US cutting back funds to the UN

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Well here it is folks. Now it begins....

America has had it with the UN.


US to cut UN funds


By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jun 17, 2:58 PM ET



WASHINGTON - Culminating years of frustration with the performance and behavior of the United Nations, the House voted Friday to slash U.S. contributions to the world body if it does not substantially change the way it operates.

ADVERTISEMENT

The 221-184 vote, which came despite a Bush administration warning that such a move could actually sabotage reform efforts, was a strong signal from Congress that a policy of persuasion wasn't enough to straighten out the U.N.

"We have had enough waivers, enough resolutions, enough statements," said House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., the author of the legislation. "It's time we had some teeth in reform."

The legislation would withhold half of U.S. dues to the U.N.'s general budget if the organization did not meet a list of demands for change. Failure to comply would also result in U.S. refusal to support expanded and new peacekeeping missions. The bill's prospects in the Senate are uncertain.

Just prior to the final vote, the House rejected, 216-190, an alternative offered by the top Democrat on the International Relations Committee, Tom Lantos of California, that also would have outlined U.N. reforms but would have left it to the discretion of the secretary of state whether to withhold U.S. payments.

During the two days of debate, legislators discussed the seating of such human rights abusers as Cuba and Sudan on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and the oil-for-food program that became a source of up to $10 billion in illicit revenue for former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., won backing for an amendment under which the United States would use its influence to ensure that any member engaged in acts of genocide or crimes against humanity would lose its U.N. membership and face arms and trade embargoes.

Hyde was joined by lawmakers with a litany of complaints against what they said was the U.N.'s lavish spending, its coddling of rogue regimes, its anti-America, anti-Israel bias and recent scandals such as the mismanagement of the oil-for-food program in Iraq and the sexual misconduct of peacekeepers.

The administration on Thursday had urged the Republican-led House to reconsider the legislation. The administration said in a statement that it is actively engaged in U.N. reform, and the Hyde bill "could detract from and undermine our efforts."

Eight former U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations, including Madeleine Albright and Jeane Kirkpatrick, also weighed in, telling lawmakers in a letter that withholding of dues would "create resentment, build animosity and actually strengthen opponents of reform."

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed support earlier this week for another congressional effort to bring about U.N. reform. A task force led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican, and former Senate Majority leader George Mitchell, a Democrat, recommended such changes as setting up an independent auditing board and weighted voting on financial issues for members who contribute more to the budget.

Also Thursday, the administration supported a measured expansion of the Security Council, but said widespread reform of the United Nations takes precedence.

"We are not prepared to have Security Council reform sprint out ahead of the other extremely important reforms that have to take place," Rice said at a news conference. She cited management, peace-building and halting the proliferation of dangerous weapons technology.

The bill, with amendments, lists 46 reforms sought. They include cutting the public information budget by 20 percent, establishing an independent oversight board and an ethics office, and denying countries that violate human rights from serving on human rights commissions.

The secretary of state would have to certify that 32 of the 39 reforms have been met by September 2007, and all 39 by the next year, to avoid a withdrawal of 50 percent of assessed dues.

U.S.-assessed dues account for about 22 percent of the U.N.'s $2 billion annual general budget.

The financial penalties would not apply to the U.N.'s voluntarily funded programs, which include UNICEF and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
If the UN operates on $2 Billion a year, I have to say that they are at the very least fiscally responsible.

Now if they would only pay the $300 million dollars in parking tickets they owe New York City it would be nice.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
I think not said:
If the UN operates on $2 Billion a year, I have to say that they are at the very least fiscally responsible.

Now if they would only pay the $300 million dollars in parking tickets they owe New York City it would be nice.

New York will never see those fines paid. UN diplomats and their families have flaunted diplomatic immunity in the face of the NYPD and the people of NY ever since they built that building.

The son of a diplomat shot and killed a bouncer after he was thrown out of a bar for inappropriatly touching women and being drunk. He was laughing at the police station saying who he was and that he would be out in no time. He was sent home to his country of origin and tried for his crimes.

The verdict you ask.... why innocent of course.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
22% of the UN budget is founded by the American people. I say enough is enough.

And we start towing their illegally parked cars.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
hmm. Interesting. Maybe the US is running in the red so much....and needs more funds for wars. With the national debt that exists now......the US might have to readjust their spending habits .....if they want to continue on their war path. The UN is just an obstacle in the way of the US 'higher ambitions" anyhow.




********towing their cars away is an excellent idea btw :wink:
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Ocean Breeze said:
hmm. Interesting. Maybe the US is running in the red so much....and needs more funds for wars. With the national debt that exists now......the US might have to readjust their spending habits .....if they want to continue on their war path. The UN is just an obstacle in the way of the US 'higher ambitions" anyhow.




