Changes needed to make a more effective UN

I am afraid< Mr. De Kere, that we cannot agree. My sainted mother always taught me that one must be polite and deferential to one's hosts.

De gustibus non es disputandum!

0 Replies

Interesting. That is something that I will call you on in the future.

0 Replies

Mr. De Kere: I would ask you not to think that De gustibus covers everything.

My guide in these matters is Mortimer Adler who, in my opinion, does a fine job delineating the difference between uninformed opinion and informed opinion and also stressing the importance of referring to EXPERTS.

0 Replies

It is very irritating to be on someone else's time schedule, when responding. My computer has been dying a slow death, and bringing back links almost always causes a shut down. I also have a life going on around me, and cannot devote hours on end, at the moment of the question, to answering specific questions on the spot.

I had finally retrieved the second post here, but found nimh had gone in another direction. I had to leave the computer, so I was faced with deleting the second piece, and leaving without responding at all--or adding it in the discussion, while realizing a lot of stuff was posted, while I was out reading at globalpolicy. I was looking forward to getting into the subject this morning...

However, coming back here, and seeing the shitty judgements on me...

Quote:

Sofia wrote:
Do you dispute the numbers in the article?

Thats a joke <angry>

I dig for three hours to come up with all kinds of official actual statistics, which you blatantly choose to ignore wholesale - you google up a sabre-rattling op-ed with unsubstantiated numbers - and you're asking me whether I "dispute the numbers"?

I had not ignored your stats wholesale--I didn't see them right away, and when I did, I didn't have the time to address them. I was planning to return today. Didn't realize I was under time constraints. Actually, I was asking Craven, who did dispute the numbers. But, he didn't get his panties in a wad.<angrier>

Quote:

I'm giving up on reasoning with your kind of rhetorics. You're either here to learn something together, or to be fighting your way out of whichever corner you find yourself in as if thats all that mattered. <shrugs>

If you don't like my manner of speaking, and can't tolerate less than immediate responses, don't talk to me any more. I prefer you don't. You're not the only one, who spent time looking through UN, US budgets, peacekeeping information and related articles. You're just the only one, who got belligerant and personal. This has been happening increasingly lately. I'm sick of it.
Sofia wrote:
The main thrust of my response to who owes what is a few posts above.

Quote:

Thats an awfully terse, rhetorical response to an awful lot of facts (that I spent three hours collecting). Are we into Able2PutDown & Able2BrushAside or into Able2Know?

Try Midol. My sentence was a locator for your benefit. You had posted without reading back, as your disclaimer

Quote:

[this is a follow-up post to my previous one - havent checked up yet with what you may have posted in the meantime]

said.

Done with you----------

To anyone interested, I do plan to reason out the facts about US/UN dues, and such. Anyone wanting to investigate from either side is welcomed to jump in.

0 Replies

US to Haiti--Doing the work of the UN--$$300 million.

During an official working visit by Haitian President Rene Preval to the White House on March 21, President Bill Clinton will underline US support for Haiti, though he will urge it to pursue economic reforms. This will be Preval's first visit to Washington since he took over from Jean-Bertrand Aristide last month. President Clinton considers Haiti's return to democracy a major foreign policy success, since thousands of US troops helped return democracy to the country in 1994. Washington spent $200 million last year, and will spend $100 million this year, to reinforce Haiti's economy. Clinton stated recently: "While the country remains poor, while its institutions remain fragile, this country now has better prospects for the future than at any time in the past". However, Larry Bairns, Director of the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs, stated that there has been a "woefully disappointing performance on the part of the economic reconstruction programme". President Clinton will seek assurances from Preval that economic reforms will be followed, like privatising state-owned industries - a condition of continued foreign aid to Haiti. President Clinton will also want Preval to commit to conducting investigations into execution killings last year, victims of which included General Raoul Cedras, the military commander forced to step down under the threat of the US invasion. The US will withhold some Haitian aid unless proof of such investigations is presented to Congress by April 15.

0 Replies

Responding to --

Quote:

You might think any US military spending should be able to count toward the US's UN dues. You might be right in that it SHOULD. But that has little to do with the reality that the US helped create and that the US agreed to.

Membership dues are a straight forward expense that has nothing to do with voluntary military spending.

Canada gets reimbursed for money spent on peacekeeping.

