Why doesn't the US pays its debts ?

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: A. Thanks for not responding AT ALL to my questions directed at you and blithely ignoring the fact that until you can address them the legs are cut out from under your argument. B. Charity that is expected is not Charity. Now, I know the Catholic Church, which gives % guidance on tithes, may not agree with this, but it's the way I see it. If it's charity, shut up about not getting the $$$$. You'll get it when the charitable giver decides you deserve it.

Oh my, you are impatient aren't you. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
A. I will answer your question now, though I have no clue what it had to do with what I had written before. In your logic then, the US has no right asking anything from the UN right now because they haven't paid them. Or maybe not. But, yes, I would prefer Mickey Mouse to starvation. But then this is not helping from the goodness of your heart anymore, but business. So it really can't be counted as any 'charity', and can not, therefore, be cut off the UN payments in any way. In my oppinion at least. If it could be cut off anyway.
B. Charity is expected in a way. A beggar on the street begs. Different organisations send letters to people, and people go door to door. Only a charity that advertises will get any charity. You have to know about it first because you can donate. [img]smile.gif[/img]

But what you have written sounds to me like "If you want our money, take it and then shut up and do what we want you to. Otherwise, starve." Then that isn't such a good deed as some have made it to be.

Edit --- spelling.

[ 03-05-2003, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Magik was it a Freudian slip? [img]tongue.gif[/img] For those who don't know, the Monroe Doctrine is from the early 1800's. It was bascially the US flipping off the colonial powers. This policy was proclaimed by President Monroe as a way of telling European Powers to stay the heck out of the Americas. It was a thinly veiled threat that we couldn't really backup...."Stay out of the Americas, and we'll stay out of Europe."

Actually, T. Roosevelt used the Monroe Doctrine to get involved in Venezuela and Panama, help start a revolution whereby Panama became its own nation, and finally build the Panama canal. Reagan used it to go bomb Nicaraugua and to support the Contras. JFK used it to threaten Russia regarding Cuba. Many many more examples abound. Okay... off topic, I know. But, it is a bedrock policy of American politics and more than "thinly veiled."

[Thoran]

Originally posted by MagiK: TL you make it sound like countries are out there saying "Give us your damn money and shut up". I always really thought it worked like that anyway, but the way you detailed it firms up my thoughts. Seems everyone wants the cash, but as a gift or tribute. Seems pretty cheeky to me.

That's what North Korea is doing right now. [img]smile.gif[/img] That's why they only want to negotiate with the US. They're just a bit more BLATANT about it than most.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, Spelca, I'm not really saying "we" too much, because I'm discussing the U.S. behavior as a nation - and it's applicable to other nations as well.

But the US government exists by and for the people. I don't think it should be charitable except where the people wish it to be so. As well, when it is charitable, it will naturally seek to ensure its donations do not get wasted. Which begins the cycle I discussed. This is understandable -- on a personal charity level I'll note a HUGE SNAFU that occurred in the USA a few years back when it was discovered that the United Way, a prominent charity, was "skimming" donations. Nowadays, you can investigate just about any charity for figures on how many cents out of each dollar donated actually make it to the intended beneficiary. Who wants to donate $1.00 to a charity when $0.83 will get eaten up in administrative costs?

As well, there is an "investment" side of "charitable" international giving - be it good will, land, or business that you garner from your charity.

This can all be undercut by an act of "nationalization" as MagiK mentioned. Often, when regimes change hands, the new government takes ownership of foreign property under its power of sovereignty. Americans lost many many businesses and properties when Fidel came to power - of course so did Cuban citizens as well. But, note, Fidel *could have* just taken foreign property if he wanted to.

But, it is a government's *job* to act selfishly for its citizens and protect their every interest. If the citizens want it to be charitable, then fine.

Back to the original topic of (a) the UN and (b) US debts. First note, a chairty is not a DEBT. Second note, while the UN is not a technical charity, the OECD nations have assumed a great deal of the burden of funding it based on the notions you mentioned, i.e. ability to pay. However, in the current day, the UN is basically a "hate the USA" club used by small nations to manipulate powerful nations. Because of this, I resent the fact that the US is the largest funder of this "bitching roundtable" and am perfectly happy to see the US ... *cough* ... forget .. *cough* .. to pay for a few years.

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Magik was it a Freudian slip? [img]tongue.gif[/img] For those who don't know, the Monroe Doctrine is from the early 1800's. It was bascially the US flipping off the colonial powers. This policy was proclaimed by President Monroe as a way of telling European Powers to stay the heck out of the Americas. It was a thinly veiled threat that we couldn't really backup...."Stay out of the Americas, and we'll stay out of Europe." OOps my bad. I knew that [img]smile.gif[/img] Sorry Bmann, good catch [img]smile.gif[/img] I was in a slight hurry. I started my vacation today...its only a 4 day weekend...but still time off [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Actually, T. Roosevelt used the Monroe Doctrine to get involved in Venezuela and Panama, help start a revolution whereby Panama became its own nation, and finally build the Panama canal. Reagan used it to go bomb Nicaraugua and to support the Contras. JFK used it to threaten Russia regarding Cuba. Many many more examples abound. Okay... off topic, I know. But, it is a bedrock policy of American politics and more than "thinly veiled."