********towing their cars away is an excellent idea btw :wink:

Or maybe Americans are just plain tired of giving boat loads of cash to a body that is plain old Anti-American and anti-Semetic. This is not a bad idea as the UN opposes us every step and is loaded with corruption. But they still have their hand out on payday. I remember a poster saying that the "US Owes the UN Millions". I found that so funny that we should owe them anything as we give more than most countries combined. I would like to say we give more than any country but I do not know if that is a fact. I will make an educated guess and say that it is most likely a fact.

Yes, higher ambitions is a bad thing. Far be it for a country to try to do good and show that the UN has some teeth. I hope we with hold that payment permanantly. Lets see how many other countries pick up the slack.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
I think not said:
EagleSmack said:
I think not said:
We can't tow their cars away, thats the problem.

Can we put "boots" on them?

Nope. They have diplomatic immunity. If they commit a felony they get deported and thats about it.

I get the diplomatic immunity part. I do and I think it is neccessary. Other wise diplomats would be picked up all over the world. Police would just march into embassies and arrest Ambassadors that said this or that.

But I do not think they should get a free parking pass anywhere and everywhere they go. While US citizens have to pay to park and get ticketed... why should diplomats and their families be able to pull into any spot, any meter and go about the day shopping.

Tow the damn cars. When they go to Vito's Towing in the Bronx and show their immunity badges we'll see how far they get.

"Hey that is a nice picture.... now give me the 50 buck towing fee and the 20 buck storage fee and you and your immunity can drive right out of here bud."
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
EagleSmack said:
Ocean Breeze said:
hmm. Interesting. Maybe the US is running in the red so much....and needs more funds for wars. With the national debt that exists now......the US might have to readjust their spending habits .....if they want to continue on their war path. The UN is just an obstacle in the way of the US 'higher ambitions" anyhow.




********towing their cars away is an excellent idea btw :wink:

Or maybe Americans are just plain tired of giving boat loads of cash to a body that is plain old Anti-American and anti-Semetic. This is not a bad idea as the UN opposes us every step and is loaded with corruption. But they still have their hand out on payday. I remember a poster saying that the "US Owes the UN Millions". I found that so funny that we should owe them anything as we give more than most countries combined. I would like to say we give more than any country but I do not know if that is a fact. I will make an educated guess and say that it is most likely a fact.

Yes, higher ambitions is a bad thing. Far be it for a country to try to do good and show that the UN has some teeth. I hope we with hold that payment permanantly. Lets see how many other countries pick up the slack.


If the US wants OUT of the UN.....go for it. If the US wants to cut funds ........go for it. But stop bragging about the fact that the US contributes more than........blah blah blah. The US is reputed to be the richest nation on this planet......so making such comparisons is silly. One cannot expect a poorer nation to match the US contributions. Each must be evaluated on its own capability.

IF the UN dissolves, or changes entirely in the process.....it might not be a bad thing. It just might be due for a major overhaul.

Btw: would not blame the UN for all the corruption......the US is not all that clean either. Nice try , but no cigar. Heck, no one can believe a word coming out of the Oval office these days......and that is just part of it. Be sure your own back yard is flawless before casting such aspertions.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Ocean Breeze said:
EagleSmack said:
Ocean Breeze said:
hmm. Interesting. Maybe the US is running in the red so much....and needs more funds for wars. With the national debt that exists now......the US might have to readjust their spending habits .....if they want to continue on their war path. The UN is just an obstacle in the way of the US 'higher ambitions" anyhow.




********towing their cars away is an excellent idea btw :wink:

Or maybe Americans are just plain tired of giving boat loads of cash to a body that is plain old Anti-American and anti-Semetic. This is not a bad idea as the UN opposes us every step and is loaded with corruption. But they still have their hand out on payday. I remember a poster saying that the "US Owes the UN Millions". I found that so funny that we should owe them anything as we give more than most countries combined. I would like to say we give more than any country but I do not know if that is a fact. I will make an educated guess and say that it is most likely a fact.

Yes, higher ambitions is a bad thing. Far be it for a country to try to do good and show that the UN has some teeth. I hope we with hold that payment permanantly. Lets see how many other countries pick up the slack.


If the US wants OUT of the UN.....go for it. If the US wants to cut funds ........go for it. But stop bragging about the fact that the US contributes more than........blah blah blah. The US is reputed to be the richest nation on this planet......so making such comparisons is silly. One cannot expect a poorer nation to match the US contributions. Each must be evaluated on its own capability.

IF the UN dissolves, or changes entirely in the process.....it might not be a bad thing. It just might be due for a major overhaul.

Btw: would not blame the UN for all the corruption......the US is not all that clean either. Nice try , but no cigar. Heck, no one can believe a word coming out of the Oval office these days......and that is just part of it. Be sure your own back yard is flawless before casting such aspertions.

Stop bragging about the fact that we give more.... blah blah. geez.

I think it is funny how the US is evaluated at 22% by other nations and it is collected as a debt. Viewed upon as we OWE it to them. I feel that it is a donation.

