Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on August 13, 2003, 08:12:18 AM
-
From the Journal News, United States gives out $13.3 billion tax dollars in direct foreign aid annually. The United States is above and beyond the single most generous benefactor of the United Nations, donating $2.4 billion dollars of your money, to primarily third world dictators. This amount is 25 percent of the United Nations' budget. In addition, the United States also gives another $1.4 billion tax dollars to United Nations programs and agencies. The American taxpayers fund more for the United Nations than all other 177 member nations combined. What most Americans do not realize is that the vast majority of the recipients of the U.S. foreign aid routinely vote against the wishes of the United States in the United Nations at an average rate of 74 percent. In other
words, of the $13.3 billion tax dollars invested in direct foreign aid, only about 26 percent, or $3.5 billion, went to support people who endorsed American initiatives or causes. A staggering $9.8 billion tax dollars went to causes and people who were and are in open and direct opposition to the United States' interests and objectives. Listed below are the actual voting records of various
Arabic/Islamic states which are recorded in both the U.S. State Department and United Nations' records:
Kuwait votes against the United States 67 percent of the time,
Qatar 67 percent of the time,
Morocco 70 percent,
United Arab Emirates 70 percent,
Jordan 71 percent,
Tunisia 71 percent,
Saudi Arabia 73 percent,
Yemen 74 percent,
Algeria 74 percent,
Oman 74 percent,
Sudan 75 percent,
Pakistan 75 percent,
Libya 76 percent,
Egypt 79 percent,
Lebanon 80 percent,
India 81 percent
and Syria votes against the United States 84 percent of the time.
U.S. foreign aid to those that hate us: ·
Egypt, for example, after voting 79 percent of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in U.S. foreign aid.
Jordan votes 71 percent against the United States and receives $192,814,000 annually in U.S. foreign aid.
Pakistan votes 75 percent against the United States and receives $6,721,000 annually in U.S. foreign aid.
India votes 81 percent against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually in U.S. foreign aid.
Perhaps it is time to get out of the U.N. and give the tax savings back to American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay their taxes.
-
why not direct that foreign aid britains way instead? i could do with an Aston Martin or two..
-
Originally posted by Furball
why not direct that foreign aid britains way instead? i could do with an Aston Martin or two..
I couldn't agree more! Cut off the aid to the countries listed, why not? What are they going to do...vote against us on every resolution? THEY ALREADY ARE! :)
-
What a load of bollocks.
Those that vote against the US in a UN resolution vote hate the US. Okaaay.
Pakistan hates you by giving unprecendented support, effectively destabilising themselves in the process. I'm sure all those Pakistani security agents killed hunting Al-Queda operatives in and around Pakistan hated the US too. Dig up a few old posts of wulfie's - he had some interesting insights.
Ripsnort, India is neither Arabic nor Islamic. They are majority Hindu. But then they are also brown, so I can see how you might be confused. If that's not the case, then feel free to fill me in.
The idea that the US taxpayer is carrying this huge burden far and above what any other citizen in any other country carries is a lie. Per capita, the US is not 'in the lead' - it is behind countries such a Norway, for instance.
Lock this obvious troll?
-
Dowding, do you have strong objective feelings on every single topic posted on this bbs? sure seems that way! ;) :D
wind up merchant!
-
Originally posted by Dowding
What a load of bollocks.
Those that vote against the US in a UN resolution vote hate the US. Okaaay.
Where was the word "Hate U.S." used other than your post? I say vote with our tax dollars! Pull it all back, and take care of our own. Screw those guys. :)
-
U.S. foreign aid to those that hate us: ·
Egypt, for example, after voting 79 percent of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in U.S. foreign aid.
Jordan votes 71 percent against the United States and receives $192,814,000 annually in U.S. foreign aid.
Pakistan votes 75 percent against the United States and receives $6,721,000 annually in U.S. foreign aid.
India votes 81 percent against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually in U.S. foreign aid.
So you don't read your own posts...
-
No-one disagrees that the US is very generous in giving out billions in foreign aid.
I think the objections to US policy with respet to the foreign aid has alot more to do with the conditions attached to it.
You guys don't just hand out money for nothing...that wouldn't be good business...and business is what the US does best.
No judgement call...just making a point.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
So you don't read your own posts...
Ah, missed that word in the article.
-
The UN has outlived it's usefulness. We can beef up our foreign dimplomatic corps and ensure that our money is spent the way we intend. Why the hell not?
-
Raghib don't surf!
-
Dowding - do you know how to do anything else besides play Devil's Advocate?
-
I know how to add up, divide, multiply and take away. Evidentally whoever wrote Ripsnort's quote did not.
Do you know how to do anything other than snipe at people from the sidelines? Come down from the cheap seats and dispute the points I made.
-
Of course, some of that aid (haven't checked to see if it's some or most) is used to buy American products, military or otherwise, as a form of industrial/agricultural welfare, as well as to buy some varying degree of influence. We are humanatarians, but we are also capitalists :)
Charon
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Do what you will, it's your money! Just stop this annoying whining!
And when we do how many will cry "Wait! let's talk about this."?
-
You guys are talking as if the countries are persons with minds, motivations, feelings, etc. rather than imaginary mental constrcts.
In reality a country is a geograpfical area with a lot of disparate and often conflicting population groups ruled by special interests.
It is those rulers who are responcible for the voting of their country in US and thy do not have to go to all the trouble of being nice to US. They just have to buy support of some politicians in US or link up with some special interests groups who would benefit/share in the loot.
From the point of view of the people of those countries, the "US help" may not be that much helpfull - especially if it is used for oppression of the population.
Peter Bauer proved that internatiopnal help is the main reason of the troubles of the developing world - making possible the totalitarian regimes and preventing free markets and development of the democracy. I would not be that proud of such help.
miko
-
I pay taxes in the US for fairly simple reasons;
I like having maintained roads
I like having Fire Stations
I like having Police
I like having a Military to protect our borders
I don't like nor want ANY of my tax dollars to be spent on foreign aid.
