Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
Moreover, the last time this came about, we found out that the US pays an obscene amount.
|
Yeah, "an obscene amount". U.S. : 290 millions citizens, 341 $US millions U.N. membership due. France : 60 millions citizens, 87 $US millions U.N. membership due. Do the maths - U.S. : 1.18 USD/citizen, France : 1.45 USD/citizen. And we manage to pay our membership due on time (end of January) ! This must probably mean that French citizens are better off than U.S. citizens, eh Timber ?
Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
It IS international welfare. The US, Japan, and other developed nations are VERY generous (vis-a-vis the nations that GET the money) to the UN. I just don't know that I'm for it all. Couple us giving money to nations like India through the UN along with 6 million US white-collar jobs moving to India (IBM tech support and others -- pay attention to the accent the next time you call Dell tech support) along with free trade sucking jobs out along with offshore corporation laws sucking corps out, and it's, like, well, do you want our whole frikkin country? I mean, we're jobless over here. 
|
I don't understand your logic, Timber. Seems to me that the fact that private companies actually can move jobs across the world without much control advocates the need for international instances that could ensure some sort of regulation, no ? Well, we have one, you know, it is called the U.N. And your reasoning is to hinder it instead of helping it with both hands ?
Quote:
Originally posted by John D Harris:
Not this again, Last time we went through this the facts brought by Moiraine showed the USA pays it's bill in the month of Oct. Which just happens to be the start of the US governments fiscal year. Now Why the "Hale" should the UN not wait for Congress to get off It's rear end, when the Citizens of the USA (you know the country the Congress is in charge of) have to wait for Congress to get off it's rear end.
|
Well, John, the U.N. membership share is due at the end of January. Not only do the U.S. pay its share at the end of the year, but it also manages to not pay the entirety of it - or arrears currently amounting at 50 % of the international debt to the U.N. wouldn't occur. I wonder how you would react if your company decided, due to some internal rule, to pay your wages not at the end of every month but in totality at the end of the year. And then argued that it is such a tremendous amount that you'll have to agree to see half of it delayed again to some undefined date.
Maybe the U.N. should agree to send troups at the U.S. request - at some undefined date and not sooner than December 2004. Due to some internal decision, you understand.
Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
(...) What you call Peacebreaking is actually clearing the field for peacekeeping. (...)
|
Sure, making war can be called in a peculiar way "clearing the field for peacekeeping" !
Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
But let's not forget whose taxes have paid the bill to set the stage. And a frikkin expensive one at that. I think that, prior to the time all the puffing had forced everyone to take a stance, everyone in the US would have been fine with France or Germany fixing the Iraq situation - and doing it a very different and even peaceful way - just so long as it was one of those nations footing the bill.
|
Hey, why should us citizens of the World now pay the bill for the actions your country decided to undertake on its own ?
Anyway, all this showed that you have money to spend. So you can pay your bill to the U.N. before you ask it do mend the pots you have yourself broken, eh ?
[ 09-08-2003, 05:43 AM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]