The U.S. Should Consider Quitting the U.N.

[Joez]

I don't know if anyone noticed, but the United States was thrown off the United Nations Human Rights Commission, and Libya and Sudan were put on.

Over the years I'm thought that being involved in the U.N. was better for us than not being involved. Despite the U.N. being a bully pulpit for all the U.S. haters in the world, it's been somewhat good to play nice and host the thing.

I've changed my mind, and now I think the United States should pull out of the United Nations, and give that body a year to relocate.

We can continue to provide the lion's share of aid to countries around the world, friend and foe, as we have. But as for membership, we should pay the damn back dues and wash our hands of it all.

[hartman]

Joez,

All for that :)

Hartman

[Snailman]

Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. :uzi:

[O'Man]

"I've changed my mind, and now I think the United States
should pull out of the United Nations, and give that body
a year to relocate."

Yes.

I have my concerns about globalism, but our membership to the UN, at its' current status, is not helping our country.

[hesaias]

A year to relocate? Are you going soft on us? Give em 48 hrs and then deport the stragglers! Revoke the credentials of the ones representing countries who owe us money and boot them suckers out for good.

[Ironreef]

The world needs the usa in the un. we are like a no pay back loan bank.Most countries don't even want us unless they want us to fight for them and promise to pay for war cost but never do

[Nagel]

Hey!

If I wage war on the red slime in my tank, do ya think I can get a "no pay back" loan from the US to do it? It >IS< war, afterall,, hehehe


The US needs to mind our own business I think. We send too many troops elsewhere to fix THEIR problems. Why did we do desert storm? hmm, OIL? But wait!@ There Oil in dem dere hills in Alaska, but what do we do with that oil? Sell it to JAPAN of course! Why be self-sufficient when we can buy from the saudis and sell to the japanese?

never understood that one...

just my .04 (gas inflation, ya know)

[DJ88©]

US out of the UN? hmm.. well maybe the US should pay all of it's back due's before hand. :D

The most delinquent country for back dues in the UN is the US of A. One of the richest countries in the world yet can't pay it's bills????

A little bit o' history for ya to chew on. :)

Worsening U.N. Financial Crisis
While members of the U.N. are historically slow in paying their dues, the current financial shortfall facing the international body is more severe than at any time since the end of the Cold War.

As of 30 September 2000, Member States owed the United Nations over $3 billion for current and past assessments -- $2.5 billion for peacekeeping, $533 million for the regular UN budget, and $54 million for international tribunals. The largest debtor, the United States, owes the UN $1.9 billion for past and current assessments, two-thirds of the total due. This debt includes over $430 million for the regular budget and just over $1.5 billion for peacekeeping and international tribunals.

Given enacted and expected congressional appropriations for payment of American dues to the United Nations, the United States risks automatic forfeiture of its vote in the U.N. General Assembly in January 1999 under Article 19 of the United Nations Charter.

How can the U.S. avoid the loss of its vote?
There is a simple, straightforward answer to this question: Pay in full, on time, and without conditions. Indeed, by coming so close to the Article 19 threshold, the United States now can only avoid the loss of its vote by paying all future assessments in full, on time, and without conditions. It can no longer withhold funds as leverage to push other member states to adopt a particular reform measure, because any additional withholding will result in the loss of its vote. It cannot delay payment on future assessments, because any delay will lose it its vote. It cannot attach conditions to its payments, fulfillment of which the President must certify before money is paid to the Organization, because if any additional funds are held back, America will lose its vote. In short, having reached this point by almost indiscriminate deployment of the nonpayment weapon, the United States has now lost its leverage17.

In the short term, the United States can avoid the loss of its vote simply by relaxing some of the conditions the Congress has been attaching to U.N. funding. Funds already appropriated, together with those requested by the administration for appropriation in the coming fiscal year, are sufficient to stay ahead of the Article 19 guillotine-if their payment is not encumbered by lengthy certification requirements. But if the administration delays payments of $100 million of the fall appropriation for (ostensibly 1998) regular budget assessments, in order to meet congressional demands for certifications, it runs a serious risk of exceeding the Article 19 threshold of delinquencies18.

Another short-term option, of course, is to pay some of the arrears. Even payment of $45 million in arrears would likely get the United States through 1999 without loss of vote under Article 1919. Obviously, the long-term solution to the Article 19 problem is full or substantial payment of arrears. The apparent failure of the administration's U.N. arrears initiative suggests, however, not only that full payment of arrears is not achievable in the short term, but that even a modest arrears payment is unlikely.

The United States could, as some members of Congress now advocate, simply withdraw from the United Nations. That would not mean the debt problem would entirely go away, since the lion's share of America's U.N. arrears is owed for peacekeeping operations, particularly in the former Yugoslavia, and the funding dispute may then become internalized in NATO, to which most of the troop contributor countries owed funds belong.

There are also other major costs incurred in isolationism, which we cannot calculate here. The institutions of global cooperation and shared governance would be weakened, but after half a century are sufficiently durable that the rest of the world community will not abandon them-as has been demonstrated at UNESCO. Whether such isolation makes sense for the United States at the start of the 21st century is not obvious: Its costs would likely be far higher than they were when America last embraced isolationism in the 1930s, and would surely far exceed the costs of paying America's United Nations assessments

If the United States does fall two years in arrears and there is no waiver of the sanction, its loss of vote in the General Assembly would be an embarrassment and would reflect a loss of U.S. influence in the world body.

United States, owed at 30 September 2000, 81 per cent of aggregate regular budget amounts.

Cost to each US citizen for US debt, $4.40 per person.(As of 1998)

Annan says US should not punish UN after losing rights commission seat
10 May 2001– Secretary-General Kofi Annan today expressed the hope that the United States would regain the seat it recently lost on the United Nations Human Rights Commission, but stressed that in the meantime the US should not punish the Organization by placing conditions on the payment of outstanding dues.

Mr. Annan also stressed that he thought attaching amendments to UN dues was not the right way to go, noting that he had "always maintained as Secretary-General that Member States should pay their dues in full and on time and without condition." He expressed satisfaction that the House decision did not affect the $582 million arrears payment that had been agreed upon last December, largely through the work of former US Ambassador to the UN, Richard Holbrooke. If that had happened, he noted, it would have been seen by other UN Member States as a "breach of faith."

The Canadian Foreign Minister, Andre Ouellet, called on all U.N. Member States to pay their dues in full, on time, and without conditions. He said Canada "cannot accept that Member States, some of which rank among the richest countries in the world, fail to meet their financial obligations to this institution. This is even more difficult to accept when we consider that a number of the poorest countries in the world meet their payments in full and on time." (1999)

In a speech October 2, the Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans ridiculed the fact that more people were employed by Disneyland than by the United Nations, and that the costs of U.N. peacekeeping were less than that of the New York City fire, police and corrections departments. He pointed to the United States, stating that "the problem of paying for the U.N. has now become critical because of the unwillingness, or inability, of so many of the member states (including the biggest of us all) to pay their assessed contributions -- not withstanding that the cost of these for the major developed country contributors works out at between $7 and $15 per head per year(1999), the price of no more than one or two movie tickets in this city."


How's that for food for thought? Does that answer why the US was thrown off the council? What would your bank do if you were years behind on payments for millions of dollars? (oops, It's now BILLIONS)

I think that being thrown off the council was the least the UN could do. They could have done more. They did exactly what was written in 1946 to happen to a delinquent country. Who was a major player in the set up of the UN? The US of A of course. Everyones "big brother".

Not to stir the pot or anything. :D

[Edited by DJ88 on 05-11-2001 at 03:54 AM]

[hartman]

DJ88,

You have a lot of good details and facts. But that still does not change the fact that we need to leave the UN. We send all the troops and equipment anyway plus over 25% of the UN budget. Countries like Sudan, Libya, and China are now on the human right board and we are not.

