I thought the U.N. was irrelevant...

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: So the U.S. owes the U.N. money we agreed to pay? If so then we should pay, it is the principle of the matter. I dunno the details though at all....

It's a tiny amount for the US - but a rather large amount to the UN:

"For more than twenty years, the United States has been regularly delinquent in the payment of its annual assessed contributions to the United Nations and its agencies. U.S. contributions are often ten or more months late owing to the government's practice of seeking congressional appropriation of the funds after the date on which they are actually due; the result is payment of U.S. assessments in the final months of the organizations' budget year...

...Based on U.N. figures, as of 28 February 2003, the United States owed $1.327 billion in both past and current (2003) obligations to the United Nations regular budget, international tribunals, and peacekeeping. Of this amount, arrears owed prior to 1 January 2003 total $738 million. Payment of arrears owed prior to 2003 would require legislative action that either repeals or rescinds the legislation that prompted the withholding in the first place.",
http://www.unausa.org/newindex.asp?p...cy/usunfin.asp [/QUOTE]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.

[Timber Loftis]

Moreover, the last time this came about, we found out that the US pays an obscene amount.

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.

[Skunk]

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?

UN peacekeeping troops are paid for by the UN - as you should be aware.
India provides more peacekeeping troops than any other country in the world (and thus receives money from the UN for it) - so perhaps if US troops were freed up for peacekeeping rather than peacebreaking duties, you might see some of the money coming back...

[ 09-07-2003, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Skunk: UN peacekeeping troops are paid for by the UN - as you should be aware.

And how much does India pay in UN dues? Without considering this, you missed the point.

India provides more peacekeeping troops than any other country in the world (and thus receives money from the UN for it) - so perhaps if US troops were freed up for peacekeeping rather than peacebreaking duties, you might see some of the money coming back...

Again, this misses the point. I don't have a problem with paying the Indian 9th Para-Commandos their money for doing work - that's not the issue. US troops don't wear that ugly blue and white UN hat, but they are doing the UN's work. Are we really going to say the UN itself did anything in Desert Storm or Kosovo until AFTER the fighting was done? Yes, peaceKEEPING, is the UN role. What you call Peacebreaking is actually clearing the field for peacekeeping. Without the US army to go in a bomb the living s**t out of Kosovo, the UN would have no success there. And, though it's come about as the result of poor US choices combined with UN unwillingness to do anything beforehand (dealing with Saddam) and embarrassment to be associated with it afterwards, Iraq will turn out to be the same in retrospect: Even though everyone knew something needed to be done about the threat of Iraq WMD, the US went in and did what no one wanted to do (whether they did it the WAY everyone wanted or not) and cleared the way so that after a time (of embarrassment for the UN, by association, and for the US, by failure at peacekeeping and nationbuilding) the UN could come in and set up a proper free self-governing nation.

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.

[ 09-07-2003, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Skunk]

And, though it's come about as the result of poor US choices combined with UN unwillingness to do anything beforehand (dealing with Saddam) and embarrassment to be associated with it afterwards, Iraq will turn out to be the same in retrospect: Even though everyone knew something needed to be done about the threat of Iraq WMD,

Well, that's like a building company knocking down your garage without your permission - then wailing about the costs involved in the demolition and demanding that not only should you pay for the demolition but also the rebuilding process.

Imagine this one in a court of law:
DA:"Why did you knock down the garage without permission?"
Defendent: "Cause it looked like it needed doing"
DA: "What evidence do you have to support this claim?"
Defendent: "None"

Not sure about your chances of winning there (and the situation is even worse when it comes to light that the building company responsible for the demolition was also responsible for the original construction!)

[Moiraine]

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 ?

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 ?

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.

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" !

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 ]

[Donut]

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.

Let's not forget that the US took the actions that they did because it was in it's own economic and security interests to do so. The Gulf War was not fought for the good of the Iraqi people.

[Timber Loftis]

Great, yet another thread of Eurotwits on high horses extolling the virtues of sitting on one's hands in the face of uncertain options.

Look, I have enough of a jaded view to have read these arguments (or similar ones) when you posted them before. I am just able to view both sides of the coin on this one. Maybe the US liberated Iraq in a VERY imperfect way. I will not, however, ever say it would have been better to do nothing. If your non-UK Euro nations could have offered up an option other than talk it to death, your nations would not have forced the US's hand.

Now, on the argument that the different siphons hooked to the US to suck our economy and money away -- Moiraine mentioned this argued for MORE funding of the UN, not less. I disagree. The more I watch Ford move plants to Mexico, the more I watch environmental regs become lessened in the US to accomodate competition concerns (driven by free trade issues and the need to compete with dirty businesses in other nations), the more I want to see the US close its borders. While I once wholly supported the WTO, I've lately come round to deciding free trade is a death knell to privileged nations until sister international bodies are created to deal with externalities the WTO creates but fails to address -- such as labor and the environment. Until then, screw the UN, the WTO, and other nations. When our unemployment rate over here gets down below 5%, I'll consider otherwise.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Great, yet another thread of Eurotwits on high horses extolling the virtues of sitting on one's hands in the face of uncertain options.

I hope you're not using the term Eurotwits in a derogatory manner here TL because that would surely break the ToS.

[Skunk]

Now, on the argument that the different siphons hooked to the US to suck our economy and money away -- Moiraine mentioned this argued for MORE funding of the UN, not less. I disagree. The more I watch Ford move plants to Mexico, the more I watch environmental regs become lessened in the US to accomodate competition concerns (driven by free trade issues and the need to compete with dirty businesses in other nations), the more I want to see the US close its borders.

But TL, the outward flow of jobs has nothing to do with the WTO or the UN (if anything, the WTO is helping to keep jobs in the country - hence the popular protests about how 'unfair' it is). If a company believes that its cheaper to manufacture 'whizzogs' in Liberia - then they'll move their plant there regardless of the UN or the WTO.

Furthermore, what goes around comes around - should the US put up 'protective barriers', then other countries will do the same against US goods (and you only have to look at how the steel imports fiasco made things bad for other segments of the US export market - without improving things for US steel manufacturers to see how counterproductive such measures are).

Furthermore, there are a number of countries (and the list is growing) which slap on an additional import tax on products which were produced in an unenvironmentally friendly way - so the reduction of environmental regulations in the production of certain goods is also counter-productive. Because with this, not only do you stink up your environment - but your product *still* costs the same as your competitor's when it reaches a third country.

The US economy's wealth is founded on its exports - so any kind of economic isolationism is bad for its health - in a major way.

[ 09-08-2003, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]