UN financing

RE: UN financing

Un funding is not based on size beacuse the most populus nations can’t afford it.

for example chad has 8 million odd people while NZ has 4 million. can chad afford to pay twice that of new zealand.

this kind of thing is taught in economics and you learn to recognise that this system is not popular as the people who pay more than before in the end rebbel/ don’t pay and the rich people who can afford to pay love it as they pay less.

therefore that is why the system used is used. the rich can afford to pay but there is a limit (25%) as one country can’t be expected to pay the lot. the poor countriies are of course happy. the US of course get to hold tremendous power over the UN due to its ability to deny funding.

rabie :9

RE: UN financing

“If you and the CIA are in agreement, who am I to argue. I made a joke about your CIA connections once before so I trust your good nature will prevail once more.”

}>
The Keyhole 12 satellite is no longer positioned over your house… 🙂

“The USA carries the can for more than just being considered as the major bad guy in the world”

I don’t think the US is a “bad guy”. I just don’t agree when the US says other countries are the bad guys and proves it by saying these countries have done things that the US itself has done too.

…Evil Iraq invades Kuwaite… is there another country with less respect for another countries sovernty than the US…

I don’t think a country is bad simply because it looks after its own interests… if I did then every country in the world… including Russia and including New Zealand would be bad.

Now I know the US usually has good intentions but if that was all that mattered then communism would be a good idea… everyone working to help society… full employment… looking after the old… free health and education etc etc.

RE: UN financing

Garry

If you and the CIA are in agreement, who am I to argue. I made a joke about your CIA connections once before so I trust your good nature will prevail once more.

Regards

RE: UN financing

“As far as the UN goes, its sometimes pretty irrelevant as you suggest, but its better than nothing IMHO. “

Nothing would be cheaper…

“…over 149 million, but as both it and the CIA are American, both could be wrong. I am OK with 145 million if you have to be right on this point, but I believe that still puts Russia in the top 6-10.”

The CIA are usually pretty good for accuracy… it is the politicians that take their figures and reinterpret them for their own purposes that give them their bad name…

Checkout the CIA world factbook at: www.cia.gov

(bottom left under libraries is the link for the world factbook…)

“Population: 145,470,197 (July 2001 est.)”

Is given for Russia.

RE: UN financing

Well Garry its the National Geographic Society but the data is about 12 years old and at that time they indicated a population for Russia of just over 149 million, but as both it and the CIA are American, both could be wrong. I am OK with 145 million if you have to be right on this point, but I believe that still puts Russia in the top 6-10.

As far as the UN goes, its sometimes pretty irrelevant as you suggest, but its better than nothing IMHO.

Regards

RE: UN financing

“I think the Russian population is over 150 million and while this makes it half the US population it still puts it in the top 10 I would think. “

Please put your source for your belief that there are over 150 million in Russia… the source for my figure is the CIA world fact book.

“Perhaps you would be happy to see the US share at a higher level (I believe it was as high as 35% or more at one time) but my point was that this might not be healthy for the organization. “

I don’t care what the US does or doesn’ pay toward the UN. Most of the time it is a bunch of business men in suits who have 3 hour power lunches in the most expensive restaurants with weighty decisions like will anyone notice if we make it battered women day in the same month as mothers day or the same month as fathers day. On thing is for sure any “day of…” “week of…” or “month of…” or “year of…” will not occur during their 4 month holiday over the christmas period.

“Anyway if it was 100% you would find fault no doubt.”

Yes that is right cause I hate yanks… thanks for reminding me.

RE: UN financing

Garry

The US didn’t make my ‘free ride list’ for the obvious reason it does pay its share. I think the Russian population is over 150 million and while this makes it half the US population it still puts it in the top 10 I would think.

Perhaps you would be happy to see the US share at a higher level (I believe it was as high as 35% or more at one time) but my point was that this might not be healthy for the organization. As you know there are many non-budgeted costs associated with running the UN to which the US contibutes as well which may well bring the US contibution much higher. Anyway if it was 100% you would find fault no doubt.

Regards

RE: UN financing

“As it is, countries like China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil and others with huge populations get a free ride.”