Other 1st world countries like Britain, Germany, Japan, France, etc. pay almost nothing. The UN is made up of little ankle bitter countries that wish nothing but ill will to the US. It was a good thing but now we must be strong and create a new organization and includes our allies and countries that want to improve vs. tear us down.

One great example of anti-American UN bureaucratic garbage is the stupid "Kyoto treaty" or "no one under 18 in the army". Just because every crappy little dictator forces children into the army at 10 and we let 17 years freely join ours we are attacked at every turn because we won't sign the bill unless they lower it to 17 years of age, which they won't. Why should America the greatest country in the world and a fighter for human rights be force to change our laws governing our country as the result of dictators?

UN countries attack even the new missile defense system we need to protect our country and allies. We protected the whole world for 30 years from the USSR and communist. Now we want to stop countries like N. Korea from the ability of blackmailing the world with a treat of nuclear war. Look at that country record over the last 10 years. They have famines and want free stuff from the US, so they fire a few missiles and we come running with free food and nuclear power plant if they will just stop building missile. Do you really think they will stop? Hell no they know the power it gives them.

The ABM treaty of 1972 is a waste of time and we should toss it out and treat Russia for what they are, a washed out nothing of a country. What President Bush has put on the table is an amazingly bold step in the right direction. We would remove over 5000 YES 5000 active nuclear missiles in our arsenal for the ability to build a defense shield.

Look at it in separate parts, US will reduce it nuclear missile from 7600 to 2600. The world should be praising us for helping to remove the threat of nuclear war. But do they? Nope. While Russia has done almost nothing in the 72 treat they agreed to and is actively selling any an all weapons it can to who ever will pay. They are so corrupt that can't even keep track of their nukes and use every chance the problem causing to get more aid they have no intention of ever paying back. So as they ***** about the treaty and how without it the US will create a new arms race. But they are the ones selling arms to China, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.

Sorry for the rant, I just hate all the BS going around via the UN and others who hate America and want to see us fail. We need to regain our pride and realize before it is to late that we are the good guys, and that we are actually better than most other countries. We may have not been perfect and we need to be very concerned that we improve our process and insure we hold ourselves the highest standard. We also need to look long term in all international affairs and insure politician stop making polices based on what will be good for them rather then the US.

Hartman

P.S. Not dumping on DJ88, just commenting in general on the UN.




[Edited by hartman on 05-11-2001 at 03:38 PM]

[salty toes]

we know what we want (the UN out of the US and for us to not be a part of it anymore)


now the question is this, how realistic is this?

[DJ88©]

Hartman,
( I know you aren’t’ dumping on me so no worries:))

As a currently serving member in the Canadian Armed forces I disagree with your statement that the US sends ALL the troops and equipment anyways. Our current rotation of military units being sent overseas is the highest in the world. On average a Canadian soldier/sailor can expect to travel to areas like the former Yugoslavia, Croatia, Arabian gulf, Rwanda et. al. on an average of every year and a half for a six month deployment, possibly even more. I myself have served on two different UN missions. One off of Haiti and a few years ago a deployment in the Arabian gulf enforcing UN sanctions. I would have been on more but due to my training requirements as a technician was unavailable to serve. The US military does send equipment and personnel. Yes. But it does NOT send ALL the equipment and personnel. I have worked overseas with Americans, British, Dutch, Germans and many other UN member countries.

I understand the concern that the US has towards its percentage of the costs in the UN. But those costs are not without reason. To carry the status and position within the UN the US had to accept (as did other council members) a higher percentage of the total costs for running the UN. i.e. Security Council membership. There are only five of these positions available. And these five hold considerable influence and power within the UN. Here is a quick breakdown on the way percentage is assessed within the UN.

“Financing peace-keeping operations has of late assumed greatly increased significance in the UN budget. The basic precept of relative capacity to pay also operates here, but the formula is different and includes a loading upwards for those claiming special privileges in peace and security matters, and an easing downwards for lower-income members. Since 1973 the General Assembly formula posits that the five Permanent Members of the Security Council should each pay 22 per cent more than what their respective shares would be under the regular-budget assessment percentiles; a second group of countries pays the same as in the regular budget formula; a third group pays one fifth of their regular apportionment; and a fourth pays one tenth.�
It seems to me that the US wants to keep it’s position of power in the world stage yet doesn’t want to help with it’s share of the costs. Each country pays fees dependant on it’s level of power and position in the UN. By being voted to the human rights council I will say that the new members dues will accordingly rise.


There are four main reasons that the UN debt is increasing;

Late payment of members' assessed dues has persisted for years with no penalty for such lateness. But with its precarious liquidity situation, the UN cannot afford any late payments.

The substantial decline of most economies in transition, in particular Russia and Ukraine.

The deliberate withholding by the United States of major portions of its assessments which threatens 25 per cent of the UN regular and 32 per cent of the peace-keeping budgets.

Low-income countries, particularly those facing chronic balance-of-payments problems, have experienced increasing difficulty in finding the US dollars in which all dues must be paid.


Each and every country has to pay it’s share of the UN’s costs. No country pays “nothing�. It is all based on the level of power and control that each country chooses to have and adopt within the UN’s hierarchy.


IN the beginning of the UN the US paid 50% of the total costs for the UN as Europe was still rebuilding after WWII. It was accepted that a capacity to pay formula would inevitably cause the US to pay a larger percentage of the total costs. Once economic recovery began in Europe this percentage declined as new countries were accepted into the UN that were not allowed membership in 1945. A major problem with the further reduction of this percentage is the fact that such a large percentage of the worlds countries are mired in such a low economic level as to only require a .01% payment. In 1994 this was 47% of the world!!!

Another hurdle for payments is the requirement for payment in US funds only. Looking at the US dollar strength in comparison to the rest of the world due to economic strength you can understand why it is difficult for some third world nations to meet this demand placed on them.


“Other 1st world countries like Britain, Germany, Japan, France, etc. pay almost nothing.�
Not true. As of 1994 the largest payments were as follows. US - 298.3, Japan - 126.6, Germany - 90.8, Russia - 68.3, France - 61.0, UK - 51.0, Italy - 43.6, Canada - 31.6. All numbers are in millions of dollars. And that is just a yearly assessment of dues. Those are not including the back dues owed by any country. As you can see no major country pays nothing.


“The UN is made up of little ankle bitter countries that wish nothing but ill will to the US�

I couldn’t disagree more. Of the nations making up the UN how many are wishing ill will to the US? I can count on one hand the following; Iraq, North Korea and possibly Iran. China is a major trading partner and even after the spy plane incident the two countries still want to make up. They have to do the usual blustering to save face yet in the by-lines in the news you hear about ongoing trade negotiations going well without problems. They don’t wish ill will on the US. SO that is three countries.. actually only two countries that can be seen as wishing ill will to the US. Out of how many members of the UN. There are 189 current members to the UN. Of which both N Korea and Iraq are members. So only 1.1% of the UN is made up of ankle biters, which can be shown as wishing ill will to the US. Even with Iran in the equation it only rises to 1.5% of the make up of this organization.

Don’t mistake peoples pride in their culture as ill will. People are nervous when their own identity is threatened by an ever-encroaching US world identity. Justly so many fear being forced to lose symbols of their identity. For example currency; Many countries in the world are being forced to adopt US currency as their own due to the overpowering strength of the US industrial economy. It is a fact of life. I doubt you as an American would like having to change over to say the Yen due to your countries weakness on a global scale. It isn’t going to happen in the near future but who knows.

The Kyoto treaty is in place to try and keep a level of decency between countries. Can you imagine you as a father seeing your 10 year old being sent to war? Just because some nations chose not to follow doesn’t make the treaty a piece of bureaucratic garbage. It is not in place as something Anti anyone. It is to protect the rights of children.