Canadian Defence Minister David Collenette and Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy stated that an unusual arrangement for staffing UN peacekeeping operations in Haiti will lead to Canada picking up some of the bill. Canada has taken over as the leader of UNMIH. However, Canada agreed to send some troops to Haiti who will not, technically, be under UN command, but will, in fact, share that command, as part of a UN Security Council deal to break the deadlock over the renewal of the UNMIH mandate. The ministers claimed that Canadian peacekeepers in Haiti would cost $17.5 million over the next 4 months, a sum that would normally be reimbursed by the UN. Collenette estimated that Ottawa would be reimbursed between $11-$12.4 million. According to Axworthy, Canada was prepared to cover the additional cost because "we just think it's awfully important that we maintain the UN presence in Haiti and the international presence to help the Haitian Government slowly rebuild its own peace and order and good government arrangements".

0 Replies

US price tag on UN peacekeeping in Bosnia 1996-- $$820 million+ $$600 million.

In Washington last week, the House narrowly approved a controversial 1996 spending bill that includes $820 million for Bosnian military operations. This figure is $200 million more than the $620 million that was requested by the DoD for military personnel, operations and maintenance costs. House appropriators decided to allocate more funds now, since operation costs were already mounting. Another funding request for nearly $600 million will be submitted to Congress by DoD soon, according to DoD Controller John Hamre. Bill Young, Chair of the Appropriations National Security Subcommittee, stated: "We have recommended more than the President asked because we determined that he actually needed more at this point in order to pay for what is going on in Bosnia".

0 Replies

Why are we in Bosnia at all. It was an EU problem and should have been addressed by them. In any event IMO we should get out now and let the Europeans police their own mess.

0 Replies

Because, they can't seem to pull their pants up without the US military or US money. If they want equality and respect, they should handle some of their backyard messes themselves...

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Actually, I was asking Craven, who did dispute the numbers. But, he didn't get his panties in a wad.<angrier>

Actually I kinda did, that's why I had to nemind it first. It's kinda frustrating and had I done the leg work I'da been more frustrated.

The contempt some of the Americans here have for the world is palpable. I will address the numbers here if nimh doesnt (he has far more patience than I do) but before I do something I consider halfway pointless I have a question.

Do you care that the US has violated their agreement? Do you think spending money outside of the parameters to the UN should count toward the dues we refused to pay?

I ask because'it'd be pointless to spend time researching it if this is a rant about how any US spending should place us above our obligations.

You referenced an article about Canada in response to my simple question about whether the US should be allowed to withhold their dues by naming unrelated expenses while there is no provision for this in the UN.

And I can fully understand nimh's frustration.

Your response was an article about Canada being reimbursed for something and has nothing whatsoever to do with UN dues.

The US has been reimbursed in the past for some of our costs.

But again this has nothing to do with the US dues owed. If your point is that you think the world is so 'orrible and the US so damn great taht it should not have to pay it's dues just say so.

But it's kinda sad to see you make claims that the US does pay their rent when they don't.

When people respond factually with a detailed breakdown of the rent we did not pay they are responded to here with simple distain and simply unrelated numbers.

Like I said, peacekeeping missions have nothing to do with membership dues.

What's the point of digging up facts if you don't care about them? In this I share nimh's frustration.

0 Replies

Code:

Do you care that the US has violated their agreement? Do you think spending money outside of the parameters to the UN should count toward the dues we refused to pay?

Money is money. I think that if you owe Fred, your landlord, $200 every month for rent, and one night, you bail him out of jail at $500--he is a son of a bitch for asking you for rent. The way I see it, Fred won't be getting rent for at least two months. You've have helped out Fred over and above your basic 'dues'. I am aware the UN likes to keep these 'accounts' seperated--but our 'share' of the responsibility kept steadily increasing--to 31% before we stopped paying--and everyone else's steadily decreased. Many people felt we were being screwed.

I DO NOT think because we pay the most, we should be above obligations. But I do think when we have overpaid in peacekeeping and military service, it is disgusting to come knocking on our door about 'dues'.
Reimburse us the way others are reimbursed.

If it is as simple as you not caring that we paid such exhorbitant amounts for peacekeeping-- and we still owe the same amount of dues--then we just disagree, and you're right--we should spare each other further aggravation.

Code:Your response was an article about Canada being reimbursed for something and has nothing whatsoever to do with UN dues.

Common sense would equivocate a reimbursement with a credit.

You revisited in several posts to Italgato and me--your contention that we had to center our discussion on what the current agreement is--and not what it should be.

Well, the US sat on money 'owed' to the UN to negotiate 'what dues should be', and did so successfully. What dues and reimbursements 'should be' is important to me. If my stance isn't the one you want to discuss, I won't take your withdrawal from the conversation personally.

0 Replies

I honestly tried to answer the one or other other question, give a couple of links.

But obviously some mix up a lot, which is disavowed, as nimh and Craven already pointed out sufficiently several times.

