United Kingdom might back out.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Charon He does still have doubts though about the end game

Charon

True, but saying that it will be difficult is not the same as saying that it shouldn't be done. Anyone who says this is going to be easy, is selling something (most likely policy lol).

-Sik

[crabofix]

Originally posted by Toad
Wrong guess, wrong assumption.

I look forward to your post.

Ok, A fast one

Budget of Un:

USA 25 % 1 permanent seat in security council
EU   37%   2 permanent seats (UK, France)
Japan 20%  No seat permanent.

Peacekeeping operations by UN
USA 27%



Crabofix

[Toad]

Now logically explain to me why one country should have to pay 25% of the dues when there are 187 (I think) countries that should be paying dues.

Then logically explain to me why one country should be paying 27% of the peacekeeping costs?

Then lecture me again about American Schools, lack of health care and prescription drug care for our seniors.

the United States paid more than $11 billion for international peacekeeping efforts between 1992 and 1997

Wonder how many US seniors could have had their medications for free in those years?

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Martlet
I don't want to answer for him, but I will.

I don't believe he was saying it would be justified in the UN's eyes if this happened, I think he meant we'd be able to say:

"Hey, the majority wanted action, screw France, they're idiots anyway."

Yep.


Ack-Ack

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by 10Bears


Martlet, that's not what Akak was saying at all..
Answer is in above quote by CNN.

I am 10Bears... Whooper of Toad

Actually 10bears, that is exactly what I was saying, Martlet just added the French are idiots for color.

Ack-Ack

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by crabofix
Ok, A fast one

Budget of Un:

USA 25 % 1 permanent seat in security council
EU   37%   2 permanent seats (UK, France)
Japan 20%  No seat permanent.

Peacekeeping operations by UN
USA 27%



Crabofix

Who basically funds the U.N.?  Last time I checked, the U.S. is the largest contributor of the U.N. and without our cash the U.N. wouldn't have kept afloat.


Ack-Ack

[crabofix]

Originally posted by Toad
Now logically explain to me why one country should have to pay 25% of the dues when there are 187 (I think) countries that should be paying dues.

Then logically explain to me why one country should be paying 27% of the peacekeeping costs?

Then lecture me again about American Schools, lack of health care and prescription drug care for our seniors.

Wonder how many US seniors could have had their medications for free in those years?

Edit. you get a lot of medication for 4$


You are a bright guy TOAD, you just check out how much, for example Sweden is paying.
Remember that we are only 8 millions. Then make some math.

I give you a hint, we pay 0,89% of our BNI.
I pay more then 50% (56% to be exact) tax as the rest of us here. (I am pretty sure I pay a slight more then you.)

(Sorry Toad, that I cant put 100% effort into this discussion, I am on my way out on a tour and canŽt put as much time into research as I want to. But I will try my best)

Crabofix

[crabofix]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Who basically funds the U.N.?  Last time I checked, the U.S. is the largest contributor of the U.N. and without our cash the U.N. wouldn't have kept afloat.


Ack-Ack

Sure its not a myth? check again, to be sure.

Crabofix

[crabofix]

I am sure, if US would nt put 70 billon$ into a war, another 70 billion to rebuild the country they will bang up: You guys would have a very good Healthcare and Schoolsystem.

I am saying it again: I am gratefule that US are doing what they are doing. But nothing gives them the right to stand above international agrements.

When they dash towards Bagdad from Kuwait, they have to pass the, by UN Supervised and protected, "demilitarized-zone".

What will happend if they are fired upon, from UN forces protecting the Area?

(Of course it wouldŽnt happend, cause UN troops dont dare to stay, so they already left the area)

But just think the thought?


Nope, send a couple of assasins to take him out and the whole thing is over with.

(Oh, I forgot, then you couldŽnt goverment the area and take control of what was gonna happend to the oil, stupid me)

crabofix

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by crabofix
Sure its not a myth? check again, to be sure.

Crabofix

Ratio of assessed contributions to the United Nations in 2003

USA - 22%
Japan - 19.516%
Germany - 9.769%
France -  6.466%
UK - 5.536%
Italy - 5.065%
Canada - 2.558%
Spain - 2.519%
Other Countries - 26.71%

So as you can see the United States was the single largest contributer to the United Nations.  So the only myths are the ones in your mind.

Just in case you're still in doubt, here's a nice pretty graph for your enjoyment.




Ratio of assassed contributions to the UN


Ack-Ack

[crabofix]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Ratio of assessed contributions to the United Nations in 2003

So as you can see the United States was the single largest contributer to the United Nations.  So the only myths are the ones in your mind.

Just in case you're still in doubt, here's a nice pretty graph for your enjoyment.

Ack-Ack

good job, I like graphs.
Now, just devide the persons that lives in each country and we will get a slightly diffrent graph.

Or you can put together all Eus contributions and make a graph and put up against US. We are a union:D

Crabofix

[Toad]

Now you're scratchin like a cat that dumped on a tile floor Crabofix.

Face it..... we pay more than anyone else. Per capita? Maybe not, but the UN is on a "by nation" basis, no "per capita".

[Toad]

Originally posted by crabofix
Nope, send a couple of assasins to take him out and the whole thing is over with.
crabofix

Feel free, don't wait for us. I'm sure the Swedes have some fine snipers. They'll blend into the population as well as we would, too.

Oh....... don't forget, he uses doubles. 8-10 of 'em at last report. Make sure you get the right guy, ok?

Good luck!

[crabofix]

Originally posted by Toad
Now you're scratchin like a cat that dumped on a tile floor Crabofix.

Face it..... we pay more than anyone else. Per capita? Maybe not, but the UN is on a "by nation" basis, no "per capita".

"
The budget for the two years 2000-2001 is $2,535 million. The main source of funds is the contributions of Member States, which are assessed on a scale approved by the General Assembly.

The fundamental criterion on which the scale of assessments is based is the capacity of countries to pay. This is determined by considering their relative shares of total gross national product, adjusted to take into account a number of factors, including their per capita incomes.
In addition, countries are assessed -- in accordance with a modified version of the basic scale -- for the costs of peacekeeping operations, which stood at around $2 billion in 2000. "

http://www.un.org/aboutun/basicfacts/unorg.htm


Theres a lot of things in the equation, inclueding "per capita"

Otherwise Our (sweden) place as 15th bigest contributor in the world wouldŽnt be that great, now would it?

just trying to prove that US does not pay more then anyone else.
Infact, theres countrys that pay more.


Crabofix

[Stringer]

Wow...they must use different math in Europe.

Stringer