The new proposed missile defense system has everyone nervous. Even me. To an outside country it looks like the US is isolating itself, And no one else. Honest. We as Canadians are being in effect forced to take this defense system. Tho our politicians don’t want it. If we don’t take it there will be repercussions. Is that any way to treat your largest trading partner in the world? I don’t’ think so. Yet it is happening. Others are scared of that fact. Having this forced on them. And this shield originally was set out to protect the US and the US only. Only after world outcry at what a de-stabilizing factor this will be the US modified their stance to include other countries. It is frightening to me to know that one country wants to hold the power to say, ok you have a missile coming to you. Yes we will shoot it down for you.. BUT you have to do as we wish. To many countries that is akin to putting a gun to their heads. Back at the turn of the century it was called gunboat diplomacy. Something the US used quite effectively then to gain control and power around the world and to those on the outside they appear to be doing it again.


“(We should)treat Russia for what they are, a washed out nothing of a country�

Any country going through the major events that is has in the last decades will have difficulties. Imagine if you will. The US splitting up. West forms Pacifica, East stays America. You know what I mean J. Then throw in a major political change. From one of totalitarianism, to a democracy. Not everyone will want this. All these factors will produce chaos and instability socially and economically. That is bound to cause major teething pains.
If you feel Russia is a nothing of a country what do you feel about the rest of the world’s countries? It is a sad attitude that I find a fair bit of the US holds about the world outside the borders. I have experienced it several times when traveling abroad. Especially when I was a part of a US led battle group in the Arabian Gulf. We would pull into a port and people would shy away from you. Or treat you with hesitation. On many occasions once a vendor found out I was Canadian the hesitation passed. I understand that. Yes the US is proud of who they are. Like any one should be. But that pride tends to be forced on others who don’t want it. The US is a very powerful force economically and militarily; this is taken as being better in many cases. Or as being the worlds protector. Times are changing. Slowly but surely. After WWII the US was the worlds stabilizing force. But that is changing, other countries are emerging as new world powers. Soon China will be an even bigger player in the world stage. Don’t count out Russia or the Ukraine. They are still very large countries with huge capacities for production and population. They will do nothing but grow. An dgorw they will. Possibly even out pace the US in thet not too distant future..

The world is finding that military power doesn’t mean as much as it used to. Sure the threat of being wiped out can instill fear in some. But not in all. that is where the Iraq’s and North Koreas thrive. They fill a niche in America’s psyche. If there was no Iraq’s to bomb or North Korea’s to sanction what would you do? You would create situations and scenarios to fulfill that desire to remain and appear strong. Look at Cuba. Why are there still sanctions against Cuba? The US was going to welcome Cuba into the fold back in the 60’s. Then the US snubbed Castro. And over he went to communism. By ostracizing countries and forcing it’s views on the world it is making itself out to be a bully. Sadly. I have some wonderful friends in the US. And met some great people on my travels throughout the world. Those that were the most respected and liked were usually the guys who went out of their way to not be an American. Just be a human and enjoy what we have here.
It is all about control and power. And sadly the times they are a changing’. I am not saying the US is doomed. It is just time to accept that the world is becoming more of a unified place. Not divided. Borders are falling, as are old beliefs and views. Uncle Sam just doesn’t want to lose it’s hold on the reins that it has held for many decades.

Darren




[Edited by DJ88 on 05-11-2001 at 06:52 PM]

[DJ88©]

Salty Toes,

I dont think it is very realistic for the US to get out of the UN. That is described in one word as Isolationism. The best exapmle for this is North Korea. With differences of course.

By isolating themselves from the global economy and interaction would seriously damage the US's economy and power within the world stage.

Isolationism brings about protectionism and wanting only your products sold within your borders. By doing this in time outside countries will find other markets for the products they sell. And stop purchasing American goods and services. No one country can go it alone anymore. If ever. Trade and interaction is apart of human nature. By quitting the UN and booting it out of the US what would be gained? Hostility. The US would appear as feeling they are better than everyone else. That would have serious repercussions. Many treaties organizations and agreements would be in jeopardy.

At this point in time the world community is trying to finda GLOBAL identity. Not one based on separatism and iisolationism.

[DJ88©]

hartman,

I wanted to add one thing I did forget to address.

"Countries like Sudan, Libya, and China are now on the human right board and we are not."

Those countries have kept up with the payments legislated by the UN. If the US had kept up these payments they would still be on the United Nations Human Rights Commission and not sitting on the outside looking in.

Once again I will reiterate that if the US had kept up minimum payments it would still be there. Yet they chose to try and use that money to force other countries and world organisations to bow to the wishes of the US government. In effect blackmail.

The UN was set up to allow countries to peacfully settle disputes and come together to better the world we live in. Now that the United States is losing the control it once had, due to posturing, it is all of a sudden a useless organization. When it was an American led and controlled club it was there to use.

Now that the US's world domination is shrinking, the UN is a dead weight and should be thrown away. Like the disposable society we have today. If you don't like how it works don't try to find the problem and fix it. Toss it in the garbage.

The last time a world body like the UN was tossed, shortly there after a small dispute happened.

WWII.

Imagine what we could do now if a "small" dispute broke out.

Be careful what the US wishes for. There are other world powers appearing. None the least of which is Russia. China is here now. Imagine the stress if the UN wasn't there and the rest of the world had grown yet the US didn't. Feeling threatened is a distinct possiblity. That is happening now on a small scale economically and militarily and it has a lot of American citizens scared.

Thing is it scares me more. I live 100 kilometers away from Bangor Washington. A US ballistic subamrine base. Renton Washington home of a major US Naval fleet. Canada did not chose its neighbours. Yet we have to live with the decisions and choices the US makes each and every day.

[hartman]

DJ88,

I agree about if you don't pay and the rules. But it is currently the only leverage we have, notice that no other countries have offered to pay more to help out. In general I would agree we need to pay but this is politics and not business. The UN is being to rot at the core and America needs to help return it on the proper path and since China and a few other countries can stop us at every turn we should use every tool at our disposal. Since the creation the UN and the lofty goals set it is being subverted by nations who do not hold the same goals for the betterment of the world.

So basically now you can do anything as long as you pay your dues. Luckily for China, Sudan, and Libya their due are less than 1.5% of the total. Sudan who has an active slave trade and religious wars in which the killing of innocents is ok because they are not your religion, yet they are on the council of Human Rights. Do you honestly believe that they plan to work hard fighting for the down trodden of the world? Since they are one of the worst offenders in today's world? At some point the US and other countries needs to say to the UN that not all are welcome and until they change they can stay out.

When the UN started is was made up of countries that had the good of the world at heart. Now we let anyone in just to keep the peace even when then oppose most of what the UN represents. You speak of how other nations are getting stronger and we are getting weaker. You are correct but the reason for this is that we have become the number one targets for the rest of the world and their tools of attack is the UN. They make laws and rules designed solely to undermine us. Even our allies like France and Germany attack us economicly will rules design to hurt our industries and improve theirs. Look at AirBus as a fine example of this. The French government uses direct tax subsidies to lower prices of the airplanes and pay bribes to officials in other country to by their planes over Boeing. In America if this was done between to US companies all hell would break out, but in France it covered over for the sake of Nationalism.

So to get back at my point. Why should the US pay the most at 25% and these other nations like china and others pay less than 1.5% and get the same level of representation? The UN would like to bill us more, but rules stop them from charging more than 25% of the total budget to one country (they tried to up it 30% but we stopped them). So the rest of the world is taking advantge of our generosity and at the same time attacking us for not doing more. They want us to do all the work and to pay for it and then we should bow to their orders because we are evil capitalist that consume more than are fair share.

Do you think the world would be a better place if the USA did not exist? I would suggest the world would be a better place if we were even more aggressive in the world fighting for freedom, human rights and other worthy goals. We have nothing to be ashamed of and we need to protect our selves at all cost from our enemies both military and economically, the latter being the most dangerous. Since most nations today know that a military attack on the US would be a mistake they chose to join the UN as friends so they
weaken us at every turn. It may sound like I'm paranoid but this is the truth and the sooner we learn that we are not loved around the world the better off we will be. Some people think that if we just capitulate on everything and kiss the a~sses of everyone things will be better, but the opposite will happen, the smell of fear will only make it worse.