But if the US is gonna buy votes in the UN, then it's reasonable to expect the countries being bought should stay bought or quit taking the money.
Half the countries on Ripsnort's list don't need the aid anyway, those countries need thier rulers to spread the wealth.
I wonder how fast the US could pay off it's own deficit with that money, instead of proping up dictatorships in the middle east.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I know how to add up, divide, multiply and take away. Evidentally whoever wrote Ripsnort's quote did not.
Do you know how to do anything other than snipe at people from the sidelines? Come down from the cheap seats and dispute the points I made.
What a load of bollocks.
Those that vote against the US in a UN resolution vote hate the US. Okaaay.
Pakistan hates you by giving unprecendented support, effectively destabilising themselves in the process. I'm sure all those Pakistani security agents killed hunting Al-Queda operatives in and around Pakistan hated the US too. Dig up a few old posts of wulfie's - he had some interesting insights.
Ripsnort, India is neither Arabic nor Islamic. They are majority Hindu. But then they are also brown, so I can see how you might be confused. If that's not the case, then feel free to fill me in.
The idea that the US taxpayer is carrying this huge burden far and above what any other citizen in any other country carries is a lie. Per capita, the US is not 'in the lead' - it is behind countries such a Norway, for instance.
Lock this obvious troll?[/b]
I'd love to dispute with you, but I dont see any relevant points. The fact that you altered the rgument from the simple numbers of monetary support to a 'per capita' figure is a seperate issue, and if youd like to discuss that, create a another post.
India has a sizable Muslim population... but what does that have to do with the argument? What the color of their skin has to do with anything is even further beyond my comprehension ability.
So what are you saying again?
-
Well put Milnko. I was looking at that list and thinking, though they may not be superpowers, I'm not sure some of them are destitute and really need any handouts.
-
I'd be more interested in the percentage of GNP used to foreign aid by the countries than the sums.
Like.. for US a billion dollars is something like pocket money compared to what it is for countries like finland, sweden, norway, denmark...
percentage of the GNP speaks with more volume about each country.
U.S. foreign aid to those that hate us:
Didn't know India hates US...
Well.. I guess it can be put that way if 'disagreeing' is the same as hate.
US is becoming isolationistic state eh?
"everyone out there hates us. since they dont agree with everything we say"
-
THE UNITED NATIONS -- MYTH AND REALITY
AMERICAN SUPPORT
Fact Sheet
American Financial Support
Myth: The United States pays for almost all of the United Nations' programs and peacekeeping operations.
Reality: The U.S. pays 22% of the UN's regular budget and about 27.2% of the peacekeeping budgets. It also pays about 25% of the costs of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Former Yugoslavia.
* * * * *
Myth: The U.S. pays too much to the UN. Other countries are getting a free ride.
Reality: UN membership dues, known as assessments, are based primarily on each nation's share of the global economy. The U.S. economy represents about 31% of the global economy. The U.S. therefore benefits from the 22% ceiling on assessments for the regular budget. Many countries actually pay more in assessments than their share of the global economy.
* * * * *
Myth: The U.S. spends a large portion of its federal budget on UN policies/programs.
Reality: Total U.S. payments to the entire UN system (including the World Bank and IMF) amount to less than one-quarter of one percent of the federal budget. In 2001, for example, the U.S. paid about $300 million as its share of the UN's regular budget. All told, U.S. contributions to the entire UN system, including those for peacekeeping missions, amounted to about $3.5 billion in 2001.
[Also see the section on Financing in the United Nations Fact Sheet.]
* * * * *
American Military Support
Myth: Too many American soldiers are serving in UN peacekeeping operations. The U.S. provides most of the military men and women involved in UN peacekeeping operations.
Reality: Fewer than 40 American military men and women are currently serving in UN peacekeeping operations. Americans therefore represent less than 1% of the approximate total of 40,000 soldiers serving in UN peacekeeping operations.
* * * * *
Myth: Serving in UN peacekeeping operations means that Americans are serving under the command of the UN or a foreign government.
Reality: As Commander-in-Chief, the President never gives up his command authority over American troops. Although the U.S. sometimes allows temporary operational control to be given to the UN or a trusted ally, the President always retains ultimate command authority over our troops.
Source (http://www.un.int/usa/fact2.htm)
For the record on 14 "important issues" in 2002, even the UK differed from the US in 8 votes (6 opposite and 2 abstains).
UN Voting with handy US comparison (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/21492.pdf)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What do you mean? AFAIK all the discussions regarding UN donations or foreign aid has been started by an American whining about how it should stop.
What I mean is that we (Americans) complain about bearing most of the financial burden of the UN but aren't accordingly influential. When we complain here, many, like you, say stop whining. If the US were to simply pull out of the UN how much more whining would then be heard from you and others like you?
When enough Americans are fed up with the UN we will withdraw our support. To spread our feelings we execise our right to voice our opinions hoping to enlighten and encourage others to feel the same. So long as HTC allows it, we can use this forum to do so.
-
Geezus, Dead no need to slap that hard. It's always a good chuckle to watch him call others brainwashed, he proves the point well on all accounts.
-
Originally posted by Torque
Geezus, Dead no need to slap that hard. It's always a good chuckle to watch him call others brainwashed, he proves the point well on all accounts.
The article I posted said 1/3, turns out to be 22% only off a few BILLION ;) and a quick glance at the voting records of countries mentioned seemed to be in the ballpark of the article. So, what are you saying Torque? ;)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
When enough Americans are fed up with the UN we will withdraw our support. To spread our feelings we execise our right to voice our opinions hoping to enlighten and encourage others to feel the same. So long as HTC allows it, we can use this forum to do so.
Methinks that most Americans have no idea why the UN exists at all.
-
Fishu: Well.. I guess it can be put that way if 'disagreeing' is the same as hate.
US is becoming isolationistic state eh?
"everyone out there hates us. since they dont agree with everything we say"
This line of reasoning just shows how ignorant you are politically.