Russia has a huge population?

145 million people is a huge population?
Less than half the population of the US which doesn’t even make your list.
Go to Russia… go to Malaysia, and Indonesia and China and India and Brazil… and then go to the US and decide for yourself who has had the free ride.

If the largest contributer to the UN gets to call the tune why aren’t the US demanding to pay more?

Your ideas of pay scales seem to roughly equate with Maggie Thatchers Poll tax. Wouldn’t bother us here in NZ with a massive population bordering on 4 million but I still disagree with it.

RE: UN financing

Dutchy

Actually I also agree that the US contribution is a bargain when you consider what the cost of the alternative could be. As incompetent as the UN has often been it does force its members to moderate their behavour to the benefit of us all.

On the question of balance, its perhaps lack of character on my part but there are times when I can’t help myself.

regards

RE: UN financing

Saunon,

my only objective was to put those numbers into prospective. Clearly your post was meant as a balance against my post on the The Hague invasion act.
Í don’t have anything against Americans or the country, but if you put the numbers down then you must be fair. The way you just put them there you might suggest that everyone should pay the same no metre the size of the country, or, even worse, you want to send out the massage Look at America and how good it is to the world.

I don’t have an opinion whether the US should pay more or less. 25% of the budget seems to me too much for one country, indeed influence et cetera. I think it should be objective, with all kinds of parameters in it, GNP and inhabitants among other things.

I hope this clarifies my massage, sorry I was a bit vague.

best regards,

jw

RE: UN financing

Glad for that reply Vort… thought I’d really p!ssed you off for a moment there… 🙂

RE: UN financing

Garry…}>

RE: UN financing

” In a sense, you’re more naive than you thought. “

Are you saying that as a moron or a genius? }>

“I’ve could’ve start out in this forum agreeing everything anti-US, and it’ll be because i have an aggenda, not because you’re “open minded” to debase your own heritage for the sake of trying to be unique. “

By agreeing with everything anti US I assume you mean my suggestion that 11/9 was a good start and that more people should go out and kill a Yank?
Or perhaps it was my thread about burning the stench of the US from the map with nuclear weapons?
Next you’ll be saying I’m anti Semetic too?
Why am I so full of hate?

What does my heritage have to do with the United States of America?

“to debase your own heritage for the sake of trying to be unique. “

News report Vort… there are about 300 odd million US citizens in this world of 5+ billion.
Do you really think my criticism of some of the actions of your government make me unique?
(If you do you have answered my first question }> ).

“If i go to one of those Chinese boards and start criticizing everything American, you sure bet i’ll be an instant gold star member, humm…maybe you should visit those forums Arthur been talking about, you’ll be the king there.”

I am sure some do come to these forums to feel popular… perhaps that is why my posts upset you… were you expecting to be loved and praised simply for being American…. Ahhh but you turned back the evil tide during WWII… well not actually you… but then the soviets did too and the price they paid was a little greater than the one your country paid. In fact your country benefited quite a lot from WWII.

Check out the last paragraph of my previous post.
I simultaneously criticise the US administration for placing their self interests above those interests of those they deal with and
I suggest they reevaluate whether getting what they want is worth what they do to the countries of the world.
Now if I were anti US I’d tell them to keep doing what they are doing… in fact do more.
Build big expensive anti missile defence systems while little countries struggle just to make ends meet, add stealth planes and super jets to the inventory and isolate those you don’t like… back them into corners… see if they crack.
If someone won’t take your word bomb them and change the government… doesn’t matter if your money put them in power in the first place and most of those you replaced them with were those you called communists and were backed by Russia 5 years ago.
They P!ssed you off and that is all that mattered.

If it is a problem for you just pretend I am saying the opposite of everything I say.

What I say and what you like mean nothing anyway… why get an ulcer over it?