Hartman

P.S. I live in Boston which is near Otis air base and early warning radar sites. We would also (Russia) get hit via about 10 nukes in an all out war.

[Snailman]

Originally posted by DJ88
Salty Toes,

I dont think it is very realistic for the US to get out of the UN. That is described in one word as Isolationism. The best exapmle for this is North Korea. With differences of course.

By isolating themselves from the global economy and interaction would seriously damage the US's economy and power within the world stage.

I know that you think a lot of the UN but putting them inchrage of the global economy is goig a bit to far. The last time I checked global free trade was not overseen by the UN. Did I miss something? Just because I don't don't like the UN does not make me against free trade which I am not. It is far past time that we think about being the backbone of the UN and NATO.

[Joez]

America for America

[DJ88©]

Hartman,

It would seem that some American citizens feel that the UN is nothing more than a dead weight on the US’s neck and it should be cast off. Tho this is not the norm for the whole US population this seems to be the case here on this BB. Overall there is a 70% consensus within the US that the UN is doing a good job and that it is an important organization(Zogby Int’l Poll 1/4/99 and Wirthlin Poll 8/21/98). The UN was set up to provide a forum for the worlds countries to approach each other and help settle disputes whether militarily or more importantly economically. IT still does this today. But it does even more.

It is not being “rot at the core�, as you and others would seem. Yes it is having troubles. Due in part to the US’s decision that it wants more control over decisions, yet they want to pay less for that control. The US government is looking to regain the control it once had when there was one defined “enemy�, Communism. Back then the US held the majority of power through itself and it’s allies in the UN due to in large the threat of the “communist hordes�. Over time this threat fell away and accordingly world stances and views changed. Times changed yet the US government wanted to retain it’s high profile/control status it felt it was owed. Personally I believe the major �player� on the UN stage trying to manipulate and subvert is the US. They use straight jacketing principles to have associations and suggestion within the UN squashed. The US wants control of the UN. Nothing less. It does not have that control anymore and is lashing out at the UN for it’s perceived role in the US losing it’s sphere of control. The UN is not an organization where one country has supreme command. It is a union of all nations in the world. Saying that only countries outside of the US use the UN for it’s own benefits and servitudes is wrong. The US is a major player in that method of world politics. I would even hazard a statement saying the US was the initiator in that form of policy making and politics. The US can’t have it’s cake and eat it too. Other countries have followed the US’s lead and used their own methodology for power and control against them and now uncle Sam doesn’t want to play anymore. The US Senate has regularly squashed bills put forth aimed at restoring the US’s ties with the UN in an effort to gain power and control over UN decision making. If it was say China doing this what would your reaction be? Anger, hatred, passion. The US is the ONLY country in the world that uses it’s major political body to get the UN to do it’s bidding. Repeatedly the Senate and President has withheld anything it could in an effort to have the final say in a motion or decision put forth in the UN. If the US wants that power, they should have to pay accordingly for it. It is not free. It may have felt that way back when the Russian bear and nuclear annihilation was looming over the free world, but this is a whole new ever changing world. Now power in the UN is based on their share of the world’s wealth; an estimate of GDP adjusting for low per capita income and other factors. In 1974, the Assembly fixed a maximum rate of 25% for any contributor. So far, this ceiling has benefited only the United States, which otherwise would be asked to pay more than 29%. Through US control the UN’s annual budget has been zeroed for several years. This in a time where the world’s economy is growing and cost for so are accordingly rising. All this in an effort to cut US money’s owed to the UN.

The UN is not a club. It is an organization of the worlds countries designed to promote peace and equality throughout the world. If you were to exclude a country because it was not as developed how would you implement changes to world law? If you do not let a country join due to it’s practices or problems you can’t legally go and tell that country they have to make changes. That is one of the things the UN is for, creation and implementation of international laws. You don’t let someone join you can’t tell them what to do. Sad but true.

Not everywhere in the world has the same political structure as the US. Some model their political systems after the US but none are identical. As well not all countries are even remotely as developed as the US. The US government has annual budgets in the trillions of dollars. This due to the strength economically of the US.

To the US citizen it appears that the UN is a rotting cesspool of anti-Americanism. And that the UN is leeching the US for everything it can get. Wrong. The US spin doctors in the government can make you believe anything they wish. The major problem holding back the UN from doing it’s set mandate is the US in effect holding the UN hostage so it will do it’s whim’s. No country is plotting against the US to destroy it. There is no organized group of countries trying to attack the US via the UN. I can’t see how that would happen. It is a very large stretch to make a statement like that. What has happened to have this based upon? Uncle Sam’s political machine is losing it’s influence in the world stage. Nothing more. It’s is perfectly normal. As time progresses ideas, views & thoughts change. No one power has ever permanently held power over the rest of the world. Now it is happening to the US and justly so they are afraid. In the near future a new power will appear. One with an economy strong enough so that it will surpass the current strength of the US. Japan is very closely behind the US in economic strength. If you look at the European Union as a while you will see a huge power developing there as well. And the EU is made up of predominantly traditional US allies. Are they attacking and subverting the US? No. Small isolated incidents happen every day all over the world.

Here in Canada the US regularly exercises it’s power over us. Yet you don’t see us lashing out saying that we are anti-American. With trade across our borders our economy moves as yours does. Many times it moves in directions that does not stand up to logic. For example. Currently the US is in a gas crisis due to shortages. Hence the price of gas goes up. We in Canada are not at that same point as the US. YET our gas prices go up. Just because they have to follow suit to the American levels. If the forest industry decides it has to raise the price of lumber due to shortages the, US government screams unfair trading practices and forces the lumber industry to drop it’s prices back down. Causing job losses and a slowdown in our economy. If the Canadian lumber industry has a surplus and lowers the price of lumber, the US lumber industry screams that Canada has subsidized our lumber industry and it is unfairly hurting the US industry. Bringing prices further down, cutting sales and slowing our economic growth. It is not just the other countries in the world that use unfair trading practices to get a better slice of the pie. The US can’t scream about others yet not expect to hear screams about their practices. Do you know where these screams are heard? The UN. Not at the general council level but through it’s associated commissions and groups. This happens regularly and not just with US-Canada.

I have never said anything about the world being a better place if the US didn’t exist. It would be a different place yes, I can’t say if it would be better or worse. Alas I am not a soothsayer. If the US wasn’t the major power it is there would be some other form of it. There always is. There is never an absence of power. It’s called balance. A vaccuum in effect.

I’d like you to show me an example of how a country has used the UN to weaken the US economically. It is a forum where every voice is heard equally. And no one country can attack and weaken another. No one country except the US that is. That is my personal experience and opinion. While I was over in the Arabian Gulf we had to enforce a sanction of goods going into and out of Iraq. Items were mainly oil, weapons and such. What blew me away was that the US ha forced a clause allowing for goods vital to the Iraqi government could be added as deemed necessary. You want to know what we stopped? Dates. Food. Small, insignificant boats carrying food. Explain that to me. Navy SEAL teams were used. Secret ops at night. To take Dates??? I understand that Iraq is a threat to stability in the gulf. But the US has taken it too far. That food was meant for Iraqi citizens, children. Here is the US using the UN to do what? Weaken another country. The world stance currently on Iraq is that yes there is problems. Let us find ways to sort it out other than starving innocent civilians. The US has used it’s power to keep useless sanctions(not all are useless) going and doing everything they can to destroy another country. They are doing it. Slowly but surely. They will take care of Iraq. By killing it’s future. Children. Another example was on the same deployment the battle group was diverted to Korea. This was when the North and South were sinking each other’s boats in a dispute over fishing. The only way the US could get involved was by putting the battle group under a UN flag. Here was Uncle Sam using the UN to force itself into something that did not involve them yet they did it anyways. By using the UN as it’s way into the Korean territory. The only way our ship was allowed into a Japanese port because of American rules regarding foreign military powers in Japan was under the UN flag. Once again, at the US’s decree.

