Yabang! US House wants to blackmails UN by not paying its dues

[mbt]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/18/un.reform/index.html

What arrogance!

okay, maybe the UN really is in need of urgent reform (maybe, maybe not), but blackmail? to put things in perspective, this is the same country that chose to forego the UN when it went to war with iraq. tsk tsk.

[Karding]

mbt, according to the article, the Bush Admin will not even support such threats which are being made by the US Senate.

Parang unfair yata kapatid if you have to bring up the Iraq issue dahil mismong Admin hindi naman aprubado itong so called 'blackmail' US Senate Bill.

A senator said he will introduce the measure in the Senate, where it must pass before going to the White House for the president's approval, but the Bush administration has signaled it does not support such threats.

And to put another thing in perspective, US is the same country who built the UN. I cant remember the last time UN had done anything to protect the nations. Maybe somebody here can remind me

[mbt]

karding,

yeah, i noted that the administration is against this move, pero kung matuloy ito, i'd think that bottom line is that it would still be the US' move. i mean, even if it was bush's decision to go to war in iraq, ultimately, i'd think it was with the blessing of the american people. at least, the US congress also voted to go to war over iraq without the UN. am i making sense? hehe, pasensya na, alas tres na ng gabi hehehe

ano bang gagawin ni bush kung pumasa sa senate ito? veto?

[empy]

he might veto it.

i don't agree with withholding dues either. parang breach of contract eh

[yebo]

mga tsong, dati naman nang kulang ang binabayad ng US sa obligasyon nito sa UN, lalo na pag hindi nasunod ang gusto nila sa general assembly. may time pa nga nanotorious na yan, US, Russia, France, UK. kung sino pa ang permanent member ng UN security council ay sila pa ang manunuba.

buti pa nga ang mahihirap na bansa kumpleto ang bayad. ang pinas mahirap pero never pa yata nagkulang o na-late. pero ang america, naku po balasubas yan pag dating sa pagbabayad sa UN ng kanilang membership fee.

so ano yan, gagawin lang nilang official policy nila kung sakali. but it is an old practice.

[boybi]

how much ba ang membership sa UN?

[yebo]

depende sa economy ng country and the committees that they are permanent members of. i read before (UN report something) the US' yearly dues was $250M. but they only pay a small amount (more in the vicinity of $50M), never did they pay the whole fee. that was their way of pressuring the secretary general to submit to their demands.

[docpete]

here is a good read just to avoid misconceptions

http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch5/ch5.htm

[creepy]

mbt, according to the article, the Bush Admin will not even support such threats which are being made by the US Senate.

Parang unfair yata kapatid if you have to bring up the Iraq issue dahil mismong Admin hindi naman aprubado itong so called 'blackmail' US Senate Bill.

These U.S. legislators are a joke!! The U.S. hasn't been paying its UN dues properly for a loooooooooooong time anyway. I think it's pretty clear to most countries (apart from those pro-Bush people) that this is a response to the fact that MOST countries in the UN opposed a morally reprehensible war in Iraq.

And -- in case you did not know: the Bushies are opposing this bill because they want Bush to be given the power to decide whether or not to withhold UN dues (the Bushies don't want the US Congress to be the one to decide).

This is the perfect example of an arrogant rich guy -- they think they're better than anyone else and above the law because they have more money. Tsk, tsk.

And to put another thing in perspective, US is the same country who built the UN. I cant remember the last time UN had done anything to protect the nations. Maybe somebody here can remind me

How can the UN protect the Palestinians (for example) when the U.S. has been exercising its veto so that Israel can't be stopped from inflicting its policies on a poorer people?

[oldblue]

may membership fee expense pala Pilipinas sa UN. pati pala ito kelangan i-raise ng taxes natin.

[Karding]

These U.S. legislators are a joke!! The U.S. hasn't been paying its UN dues properly for a loooooooooooong time anyway. I think it's pretty clear to most countries (apart from those pro-Bush people) that this is a response to the fact that MOST countries in the UN opposed a morally reprehensible war in Iraq.

And -- in case you did not know: the Bushies are opposing this bill because they want Bush to be given the power to decide whether or not to withhold UN dues (the Bushies don't want the US Congress to be the one to decide).

This is the perfect example of an arrogant rich guy -- they think they're better than anyone else and above the law because they have more money. Tsk, tsk.



How can the UN protect the Palestinians (for example) when the U.S. has been exercising its veto so that Israel can't be stopped from inflicting its policies on a poorer people?

First, welcome to tsikot. This is a very nice one for your first post.