US is not "becoming isolationistic" - just the opposite. It is rapidly becoming even more of an imperial power.
As for protrayinh the people who disagree with us as "hating us" - it's only a necessary step in the process. Once our population is convinced someone or othwr hates us, it will be easy to believe that the country in question is cooperating with terrorists and is in need of a "regime change".
I'd be more interested in the percentage of GNP used to foreign aid by the countries than the sums.
Would you respect US more if we increased our "percentage of GNP used to foreign aid" by giving Taliban more than $43 million in 2001?
miko
-
posting it as our myth is nice touch but not based in reality.
American Financial Support
Myth: The United States pays for almost all of the United Nations' programs and peacekeeping operations.
Reality: The U.S. pays 22% of the UN's regular budget and about 27.2% of the peacekeeping budgets. It also pays about 25% of the costs of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Former Yugoslavia.
I didn't see anything in Rips post that said anything about paying for almost all of the United Nations' programs and peacekeeping operations
* * * * *
Myth: The U.S. pays too much to the UN. Other countries are getting a free ride.
Reality: UN membership dues, known as assessments, are based primarily on each nation's share of the global economy. The U.S. economy represents about 31% of the global economy. The U.S. therefore benefits from the 22% ceiling on assessments for the regular budget. Many countries actually pay more in assessments than their share of the global economy.
Fact some countries routinely pay nothing.. that's right nothing in dues. Under UN rules a country that forfeits its dues is not supposed to be able to vote. Name one country other than the USA that has either had its vote cut off or has been threatened with it? For the last few years the UN has threatened (LOL) to cut off the US vote not because they didn't pay dues, but because they have not been paying the full amount for peace keeping missions.
* * * * *
American Military Support
Myth: Too many American soldiers are serving in UN peacekeeping operations. The U.S. provides most of the military men and women involved in UN peacekeeping operations.
Reality: Fewer than 40 American military men and women are currently serving in UN peacekeeping operations. Americans therefore represent less than 1% of the approximate total of 40,000 soldiers serving in UN peacekeeping operations.
who's myth is this? as far as I know we try our best to never participate under UN supervision. That being said we still pay the largest part of the actual cost of the missions. BTW I am willing to bet we have more than 40 americans involved in peace keeping missions right now even if it isnt UN sponsered.
* * * * *
Myth: Serving in UN peacekeeping operations means that Americans are serving under the command of the UN or a foreign government.
Reality: As Commander-in-Chief, the President never gives up his command authority over American troops. Although the U.S. sometimes allows temporary operational control to be given to the UN or a trusted ally, the President always retains ultimate command authority over our troops.
For the record on 14 "important issues" in 2002, even the UK differed from the US in 8 votes (6 opposite and 2 abstains).
for the record name one US citizen who is in charge of any UN program. (not to be confused with un ambassadors) Nice representation we have for our money
-
Fishu, I think you miss the point. This thread isn't about who is more generous. If I give you $10,000 and earn $100,000, that $10K will seem no more or no less to you than if I earned only $50,000 or $1,000,000. Did that make sense? Anyway, though the article doesn't break down in what form the aid is received, it is an eye opener to see how much we donate to countries who probably really do not need and who probably aren't very good friends of the USA.
-
Engage your brain Saudauker. Ripsnort's quote is erroneous and here's why:
1) Ripsnort's post claimed Pakistan hates the US.
I pointed out Pakistan has been of valuable help to the US in Afghanistan, including the sacrifice of Pakistani lives.
2) Ripsnort's post claimed India was a 'Arabic/Islamic' state.
I pointed out it is a majority Hindu. It is not by any stretch of the imagination Islamic.
Now that I've flagged the points for you, put down the popcorn and dispute those points. Thanks.
-
Just a trivial aside, although India is majority Hindu, it is second behind Indonesia as the country with the largest population of Muslims.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Just a trivial aside, although India is majority Hindu, it is second behind Indonesia as the country with the largest population of Muslims.
Dowding? Want some foot powder for that mouth?
-
Why? You called it an 'Arabic/Islamic' state. Not only is it majority Hindu, it's secular too.
And it's still not Arab.
From the CIA Factbook:
"Hindu 81.3%, Muslim 12%, Christian 2.3%, Sikh 1.9%"
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Why? You called it an 'Arabic/Islamic' state. Not only is it majority Hindu, it's secular too.
And it's still not Arab.
From the CIA Factbook:
"Hindu 81.3%, Muslim 12%, Christian 2.3%, Sikh 1.9%"
oh, NOW you're quoting CIA fact books where you trash the CIA in other threads! This is outstanding material Dowding! LOL!
-
Call me whatever you like except late for dinner. :D
-
We spend a lot of money on middle east peace. :(
-
Ripsnort: oh, NOW you're quoting CIA fact books where you trash the CIA in other threads! This is outstanding material Dowding! LOL!
Oh, God, Rip! Do you realise how stupid that statement sounds? It's like a histerical woman who plugs her ears and starts shouting in order not to hear about her mistake.
You would not believe him if he quoted sources you do not like (Al-Jaseera?) but you would also not listen to him if he uses the sources you trust and you probably would not believe him if he said he counted all indians personally...
That's a nice trick to shut your mind to an argument.
Also, what does dislike of an institution has to do with relying on it for basic facts that your school should have taught you in the first place?
miko
-
Originally posted by GScholz
None (from me at least) as long as you at the same time stop claiming to pay for everything.
Not everything, just 22% for FY 2001
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Why? You called it an 'Arabic/Islamic' state. Not only is it majority Hindu, it's secular too.
And it's still not Arab.
From the CIA Factbook:
"Hindu 81.3%, Muslim 12%, Christian 2.3%, Sikh 1.9%"
I guess when you can't discuss the meat of a post, you can rip apart the minor details.
-
I don't think I have ever 'trashed' the CIA. Feel free to point out if that is not the case. I may not have agreed with every CIA action since its inception, but I'd hardly call that 'trashing'.