RE: UN financing

right Garry, if a bigger moron calls a moron “smart”, while a genius calls the same moron a “moron”….seems like your claimed “openess” may not be what it appears to be. In a sense, you’re more naive than you thought. I’ve could’ve start out in this forum agreeing everything anti-US, and it’ll be because i have an aggenda, not because you’re “open minded” to debase your own heritage for the sake of trying to be unique. If there’s truthfulness in it, fine got not problem there, but i know many people criticize certains things for the sake of being different, irregardless of circumstances. If i go to one of those Chinese boards and start criticizing everything American, you sure bet i’ll be an instant gold star member, humm…maybe you should visit those forums Arthur been talking about, you’ll be the king there.

RE: UN financing

Dutchy

The current UN fees are calculated using the ability to pay but there is a cap which prevents any member from exceeding approx 25% of the total. I believe that the US contribution was originally much higher, but has been adjusted downward as it’s share of the world economy has decreased.

But again, using your method what should the US currently pay? You left the final piece of information out. You are clearly suggesting that the US should pay more. Would a higher payment from the USA be good for the UN? You know that he who pays, calls the tune. As it is, countries like China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil and others with huge populations get a free ride.

Regards

RE: UN financing

>Dutchy
>
>So what would your view on how much of the total UN budget
>should the US pay? How much would be enough?
>
>Its interesting to note that all of the big contributors are
>capitalist democracies. No communist paradise past or
>present in the tops ranks.
>
>Regards

Sauron,

my only point was an dis that you can’t state the numbers in it’s own right and not making clear what the context is. I think that every country should pay on basis of their GNP, seems like a fair way to pay an intuisian fee.

regards,

jw

RE: UN financing

“meaning exactly in “in effect….doing evil together”. Nowhere it means there’s an agreement. “

Doing evil together… They are being evil seperately… not together… together require cooperation or proximity they have neither.

“In this case, you clearly have no clue what you’re talking about. “

Hmmm talking about clues… you are starting to sound like Tom… when I disagree I have no clue… very powerful debating tool… why don’t you just say I’m dumb, and it is your ball and your going home… }>

“You live in the wrong hemisphere first of all, and you have a biased tendency irregardless of topic.”

Ahh so there is s correct hemisphere.. interesting.
I quite agree that sometimes I can be biased but more often than not I just seem biased to those who have closed minds.

“Don’t see it from the US point of view, see it from the South Korean point of view and you’ll realize you’re just being an ass because you only know US blah blah this and US blah blah that. “

Of course I don’t see the situation from the US or SK or even NK or Chinese or Russian point of view… I am just down here in untouched, unknown NZ thinking why is the US being such an ass. During their better dead than red period where they were saving the world they got involved in a little scrape in Korea. NK has never been that important globally. It cetainly was never a threat to anyone but the south. Billions of dollars have been spent to “hold the line”.
Lokk at the opposing forces. SK would cream the north in any but a nuclear exchange. We don’t know if NK even has nuclear capability… though the US p!ssed its pants when they tried to launch a satellite.
I think the term is sledgehammer to crack an egg.

“I don’t have a reputation of twisting words, you do. “

Funny that those I disagree with call it twisting words, while those who agree with me call it being open minded… guess it come down to whether you think there is always only one perspective on each issue… I don’t think there is and sometimes wonder how you can be so comfortable believing there is.

“I’m just telling you exactly what it means.”

The point is you aren’t. If you were then I wouldn’t be twisting your words… I’d be changing them.

One of the major design principles for “Usability” is “Use the users language”. Bush failed to realise that although that speech might play well in the states it wouldn’t play well internationally.
The fact that the American people got off on what he said and see no problem suggests he knows them well… you elected him president so that is to be expected. All he did was pick out all the current bad guys from an American perspective and lump them into the opposing team.
The most of the rest of the world doesn’t see NK as a problem for anyone but NK and SK. Obviously Japan and China care as it effects their region. The US cares because it doesn’t know where its borders are. Many countries see Iran as trying to join the international community and also as a customer. Many countries are starting to see Iraq as a victim… sure they were the agressor but now they are certainly not. History should not be repeated… we shouldn’t impose another Versalles treaty. Note some are motivated because they want to sell weapons. Many would just like to see nonmilitary sanctions lifted.
Again looking at history isolation and sanctions hardly ever works and when it does it usualy creates a basket case… a destroyed economy.
Making countries the enemy and isolating them and then telling them to conform is not the solution. Tieing them into the international community for their benefit as well as for the benefit of other countries and then suggesting change is the best way to go.