RE: The U.S. hasn't been paying its UN dues properly for a loooooooooooong time anyway

Maybe if the US stops fighting the war for the entire world, giving aid to those so called third world country who, according you your opinion, pay their dues on-time, the US can probably pay its due on time.

RE: And -- in case you did not know: the Bushies are opposing this bill because they want Bush to be given the power to decide whether or not to withhold UN dues (the Bushies don't want the US Congress to be the one to decide).

This is the perfect example of an arrogant rich guy -- they think they're better than anyone else and above the law because they have more money. Tsk, tsk.

I value your opinion and I'm sorry if you feel that way.

RE: UN opposed a morally reprehensible war in Iraq.

I've been exchanging opinions over this issue for a very long time, Id rather keep my comment short. I guess you can call Saddam's action morally correct. YES, I know Bush wanted to hunt Bin Laden but failed, still looking daw. But Saddam's action against the kurds is what prompt Bush to attack Iraq. Why didnt Saddam just let the UN inspectors stay in Iraq to monitor their program?! The attack in Iraq could have been prevented if only Saddam agreed to have inspected again. Geez, after so many UN resolutions given to Saddam, he failed to comply. Wait, how more US resolution effort do we need again just so Saddam complies?!

I'm not going to get into a history lesson. The short, short version is
that the League of Nations (established after WW I to prevent wars) failed
to stop Mussolini's Italy from invading and conquering Ethiopia. It failed
to stop Japan from invading and conquering Manchuria and much of China.
Their committees wrung their hands spoke in platitudes but did absolutely
nothing to stop war.

At France's coaxing Britain's prime minister Nevil Chamberlain met with
Adolph Hitler in Munich and surrendered the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany in
the interest of "peace in our time." The French and British watched as
Germany took Austria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. They all had committee
meetings and wrung their hands and talked of peace.

World War II erupted when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Britain had a
mutual defense treaty with Poland so they couldn't escape. They declared
war on Germany. Germany had a mutual defense treaty with Japan so Japan
declared war on Britain. France wet their pants and surrendered to Germany
as fast as they could and gleefully shipped all the Jews they could find to
death camps in Germany to prove to Adolph that they really were on the side
of Germany.

Japan attacked the United States and, because of Japan's mutual defense
treaty with Germany, Germany declared war on the United States.

Up until December 7th and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, a large
number of our people were wringing their hands and saying, "Appease Hitler.
He is really a good guy who just needed a little more land for his
expanding population. The dear man just wants peace. And World War II was
in full swing leaving better than 50,000,000 people dead including about
450,000 American soldiers and sailors.

Three cheers for the League of Nations!

After World War II it was decided to do the whole thing all over again.
This time we would call it the United Nations and we will have committee
meetings and hand wringing parties and make sure peace prevails throughout
the land.

While that august body wrung hands the Soviet Union split Germany, invaded
Poland and Yugoslavia, Rumania, Hungary and Bulgaria along with Latvia,
Lithuania and Estonia. The peaceful world saw Korea with 37,000 American
soldiers killed, over 1,000,000 South Korean soldiers and civilians killed
and the country nearly destroyed.

Since then we have had over 50,000 American soldiers killed in Vietnam and
have fought wars in Somalia, Herzegovenia, Panama, Granada, plus the Gulf
War when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

We should have gone into Baghdad and taken out that evil regime then but
the United Nations would have no part of that. All they would allow was for
us to chase the Iraqis out of Kuwait, then peace would prevail.

Now, here we are with Saddam violating all 17 United Nations resolutions
while he has massed poison gas and bio weapons.

He is frantically trying to develop a nuke and his buddy, Kim Jong-Il of
North Korea may give him a few. (It was the United Nations who prevented us
from taking North Korea when the war was hot and we had the means to do it.)
Peace!!!!!!!! Sure.

France is wetting their collective pants in fear that the United States
will take Saddam out and along with him, France's 60 billion dollar
contracts with Iraq. Russia hedges because Iraq owes them 6 billion dollars
that they sorely need.

In answer to your question....... hell yes we should go to war with Iraq.
We should have done it six months ago. We should also get out of the United
Nations. Can you believe that the United Nations has appointed Iraq and
Syria to head up the United Nations Disarmament Committee? Can you believe
they have appointed Libya to head up the Human Rights Committee?


All three of these countries are on the UN List of Terrorist
States..........Absolutely unbelievable.

Just don't get me going. Throughout recorded history the only time peace
has prevailed is when the good guys have militarily whipped the bad guys.
Who are our best friends in the world? Japan because we whipped them.
Germany because we whipped them. Italy because we whipped them. Britain
because we whipped them.

Above quote is an opinion from my fellow veteran. Only he has seen Korean War and WW II and I have only been to Gulf War. According to him, its a different look at the War. I know this would sound selfish or even arrogant, but I wish the US stops from protecting someone else's nation. Let them kill each other, stop all the aid given unto them and just protect the US land. Afterall, the US is being criticize and being dubbed "the wannabe police of the world." But wait, if the US does that, it will then be dubbed as selfish and arrogant again. Try to satisfy both sides and you end up not satisfying no one.

I wish John Kerry won the last election, it would have been nice to blame somebody else, its a blame game afterall.

[mbt]

i think we need to colonize another planet real soon bwahahahaha

[Karding]

i think we need to colonize another planet real soon bwahahahaha

And again, the US got the head start...here we come MARS :bwahaha: ayuf! Sabi lang ng NASA na studies of our past ang ginagawa nila dun, pero nabuking mo na sila mbt, jahahahahaha they're studying the future colony...hahahaha

[mbt]

:bwahaha: kaya pala ayaw magbayad ng US congress sa UN, malaking pera kailangan sa mars project

[Karding]

kaya pala ayaw magbayad ng US congress sa UN, malaking pera kailangan sa mars project

And they extended both of the rovers life!

:hihihi: it only means one thing for me...job security! hahahahaa

[empy]

And -- in case you did not know: the Bushies are opposing this bill because they want Bush to be given the power to decide whether or not to withhold UN dues (the Bushies don't want the US Congress to be the one to decide).

how do you know this?

[creepy]

how do you know this?

check the political websites in the US

[creepy]

First, welcome to tsikot. This is a very nice one for your first post.

Thank you. There's no sarcasm in that and I hope there's none in your statement.

Maybe if the US stops fighting the war for the entire world, giving aid to those so called third world country who, according you your opinion, pay their dues on-time, the US can probably pay its due on time.

Nobody asked the U.S. to attack Iraq.

I've been exchanging opinions over this issue for a very long time, Id rather keep my comment short. I guess you can call Saddam's action morally correct. YES, I know Bush wanted to hunt Bin Laden but failed, still looking daw. But Saddam's action against the kurds is what prompt Bush to attack Iraq. Why didnt Saddam just let the UN inspectors stay in Iraq to monitor their program?! The attack in Iraq could have been prevented if only Saddam agreed to have inspected again. Geez, after so many UN resolutions given to Saddam, he failed to comply. Wait, how more US resolution effort do we need again just so Saddam complies?!

First of all, many of those who defend the US' attack on Iraq always say Saddam is a bad guy. Hey, there has NEVER been an argument about that.

Iraq was never a threat to the U.S.. After invading, the U.S. tells us -- "Ooops, no WMD!!". It's like police raiding a house for drugs, capturing the supposed drug dealer (killing a few dozen bystanders on the way) and saying "Ooops, wrong house!"

Israel has been in violation of UN resolutions for decades (much longer than Iraq) and has nuclear weapons but does it justify Iran or Syrians attacking Israel?

I wish John Kerry won the last election, it would have been nice to blame somebody else, its a blame game afterall.

Nobody's condemning the US for fighting WWII or the Korean War or the first Iraq war but why are many people so vociferously against this latest Iraq war?

I really think it is VERY VERY SAD that Americans actually believe they are in the right and keep on bashing people who opposed a war that killed more than 100,000 innocent Iraqis. I wish more Americans would swallow their pride and admit they made a huge mistake. They allowed a fanatical leader to lead them to kill so many people (in a poor foreign country) in the name of protecting the "freedom" of Americans. I think it's time for Bush (and his cabal) to apologize.

[yebo]

wwII and korea were one thing, iraq was another. wwII was the free world againts an enemy (the axis powers germany, italy and japan) intending to enslave the whole world. korea was in defense of a member of the UN against a communist invader, just like when the UN sanctioned desert storm to free kuwait from iraq.

the iraq invation was about imagined "intelligence" reports to justify the taking over of that country's oil reserves. DUH! CAN YOU SPELL "HALLIBURTON"? 95% of all contracts in iraq went to Halliburton! and look where we are now, the oil dealers in new york are lording it over the whole world with oil prices at $58/barrel. they are raking in billions of profit while the rest of us suffer with high oil prices. never trust an oilman to run your country dude! he'll milk you and the rest of the world dry!

[coiter]

i don't think "saving other people's nations" or being the "cop of the world" was or is the reason why the US (or at least its leaders) gets involved in such conflicts. the reason is to protect its own interests or gain interest in areas where they don't have any presence but has a lot of potential. thats my opinion.