The other topic just got too long. However, if you are going to join the discussion in progress, please have the courtesy to read all of the previous posts.
Now, as to Brother McCauls last post:
"Ok first off we must make one thing clear. There are NATO troops and UN troops.
NATO troops - protect US intrests
UN troops - peacekeepers"Sorry. Not that simple and you KNOW that (I hope).
Another NATO troll? May I suggest that they protect the interests of each individual member nation and do it jointly?
Further, NATO nations have essentially the SAME interests? Why else would they join the alliance. NATO has a specific Charter, with specific goals. To imply that these are SOLELY US goals is...well, ignorant. There I said it.
Try a quick trip to the NATO homepage for some good information.
UN troops are peacekeepers? You're saying they do not/will not engage in combat to change a situation? Check the history books. UN troops HAVE engaged in combat. Further compounding my problems with these two statements is the fact that NATO troops have been used under the aegis/direct command of the UN.
So NATO troops engaging in active Combat under UN command are your definition of peacekeepers? Confusing, eh? Not as easy as your first simple division into two categories of NATO and Peacekeeper.
"Which do you want to come home."ALL US troops outside of our national borders. Simple concept, eh? NATO doesn't need the US presence anymore.
About 109,000 American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines are permanently assigned in Europe, Africa and Asia as part of the United States European Command.
This total includes:
about 65,000 people assigned to U.S. Army Europe;
about 34,000 people assigned to U.S. Air Force Europe;
about 10,000 people assigned to U.S. Navy Europe; and,
about 50 people assigned to U.S. Marine Corps Forces Europe.
Surely you folks can take up the slack? Roughly 100,000 people, not all of which are Combat forces..in fact, probably a small percentage are Combat specialities.
Not included in this total are American servicemen and women on rotational deployments, including those aboard ships at sea.
"i.e. what proportion of military spending is spent on UN activities verses other countries % spending."Well, without deep research, I did find a few facts about our military spending
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/apr1999/mili-a29.shtml "Even before the latest increases
the US military budget exceeded by a factor of five the military budget of any other country. The US government allots more than half its discretionary spending to the military, an amount that exceeds the military budgets of Russia, China, Japan and all the NATO countries combined. Even without additional funding the US military budget will rise to $276 billion next year." 29April99
From:
http://www.comw.org/pda/bmemo10.htm "Conclusion
Two important conclusions supported by this review of world spending trends are that:
* Despite post-Cold War spending reductions, the United States and its friends and allies today have a spending edge over potential adversaries that is far greater than existed during the Cold War, and
* The burden of defense born by the United States, its allies, and close friends
is today more equitably distributed among the members of this group
-- even though the United States continues to devote more of its GNP to defense than is the average for the group.In 1994 the 25 OECD industrial democracies accounted for almost 65 percent of all military spending worldwide, NATO accounted for more than 55 percent,
and the United States accounted for almost 35 percent -- in all cases a dramatic increase in spending share since 1986"
So, yes, I think we have done more than our share, more so in the recent past than now. There are also TONS of facts to back that statement up. These are just two sites.
"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."It's really hard to take this seriously due to the lack of knowledge this comment presents. Additionally, it makes your criticims of US goals, intentions, motives and foreign policy even easier to disregard.
There are many websites that will help you understand how the two organizations are structured and work but I'll waste some more electrons on a mini-review.
1. Yugoslavia NEVER has been a NATO member state. NATO could NOT intervene in Bosnia. To do so would be a violation of the Charter and could rightfully be considered an act of war by the UN. There's irony for you, eh?
2. The UN DID intervene in Bosnia, using both NATO and Non-NATO forces. In this case, NATO forces were not acting as "NATO Forces" instead, the member nations supplied forces to a UN Force. They absolutely did NOT act solely as a NATO force.
3. NATO did NOT attack Iraq in Desert Storm. Once again, this was a UN action. On November 29, 1990, the UN Security Council authorized force if Iraq didn't withdraw from Kuwait by midnight EST Janu. 15.
It was a world-wide coalition, not a pure NATO show.
Military Presence, Allied Forces
AFGHANISTAN, AUSTRALIA, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BELGIUM, BRITAIN, CZECHOSLVAKIA, EGYPT, FRANCE, GERMANY, HONDURAS, ITALY, KUWAIT, NEW ZEALAND, NIGER, OMAN, POLAND, QATAR, ROMANIA, SAUDI ARABIA, SOUTH KOREA, SYRIA, UNITED ARAB EMRIATES, UNITED STATES
Not a NATO operation was it? It was a UN operation.
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.I beg forgiveness for this long post, but some things should be cleared up. There is another side to "US Debt to the UN" and who is paying a "fair share".
From:
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/un/hr346.html 106th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 346
To prohibit the payment to the United Nations of any contributions by the United States
until United States overpayments to such body have been properly credited or reimbursed.IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 19, 1999
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To prohibit the payment to the United Nations of any contributions by the United States until United States overpayments to such body have been properly credited or reimbursed.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `United Nations Erroneous Debt Act of 1999'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) FINDINGS- The Congress makes the following findings:
(1)
A March 1996 General Accounting Office report entitled `Peace Operations' details that the United States has provided $6,600,400,000 during fiscal years 1992 through 1995 in support of military and peacekeeping operations of the United Nations.(2) These funds which have come from various Federal agencies, primarily the Department of Defense, were used to provide military supplies, transportation, humanitarian relief, and other services.
(3)
Only about $1,800,000,000 was credited against assessed contributions to the United Nations .(4)
Of the remaining $4,800,000,000, only $79,400,000 was reimbursed to the United States by the United Nations .(5)
In effect providing a $4,720,600,000 gift to the United Nations from the United States, which has not been credited against the alleged arrearages in assessed contributions owed by the United States to the United Nations in the reported amount of $1,300,000,000.(6) It is not in the United States taxpayers' best interest to pay so-called debts to the United Nations that do not take into account all of the other assistance the United States has provided to the United Nations .
(7)
There is no United States debt to the United Nations .Ok, Dowding and JMcCaul let's see:
$4,720,600,000 gift to the United Nations from the United States
versus
contributions owed by the United States to the United Nations in the reported amount of
$1,300,000,000.Do the math.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-26-2000).]
