How many of you feel that...

[Chris Austin]

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: unless the US becomes a rogue state. [joking] If the country did become a rouge state, we would get 10 or more years of diplomancy before they did anything.:) [/joking] The word abbreviation is awfully long for what it means.

[ColinDavies]

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Nor can the UN tax the citizens of any country - it's not a government. Taxation via International treaties is not direct, but it is still a tax. For example the UN membership fee that donor countries all pay must come from somewhere, and allmost all govts consolidated funds are achieved throug taxation. Agreements like the Kyoto agreement would have been virtually taxation without representation, as I don't think any country put it to a general referendum or plebiscide. Regardz Colin J Davies

Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin

I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign' Rob Manderson wrote:

[Jorgen Sigvardsson]

Naaah.. the French, Germans and Russians would be very eager to settle the score. ;) -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine

[Jorgen Sigvardsson]

Colin Davies wrote: International treaties Exactly! They're treaties which means that they're voluntary. Kind of like contracts. You'd have to sign it before you are obligated to pay any fees. Colin Davies wrote: Agreements like the Kyoto agreement would have been virtually taxation without representation Something which Bush & co didn't sign. :) I do get your point, but I'm not willing to call the fees taxes, because you have to sign up for it. You don't sign up for taxes. I hope. :~ -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine

[KaRl]

Colin Davies wrote: Agreements like the Kyoto agreement would have been virtually taxation without representation, as I don't think any country put it to a general referendum or plebiscide Here was the Kyoto protocol adopted by the parliament. It's not direct democracy, but these are the representants of the people, after all.

---

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

[ColinDavies]

I do not agree. There are a lot of other more minor problems in the world where the UN Security Council has had an impact. If nations can talk to each other, there is a better chance disputes will be resolved. And the UN provides this facility. In the current case, both Saddam and then GWB have disregarded the Security Council. While 2 wrongs don't make a right, the Security Council did once again offer the facility where this could have been resolved if it were not for the stubbornness of both sides. Regardz Colin J Davies

Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin

I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign' Rob Manderson wrote:

[Chris Austin]

I get what you are thinking Jörgen. I just makes me wonder, how effective is anything like Kyoto (which by the way, is an awesome city!) if it is voluntary? I guess this brings to question the very nature of the UN itself. Just thinking *almost* out loud. I am finding this thread extremely interesting because it hasn't spiraled into a left vs right debate....yet The word abbreviation is awfully long for what it means.

[peterchen]

You should stop seeing neoconservative propaganda, Nish. Yes, it's a pity that they could neither stop Saddam being evil, nor the US going to war. But loosing a battle does not mean you're powerless. Dissolve for what? Rule of the Fist? No security council is exactly what the right wing US powers would like to see: noone who dares to complain when they need to strike preemptively again. Of course we can return to the Pre-WW2 style of alliancing. Who will complain when Pak and Saudi team up to claim some territory of India? Everybody will be nose deep in his own sorry alliance's ass to do anything. The security council, and it's seeming "powerlessness" has it's reason, see end of WW2, every decent history book (Amazon should be able to deliver one even into the US). At least, the Security Council was strong enough not to make itself the nodding monkey for The Shrub.

---

Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

[Stan Shannon]

I don't have a problem with it, but do we really need two such organizations? "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.

[Jorgen Sigvardsson]

Chris Austin wrote: I just makes me wonder, how effective is anything like Kyoto (which by the way, is an awesome city!) if it is voluntary? I guess this brings to question the very nature of the UN itself. Perhaps we should give the UN more power? Perhaps a fulltime governmental institution would be favorable with mandate in some of the national governments..? After all, the states on this planets are not isolated. What you do may affect me, and what I do may affect you. We're entering an era with more interdependencies between the states of this planet. We're bound to unify at some point. Perhaps we'll only be a billion left when we do, but I think it's inevitable. I think the current global economy points in that direction... Chris Austin wrote: I am finding this thread extremely interesting because it hasn't spiraled into a left vs right debate....yet What'ya talking about you right wing fascist!? :-D -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine

[ColinDavies]

I believe all of the "Add - on" type Agreemnets at the UN are voluntary. Thus certain countries are signaturies and others not. Chris Austin wrote: I guess this brings to question the very nature of the UN itself. Remember that the UN was set up by FDR as an anti AXIS body ! :-) That appears to be the way GWB wants to use it again. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies

Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin

I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign' Rob Manderson wrote:

[Brit]

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: There's a possibility that the UN may be wrong, but please remember that it is not a governmental institution. They can't limit the freedom of americans, unless the US becomes a rogue state. Nor can the UN tax the citizens of any country - it's not a government. Well, there are a number of ways around this. First, as noted by Colin, the UN gets money by asking member nations to pay a share of its costs. The money is called "dues", so it is a required part of being in the UN. (The US has been delinquent in paying its dues, which has lead to degrading terms such as "deadbeat" nation. Hence, there is very little doubt that these are compulsory payments, which make them similar to taxes -- though the US can avoid paying them by opting out of the UN.) The US pays 25%* of the UN's costs (money which ultimately comes from US taxpayers). So, the UN isn't taxing the citizens directly, but it taxes the nation based on its economic state, which is based on the economic state of its citizens. An expanded UN means more money taken from US citizens in the form of US taxes. (The amount is small, so it is generally ignored. The amount the US pays is roughly $1.5 billion/year + $3-$9 billion for peacekeeping. This amounts to only about $5/year per US citizen + $10-$30/year per US citizen. By comparison, a figure of $10 billion would represent 1% of the US annual budget.) Second, there have been proposals for an international-trade tax which goes to the UN (called the Tobin tax). Again, this is not a direct tax on US citizens, but it makes its way to them: anything that is imported will have a higher cost. This puts it into the category of sales tax or tarrifs. * which, I believe was negotated down to 22%, but I'm not sure about that. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion

[Lost User]

Brit wrote: get caught in a situation where the UN is wrong, limits their freedom, or taxes them. Too late. In addition to housing the UN on some pretty valuable real estate in NYC, the US already pays for roughly 28% of their entire budget. In other words, you're already being taxed by the UN indirectly. Mike Mullikin :beer:

Times change, politicians don't. - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe - Soapbox 10/03/2003

[Lost User]

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Naaah.. the French, Germans and Russians would be very eager to settle the score. With whose help? Mike Mullikin :beer:

Times change, politicians don't. - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe - Soapbox 10/03/2003

[Anna Jayne Metcalfe]

No Anna :rose: Homepage | My life in tears

"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch

Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++

[Jorgen Sigvardsson]

I doubt they'd need much help. :) It would be a hard and long battle. Sure, the US would probably win in the end, but it would be very costly. But, I was not very serious with my previous statement. So let's not discuss this any further. It's not a future scenario I'd want to see! -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine

[Jorgen Sigvardsson]

Ah.. thank you for the insight! -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine

[Lost User]

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I was not very serious with my previous statement. Nor was I. ;P Mike Mullikin :beer:

Times change, politicians don't. - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe - Soapbox 10/03/2003

[Michael A Barnhart]

Nishant S wrote: ...the UN should be dissolved? NO. Nishant S wrote: I mean they have just been exposed as a dummy organization with no real powers. Not really. What has been shown is what happens when one side (or several) refuses to work towards a compromise. Then yes it is failed in its goals but that is not the fault of the ideals of the UN. ""

[Jorgen Sigvardsson]

Hehe.. That's what I suspected. However, there are people on CP which are more... serious about these things. :~ -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine