Here we go again USA vs Syria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garrycol

It should be 25%.

The US have been in arrears for years.

Since 1985 the U.S. Congress has refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force UN compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment.

After prolonged negotiations, the U.S. and the UN negotiated an agreement whereby the United States would pay a large part of the money it owes, and in exchange the UN would reduce the assessment rate ceiling from 25% to 22%.

Even with the above agreement in place the US short changed the UN and U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion.

Typical USA - don't like the UN policies so don't pay.

Garry

---

So you reckon it's reasonable that one country (doesn't matter who it is) should be expected to cover 25% of the cost, and no other country in the world pays an amount anywhere near approaching this contribution.

Sounds like a pretty one sided view of the world to me.

Have to agree with you though that their time would be better spent doing something about the farcical situation now where one country can "veto" a majority decision taken by the other members. Until they do somthing about this, the organization will continue to be seen by most as a farcical toothless tiger.

It doesn't matter what I believe - the formula for calculating contributions is determined by the UN and signed off by members. I assume it is based primarily on GDP so the 25% the US is required to pay is proportionally the same as a much smaller country paying say .5%.

I am sure if it was any other country they would have been expelled for not paying their contributions and trying to bully the UN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by incisor

good, the bloods on his hands and the russians don't have a social conscience to battle so all posts are winners for the ring stealing superhero.

good time for the west to stand down and leave it in their capable hands till it all goes to **** big time further down the road...

funnily enough the russians are still having issues with their islamic friends in surrounding states... maybe he wants to ship them all to syria ;)

---

Yeah, those previous western interventions - ostensibly as a result of their "social conscience" have been so successful so far - in terms of civilians killed no-one holds a candle to the U.S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akula

Yeah, those previous western interventions - ostensibly as a result of their "social conscience" have been so successful so far - in terms of civilians killed no-one holds a candle to the U.S.

---

Try the leaders of the British Empire during the "glory" days. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Except, now it doesn't take 3 to 6 months for news to travel. And the whole World is connected, doesn't say much for the Nations of the World to allow this to go on. The UN is a paper Tiger, all it can do is give a limp wristed bitch slap & have another conference. And Russia? the USA are amateurs in the civilian killing World compared to them. And that is the worry. In Foreign Affairs, the USA Politicians are indeed amateurs, usually taking the big stick approach, instead of the softly, softly , behind the scenes, negotiated one. Still, that doesn't fit with the American ego, or their image of themselves as the super heroes of the " free World" . I remember some years ago people would say " God was on our side during the War, he gave us the Atom bomb to defeat the Japs. " Then some one would answer " He must have a wicked sense of humour, He gave it to the Yanks " :angel: Bob

It is not a surprise to me that all South and Central America are against USA intervention in the middle east.
They know what it is loosing more than 60000 lives during operation Condor with the the direct intervention of USA providing "technical support" ( expert in torture personal) plus military aid.
Why was good for them to inflict so much pain and suffer in their own back yard and is not good in the Middle East? It is Israel and South Arabia that are behind this or the arm dealers?
I do not trust the USA and their agenda.
They are about to finish one conflict and start another. When Syria is finished then it will be Jordan. :mad:
I do not support Russia and China but at the very least they do not intervene in countries that acting in internal problems in the same way that they have acted in internal conflicts in their own countries.

Also to me killing civilians by both sides in Syria it is a repulsive and cowardly behavior.

Who are the Russians trying to kid? On the news tonight. Russia moving ships to of the coast of Syria for support of Assad. They will be able to give early warning of any attacks. One ship is a cruise missile ship and the other is a anti sub ship. Russia's response to this move was it is only a routine deployment. So if the shooting does start and Russia does provide logistical support for Assad does that make Russia a target? What if Russia does more than logistical support?
Cheers Hall

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hall

Who are the Russians trying to kid? On the news tonight. Russia moving ships to of the coast of Syria for support of Assad. They will be able to give early warning of any attacks. One ship is a cruise missile ship and the other is a anti sub ship. Russia's response to this move was it is only a routine deployment. So if the shooting does start and Russia does provide logistical support for Assad does that make Russia a target? What if Russia does more than logistical support?
Cheers Hall

---

That it is the reason why I a concern about the situation :(
Russia a target? well mate that will be the end and I do not think that USA, England or France are going to shoot a Russian ship or sub.

Looking at the figures bmkal and garrcol are discussing there is a solution to the veto and voting methods. Instead of certain members having votes and veto powers run it like a company so you need 50.1% to pass a motion ,you could set the bar higher for certain things like military intervention . The u.s has 22%(that's the level it pays) of the vote so would need another 28.1 to pass its motions. This would get everyone who wants a say paying on time as "no vote on a credit note". :D
I am a interested as to why we are paying more than South Korea and close to Russia, along with no mention of several other European nations. Austria ,Sweden, Norway,Netherlands most of whom I would have thought to have higher GDP than Australia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frantic

Looking at the figures bmkal and garrcol are discussing there is a solution to the veto and voting methods. Instead of certain members having votes and veto powers run it like a company so you need 50.1% to pass a motion ,you could set the bar higher for certain things like military intervention . The u.s has 22%(that's the level it pays) of the vote so would need another 28.1 to pass its motions. This would get everyone who wants a say paying on time as "no vote on a credit note". :D
I am a interested as to why we are paying more than South Korea and close to Russia, along with no mention of several other European nations. Austria ,Sweden, Norway,Netherlands most of whom I would have thought to have higher GDP than Australia?

---

Great, that's just what we need - a military equivalent of the World Trade Organisation!

No thanks! :wasntme:

IMO the way to go is to have a group of 20 for security and trade and in this group including countries of all continents.
We do not want 2 or 3 countries dictate war & "peace" or fair trade.
Even as it is now 6 countries to dictate what should be done it is a joke.