FWIW, I think that CIA factbook is one of the best sources of information on the net.
-
That does it GScholz!
I now christen thee, Norweener!! :)
-
Ripsnort: India votes 81 percent against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually in U.S. foreign aid.
India was having trouble with muslim extemists and fighting them for decades while US was arming the totalitarian muslm regimes and plying them with money and technology, creating and equipping the Al-Qaeda movement to serve its short-term goals, supporting muslim teocracies and monarchies all over the place.
miko
-
^^^^ oh snap
-
Originally posted by Dowding
FWIW, I think that CIA factbook is one of the best sources of information on the net.
Check out the page from the CIA's Office of Disinformation...
No, no, now I remember, they disbanded that office... at least that's what they said.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I guess when you can't discuss the meat of a post, you can rip apart the minor details.
No meat in that post.. it is the worst kind of propoganda. Use a logical mind to follow what is said. No connection is ever made between the countries listed and the 9 billion in foriegn aid. silly stuff really.
I guess Rip is pointing out how bad we are at buying votes in the UN?
Guess we need to spend more.... logically speaking. Unless we don't care how these countries vote. Then pull the "money". But if we don't care then the post has no point...... hey!
-
Originally posted by Krusher
posting it as our myth is nice touch but not based in reality.
I was merely quoting the Fact sheet provided by the United States Mission to the United Nations verbatim. Got a problem with the wording, take it up with them (I think they're part of the State Department).
for the record name one US citizen who is in charge of any UN program. (not to be confused with un ambassadors) Nice representation we have for our money
For the record here's 2:
Carol Bellamy - Executive Director of UNICEF
James T Morris- Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP). The previous director Catherine Bertini (also from the US) served for 10 years, and is now the Under-Secretary-General for Management.
There's probably more - but you can look them up if it bothers you that much, cos the UN websites are far to labyrinthine for me, especially so soon after FB1.1 patch ;).
Do remember, though, before you rant too much:
1. There are 190 other countries in the UN (not 177 as Ripsnort's post would have us believe) as well as the US, which is a lot more countries than job vacancies for UN programme directors, so you do have to expect that there won't be lots of US citizens, or indeed lots of [insert any country name here] citizens for that matter.
2. Some appointments are nominal/administrative - with committees (on which many countries are represented) hold the real power.
The US also gets a veto and a permanent seat on the security council - which is lot more power than 97% of UN member countries - and a permanent seat on the Economic and Social Council, and so far a member on the International Court. The US director of the IMF has the largest number of votes of any director - 371,743 votes or 17.14% of all the votes. It goes on, but as I say the patch is here.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
No meat in that post.. it is the worst kind of propoganda. Use a logical mind to follow what is said. No connection is ever made between the countries listed and the 9 billion in foriegn aid. silly stuff really.
I guess Rip is pointing out how bad we are at buying votes in the UN?
Guess we need to spend more.... logically speaking. Unless we don't care how these countries vote. Then pull the "money". But if we don't care then the post has no point...... hey!
The point is...why even give aid to countries whose population hate us? Why, they probably hate us because they think like our typical liberals do, they probably hate us because they *think* we're trying to buy em! Cut em off..thats the meat of the post. Keep the money for our own people that need it.
-
Here's where you all have missed the boat.....
The monies given have nothing to do with UN votes or politics. The money is given and in return information is transferred and a fragil control and balance is maintained. The US does not give monetary support for the reasons Americans might put forth....rather we give to stay engaged and that serves our interests.....not as warm and fuzzy as some might have thought, but still very necessary.
Has nothing to do with anything made for public consumption....that is simply the way it is and has been for decades.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
I was merely quoting the Fact sheet provided by the United States Mission to the United Nations verbatim. Got a problem with the wording, take it up with them (I think they're part of the State Department).
It dosnt matter if was googled off the white house web site, its still mostly hype.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Here's where you all have missed the boat.....
The monies given have nothing to do with UN votes or politics. The money is given and in return information is transferred and a fragil control and balance is maintained. The US does not give monetary support for the reasons Americans might put forth....rather we give to stay engaged and that serves our interests.....not as warm and fuzzy as some might have thought, but still very necessary.
Has nothing to do with anything made for public consumption....that is simply the way it is and has been for decades.
Thats pretty obvious for you and I Rude...we're not evil by any means..someone gets it finally.
-
the fact remains that the saudis are still untouchable when it comes to their responsiblitys in 9/11 and funding terrorists worldwide.
-
double post sorry
-
Originally posted by Krusher
It dosnt matter if was googled off the white house web site, its still mostly hype.
So presumably you know the truth about the UN, whereas the US Mission to the UN is merely hyping the UN? - Your facts are not looking too good so far:
Fact some countries routinely pay nothing.. that's right nothing in dues. Under UN rules a country that forfeits its dues is not supposed to be able to vote. Name one country other than the USA that has either had its vote cut off or has been threatened with it? For the last few years the UN has threatened (LOL) to cut off the US vote not because they didn't pay dues, but because they have not been paying the full amount for peace keeping missions.
Smells like conjecture to me. Let's see:
Here is article 19, the UN rules you refer to:
A Member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years. The General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a Member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the Member.
You'll note the last sentence means that the general assembly can exempt members from this, so it's looking good for you so far.
Hmmm. France and Russia have both been threatened when they refused to pay for certain peacekeeping missions in the mid 1960s, but a compromise was reached and the arrears were paid into special funds. After this and a similar case involving China, the US insisted that article 19 sanctions be automatically applied (although countries can appeal to the budget committee). Uh-oh not looking so good for you - but can we name names of countries banned from voting as your challenge requires?