You may have a crow to pick with the UN, but please look at first at the original facts, e.g. Bosnia/1996: I recommend looking at a lesson plan/history material for K 10 - 12 at some websites like this one.

Operation Uphold Democracy began in September 1994 with the deployment of the U.S.-led Multinational Force, not UN. (Besides: see Craven on paying for peacekeeping).

0 Replies

Walter
That just highlites another UN failing. Where was the UN asleep at the switch as usual. The world could blow up and the UN would debate it till the last cinder.

0 Replies

Thank you for the recommendation, Walter. I have one for you, as well. <hope you can divine it>

Share this with your country:

Quote:

please look at first at the original facts, e.g. Bosnia/1996: I recommend looking at a lesson plan/history material for K 10 - 12 at some websites like this one.

Maybe they'll learn enough to get off their asses and do something, besides waiting on the US, and playing with French peckers in broom closets.

0 Replies

Sofia
You sure have a way with words. I think I am falling in love. Laughing

0 Replies

:wink:
<Sorry if I've dragged your thread off into right field.>

I did find an interesting site for a related convo on improving the UN, while I was researching.
Look here.

Very Happy

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Money is money. I think that if you owe Fred, your landlord, $200 every month for rent, and one night, you bail him out of jail at $500--he is a son of a bitch for asking you for rent. The way I see it, Fred won't be getting rent for at least two months. You've have helped out Fred over and above your basic 'dues'. I am aware the UN likes to keep these 'accounts' seperated--but our 'share' of the responsibility kept steadily increasing--to 31% before we stopped paying--and everyone else's steadily decreased. Many people felt we were being screwed.

But the numbers you have cited are not cases in which the US has "bailed out" the UN. In some cases the numbers cited were actions that the US took that the UN largely did not agree with.

So a better analogy would be that you are telling Fred to go scratch because you just bought a car.

Quote:

I DO NOT think because we pay the most, we should be above obligations. But I do think when we have overpaid in peacekeeping and military service, it is disgusting to come knocking on our door about 'dues'.
Reimburse us the way others are reimbursed.

We pay the military payments WE are interested in. Much of it are payments the UN did not authorize.

In my job, if I spend a lot of money that the company does not authorize they justy do not allow me to include it in my T&E.

And simply put we ARE reimbursed for the money we have a right to be reimbursed for.

Look, as nice of a notion it is for Americans to think the UN owes us have you seen the actual US position on this?

We cede that we owe, we simply hold out to pressure for reform.

Very few people make the argument that our unrealated spendings should count as dues and this is for good reason.

I can understand the wish to alter the payment system. I want it changed too. But future change does not alter past obligations.

Quote:

If it is as simple as you not caring that we paid such exhorbitant amounts for peacekeeping-- and we still owe the same amount of dues--then we just disagree, and you're right--we should spare each other further aggravation.

We pay exhorbitant amounts on peacekeeping because we like to. It's not simply a charitable action on our part.

You revisited in several posts to Italgato and me--your contention that we had to center our discussion on what the current agreement is--and not what it should be.

Quote:

Well, the US sat on money 'owed' to the UN to negotiate 'what dues should be', and did so successfully. What dues and reimbursements 'should be' is important to me. If my stance isn't the one you want to discuss, I won't take your withdrawal from the conversation personally.

Sofia, your staements were most decidedly NOT what "should be" you spoke of past payments and spoke falsely of them. I will not be withdrawing from the discussion simply because you have now swicthed to the "should be".

You asked me if I dispute the numbers in the article. I did indeed dispute them. They are false. You did not ask me if I disagreed with what the numbers SHOULD be.

When you stated that the US has paid more than everybody it was false.

It was not a discussion on what "should be".

I think nimh was correct to call you on your refusal to back down from statements that he has brough the facts on and illustrated that are false.

Furthermore the contemptuous rhetoric ("get off their asses and do something, besides waiting on the US, and playing with French peckers in broom closets") is off putting.

What you think the whole world should be doing has nothing to do with what we agreed to and did not pay.

0 Replies

Quote:

But the numbers you have cited are not cases in which the US has "bailed out" the UN. In some cases the numbers cited were actions that the US took that the UN largely did not agree with.

I can't imagine where you got the idea that I expected to UN to underwrite all US military action!? Just the ones they asked for, or authorised as a UN goal...

Quote:

And simply put we ARE reimbursed for the money we have a right to be reimbursed for.

I disagree. Clinton released a good deal of money to the UN for 'special projects', which sidestepped the Congress, and which we didn't get credit for. This is one instance. I have been looking for others, and will continue to contribute to this as I find information.

Quote:

When you stated that the US has paid more than everybody it was false.

Playing with words. OK, anybody else.

