US Army brutality in Kosovo

[AKDejaVu]

 

the US is in debt to the UN to the tune of 10 billion dollars

Ah.. the vagueness of it all.

How about:

1) How much do we owe?  Not a guess.. a real number.

2) What do we owe it for?

3) EXACTLY what reasons are being cited for it not being payed.

4) Who do we owe it too?  The UN?  Or countries in the UN?

How about considering this:

During a UN operation, a country pay significantly more than any of the other countries involved.  They fork out enough money to make "10 Billion" look like chump change.

When all is said and done... it comes time to pay dues to the UN.  The country that just payed 500 billion to support an opperation is now asked to fork over 10 billion more for dues.  Afterall.. everyone else has to pay them.

Try a different aproach dowding.. your incessant attacks are getting quite old.  Pretty soon you are going to rank right in there with StSanta.

AKDejaVu

[Toad]

This topic is WAY too long now.

..and this won't help things!  

Naso, I'm not one of those that take the free exchange of opinion/ideas as personal.
As I said, no one is getting hit by an axe handle here...that would be personal.

Dowding, you have to admit that almost all of your posts are of the accusatory, fault finding nature with respect to the UN/US/NATO/Wealthy Nations.

I think you are an idealist (and that is a good thing, BTW..I feel I am one myself. However, I also temper that with realism; I've been out in the wide-world enough to know that reality beats idealism almost every time, whether we like it or not.).

However, the world is NEVER going to live up to anyone's totally idealistic expectations. Continually complaining that they don't, barely acknowledging the good they do manage to do is unlikely to encourage them to do more.

Now, specifically, this did irritate me:

"the Chechnya conflict is very revealing, especially when looking at international relations. NATO wouldn't dare get involved here"

I can't see your defense of this remark. To me it is either a blatant troll or pretty damn ill-informed. The rest of the paragraph provides no support for this statement, either.

What is "very revealing" with respect to world international relations? That NATO wouldn't "DARE" to get involved because that would be a CLEAR violation of its charter? What's revealing about that? It's surprising that they follow their own rules?

Your inflammatory tone led me to believe it was a troll. I replied sharply to that. I'd rather believe it was troll than the other choice.


Funk, exactly. I continually remind my elected reps that the much more sophisticated "old world" powers are better adapted to the delicate job of "policeman" than US Combat Troops. The day is coming when they will return. Spread the word, E-Mail the politicos. It's really easy now to mass mail Congress with a computer.  

US Debt to the UN. I'm aware of it, haven't researched it or the reasons why we aren't paying.

In the meantime, though, here's a fact for you...a FACT:

Bosnia and other overseas operations cost the United States $7 billion in 1999.

So, in the roughly 55 years of UN history, we're $10 Billion delinquent in dues.

Last year we spent $7 Billion on our overseas military committments. IIRC, I saw data that said Bosnia & Kosovo were about $5 Billion of that. This year will probably be no different.

$5 Billion in ONE year. Half of our " 55 year delinquent dues" bill. Let's see..we went into Bosnia about 5 years ago.....

So, how about the rest of the UN pitches in on that. We'll add up what EVERY NATION that has troops in Bosnia & Kosovo has spent, divide it up equally amongst all UN members and have them send "fair share" checks to the peacekeeping nations. OK? Then we'll catch up our UN dues.  

Oh, Dowding, while you are researching our UN bill, could you check on one other thing?

Please check and see how the "dues" for each nation are calculated. In other words, does each country pay equally? If not, what are the % of the UN budget that each of the major industrialized nations pays?  Thanks.  

[jmccaul]

Ok first off we must make one thing clear. There are NATO troops and UN troops.

NATO troops - protect US intrests

UN troops - peacekeepers

Which do you want to come home. If you mean NATO troops that is equivelant of a supermarket getting rid of security guards. Or do you mean UN troops.

You seem to suggest that the US has contributed more than it's fair share to the UN. Where is your evidence - i am not talking purley numerically as you can't expect luxemburg to contribute the same anmount of troops as the US i.e. what proportion of military spending is spent on UN activities verses other countries % spending.

Ok on last thing Bosnia vs Iraq

Iraq's "reason" for invading kuwait - formerly part of iraq and they wanted it back.

The serbs reason for aggression against bosnia - was part of yugoslavia and they wanted it back.

The difference between the 2 was the serbs attempted genocide and the NATO did nothing to stop it. The UN did it's best but it isn't an aggresive force. With iraq NATO launched a massive campgien to force iraq out of kuwait.

Before Iraq invaded Kuwait they were at war with Iran what was the wests reaction? Sell arms to Saddam Hussien.

P.S. If the US are pouring a much larger % of funding into the UN than other countries it would be perfectly reasonable to cut back in line with everyone else. If it isn't on the other hand the US has no more reason to stop helping the UN than any other country, in this case your only argument seems to be we are further away from these atrocities than european countries so lets ignore them.      

   
     

[funked]

Actually Jmmcaul the West not only sold arms to Iraq, but the US actually gave them billions to buy them!

[Dowding]

I don't see how that remark was inflammatory; I think it is interesting how there is very little made of that conflict in the West, how very few noises are made politically about its conduct. It shows how the West is tredding very gently when it comes to Russia, given the fragility of the government there. Also, there was very little reporting of the conflict by Western journalists - in fact absolutly none towards the end. It wasn't meant to be some major point of contention, beleive me, I just used it so I could talk about Babitsky, and get Boroda's opinion on him (but he didn't bite).

As for the debt thing, AK, I was vague and the reason for that was clearly stated in my post. I was just pointing out that it wasn't one way when it came to funding UN operations involving the US. Maybe the amount is more, maybe less. I can't remember, and to be honest, I don't really care. If you do, do me a favour and look up the info.

Toad, feel free to open a new topic if you want - I can't be arsed replying to this one given its length. The 'last post' hehehe...

As for being an idealist, I guess in some ways I am. But i know how reality works, I know how governments think and how they need to be seen to think. It's just a shame there can't be more honesty, but then asking for honesty in politics is like whistling into the wind. At the end of the day I think most democratic governments act abroad in a way that will be seen favourably at home, and if they don't, then they will find any excuse to justify their actions.

But there is no true alternative to democracy, despite its many faults. BTW - you are against people complaining about the way things are done, just because 'some' good might have come from the situation? I guess that depends on where your standing doesn't it? Back in the 80's when the Thatcher government was destroying communities where I was growing up, putting my whole family out of work, were we supposed to sit back and let that happen without a word, simply because 'some good' had come out of situation (according to the Tories)? I don't think that any reasonable person could - the people in charge should always strive to do better, and be open to criticism, however undeserved.

[jmccaul]

Thats what i like to see