Oh dear. Apparently, in May 1998 when the US was just approaching being two years in arrears, 26 countries did not have a vote in the UN General Assembly because they were two years behind in their assessments. Examples include Burundi, Niger, and Cambodia. Member states are usually informed of their position with respect to Article 19 in late October. Subsequently, many make just enough contributions to prevent the loss of their vote when the General Assembly session resumes to wrap-up business the following spring. A member state can have its voting rights reinstated whenever enough dues are paid to cross the two-year threshold. Ouch 26 countries, and three names! Source (http://www.unausa.org/newindex.asp?place=http://www.unausa.org/publications/whatisa19.asp)
So it's looking like your "fact" is actually "hype" - or at least a rather shaky supposition (it may perhaps even be outright nonsense) - perhaps you could help us out - and name a few of the countries that "routinely" (shall we say that means the past 10 years?) pay nothing and still have a vote in the general assembly. Because I'm sure all these confusing figures and names from the UN and the US are still all just hype, eh?
And as much is made of the US contributing 22% of UN costs and whether or not this is really that unfair, given that the US is estimated at 25% of world income?
An interesting comparision is the EU: The 15 member states of the European Union account for 30.8% of world income, but are assessed 36.2% of UN costs (source as above).
And whilst the US is number one country in terms of actual cash:
Top 10 Member States in assessment for the UN regular budget, 2002
Assessment rates Amount
Country (per cent) ($millions)
United States 22.000 283.1
Japan 19.669 218.4
Germany 9.845 109.3
France 6.516 72.4
United Kingdom 5.579 62.0
Italy 5.104 56.7
Canada 2.579 28.6
Spain 2.539 28.2
Brazil 2.093 23.2
Republic of Korea 1.866 20.7
Per capita the US doesn't even make the top 10:
Top 10 per capita contributors to the UN regular budget, 2002
Country ($amount)
Luxembourg 2.15
Liechtenstein 2.13
Japan 1.74
Norway 1.65
Denmark 1.60
Monaco 1.38
Iceland 1.35
Germany 1.34
Austria 1.31
Sweden 1.30
BTW the UN regular budget is approximately $1.3 Billion
Looks to me like Japan should be the one whinging - all that cash spent and no representation - no permanent seat on the Security Council or a veto. But they aren't - probably because all in all, it's pretty much peanuts. The total annual spending for the whole of the UN system* (about $12 billion) is about the same as the annual budget of the New York City Board of Education ($12.4 billion FY 2001).
Source for tables and last para (http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch5/ch5.htm)
*Including the United Nations, UN peacekeeping operations, the programmes and funds, and the specialized agencies, but excluding the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
-
Originally posted by GScholz
..... can I call you an "Ameriwhiner"?
Nordork! :D
-
you think that just because you give money, you think you can buy some votes......that what your saying RIP:rolleyes:
you seem too forget the Democratic process....
free choice too make up your own mind.....
take the money away.....and you will see more much more terrorist.....
your not giving em money for votes my friend...your giving em money so they can keep there country stable and relatively free of extremism......
-
Originally posted by -dead-
So presumably you know the truth about the UN, whereas the US Mission to the UN is merely hyping the UN? - Your facts are not looking too good so far:
Smells like conjecture to me. Let's see:
Here is article 19, the UN rules you refer to:
You'll note the last sentence means that the general assembly can exempt members from this, so it's looking good for you so far.
Source (http://www.unausa.org/newindex.asp?place=http://www.unausa.org/publications/whatisa19.asp)
Source for tables and last para (http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch5/ch5.htm)
[/SIZE]
As of the year 2000 1 out of 4 UN memebers paid no dues.
45 states that have temporarily lost their right to vote in the General Assembly because they owe more than 2 years' worth of dues. In 1999 the International court (rebuking the US BTW) called failure to pay dues a violation of international law. Even though the US had actually paid 1.6 billion with the majority of money they owed being for peackeeping duties. The US supplied most of the Equipment and transportation fees for UN peace keepers but refused to pay any more until the UN reformed its finances. Basicly the UN was told quit wasting our money. BTW the International court failed to mention the other 50+ UN members that paid NO dues.
In 2003 the UN started sesion with only 10 members paying full dues. Why should the US be any different. Better yet why should we continue to pay money to a useless orginaization.
google away... I am out.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
From the Journal News, United States gives out $13.3 billion tax dollars in direct foreign aid annually. The United States is above and beyond the single most generous benefactor of the United Nations, donating $2.4 billion dollars of your money, to primarily third world dictators.
Notice it says "direct foreign aid" which implies that it is money that has no relationship to the UN.
That is what bothers me, not how much we spend on the UN, because as a citizen country of the world community it's appropriate that we be a memeber of the UN'
However, I do have a problem with "donating" money to countries that don't support free elections or whose creed dictates intolerance of differing religious beliefs. In other words "ANTI-US/AMERICAN" behavior.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
So presumably you know the truth about the UN, whereas the US Mission to the UN is merely hyping the UN? - Your facts are not looking too good so far:
Smells like conjecture to me. Let's see:
Here is article 19, the UN rules you refer to:
You'll note the last sentence means that the general assembly can exempt members from this, so it's looking good for you so far.
Hmmm. France and Russia have both been threatened when they refused to pay for certain peacekeeping missions in the mid 1960s, but a compromise was reached and the arrears were paid into special funds. After this and a similar case involving China, the US insisted that article 19 sanctions be automatically applied (although countries can appeal to the budget committee). Uh-oh not looking so good for you - but can we name names of countries banned from voting as your challenge requires?
Oh dear. Apparently, in May 1998 when the US was just approaching being two years in arrears, 26 countries did not have a vote in the UN General Assembly because they were two years behind in their assessments. Examples include Burundi, Niger, and Cambodia. Member states are usually informed of their position with respect to Article 19 in late October. Subsequently, many make just enough contributions to prevent the loss of their vote when the General Assembly session resumes to wrap-up business the following spring. A member state can have its voting rights reinstated whenever enough dues are paid to cross the two-year threshold. Ouch 26 countries, and three names! Source (http://www.unausa.org/newindex.asp?place=http://www.unausa.org/publications/whatisa19.asp)
So it's looking like your "fact" is actually "hype" - or at least a rather shaky supposition (it may perhaps even be outright nonsense) - perhaps you could help us out - and name a few of the countries that "routinely" (shall we say that means the past 10 years?) pay nothing and still have a vote in the general assembly. Because I'm sure all these confusing figures and names from the UN and the US are still all just hype, eh?
