How many of you feel that...

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

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

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

Chris Losinger

Nishant S wrote: I mean they have just been exposed as a dummy organization with no real powers. you might want to read the text of the infamous UN:1441. it states that if Saddam doesn't do so-and-so that he will have to face "serious consequences" - it doesn't say exactly what should happen. and that's the only reason it passed with a unanimous vote. France, Russia and China wouldn't have voted for a measure that gave a green-light for the US to invade (which everyone knows was the real reason for the resolution in the first place). the pro-inspections side wanted "serious consequences" to mean that there would be another vote on exactly what to do. the pro-war side wanted it to mean immediate invasion. each side knew what the other wanted, and hoped the other side would come to see things their way. recall that until a few days ago, the US was pushing for a new resolution to define what those "consequences" would be. 1441 also states that any country with intelligence that can document WMDs in Iraq must give that info to the inspectors. according to GWB, the US has more information than it was willing to share with the (former) inspectors (or anyone else, apparently). so, if the intel is real, one could very easily argue that the US is in violation of 1441 itself. of course, by declaring that the UN is irrelevant, GWB sidesteps that little issue, just as he sidestepped the fact that the new resolution wouldn't have given him the green light to go ahead with his war, but would've shown clearly that the UN said "no". no votes is good votes, i suppose. -c

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

Michael A Barnhart

Colin Davies wrote: In the current case, both Saddam and then GWB have disregarded the Security Council. I agree with your general post but do have an issue with how this line can be interpreted. I really feel this is a 3 way issue and not just 2. IMhO the problem also includes Frances lack of appreciation for the US can not keep its troops there indefinitely. With their statements of no matter what is offered we will veto, put the US in a position of either, yes disregarding the current feelings or walking away. I am not saying the US did not make some stupid statements and helped encourage the situation to develop the way it did but I do not feel other UN members are without fault. 1) So if Iraq (Saddam) had disarmed 12 years ago this situation would not exist. or 2) If the US rhetoric had not been so offensive the situation could have played out differently. or 3) If the French had not been so fixed on no set limits of inspections. We could easily be at a different point. I fear the UN will have little influence for a long time, unless we can get over the wrongs we have all done and work towards the best for the people of Iraq as soon as options present themselves. :rose: ""

Michael A Barnhart

Brit wrote: * which, I believe was negotated down to 22%, but I'm not sure about that. I have not looked this up so please correct me if anyone actually knows. I thought the UN dues were 25% for the US but the US congress only approved 22%. So that is why the US is behind in it's dues. ""

DRHuff

Yeah and maybe Sweden can become their new home and replace the 23% of the UN budget that the US supplies. (This also ignores the costs to New York City for loss of tax revenue from all those diplomatic missions, the UN building itself, upaid parking and traffic fines etc). Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!

John Carson

Michael A. Barnhart wrote: IMhO the problem also includes Frances lack of appreciation for the US can not keep its troops there indefinitely. With their statements of no matter what is offered we will veto, put the US in a position of either, yes disregarding the current feelings or walking away. I am not saying the US did not make some stupid statements and helped encourage the situation to develop the way it did but I do not feel other UN members are without fault. I think France is being scapegoated. Most of the world's governments and the citizens in virtually every country except the US and Israel are opposed to this war. France and most other countries wanted the inspection process to continue for a period of months. The various resolutions proposed by the US were all variations on "we'll go to war on Wednesday instead of Tuesday" and no-one with any understanding of the position of those opposing the US should have imagined that the revised resolutions were any more acceptable than the one first proposed. Robin Cook, in his resignation speech, summed it up well: France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary in recent days. It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac. The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council. John Carson

ColinDavies

Yes, I agree with your corrections of my statement. France seems to have committed a lot of self serving posturing. 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:

Michael A Barnhart

I do not take your response as addressing my issue. I believe that the only reason Saddam is doing anything is due to troops being at his door. Now my problem is how long does (did) the world expect the US to hold those troops in position. I have never heard when will we (The UN) consider enough is enough. Or those that do not want war are happy with the US being committed to hold thousands of troops indefinitely. This is not an option from both the US military point of view and the Arabic nations that I imagine do not want massive US troops on their soil. If the French felt months was reasonable then they should have offered a compromise with action on Jan 2004 (or 2005). They refused to do that as far as information I have read indicates. ""

John Carson

Michael A. Barnhart wrote: If the French felt months was reasonable then they should have offered a compromise with action on Jan 2004 (or 2005). They refused to do that as far as information I have read indicates. France-Germany-Russia proposed the development of a strict timetable for inspections but the US wasn't interested. France-Germany-Russia were never willing to accept that war would be automatic; they insisted that a final decision be made after the evidence was in. That is only sensible in my view. Link 1[^] Link 2[^] John Carson

Michael A Barnhart

John, I will have to say we just disagree. Your first link only addresses inspector reports. That still leaves the indefinite obligation of the presence of US troops. Your second reference was only given after the ultimatum for UN action and it was finally offer to start talking. To late. :(( If only a month or few weeks sooner. John Carson wrote: That is only sensible in my view. As nice as that would be, The US could not commit troops indefinitely and I still see it that way. Now please look back at my original reply. I do feel many are at fault. Can we at least agree that we will guarantee failure if we only focus on the faults of each other. We need to focus on what we all need to do in the future to make a better world and try to influence our leaders to go down that path. ""