I like the change in the air here in America. I say after this war is over we bring all the troops home and leave the UN to fill its ranks of its own Peace Keeping. I used to love seeing the break down of forces during these UN Peace Keeping missions. Some countries sending 25 men. That is not even a whole platoon... that is just over two squads of Marines.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Oh yeah, more UN bashing from the war mongers. Piss on that. You guys need to educate your lawmakers.

Annan's proposed reforms, which the US has refused to support, include changes to the human rights committee explicitly designed to keep countries that commit abuses off of that committee.

The Oil for Food thing is nothing but a witch hunt. The US had complete oversight over every transaction. UN officials actually went to the US with concerns about abuses. The US refused to do anything about it. Bush liked the program so much that he actually asked for it to be extended after his illegal invasion of Iraq. Then a BBC pushed Kofi Annan into admitting that the invasion was illegal, and if you read the interview it is clear that Annan tried not to answer, and suddenly the Bushites were trying to destroy the UN yet again.

It is the UN that's led way in trying to limit sexual abuse too. You have to understand that the UN does not have the ability to try people, or even collect evidence. That is up to the countries the soldiers come from. The refusal of the US to join the ICC has been a major stumbling block in getting other nations to try their soldiers for such crimes. They use it as an excuse, sure, but since the UN has no real power all it takes is a thin little excuse. The US could solve that by signing onto the ICC.

What is really behind this is a bunch of jingoistic bastards who are pissed off because they don't get to do anything they please.

As for the whining about parking tickets and costs...consider how much money goes into the New York (state and city) economy because of the UN. If you guys don't want it, start a campaign to move it to Winnipeg. We'll take it.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Reverend Blair said:
As for the whining about parking tickets and costs...consider how much money goes into the New York (state and city) economy because of the UN. If you guys don't want it, start a campaign to move it to Winnipeg. We'll take it.

Of course you will take it, it may put Winnipeg on the map.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
rev: BRAVO!!!

excellent post.

(the US(G) is nothing more that a group of two faced S.O.B.s who are on some major power trip. and will devestate anything, anyone that stands in their way. The could care less how many lives are ruined........either by their "elective " invasions, or by their destructive words.

something about "evil" personified comes to mind. More devious than history has seen to date.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
I think not said:
Reverend Blair said:
As for the whining about parking tickets and costs...consider how much money goes into the New York (state and city) economy because of the UN. If you guys don't want it, start a campaign to move it to Winnipeg. We'll take it.

Of course you will take it, it may put Winnipeg on the map.


who says , Winnipeg or any other place wants to be "put on the map"??? sheesh. There is merit/wisdom to understatement---something "America" has no comprehension about.
 

Walrus

Nominee Member
Mar 20, 2005
67
0
6
Victoria
What a freaking joke!!! During the 1990's the United States was so far in arrears of paying their UN Contributions that they were in serious danger of losing their vote in the UN General Assembly.
For several years the United States has been in arrears in the payment of its assessed contributions for the U.N. regular budget, international tribunals, and peacekeeping operations. Assessed contributions—which are levied on U.N. members to fund the organization’s activities—are considered to be in arrears if unpaid by December 31 of the year they came due. Article 19 of the U.N. Charter states that a member shall lose its right to vote in the U.N. General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of its assessed contributions for the preceding 2 years.
The United States faces the loss of its vote in the General Assembly in January 2000 because the sum of its assessed contributions for the prior 2 years—the “yardstick” for measuring U.S. arrears when applying article 19—has declined each year since 1996. This decline largely reflects a decrease in assessments for U.N. peacekeeping operations since 1995. In essence, the United States now faces the loss of its right to vote in the General Assembly because its assessed contributions are substantially less than in 1996 while its arrears have remained about the same. This explains why, with basically the same level of arrears as in past years, the United States narrowly avoided losing its right to vote on January 1, 1999, and will lose its right to vote on January 1, 2000, unless it reduces its arrears.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=gao&docid=f:ns99187.txt.pdf
Now they are threatening the UN with withholding their payments again. Well, go ahead - if the US falls far enough behind in their payments then they will lose their right to veto any UN Resolutions and in effect relinquish their seat in the UN. If they really want to make an effective statement then they should remove themselves from the UN and force the world to recognize that the US really does'nt want the UN to succeed but only be a tool of US policy. If they really believe that they don't need the UN anymore than why are they keeping up the pretence by maintaining their seat. Give it up and good riddance - the rest of the world doesn't need to rely on the US anymore and should remove the UN headquarters from New York as soon as possible.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Ocean Breeze said:
I think not said:
Reverend Blair said:
As for the whining about parking tickets and costs...consider how much money goes into the New York (state and city) economy because of the UN. If you guys don't want it, start a campaign to move it to Winnipeg. We'll take it.

Of course you will take it, it may put Winnipeg on the map.


who says , Winnipeg or any other place wants to be "put on the map"??? sheesh. There is merit/wisdom to understatement---something "America" has no comprehension about.

Hows that weather up there on that horse Ocean? Cool Breeze?