And as much is made of the US contributing 22% of UN costs and whether or not this is really that unfair, given that the US is estimated at 25% of world income?
An interesting comparision is the EU: The 15 member states of the European Union account for 30.8% of world income, but are assessed 36.2% of UN costs (source as above).
And whilst the US is number one country in terms of actual cash:
Top 10 Member States in assessment for the UN regular budget, 2002
Assessment rates Amount
Country (per cent) ($millions)
United States 22.000 283.1
Japan 19.669 218.4
Germany 9.845 109.3
France 6.516 72.4
United Kingdom 5.579 62.0
Italy 5.104 56.7
Canada 2.579 28.6
Spain 2.539 28.2
Brazil 2.093 23.2
Republic of Korea 1.866 20.7
Per capita the US doesn't even make the top 10:
Top 10 per capita contributors to the UN regular budget, 2002
Country ($amount)
Luxembourg 2.15
Liechtenstein 2.13
Japan 1.74
Norway 1.65
Denmark 1.60
Monaco 1.38
Iceland 1.35
Germany 1.34
Austria 1.31
Sweden 1.30
BTW the UN regular budget is approximately $1.3 Billion
Looks to me like Japan should be the one whinging - all that cash spent and no representation - no permanent seat on the Security Council or a veto. But they aren't - probably because all in all, it's pretty much peanuts. The total annual spending for the whole of the UN system* (about $12 billion) is about the same as the annual budget of the New York City Board of Education ($12.4 billion FY 2001).
Source for tables and last para (http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch5/ch5.htm)
*Including the United Nations, UN peacekeeping operations, the programmes and funds, and the specialized agencies, but excluding the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
Hey Mr. Dead.....many of us don't care what you think. It's not our responsibility to suck you hind tit or anyone elses....the measurement in only hard currency of our support over time is convenient to your cause, but lacks the telling of the whole story.
It's continued statements from folks like you that make some Americans wish our cash contribution could be offered in the form of our boot in your mouth.
I wish I had the big button....I'de clean this town up and send all of you whiney foreigners to some other bbs. I can respect the opinions of my fellow countrymen even if I don't agree with them...you however, haven't earned the right to stand in judgement over me and mine.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Thats pretty obvious for you and I Rude...we're not evil by any means..someone gets it finally.
ROFL...
Rip you are a piece of work man.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
ROFL...
Rip you are a piece of work man.
You don't think that I know what the UN is for? Christ MT, you amaze me! They *do* teach you what the function is of the UN in the midwest, you dufus. :) I don't always agree with what the UN does, but the U.S. does pump money in for our best national interests...we learned long ago what happens when you become a isolationist country. I'm actually pro-UN, but I'd definately cut back on the $$'s we spend on it.
-
Rude, SPOT ON on your posts!
-
Originally posted by Rude
Hey Mr. Dead.....many of us don't care what you think. It's not our responsibility to suck you hind tit or anyone elses....the measurement in only hard currency of our support over time is convenient to your cause, but lacks the telling of the whole story.
It's continued statements from folks like you that make some Americans wish our cash contribution could be offered in the form of our boot in your mouth.
I wish I had the big button....I'de clean this town up and send all of you whiney foreigners to some other bbs. I can respect the opinions of my fellow countrymen even if I don't agree with them...you however, haven't earned the right to stand in judgement over me and mine.
Joy! - I always love how delicious ironic it is that the people on this BBS who claim not to care what "foreigners" think about the US always seem to get so upset about what us "foreigners" post. :D
Love the last para - decent christian sentiments those - I can see you're really all for peace and love for all races colours and creeds. I especially savour the hypocrisy of the sentiment that while I have "not earned the right to stand in judgement" over you and yours, you appear to be standing in judgement over me. Quite how you earned that right in your internal ethics system, I am unsure. Still I'm sure it's all quite logical. BTW you seem to have some froth around your mouth there.
And what caused all this invective, pray tell? The fell and judgemental suggestion that perhaps paying 22% of the annual budget of the New York City Board of Education to serve your country's own interests by being a UN member probably wasn't really much to whine over? Or was it was it my sinful implication that the US was not really being picked upon when it was threatened with losing its vote in the General Assembly when it got into arrears with the UN? Or was it the evil and cantankerous thought that having a veto and a permanent seat on the Security Council wasn't bad as far as representation in the UN went?
Of course - I'm forgetting - you don't care do you? :D
-
Originally posted by Krusher
As of the year 2000 1 out of 4 UN memebers paid no dues.
45 states that have temporarily lost their right to vote in the General Assembly because they owe more than 2 years' worth of dues. In 1999 the International court (rebuking the US BTW) called failure to pay dues a violation of international law. Even though the US had actually paid 1.6 billion with the majority of money they owed being for peackeeping duties. The US supplied most of the Equipment and transportation fees for UN peace keepers but refused to pay any more until the UN reformed its finances. Basicly the UN was told quit wasting our money. BTW the International court failed to mention the other 50+ UN members that paid NO dues.
In 2003 the UN started sesion with only 10 members paying full dues. Why should the US be any different. Better yet why should we continue to pay money to a useless orginaization.
Err that was my point - the US isn't any different. The US is a member of the UN and therefore has to pay to have a vote. No money=no voting. No matter who you are. You appear to be arguing against yourself now - originally you posited that it was only the US that was threatened and that no other country had to suffer these idignities:
Fact some countries routinely pay nothing.. that's right nothing in dues. Under UN rules a country that forfeits its dues is not supposed to be able to vote. Name one country other than the USA that has either had its vote cut off or has been threatened with it? For the last few years the UN has threatened (LOL) to cut off the US vote not because they didn't pay dues, but because they have not been paying the full amount for peace keeping missions.