It is not just other countries that use the UN for hidden agendas. The US does it as well. If not more than others.

To sum up, the US pays 25% due to the strength of it’s economy. Japan pays 21% with the EU paying over 30% and the rest of the world follows suit. It is the loss of the old ways that is so upsetting to the US government. They don’t have the clout they used to. Or the fan club so to speak. Times are changing and the US will have to accept that. The rest of the world is not out to “get “ the US. There are individuals who don’t like the US, I will agree. But no one country is setting out to destroy the US through the UN. It is a myth created to raise an outcry to back up the US’s posturing on the world stage. They are not the ‘big brother’ anymore. This is a global family with each member being allowed to voice it’s views and opinions freely.

On a side note. If the US were to “kick� out the UN as so many on here want the cost to New York City would far exceed the total budget of the UN for each fiscal year. The UN, its agencies and the diplomatic and consular corps contribute $3.2 billion a year to the economy of the New York City area alone, according to Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. That has generated 30,600 jobs, yielding $1.2 billion in annual earnings. The total expenditure(not budget, expenidtures) of the entire UN came to some $10.6 billion in 1997. The budget set out by the current US government is a whopping $5.6 trillion. Dow Chemicals has higher operating costs that the UN. Furthermore, the United States' share of the United Nation's regular budget for 1998 was $298 million -- the equivalent of $1.11 per American. Tiny San Marino, by comparison, pays $4.26 per citizen to the United Nations. Does that seem fair to you in all honesty? The GNP of the US is $8,542,270,800. The GNP of San Marino doesn't even register on UNICEF's directory. That GNP is 29.6% of the worlds total. China with a population of over one billion people only has a GNP of $860 per person(US is $30, 780 per person) or .99 trillion dollars. That works out to 3.3% of the worlds GNP. Hence they don't pay 25%.


Snailman,

It is not that I think a lot about the UN. I think a lot about the world I live in. Nothing more. The UN is a focus for all countries to work and come together to better all of our lives.

I never said anything about, pro or against, free trade, nor that the UN is in charge of the global economy. They are a major factor in other organizations, which oversee the global economy. They are not the do all and see all but they are a factor in our world’s economic forum.
The WTO(World Trade Organization) is UN member. Not as a country but as an organization dealing with the rules for trade between nations.

All I was saying to Saltytoes was that Isolationism is the direction the US is heading. And that it is a dangerous road to go down. It will have repercussions that will affect not just the US but all of us. The whole world. I have analogies but I am now afraid that they will be taken out of context and mis-directed against me. Isolationism will force a rift between everyone. And that isn’t something we should go back to.

I don’t see the US as the backbone of the UN. Back during the cold war yes the US had a major role in the UN. In today’s world tho it isn’t’ that way anymore. More and more countries are getting closer and closer ties. Negating the need for borders and such. Necessitating the need for truly “world� law. Look at the European Union. One currency for many nations. In time the whole world will be one economy. It is time that happened. IMHO.

Here is a question for you. If the US is the backbone of the UN, how many US peacekeepers have been killed over the years? 3% of all fatalities on peacekeeping missions were US. Only 3%. That doesn’t seem like much of the backbone to me. It seem like 3%. And that is not due to better equipment or the such. It is due the the fact that the US does not participate in most UN Peacekeeping mission. They participate in UN actions such as the Korean war, the Gulf War, Yugoslavia. Those are not peackeeping they are enforcement. More Canadians have been killed on those peackeeping missions than Americans.

Joeyz,

America for America

Sadly that is the view a good part of the US has towards it’s self. Yes it can be called patriotism but to the outside world it is something more. Anti everyone else. I have traveled all over the world and seen it in many forms. Many Americans I traveled with refused to go see anything in a foreign country that wasn’t something like home. This wasn’t the case with all but was the case for a good portion. I was asked on a few occasions in Korea, Japan and the Arabian Gulf why I would want to go see that stuff. There is nothing important to see out there. They have a Hard Rock café only a few blocks away from the ship? Why go anyplace else?

Darren

[Edited by DJ88 on 05-13-2001 at 05:53 PM]

[Joez]

Joeyz is someone else; a kind hearted, interesting reefer.

The view is not anti- anything or anyone.

This country should focus on it's interests and maintain its sovereignty.

I've been to many countries too. I've served this country and volunteered part of my life to the people of another.

I never said helping should stop, but we don't need the UN to make it happen. The UN is a beauracracy of bloated hangers-on, and it should go elsewhere and earn it's keep. Go move it to the freedom-loving countries of Chad, Libya, Cuba or Iraq.

What should stop is this country consulting our enemies about what is in our defense interests.

What should stop is giving preferential trade status and insight into our defenses to a brutal, cynical country basing its foreign policy on their certainty that they will have a war with us soon.

What should stop is us footing a large portion of the bill to supply a platform for tin horn dictators to run their mouths to the world about the Great Satan.

What should stop is the headlong plunge into erasing borders, culture and language. If other countries want to subject themselves to the will of foreign powers, let them do it.

[Aquaman]

Well said Joez!

[Autumn]

DJ- "Ugly American" stereotype aside.... Please don't mistake the opinions expressed by *any* of us as a general representation of "all" Americans. If you were to gather up 100 Americans and ask them all what color your wallpaper was, you'd get 99 different answers.

Some of us (like a few here-) are proud, conservative, nationalistic, and tend towards isolationism when faced with a world that doesn't agree with or support US policy 110%. They tend to be firm believers in the Might Makes Right, My Way Or The Highway school of foreign policy. They're the ones that the rest of the world believes would have everyone eating at McD's, going to a Christian church on Sunday, and watching the Superbowl instead of eating local food, worshipping with their own faith, and doing whatever their own idea of fun is.

Others of us are idealistic (Full disclosure here: I'm in this camp myself-) whole-hearted believers in engagement and diplomacy... even if the other parties involved want to rattle sabers, start wars with their neighbors, or call us "The Great Satan" in their domestic propaganda. We believe that problems are not solved by shutting down embassys and alienating the 90% of the planet's population who aren't us. We're a little naive, and it takes us awhile to see a real enemy for what it is.

As is usually the case with extreams, neither point of view is entirely in the country's best interest... The wisest course is somewhere in the middle.

If we were smart people, we would be willing to talk and to negotiate with the rest of the world on level ground. We would be fair. We would be realistic. We would be humble enough to realize that we might *not* have all the right answers all the time. We would honor our agreements. We would leave other cultures well enough alone unless they asked us to step in...

<b>BUT</b> we would also keep an eye on potential trouble spots, and move quickly, decicively, and as effectively as possible to remove them when we had to.

Unfortunately, the Isolationists are in power at the moment, and they still very much subscribe to the black and white Cold War mentality of "Us" and "Them". If the UN doesn't kowtow to Us, then it must belong to Them, and "They" <i>can't be trusted</i>. "They" want to destroy us and make us learn a second language.

On the fortunate side, American policy tends to be cyclical. It'll swing back the other way sooner or later.

Isin't it <i>fun</i> being held hostage by the whim of a schitzophrenic? (heavy sarcasm)

[Bubafat]

Very, very nice thread going here, some nice informative posts. Might I add that I think france is also an "ankle-biter" :-)

Buba

[Canadian]

Eh, oh, oh, eh! You're not gonna let this hoser Canuck talk smack about your country like that eh?!

Why don't you take your hockey stick carrying, toque-wearin' *** and go home ya dumb Canadian?!