History show off! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Back to the original topic of (a) the UN and (b) US debts. First note, a chairty is not a DEBT. Second note, while the UN is not a technical charity, the OECD nations have assumed a great deal of the burden of funding it based on the notions you mentioned, i.e. ability to pay. However, in the current day, the UN is basically a "hate the USA" club used by small nations to manipulate powerful nations. Because of this, I resent the fact that the US is the largest funder of this "bitching roundtable" and am perfectly happy to see the US ... *cough* ... forget .. *cough* .. to pay for a few years.

The money that USA should pay to the UN - it was agreed how much they'd pay, right? The US agreed to it, so it's in a way a contract. And all money that countries pay to the UN doesn't go to charity, does it? I mean, you pay so that the UN can function and in that way do things for all countries. Everybody benefits from the UN. At least that's how I understand it. You give and you also get stuff back. And I think it's fair that countries pay according to how much they can pay. [img]smile.gif[/img]

But why do you think it's "hate the USA" club now? Just because they disagree doesn't mean they hate the US. I disagree with some of the US's policies, but I don't hate Americans or USA.
A while ago I attended a lecture called "Why Is America Always Wrong?" It was given by somebody from the US Embassy here in Stockholm. And if I tell what I thought of it... that person just kept complaining about people always saying that what the US does is wrong. He didn't try to convince us that what they (by that I mean the people in charge) are right. He was just complaining. And he totally missed the point that not all people criticise US because they're "the US" but because they think they're right, and that the US is wrong. So my question would be, why doesn't USA ever admit they might be wrong? [img]tongue.gif[/img] When you say the UN is turning into "we hate USA" club, I could say I see the US politicians giving the impression of "why doesn't anyone like us". It's not about hating a country, it's about disagreeing about what a country does - not because they're "that" country, but because you think the actions are wrong. [img]smile.gif[/img]

But you said you're 'the largest funder of this "bitching roundtable"'. And what does that have to do with it? The UN is not there just to serve the US. I mean, the way you said that gives me the impression the US is in the UN just so they could do stuff and say that the world supports them. And as soon as the world disagrees with them, they get all upset. But that isn't the purpose of the UN. The UN is supposed to maintain peace, so what's wrong with some countries disagreeing with the way the US wants to achieve peace? [img]smile.gif[/img]
I think countries, and people, have the right to say what they think, and if other countries are not convinced by what some countries are saying, and ask for something to support their arguments, I think they have the right to do that. Then all you have to do is convince them. If you give them sound arguments, I believe they'll change their mind.
But as I said in some other thread (I think), so far I haven't been convinced why war would help the situation. I'm still waiting to be convinced.

Edit --- Again, grammar. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 03-06-2003, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

[Timber Loftis]

Well, Spelca, if you hadn't found this hole in my argument I was going to post it at the end of the day. Yes, as I have argued re: Iraq -- the UN is all CONTRACT law meaning "you agreed to it." This is my main reason for saying war v. Iraq is justified: for 12 years, they broke agreements they signed off on.

Now, for me to go advocating approval of the US failure to fund the UN in the amount determined by a system it AGREED to is in fact me ignoring my own soapbox. So, kudos to you for pointing that out. Remember, it's not the lawyers job to inform the tribunal he is wrong.

That said, the same argument just may take your stance on war in Iraq and stand it on its head. Just like me, you cannot have it both ways. If the US should pay dues, Iraq should cough up weapons, disarm them, and never try to obtain more so long as sanctions exist - and quit "running the blockade" on the "oil for food" program restrictions.

As for admitting its wrong, maybe the USA doesn't but neither do most countries. As for being selfish, they ALL are - period - full stop. There is NO country that is acting against its interests in this UN debate or any - ever.

You can act in you own interest and still benefit others, BTW. That's the bedrock principal of contract (and treaty) law.

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: (cut out some stuff) That said, the same argument just may take your stance on war in Iraq and stand it on its head. Just like me, you cannot have it both ways. If the US should pay dues, Iraq should cough up weapons, disarm them, and never try to obtain more so long as sanctions exist - and quit "running the blockade" on the "oil for food" program restrictions. As for admitting its wrong, maybe the USA doesn't but neither do most countries. As for being selfish, they ALL are - period - full stop. There is NO country that is acting against its interests in this UN debate or any - ever. You can act in you own interest and still benefit others, BTW. That's the bedrock principal of contract (and treaty) law.

Yea, I hate it when the money meant for the people goes into somebody's pocket. I agree with you on that. And also that if you agree to something, you should do it. That goes for all the countries. But what I see is double standard. Some countries are being tolerated a lot, and some get bombed. I think Iraq has missiles they shouldn't have, and I know other countries too have weapons they shouldn't have, or have more than they agreed to. But I am still against war.

Hehe, and I also agree that all countries will do what's best for them. If not for the people, then for the people in charge. It might not be good, but it's understandable. People usually take care of their own first.

[ElricMorlockin]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Moiraine, I replied to this in your "No Need for War" thread, so I shan't do it again here. In sum, though, you fail to state that the US is the single largest contributor to the UN bar none - even given its arrears.

Having read his reply in *that* thread and agreeing with him, I suppose I should add my two cents here.

Why dont we do this?
1.) France in particular owes the United States an enormous amount of war debt from the early part of the 20th century. We generously forgave it. So, if there is a complaint about what we pay, why not allow France to pay what they owe us to the UN? Lump sum payment minus interest would be very helpful to that organization.