And I refuted that by naming 3 countries and pointing out that 26 in total couldn't vote in the GA in 1998. I also invited you to name one of the countries that you implied routinely pays nothing but still has a vote. I'm still waiting for that. And now you tell me "45 states that have temporarily lost their right to vote in the General Assembly because they owe more than 2 years' worth of dues." What's your point? That the US should not be treated any different or that it should be?
I see you fail to mention that the dastardly "rebuke of the US" from the International Court of Justice was delivered by its president, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, who is - you guessed it - from the US. Quite how anyone, save for the desparately paranoid, can interpret his statement as a rebuke of the US is beyond me:
The financial resources of the Court cannot be divorced from those of the Organization that provides them. The financial fabric of the United Nations must be repaired, most fundamentally by renewed performance of the treaty obligations of the Members of the United Nations to pay the assessments upon them, as determined by this General Assembly in the exercise of the authority deliberately and expressly entrusted to it by the terms of the Charter. The binding character of those assessments was affirmed by the Court in 1962, when it held that "the exercise of the power of apportionment creates the obligation, specifically stated in Article 17, paragraph 2, of each Member to bear that part of the expenses which is apportioned to it by the General Assembly". Failure to meet that obligation not only has the gravest effects on the life of the Organization; it transgresses the principles of free consent and good faith and pacta sunt servanda which are at the heart of international law and relations.
So in fact he not only "failed to mention the other 50+ UN members that paid NO dues", he singularly failed to mention the US too.
You'll also note he doesn't say it's a violation of international law it just transgresses the principals of free consent and good faith and pacta sunt servanda (ie countries should be bound by the treaties they sign) which are at the heart of it.
As to the "We paid our dues, just not the peacekeeping" defence well just look at article 19 again:
A Member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years. The General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a Member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the Member.
Not its dues or its membership fees but its financial contributions.
Your assertion that "the US supplied most of the Equipment and transportation fees for UN peace keepers" may or may not be true (I suspect not, certainly as far as equipment goes), but the point is somewhat academic - because the UN pays the countries that provide these sorts of services.
That the UN needs financial reform is uncontestable - for one it has a lot of debts and arrears - mostly due to members not paying their dues - so I fear this may not be the best reason to stop paying. As to Helms-Biden - mostly the UN was told to stop charging the US so much and conceed a few things the US wanted. But there were budget oversight measures demanded - albeit in the third year. Here's a good summary (http://www.betterworldfund.org/legislative/background/helms.shtml), but the budget reform stuff is basically:
• Adoption of budget procedures that preclude increases to budgets approved by General Assembly unless agreed to by consensus; breakdowns of personnel, travel, equipment required;
• Requirement of continuing evaluation of programs at the UN, ILO, FAO and WHO; and adoption of termination dates for new programs created by General Assembly;
• Requirement that the US have a permanent seat on the UN's Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) or that the five largest contributors be given such seats;
• Establishment of procedures allowing the US General Accounting Office (GAO) to examine UN financial data;
• Appointment of staff on basis of merit; establishment of staff code of conduct binding on all UN personnel and including financial disclosure and rules against nepotism; implementation of personnel evaluation system, including verification of payroll to determine total staffing and comparisons with US civil service; recommends reductions in UN allowances from those in effect on 1 January 1998;
• Adoption of budget procedures for the ILO, FAO, and WHO that preclude increases to budgets approved by member states of the organization unless agreed to by consensus; breakdowns of personnel, travel, equipment required.
All of these measures are certainly fine by me, and I should imagine (and hope) most reasonable people in the world. It could no doubt do with going further. Helms-biden as a whole does rather go against your previous assertion that the US has no representation for its money, though.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Cut em off..thats the meat of the post. Keep the money for our own people that need it.
That's pretty obvious for you and I Rude...we aren't evil by any means...someone gets it finally.
Rip, do you honestly think you are fooling anybody?
Rip starts thread.
Premise of thread is destroyed.
Rip tries deparately to argrue the premise.
His argruements are quickly rebutted.
Someone comes in with an alternet view on the situation.
Rip says some variation of "See that's what I ment all along."
People shake their heads saddly.
Rinse, repeat.
Rude,
if you don't want to hear what foreigners have to say about the US, put them on ignore.
You're insults and vitriol piss me off. But I choose not to squelch you. And I choose to read them. No one has a gun to your head.
-
Rip -
Perhaps it is time to get out of the U.N. and give the tax savings back to American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay their taxes.
Rip - I couldn't agree more! Cut off the aid to the countries listed, why not? What are they going to do...vote against us on every resolution? THEY ALREADY ARE!
Rip - I say vote with our tax dollars! Pull it all back, and take care of our own. Screw those guys.
Rip - Cut em off..thats the meat of the post. Keep the money for our own people that need it.
RUDE - The monies given have nothing to do with UN votes or politics. ...snip.....not as warm and fuzzy as some might have thought, but still very necessary.
Rip - Yea... thats what I've been saying!!!!!
ROFL!
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
if you don't want to hear what foreigners have to say about the US, put them on ignore.
You're insults and vitriol piss me off. But I choose not to squelch you. And I choose to read them. No one has a gun to your head.
If the vast majority of "foreigners" had anything good to say abou the U.S., we probably wouldn't need a squelch list to begin with.
"You all" being the "Foreigners" expect "us" being the U.S., to sit around on our hands while you give nothing but grief? You've got to be kidding! Everyone hates the U.S. for whatever reason... I don't really care. We have our problems, we screw up, we are far from perfect... I'd challenge a representative of ANY OTHER NATION to make a claim otherwise. Honestly, I'd rather be your friend, but if all my friend does is spout off about how terrible "we" are... then eventually I'm gonna bite back. Sure, we have folks who start up B.S. on occasion too, but I've come to realize that around HERE, it's not about who's right or who's wrong, or even about who's indifferent, it's all about us(the rest of the world) against them (the U.S.). A great big dick-measuring contest that becomes rather comical when you finally realize the only good thing that will ever happen as far as you people are concerned is the complete downfall and destruction the United "Great Satan" States.