BTW, can I get the "Coles/Cliff Notes" for this little debate? - Too much to read! :D

[Edited by Canadian on 05-15-2001 at 12:21 AM]

[DJ88©]

Autumn,
I don't hold these views and posts as the definitive say all truth about Americans. Far from it. I have lived close to and associated with the US for a long time. Heck, I grew up for the most part within an hour drive of the border and regularly visited as much of the US as I could. One of my closest and dearest friends is American. I'd be slandering her if I was to say all American's were like the minority of the ones I have met and associated with. Heck if any country is close to us Canucks it is the Yanks. :) We have our differences yet we are very similar in culture. Tho I never understood why the US needed that blue circle around the puck when you watched hockey on TV. :D I don't put a label on any American I meet or correspond with. Only once they have given me reason to affix the label do I do so. Even then I prefer not to. Once you have labeled someone you have found a reason to dislike them. “Ugly American� is a moniker that I don’t like to use. It paints a picture of a people that isn’t true. Yes as a whole at times US policy and/or personal beliefs can lend credence to that name, I prefer to believe it’s just a few incidents that bring it about. Misconceptions maybe. Who can say.


Like you, I tend to be idealistic. Not the best way to be when you are in the military you say? You are right. :) I shouldn't be. :D But I am idealistic. It serves me well. Cynicism is one thing I don’t want to ever be. Sarcasm is another story :D. Isolationist, we won’t even go there.


I agree with you that it is unfortunate Isolationists are in power. There seem to be a few of them around these days. We all have our share it seems. It’s not just the US experiencing this fad. I just hope that the people out there listening to these people in power realize that not everything being fed to them is true. Or that it is the only way things can be done. It is very easy for the spin-doctors to spoon feed what they feel will help gain the moral support of the people to the wishes and plans they have for the world they want to rule. As an example; how many knew that 85% of all the troops in Kosovo are not American? They are European. Most people are under the impression that it is American boys only over there.


This Isolationism scares me. I am very big on history and a favorite quote of mine is; Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. George Santayana (1863-1952). I see a lot of America’s current views on the UN as following a disturbing trend towards Isolationism. History has shown that isolationism is not a path that any country wants to go down. It is a long and very lonely road. I doubt that very many countries would want to follow the US along that road, if any. The US has been there before, it seems that Washington wants to go again. I just hope the results are different. I think Mr. Santayana knew what he was talking about.


It is a real shame that the spin-doctors have painted the world situation with the UN as such a bleak one. All to often information is left out or completely ignored to inflame the public into believing right now that the enemy is at the gates. Problem is they moved. By following the stories one more than one source of information one is able to sift through the piles and see what the truth actually is. You will find both ends of the scale. Some to pretty wild extremes.


“If we were smart people, we would be willing to talk and to negotiate with the rest of the world on level ground. We would be fair. We would be realistic. We would be humble enough to realize that we might *not* have all the right answers all the time. We would honor our agreements. We would leave other cultures well enough alone unless they asked us to step in... “

It’s hard to follow those guidelines tho. Very hard. To stay in office the government needs the unbridled passions of the people focused on something other than the politicians. When that happens too many things that shouldn’t come out, do. Conflicts of interest appear, as do hidden agendas. How much of the international politics does the average person remember from former president Clinton’s tenure? Probably not much. Most will forget he tried to heal the rift developing between the US and the UN or that his last few days in office were spent trying to stop the violence in the Middle East. Most will remember him for his little dalliances ;). So far after 100 days in office G.W Bush has decided to set the tone for the rest of his term. Get rid of a treaty signed by his predecessor (he has now since back pedaled and is asking for there to be alternatives), declare the new “enemy� of the US is China and all focus should be shifted in that direction and added to the flames in an already volatile area of the world by squashing a UN security council resolution aimed at trying to end the bloodshed in the Middle East. The proposed baby Star Wars is another hot topic. One that is being sugar coated with reductions in the number of nuclear warheads, changing it to include protecting allies who support it. Yes the reduction in arms is great. But it still leaves over 2,000 warheads aimed at who knows where. And tips the scales of a balance that kept us nuclear winter free for all these years.

It’s scary the path that is being prepared ahead of the US by it’s policy making. They have declared a major trading partner the “Enemy�, alienated itself on the world stage from protecting the earth we have to live with for eternity and dismantled an opportunity to stop bloodshed in what is without a doubt the most volatile and dangerous area in the world. Not that I am some great political analyst or soothsayer but I have fears of the cold war starting anew.

All in the name of

America for America.


Bubafat,

Man, you guys have WAY too much time on your hands :-)

You don’t know the half of it. :D Anyone need anything built out of acrylic?? It might keep me off of here.. j/k LOL!

I think it is a great thread as well. Keeps my mind working which is wonderful.



As for the Cliff/Coles notes.. I ain't doin your work for ya.. lol. You have eyes don't ya? ;)

[Goby1Knoby]

Hi All

Coming from Ireland, one of the smaller countries on this planet, this is quite interesting to read to get a US perspective.

Hartman.

" The UN is made up of little Ankle Bitter ( presumably Ankle biting )countries that wish nothing but ill will to the US "

A fairly all encompassing ( incorrect ) assertion. ( and that is putting it politely).

" Stupid Kyoto Treaty ". mmmm, nuff said.


Cheers :)

Brian.

[Edited by Goby1Knoby on 05-15-2001 at 11:29 AM]

[Joez]

You do go on DJ!

But, your means of expression is very good and understandable.

On a few of your remarks:

How do you figure the U.S. has turned isolationist in the last 100 days? The U.S. has more interaction with countries around the world than ever. The term is very powerful and historic, so I can see where it's handy, but it's not correct. "Isolationists in power"? This administration includes people with a lot of international experience and ties.

You're right that most of the troops in Kosovo were not American. Most of the equipment, maybe. What is striking though is that the Europeans let that genocide go on for a decade (I know, it's been hundreds of years of bloodshed, but about 10 of it was this really hot warfare type of activity). It should be 100% European.

I agree with you completely in saying that people should get a variety of information from different sources. Most Americans think that variety is CBS, NBC, and ABC. Those are just different flavors of the same story. Yes they should get it from more sources.

Your words about Clinton are laughable, DJ. Sorry. Why was he so busy in the last two weeks but not in the previous 8 years? He could not ratify the Kyoto agreement himself because he didn't have the power to do it. His signature did not make the U.S. a signatory to the agreement. Bush did not take us out of the agreement because we were not legally in it anyway.

Declare a "new" enemy in China? Are you joking or just trying to inflame people? China has made China an enemy of the U.S., and it has been that way since the 1940s. Don't pay any attention to what the Americans say about the relationship; just look at what the Chinese say. Their government and military clearly sight the U.S. as an enemy, and they are certain that they will have a war with us in the near future. They are not a major trading partner; 80% of the goods comes from them with little import restriction. Our goods are heavily restricted by the Chinese.

Let's see, oh, "ending the bloodshed in the Middle East". Why don't you guys take that up? What has the U.N. done to help that, pass resolutions condeming Israel almost exclusively over the last 40 years. Is that the thing to end the bloodshed. Go send some emmissaries over there; Clinton couldn't fix it in 8 years, including his intense last two weeks. Maybe someone else can solve it because we surely cannot.

"alienated itself on the world stage from protecting the earth we have to live with for eternity and dismantled an opportunity to stop bloodshed in what is without a doubt the most volatile and dangerous area in the world."

What is this rhetoric? It sounds like opposition rhetoric in which everything done by this administration is evil (even if it is exactly what was proposed at an earlier date by the opposition).

[hartman]

Goby1Knoby,

I beg to differ with you. Ankle biting countries :) are ones that have no interest in common with what the UN stands for. For example China, North Korea, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Russia (not yet in but still). Any country that is there to improve the world and defend and protect the worlds people without making unreasonable demands of it partners in not and ankle biter.

As the Kyoto treaty is actually is crap! It of course looks really neat we get to save the world and stop global warming. The problem is that global warming currently is unproven and even if you give it the benefit of dough no one can actual say for sure what is causing the temp to rise. Recent studies have proven the currently temperature rise studies inferior of GW (global warming) are flawed because they only took temp samples of air and not air and water. When the correct reading are taken the temp rise over the last
few decades are only about .4 of a degree or 60% less than the pro GW sides. So lets look at the big picture according the science the world is 2 Billion years of age, had a few ice ages, volcanos, asteroid impacts, natural fire, and earthquakes. We have been around for about 10,000 years, which is less than .0000005% of the time. We take a temp sample of say 100 years or about .00000005% of the life of the earth and we somehow understand how the world works and can prove that during the rest of the time 99.99999995% of the time the temp never changed? I do believe we should be responsible and tread lightly and pollute as little as possible but everything whit in reason.

