Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

United Nations Regular Budget.--The recommendation assumes full payment of the U.S. assessment to the UN regular budget. This assessment is estimated at $340,700,000 for calendar year 2003, an increase of $61,373,000, or 22 percent, over the calendar year 2002 assessment. In order to ensure the ability of the Congress to monitor fiscal discipline at the UN and adherence to the continuing United States policy of zero nominal growth budgets for international organizations, the recommendation includes language requiring the Secretary to notify the Committee in advance of any United Nations action to increase funding for any United Nations program without identifying an offsetting decrease elsewhere in the United Nations budget. Toward this end the Committee expects the Department to insist on the evaluation and prioritization of ongoing UN programs and activities, so that in the event of unanticipated requirements, budget offsets may be taken from activities and programs that have already been determined to be lower-priority by the organization. Any proposal to exceed the adopted biennial budget level of $2,891,000,000 should be communicated to the Committee in advance of the formal notification, consideration and adoption of such a proposal.

Just some numbers:

Country UN Budget % % of GDP

USA 24% .003%
Can 2.69 .004%
UK 5.9 .004%
Jap 18 .005%
Ger 8 .005%
Ita 4.7 .005%
Bra 1.4 .005%

As of Dec-04 there was $2,965,000,000 owed to the UN, USA owes $975,000,000 of it.
The USA contributes 6% (429) of the UN troops. And 24% of the UNs budget.
Bangladesh contributes 12% (8024) of the troops, but only .01% of the UNs budget.

Sources:
http://www.eia.doe.gov
http://www.globalpolicy.org
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/index.asp

At 2/1/05 11:43 AM, bcdemon wrote: As of Dec-04 there was $2,965,000,000 owed to the UN, USA owes $975,000,000 of it.
The USA contributes 6% (429) of the UN troops. And 24% of the UNs budget.
Bangladesh contributes 12% (8024) of the troops, but only .01% of the UNs budget.

Thats impossible. If 8000 is 12%, then how can 429 be 6%?

At 2/1/05 04:15 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 2/1/05 11:43 AM, bcdemon wrote: As of Dec-04 there was $2,965,000,000 owed to the UN, USA owes $975,000,000 of it.
The USA contributes 6% (429) of the UN troops. And 24% of the UNs budget.
Bangladesh contributes 12% (8024) of the troops, but only .01% of the UNs budget.

Thats impossible. If 8000 is 12%, then how can 429 be 6%?

I didn't catch that. If 6% was the percentage of UN troops then the UN would only have around 8750 troops total <my number isn't exact I know, just did the figures from 5% and added a little>.

At 2/1/05 10:40 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: United Nations Regular Budget.--

You said:

"They went several years without paying dues, then finally after like 8 years decided to start paying it off so they wouldnt get kicke dout the Security Council. They also passed a bill in Congress that states something like the US will only pay dues if it approves the UN budget."

The bold part is what you have yet to give any evidence of, and is the only part I really care about. The second part is only stating what was already true, the constitution says we cannot pay unless congress approves of the budget. And I'm willing to bet every other country in the world who has a legislature and a constitution has something that says the same thing. A 9th grader could have told you that.

And, I take it you take back what you said about the UN not paying enough, seeing as how you provided no response to my sources which gave evidence that we actually pay a disproportionally more amount.

Just a question, did you totally forget that we talked about this exact same thing before, and that you conceded the exact same points before, or did you know, but say it anyways.

At 2/1/05 04:23 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 2/1/05 10:40 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: United Nations Regular Budget.--

You said:

"They went several years without paying dues, then finally after like 8 years decided to start paying it off so they wouldnt get kicke dout the Security Council.

The White House and Republican negotiators have reached a tentative deal that could allow the United States to pay at least $1bn that Washington owes the United Nations.

Its from 1999, but still it proves what I said.

At 2/1/05 04:48 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: The White House and Republican negotiators have reached a tentative deal that could allow the United States to pay at least $1bn that Washington owes the United Nations.

Its from 1999, but still it proves what I said.

We pay our dues every dear. How many times do I have to tell you this, what you are talking about, is not us not paying our dues, it's a discrepency.

This is because of two things. One, the US has refused to pay for things that counter it's foreign policy.