Well dream on "anti-americans".... we're going to be here for a long time. You won't see us grovel and beg your mercy in YOUR lifetime.
-
Thrawn, MT, its obvious that you're very envious of me. Please stop...its noticable to everyone but you guys! ;)
(Incidently, cutting those countries off, how fast WOULD WE be labeled evil? Faster than we already are! LOL! No respect for the big guy on the block, none, 0, zilch..)
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Well dream on "anti-americans".... we're going to be here for a long time. You won't see us grovel and beg your mercy in YOUR lifetime.
Oh my! You big, strong, warrior of the BBS, go forth and slay the heathen anti-american poster with your amazing typing skills.
LMAO!!
-
Takes a licking and keeps on ticking, i don't think the man knows when to stay down, go easy on him Dead he ain't all there. ;)
-
Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil,"
Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of
Just as Evil," which they said would be way eviler than
that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of his
State of the Union address.
Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as
having, for starters, a really dumb name. "Right. They are Just as
Evil... in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il.
"Everybody knows we're the best evils... best at being evil... we're the
best."
Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded,
although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of
Evil. "They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad. "An Axis can't have more than three countries," explained
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is not my rule, it's tradition.
In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis.
So you can only have three. And a secret handshake. Ours is wicked
cool."
THE AXIS PANDEMIC
International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift,
as within minutes, France surrendered.
Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status
in what became a game of geopolitical chairs. Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia
said they had formed the Axis of Somewhat Evil, forcing Somalia to
join with Uganda and Myanmar in the Axis of Occasionally Evil, while
Bulgaria,
Indonesia and Russia established the Axis of Not So Much Evil Really
As Just Generally Disagreeable.
With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs
filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be
called the Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly
Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics; Canada, Mexico, and Australia
formed the Axis of Nations
That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Nasty Thoughts About
America, while Spain, Scotland, and New Zealand established the Axis
of Countries That Be Allowed to Ask Sheep to Wear Lipstick.
"That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do," said
Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell. While wondering if
the other nations of the world weren't perhaps making fun of him, a
cautious Bush granted approval for most axes, although he rejected
the establishment of the Axis of Countries Whose Names End in "Guay,"
accusing one of its members of filing a false application.
Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges.
Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any Axis, but
privately, world leaders said that's only because no one asked them.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
LOL! Rude goes down kicking and screaming like a girl! :D
It wasn't us whiny foreigners who started this thread ... or the others of the same topic, it was you Ameriwhiners. Sombody call for a waaaambulance, Rude is hurt!
This girl realizes one thing....the level of jealousy displayed by Europe and others is shameful....the idea that we should somehow give up our own way of governing, so that some one world govt. can exist is laughable.
The UN is simply a vehicle to give Europe some balls....without the UN, I believe anatomically, Europe would be the girl.:)
You guys whine like women and always have....if you don't turn it against the US, you turn it against the flight model of the 190 or the 109....I can't remember a decent word typed towards the US from any of you with the exception of 9/11, and at that it took 3000 of us dying to produce it.
Like I said....if it's that bad, then show some stones and stand on some principle, close your accounts and support your own.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Joy! - I always love how delicious ironic it is that the people on this BBS who claim not to care what "foreigners" think about the US always seem to get so upset about what us "foreigners" post. :D
Love the last para - decent christian sentiments those - I can see you're really all for peace and love for all races colours and creeds. I especially savour the hypocrisy of the sentiment that while I have "not earned the right to stand in judgement" over you and yours, you appear to be standing in judgement over me. Quite how you earned that right in your internal ethics system, I am unsure. Still I'm sure it's all quite logical. BTW you seem to have some froth around your mouth there.
And what caused all this invective, pray tell? The fell and judgemental suggestion that perhaps paying 22% of the annual budget of the New York City Board of Education to serve your country's own interests by being a UN member probably wasn't really much to whine over? Or was it was it my sinful implication that the US was not really being picked upon when it was threatened with losing its vote in the General Assembly when it got into arrears with the UN? Or was it the evil and cantankerous thought that having a veto and a permanent seat on the Security Council wasn't bad as far as representation in the UN went?
Of course - I'm forgetting - you don't care do you? :D
It's not quite froth, however, I was spitting on my monitor alot while typing that post.
As to Christian sentiment? My faith does not prevent me from honesty....what I said I stand by. I don't even know you, it's your attitude that rubs me the wrong way.
It's like this for me.....I love my God, my country and those who belong to her. Even those US citizens who believe the opposite of me, I still respect them and would personally do anything I could to help them if they needed it.
What's interesting to me is that folks like you spew your poison, all while your hands remain outstretched taking everything and anything the US offers. You lack the character to stand up for what you believe in.
I know many Europeans here in the US who are critical of our country, yet they come here, live here, get educated here, work here, raise families here. What's up with that?
If you think we are the great Satan, then at least have the stones to stand your ground based on your principles, or shut up while ya sip the nectar.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Rip, do you honestly think you are fooling anybody?
Rip starts thread.
Premise of thread is destroyed.
Rip tries deparately to argrue the premise.
His argruements are quickly rebutted.
Someone comes in with an alternet view on the situation.
Rip says some variation of "See that's what I ment all along."
People shake their heads saddly.
Rinse, repeat.
Rude,
if you don't want to hear what foreigners have to say about the US, put them on ignore.
You're insults and vitriol piss me off. But I choose not to squelch you. And I choose to read them. No one has a gun to your head.
Ya know what? You're right. Reading this O'Club is silly....in twelve years of flying these games, I never even glanced at a BBS until a couple of years ago....I wish I never had.
Too many experts here for anything to ever be accomplished....it just is what it is and nothing I say will change any of it.
Sorry if I insulted anyone here....I just have strong feelings about my country....combine that with the fact that I'm a hot head and the result is my mouth sometimes gets ahead of my mind and spirit.
Being a Christian is not easy....perfect I'm not.
I'm stickin to the General Discussion Forum....it's silly enough:)
Later.