Would you take the advise of a friend or an enemy?

Iran kicked out the US because the Iranian people were not benefiting from the oil riches of the country.
The US also tried to rig elections in Iran. (for which Bill Clinton appologised in 97 or 98).
Perhaps Iran wouldn’t be “Evil” if the US had been a better friend.
Do you think US actions and behaviour in Iran were unique?

I am not suggesting that if the US was a big naive fluffy bunny in its international relations that there would be world peace but if it had been a little nicer perhaps it would be hated less. (Of course there will always be those who hate the US simply through ignorance but you can’t do much about that can you…)

RE: UN financing

please Garry, no where in my English education says that. I want facts and you use “suggests”. The word is exactly “constitutes…axis of evil”, meaning exactly in “in effect….doing evil together”. Nowhere it means there’s an agreement. An axis is a “pole”, meaning a single strong attribute that groups them together, in this case “evil”. Again, this is very rediculous and just blind subjective. That can mean a ton of things even if it wasn’t meant that way. Hence it is just the usual vocabulary BS. As to the big bad US closed off on the N. Koreans, please don’t say thing you have no clue on. You live in the wrong hemisphere first of all, and you have a biased tendency irregardless of topic. In this case, you clearly have no clue what you’re talking about. Don’t see it from the US point of view, see it from the South Korean point of view and you’ll realize you’re just being an ass because you only know US blah blah this and US blah blah that. I don’t have a reputation of twisting words, you do. I’m just telling you exactly what it means. If you argue about using the label “evil”, sure that’s controversial.

RE: UN financing

“No one seems to know what i’m talking about on those thousands of N.Korean refugee and seems to ignore that. You got what’s worse than another African disaster here and why isn’t anybody else doing anything, until it’s too late and then the usual BS speeches of “never again the world will stand idly by”.”

Gee I don’t know why they are being ignored… can’t be because the US has then all fenced off and isolated from the rest of the world now can it.

“Intel and AMD “constitutes” the overwhelming majority of the PC market.. means.”

The word constitutes is not the erronous word. Axis is a name that has come to mean an alliance but used for bad guys.
During WWII the Allies were the good guys. They worked together for a common goal. They even helped each other.
The equivelent word for the “bad guys” was axis. It also means an alliance Germany and Italy and Japan did indeed help support each other, though japan was rather isolated they did recieve german support.

To suggest that Intel and AMD constitutes an axis of processor market domination suggests a secret or overt alliance where the two cooperate to crush opposition.
The fact that there probbly is no such relationship between these two rivals means that the use of the word Axis is wrong… just as it is the wrong word to collectively group countries together based on the fact that Bush in particular and the US and the West don’t like.

The correct use of the word would require the states named to have gotten together and covertly or overtly helped each other toward the goal they are accused of.
Sure the countries listed have a reason for hating the US, which has dabbled in their lives with no real care for the outcome… they were after all saving the world… little things like sovernty just got in the way. But unless Bush can produce evidence of them working together covertly or overtly then he is not using the word correctly.

“Maybe when you start to translate into other languages then you get this kind of connotation. “

Maybe that is his best chance cause it certainly doesn’t work in English… 🙂

RE: UN financing

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 25-06-02 AT 06:31 AM (GMT)]I think that was 100% direct quote “constitutes an axis of evil”, that wasn’t my word. In fact i’ve never heard of anyone in the US take it that way. They may not like the way “evil” was used to describe these countries. Hey i thought you’re British, you tell me what ..Intel and AMD “constitutes” the overwhelming majority of the PC market.. means. No where can i get a connotation that there’s a deal out there between AMD and Intel to dominate the market. Maybe when you start to translate into other languages then you get this kind of connotation. What’s the big deal here besides being a real sore in the ass on everything Bush says anyways. Calling them evil, that i understand the controversy. But to me, the leadership are evil. The problem is what is our idea of “evil”. As to axis, so, you’ll have problem whenever i use the word axis which makes it a no no. Hey, don’t stop us for using a word that Europeans have issues/complex with.