Also the treat somehow just allows basically all of Asia and India with to have no limits on CO2 output since they have not joined the treaty. But of course if America while being forced to cut it output levels complained about the unfair standards and are call selfish. Even funnier is the fact that some countries are even allowed to increase their level, wait I though we were working on reducing the levels, oh but some countries have not yet have their chances to pollute the world like the bad US so we need to let them

Australia 108%, Iceland 110%, Russian Federation* 100%, New Zealand 100

So under this great masterpiece of saving the world India and China with about 2.3 Billion people compared to the US 287 Million can do as they please and pollute away. Of course everyone claims that we polluted the world during the industrial revolution and we need to pay for it now. Funny thing is that during this time the US population was less than 70 Million while China had 350 Million and India 239 Million. The amount of pollution these 2 countries alone will produce without the tough environmental standards we have in US will make what ever we have done look like a cow passing gas in a field.

The problem with this treaty is it only looks at the past and who can we blame rather then the future and how can we improve. When is comes to improving and inventing technology the US is one of the leaders and we currently run the cleanest no-nuclear plants in the world.

DJ88,

Clinton is the cause of the violence in the Middle East not the cure. Funny thing how when he became Pres. in 1992 their was no major fighting, the reason why is that the Arab nations and Palestinians understood that force would get them nowhere. But thanks to the ego driven Bill Clinton who had no real understand of the conflict but figured "what the H~ell" I will just make them give up all their land and everything will be ok. Under Clinton he used his political power and people to replace the Prime Minster of Israel with one of his liking then forced Israel to give in on all accepts of the demands of Arafat with the exception of the Jerusalem. So Arafat got 95% of what he wanted and what happened? They saw the weakness of Israel created by Bill Clinton and they wanted it all and started the violence to get it. The only reason Bill Clinton even spent any time over there was to get his Nobel Piece Prize. He had hired 2 PR firms last year to lobby the Nobel Peace Prize committee on his behalf.

Do you honestly believe that Arafat is actually looking for peace with Israel? Why won't he remove the plank from the PLO about death to Israel? If the Palestinians could just get him and others like him out of power and replace with people who want to live in peace things would get better. But Arafat is a strong-arm despot with his own personal army and millions of dollars hoarded away in Swiss banks for his personal use. The Israeli population is very aware of human rights violations and they dream of living in peace with the Palestinians, as I'm sure the Palestinian people do. To bad Arafat and other want to maintain power at any cost. President Bush total support of Israel is long over due and he is correct to put the blame of continuing violence on Arafat where is rightly belongs.

To face the future looking at the past is a mistake. How is getting a missile defense program to protect our country wrong? Because a treaty signed in 1972 says we cant which is between us a state that not longer exist. The biggest treat is for the US is not to change with the times and hang onto a treaty that no longer reflects today's reality. The U.S.S.R cannot keep track of it nukes and they are become even more likely to fall into hands of terrorist or rouge nations, a good missile defense system would be able to stop a launch of these types of missiles which is today real treat. Also it would allow us the stop nations like N. Korea which is run by a power mad lunatic that lets his people starve to death while he and his pals live large. N. Korea maintains one the largest armies and routinely use the threat of nuclear missiles as leverage to demand what it needs as a result of total lack of concern for it own people.

Over the last 8 years they have received massive world and US add in food. We have offered to build then light water nuclear reactors in exchange for them to stop building or testing nuclear missiles. They of course did not stop and when they felt they wanted more they shot of a few test missiles and we came running. With a Missile defense system we would not even respond and they could no longer blackmail the west.

Everyone must understand that peace can only be achieved through strength and power and the knowledge that one can utterly destroy your enemy, a.k.a. "walk quietly but carry a big stick". A great example of what negotiation through weakness results in is just before the start of WWII. England's Prime Minister Chamberlain saw the danger of Germany and the weakness of England so he went to Hitler and they sign a peace treaty. Chamberlain came home with these great words "Peace in our time" only to have Germany attack in a few months.

Hartman

[DJ88©]

Hi Joez,

I don’t look at it as going on. :D I like to be thorough. I don’t want anyone to misunderstand what I am writing. Even then tho things do get mis-read and misinterpreted anyways.

In response;

I am not saying that the US has turned isolationist in 100 days. You seem to be reading between the lines or just reading a condensed version (Canadian, have you been selling an abridged version?). The US’s current trend towards isolationism isn’t something happening overnight. Tho with the current government in house it does seem to be happening at a faster pace. As with any country moving towards that end it happens slowly. Sometimes imperceptibly, sometimes blatantly.

With Kosovo I can’t understand how one would think that if the troops aren’t American they must be using American equipment. Each country sends its troops overseas with the equipment it requires to sustain itself in the field. It would be embarrassing for a nation to send an army out and expect someone else to equip them. Would you want to hear about US troops going overseas with no equipment and having say the British give them guns and uniforms? No nation relies on another nation to take care of it’s military. It has happened in the past where Americas industrial strength was used to produce equipment requiring large scale manufacturing. That tho was during a period of all out war. Nowadays each nation sustains itself. I think it is quite ignorant to assume that the US is the major supplier of the world’s armies. I don’t see made in the US written on the ships I have sailed on. All were conceived, designed, and built here in Canada. If anything the US tried to bring in manufactured military hardware from other nations just as much as those other nations do in return. As for the Euopeans letting this go on for ten years till the US stepped in is wrong. Many, many of my freinds and colleagues have spent time off of or in the various areas of the former Yugoslavia keeping the peace. Since the ethnic cleansing began. Whenever a parade happens you would be amazed at the number of Canadian sailors, soldiers and airmen that wear medals commemorating service in the hopes of peace. Whether it is Cyprus, Croatia, Kosovo, the Gulf war, East Timor, Haiti, Rwanda, Pakistan, Cambodia, Iran, Latin America, Iraq, Egypt or the Middle East.

Apparently the US is respecting the Kyoto Accord. President Bush has backpedaled once again and is accepting the accord. With amendments. That sounds to me like he feels he has to follow what was signed. Do you remember that part of president Bush’s platform for election was cleaner air? Once elected he changed that tune, and now has flipped again.

China has never once been described by the US as an enemy or an open threat to the US. Until now. In he past few months the US has gone from a ‘no comment’ policy on Taiwan to a policy stating they will defend Taiwan against Chinese aggression. Inflaming the Chinese government to respond in kind. The US has declared China to be the new threat in the world to US global dominance. Why the sudden change? What basis is there to this claim? Militarily the Chinese use 1950’s era tanks and equipment. The yearly military budget for China is $12 billion dollars. Less than 5% of what the US spends on a force twice the size of the US’s military. Yes the Chinese military is twice the size. Take into consideration tho that out of that army only 20 percent of those ground forces are even equipped to move about within China. A still smaller number possess the trucks, repair facilities, construction and engineering units, and other mobile assets needed to project power abroad.

“This basic disparity will not change anytime soon. First, China faces enormous economic challenges that limit its ability to fund a military expansion. Second, even if China begins to close the gap with the United States, it starts from a position of marked inferiority. The United States owns a "capital stock" of modern military equipment valued at close to $1 trillion; China's corresponding figure is well under $100 billion. As such, one can see why a recent study concluded that the Chinese military would have to increase spending on hardware by $22-39 billion annually for ten years to wield a force capable of significant power projection.5 Further, this estimate does not take into account the additional investments that would be required to man, train, deploy and sustain such a modern force. China is in no position even to attempt this scale of effort.� (Bates Gill & Michael O'Hanlon, The National Interest, No. 56)

Remember the GNP of China is only $860 per person. That doesn’t leave much room for a huge military. The US’s is $30,780 per person. That is 3% of the US’s GNP. For a country many times larger in population.

