leading to riots/demonstrations/protests. Then when these turn ugly, more 'peacekeepers' with 'bigger guns' will be sent to 'resolve the conflict'.
223121
It is the biggest reason I think, and from there the reasons go down hill.\n\n1)  We support another country so they hate us (Israel is the most common answer).\n\n2)  We don't like to give money away without strings.  They hate strings being attached to money so they resent us for telling them how to spend our money.\n\n3)  They disagree with our values.  Oddly enough they'd hate liberals even more for their open ways, but they view America as morally corrupt.
344247
I think the US should withdraw from the UN.  It has become uneffective and is mostly funded by the US.   The vote for donation is out of wack.  Nowhere else do those with the cash bow down and humble themselves to those who have been proven failures.  IE... Soviets, France, Most of Africa, etc....\nMost of the countries in the UN are all mouth and no money or support to back it up.
49927
Because actually they make you think that we help other countries but in reality we take advantage of other countries by helping them. Like for example, you think we are helping Iraqis but in reality we are interested in the oil. Maybe in the process we do help Iraqis but the main purpose was the oil. We help other countries, but we help them because there is something in return. It's not totally free you know.
471656
I know what you're trying to say, and the same goes for all the African nations where the aid money goes to the armies instead of the people who desperately need it. There is no oil there, so no-one is remotely interested.
637291
When the U.N. doesn't put countries like Sudan on the Human Rights council, we might consider the U.N. a viable force in the world, but until they clean up their act, end the corruption that has been proven and admitted to by the U.N., it's kind of silly to expect us to help elevate an organization like the U.N. into a position of being able to dictate to us.\n\nBesides, it's supporters and most "World Government" supporters seem to be fairly good at alienating the West by calling them names.  Look at your own question.  Look at the attitude of the number 2 man in the U.N.\n\nKind of silly if you want support.  Seems you just want to insult people to make yourself look better.  Doesn't work well.\n\nTry a more enlightened debate.  I'll join.  Until then, it isn't worthy of being more than a talk show.\n\nOh, do you really expect a country to debase or avoid using their own assets in their own interest?  Wouldn't that be kind of silly?  Or do you mean that we should sacrifice our own self-interest to give YOU what YOU want?\n\nWhen you have done as much as we have to make our country great, when you have a Bill of Rights worthy of our respect, when you support Free Speech over political expediency, when you support the democratic ability of the people to choose their own government, then you'll have our support, and mine.\n\nAnd we see you sacrificing your self-interests, we'll consider doing the same.  Until then it's just begging and then bitterness when the country you are begging from doesn't give you a handout.  Earn it yourself.
307707
The bottom line is it is about the all mighty dollar.  Maintaining access to foreign goods means that our government feels a need to exhaust our resources to "make nice" with other countries to help them with their strife--at the sacrifice of our own needs.  Sure there are some of the richest people on the planet here, but not all.  There are also a lot of severely impoverished as well.  We need to get our priorities straight as a nation.
41469
See, what u don't understand is that THEY don't want to DIE for this war. They know it's bogus. They're not willing to put their money where their mouth is. And if they send their kids, who'll carry on their legacy? They send middle class, or poor people, cuz hey, it's not their relatives. Besides, if us poor saps don't fight their war, who will? Rich kids don't like authority, but poor kids just might listen. It's kinda like a friend who tells u to do something that they're  too chicken to do, ya know?
567936
The problem is that many African countries don't have functioning governmental institutions.  Sending money might help alleviate problems temporarily, but until they have more stable institutions and social welfare programs, governments can't be effective in helping their people.  Another problem is that many African countries have outrageous amounts of debt, so this plus unstable economies (that part is sort of a chicken and egg kind of thing) make it really difficult for these governments to become more stable and to provide and maintain public goods.
478075
I think the issue is that they aren't paying most taxes.  (You pay taxes to America every time you buy something...)
186754
USA doesn't accept because Israel don't and they think that Ham mas will encourage Palestinian to resist the Israel occupation so they didn't accept it cause they ant them to stop fighting and to give their land to Israel.cause there is no Justice in this world
567098
You are not stingy. They actually give more than most countries put together. It's just that they give to the wrong people, Israel for example. To buy American-made weapons. Very clever! Or is it?
19045
Surprisingly only the US and its citizens think that the UN is bad, why? For the reason that they stand to lose most of the privelages and standing if an equal ground for every nation was ever to surface with the US not as a veto nation but just a nation among many. The UN is neither inept nor incompetant but it has its powers shackled and retraints placed upon it by the veto power of the security council. Even the latest bid to expand membership to reflect a more current world order was killed due to the old club not wanting to lose their privilages. The UN operates by concensses and it had to give and take before any action can be taken which takes time and mediation, it is also hamperred that for the fact it has no real power such as its own arm forces or ability to impose sanctions without agreement by the security council. The US has not helped by not paying their dues, taking unilateral decisions and even ignoring certain recommendations put forth by the UN. The UN is the only major plural community that nations can depend on and for nations like South America, Africa and Asia, they have seen benefits derived from joining the UN.
429322
Get your head out of the sand,dummy!  The US is not interested in any other country except those that mean harm to it or it's allies who the US has an obligation to protect.  If you mean other countries like Iran, N.Korea, Syria, Venezuela, I would be glad to explain each scenario, but I won't because you simply will not understand or will refuse to listen.\n\nSo, stay stuck on stupid and if you would like a better explanation, please re- phrase your question in a manner that makes it more palatable.
137604
The United Nations has become a political lobbying organization for a way of life its leaders feel is the way it should be.  Its a quasi democratic socialistic system much like those in Western Europe (France, Holland, etc).  As such they are not able to handle serious issues like the one you present.  Handling these issues will cost them political capital and force them to lose ground on their political agenda.  \n\nThis was the same reason they would not do anything about Iraq.  It was not because they didn't think Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction it was because doing something about it would cost them political capital...look at all the countries Saddam paid oil profits too (France, Germany, Russia, China)