Quote:

It was not a discussion on what "should be".

Read the thread header. Improvements to be made...

Quote:

I think nimh was correct to call you on your refusal to back down from statements that he has brough the facts on and illustrated that are false.

nimh jumped my **** before I even had a chance to read his links. I had been searching in globalpolicy for quite a while, came back to drop off a paragraph or two, and saw his unnecessarily rude write up. I should have earned enough credence from him, that he would've known I would address his work when I'd gotten a chance. He very recently made a stupid mistake, misreading or misunderstanding something I said, and argued it to death--and then saw his mistake. I excused it immediately and without question.

I deserved better. I still haven't read his links--and now, I don't intend to.
No longer interested.

Quote:

Furthermore the contemptuous rhetoric ("get off their asses and do something, besides waiting on the US, and playing with French peckers in broom closets") is off putting.

Yeah. Everybody is contemptuous from time to time. It seemed to be my turn.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Thank you for the recommendation, Walter. I have one for you, as well. <hope you can divine it>

Share this with your country:

Quote:
please look at first at the original facts, e.g. Bosnia/1996: I recommend looking at a lesson plan/history material for K 10 - 12 at some websites like this one.

Maybe they'll learn enough to get off their asses and do something, besides waiting on the US, and playing with French peckers in broom closets.

After having consultated a couple of dictionaries and online resources:

Question

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

I can't imagine where you got the idea that I expected to UN to underwrite all US military action!? Just the ones they asked for, or authorised as a UN goal...

It's mainly because the numbers you cite are not authorized UN spending. I think it reasonable to only include authoprized spending when you speak of the UN "owing" us.

Quote:

I disagree. Clinton released a good deal of money to the UN for 'special projects', which sidestepped the Congress, and which we didn't get credit for. This is one instance. I have been looking for others, and will continue to contribute to this as I find information.

This was a claim made by an op-ed journalist. I think nimh was very fair in asking for substantiation for that claim. I suspect I know what the journalist is talking about and if it is the same then he is blowing smoke up everyone's ass.

Please tell us what "special project" was payed to the UN. Remember that credit for "special projects" has nothing to do with UN membership dues.

Remember that credit for certain special projects is credited toward a separate payment made to the UN.

Remember that there are voluntary projects, a nation's contribution to a voluntary project does not have any credit to UN dues in any way.

It is this way for all nations why should the US be a special case?

Quote:

Quote:
When you stated that the US has paid more than everybody it was false.

Playing with words. OK, anybody else.

Ok, but the US agreed to pay more than anybody else. The US has more money than everyone else.

At one point the US had more money than EVERYONE else.

The US pays the smallest amount as it related to the capacity to pay.

The US is the only nation that benefits from the ciling meaning that all other nations are supposed to pay a larger share of their money than teh US does.

You like to talk in totals. Let's compare.

The rich in most countries pay more taxes than the poor. In the case of teh UN they pay a lower percentage of their income.

If the US taxation system made it so that the rich ahve to pay less of a share of their money than the poor would you still be using the total figures to justify them refusing to pay?

Quote:

Quote:
It was not a discussion on what "should be".

Read the thread header. Improvements to be made...

I was talking about the "should be" until you started making false statements about the present and past. I am not responsing to the thread's title. I am responsind to YOUR statements that do not say anything about what "should be". They were statements about what is and was. Please do not use the topic title to cover.

When you asked about numbers I dispute you were not asking about future numbers that I might dispute but existing ones.

Quote:

nimh jumped my **** before I even had a chance to read his links. I had been searching in globalpolicy for quite a while, came back to drop off a paragraph or two, and saw his unnecessarily rude write up. I should have earned enough credence from him, that he would've known I would address his work when I'd gotten a chance. He very recently made a stupid mistake, misreading or misunderstanding something I said, and argued it to death--and then saw his mistake. I excused it immediately and without question.

Ya know, I have very few qualms with nimh. One of them is that he gets too frustrated (IMO) when his laborious reesrach is ignored or not responded to in a way he was expecting.

I understand his frustration but do think that he should expect this.

Quote:

I deserved better. I still haven't read his links--and now, I don't intend to.
No longer interested.

That would be very sad. The links nimh posted are very rare finds, straight to the point and with very little editorializing (there is some editorializing about conservatives but no number games).

Quote:

Quote:
Furthermore the contemptuous rhetoric ("get off their asses and do something, besides waiting on the US, and playing with French peckers in broom closets") is off putting.

Yeah. Everybody is contemptuous from time to time. It seemed to be my turn.

Fair enough. Being contemptuous about the whole damn world is a bit much to take on though.

0 Replies

Changes needed to make a more effective UN

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know