China has not made an enemy of the US. Yes it has to bluster politically as the USSR did about the great evil of the American empire. lol. That is politics. Your presidents do it just as much as anyone else. If not more. No where in history will you read that the Chinese have said they WILL go to war with the US. If they have refer me to this and I’ll eat crow. No country openly declares that they will go to war with another. That in effect is a declaration of war. You don’t do that on the world stage without repercussions. Within the last few years here are some things that China has done for the US: signing the Chemical Weapons Convention and nuclear test ban treaty, terminating its assistance to nuclear facilities in Pakistan, pledging to cut off ballistic missile transfers to Pakistan as well as nuclear and anti-ship cruise missile trade with Iran, and quietly restraining the North Koreans. Does that sound like someone’s Enemy? More like a country trying to improve relations with a nation that could help it get beyond it’s own economic and social problems.

“Let's see, oh, "ending the bloodshed in the Middle East". Why don't you guys take that up?� “Go send some emissaries over there�

We do (Canadian military) and the UN tried to send more. Golan Heights et al. guess what happened? The US squashed the motion in the Security Council. They weren’t being asked to send observers. Other countries volunteered to. Yet the US still stopped it. Why?????? Canadian peacekeepers regularly risk their lives to try and provide a stabilizing force in areas of strife. We wanted to do this again. Yet Big Brother decided it didn’t want anyone to. Seems to me someone is using the UN to benefit it’s own gains.

That statement wasn’t rhetorical. It was my views of what I see happening in the world. Plain an simple.


[Edited by DJ88 on 05-15-2001 at 03:27 PM]

[Psyduck]

Dang all these long posts, and of course I didnt read any of them ;). First of all, why the frick have we not payed our dues? Are we poor or something? I didn't realize Libya had more money than we did. Also, why should we be a part of every division of the UN. So what if we lost a few seats, apparently the rest of the UN didnt see a problem with taking ours away. Of course I don't know the interworkings of the UN, nor do I care :). I just find this to be one of those "if you dont play by my rules, I'm taking my ball and going home" things.

[Joez]

Your idol, and the darling of the Red Chinese, Bill Clinton, twice sent warships to sit between Taiwan and the mainland when the Red Chinese were threatening to misbehave. That describes an antagonistic relationship. Don't have selective memory.

The U.S. provided a great deal of the military and humanitarian materials to the eastern European effort. Never said that the U.S. provided red, white, and blue jockey shorts to all the troops. Didn't say that the non-U.S. troops MUST be using U.S. equipment; where did you get that? Don't lie to make your points; you do very well without that aid. And don't call me ignorant; now you're making me angry.

The Europeans let the slaughter go on for years, and you know it. Western nations, and European nations in particular, bear the shame of that.

Kyoto is not being followed. It is not law for the United States, and it was not ratified or even debated here. Don't care what it sounds like to you.

China has fired missiles over Japan and other countries. Is that belligerant? No, I guess not to you. They are a peace-loving people just responding to round-eyes' aggression. China's top military guy threatened to nuke Los Angeles. Just a reaction to American hegemony, right? Do you think their stated military budget is all they spend on defense? I guess you do. They spend a lot of money on items that are not called "military" that go into what we call military purposes.

Go get your crow. See "The China Threat" by Bill Gertz in which he cites the threat.

China can say and do almost anything it wants and not suffer repurcussions.

The United States will decide its own defenses.

[nickabu]

I haven't read all the messages posted here, but while I agree with a few of Hartman's points, there are some a few things that I would like to add my $0.02 too.

First of all, Israel has had the full and unquestioned support of Bush jr. and every other president since Eisenhower (with the exception of brief periods during Carter's and Bush Sr's tenures) and they (especially Sharon) have jerked us around and continue to do so like we are idiots. I am no fan of Arafat's either, though, and I agree that there will never peace as long as he's in power, but getting rid of him is far from the solution. Clinton is not the cause of the violence either, though, and to say that he is shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation over there. I do agree, albeit for completely different reasons, that he did absolutely no good and that his motivations were for completely selfish reasons.

Palestinians have attacked Israeli "Settlements" (that's is code for Israeli's living on Palestinian land, which is against the international laws authored in part by the US decades ago and may explain why the UN is anti-Israel) because they have very few rights that are deserved by human beings. As long as Israel denies them these rights (like being allowed to work freely, got to school, and govern themselves on their land), there is no reasonable chance for peace in the region. I could go on and on on this subject but I'll spare you the details.

Israel has had the full support of Bush Jr. since the moment he was in office. We give (not loan) several billions of dollars to Israel each year, but we let them use the money however they wish. Furthermore, roughly 30 to 40% of Israel's GNP is generated through the sale of weapons to all the countries which we refuse to sell our weapons to since they are our enemies (China, Iran, South Africa, and several S. American countries to name a few). All of this is outlined in great detail in books written by former US leaders, and both Jewish and Palestinian scholars.

To name two of the best ones:
"The Passionate Attachment: America's Involvement with Israel 1947, to the present" by George and Douglas Ball.
This book gives a very detailed account of the current Mid East conflict with thousands of references to gov't documents and first hand accounts by the author (a former under secretary of state).

"Arabs and Israel for Beginners" by Ron David. This book does a real good job of summarizing the complete history of the Mid East in a very short easy to read book.

I suggest you read these since you all sound like very patriotic, intelligent people. Then you may see that the conflict is only being perpetuated by the US and we have really made no effort to solve it. In addition, the only thing we've gained from our involvement there is a lot of enemies as shown by recent developments in the UN. Israel may claim to be our allie, but they've screwed us over in the past and they'll do it again.

[DJ88©]

Joez,

This is my last post on this thread. It has taken me a few days to allow myself to calm down and think logically instead of emotionally.

I am not a liar. I use credible sources and references for each statement I post. I research everything and use facts to back up my positions. I form a written template before I even start to type out my replies in Word. I proofread and ensure a smooth flow of facts and ideas. Not one sentence inflammatory quips. I resent the fact that you called me a liar. You want to know where my statement came from. Maybe you should have read your previous post. And I quote..

You're right that most of the troops in Kosovo were not American. Most of the equipment, maybe.

So to me it reads that you do believe that Most of the equipment over in Kosovo is US. You said it. Even by adding the maybe you give your position as believing it. ‘Nuff said.

I did look up that book you are talking about so vehemently. All I could find were poorly made sites trying to hawk the book for ONLY $29.95!!!!. One persons view based on leaked documents didn’t do it for me. I tried to find a few passages from that book and to tell you the truth it read like a poorly written spy novella. A novella I am not going to run out and buy.

I did take the time to do a longer search about China tho and did find a couple of references to a meeting held in China where the Defense minister or I believe a subordinate made a reference to an inevitable war with the US. This was backed up by a few wishy-washy statements but as well by some facts that to me are credible. So I will eat crow. But only based on my own research and multiple sources.

In the future when you partake in an enjoyable debate don’t tell the person you are debating with that he/she is a liar. Especially if you do, back it up with facts. Always have real facts for your claims and for god’s sake, use spell check.

Darren

[Joez]

Ouch, you cut me to the quick by seeing two misspellings!

There was at least one other grammatical error in an earlier reply too (sight versus cite). I'm sure there are others too.

OK, I'll take it, the sin is mine.

I'm sorry too for offending you, DJ. Your spell-checked posts are well written and thought out. You made me do some checking around by writing the things you did.

[jimhobbs]

Originally posted by DJ88
. Always have real facts for your claims and for god’s sake, use spell check.

Darren


Alright gentlemen
Whether or not a word is misspelled will not be considered a relevent fact in world politics...The suggestion of using such program, is an attempt at inflaming the situation...If you want to enguage in heated debate, fine; but the above comment and others like it will not be tolerated...I'm pretty sure you understood all the misspelled words and their meanings...This topic will remain open for now

jim