Two, the US refuses to pay it's 25% share of the normal due, because, as factually proven, they don't owe that much. The US has paid it's 20% share, however.

The US has since then paid back it's debt, unfortunately, the beauracracy of the UN got to them, and they still pay an unproportional amount to the UN, not to mention how much they pay to other agencies of the UN.

Oh, and alot of what your article talks about is the dues from 1999 alone, which there was still time to pay.

You know, this is why the rest of the world hates the US.

"Let's leave an organization dedicated to bringing the world together, because we don't get any financial gain out of it for ourselves."

At 2/1/05 04:15 PM, Jimsween wrote: Thats impossible. If 8000 is 12%, then how can 429 be 6%?

Sorry, my bad, forgot to carry my decimal an extra place. The US troops portion of the UN was 0.6%, not 6%.

At 8/2/04 10:36 PM, witeshark wrote: The UN may need some organizing, but I see no reason the US should leave it

i concur not only that it would frighten the world greatly because why would the US leave an organization in which was created to prevent the world from another world war.... as some 1 said in an earlier thread

Shit, I knew I should have paid attention in statistics, but this is fucking unreasonable.

At 1/31/05 11:16 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: All it means is that in a UN Peacekeeping mission they will be under the control of a general from what ever member nation is the leader for that operation. The US decides if it does go, they want full control of their forces so they go alone. Washington still decides who and what goes if anything, but tactics are done by whatever general is in charge.

I have no problem with this. Cause seriously, when ever we go, we go in force. The US doesnt do little operations. And I sure as hell dont want some Spanish dude or whatever in charge of an entire American Division or whatever when they have little or no presence of their own. Its like, our troops are our troops. Why they should be subordinate to somebody solely because the UN ordered it is preposterous. Last I cheeced they are not the leaders of some world goverment, just some beuracrats. Call me shortsighted, whatever. We should not be forced to hand over the keys of our military to the UN. If we want to cooperate by letting foreigners lead our military, whatever. But we shouldnt be forced.

There is no reason for the US to leave the UN. We have been getting along well with all members except for France (who was the only country against the Iraq invasion, and was receiving bribes from Saddam). There is no way Bush would ever leave the UN, nor is it likely that his successor will. It would be a horrible idea.

At 2/1/05 08:00 PM, Draconias wrote: There is no reason for the US to leave the UN. We have been getting along well with all members except for France (who was the only country against the Iraq invasion, and was receiving bribes from Saddam). There is no way Bush would ever leave the UN, nor is it likely that his successor will. It would be a horrible idea.

Before i go into my full rant about why we need the UN id like to address this. It was more than just France standing in our way telling us that its not such a hot idea to invade a country, over throw its government and then have no plan. It was France, Russia and Germany. I think those three nations know alot more about War then we should ever be forced to know. They told us to stop and think we gave them and the rest of the world the finger and did what we wanted.

Now Why we need to be in the United Nations.

If we were to pull out of the United Nations as of this moment, 90% of the world would stop trade with us and cut us totaly off. With out the world, America is nothing. With out Us, the world is nothing. We have to work together or we will become as Irrelavant as the vote in florida was in 2000.

We as a nation have blown off alot of sanctions placed against us and yet we expect other nations to observe them. Why? Well because we can invade them on the blink of an eye, kill their population and call it progress. They on the other hand dont have the power to roll into America and return the favor.
IF america wants to be taken seriously by the UN and actualy get along with the many many member nations we need to stop blowing them off when it stands in the way of Profits and Corprate goals.

Most of the people who say we should leave them have no real argument other than "They dont like us". Does anyone on earth have a reason to like America right now? We push our way into countries that dont want us, We tell them to do it Our way or else and then if they comply, we rape thier country until they are too poor to hold interest and then leave. If not, we call on the UN to pass sanctions which we then go alone to enforce. Even the citizens of the United States are not happy with the actions of the government, so why should the rest of the world just be happy with them?

Long ponts short: For as much Bitching as we do about the UN, we need them. If we dump them, were only asking for trouble

The US refuses to sign on to the ICC. The reason it takes so long for things to get done is that every nation has its own interests as well as those of the world. Sudan is a great example, the Security Council is torn between two courses of action, military and economic. Its not just one nations doing, the US has an idea of what they think shoudl be done, but that doesn't mean its right. Russia has an idea of how thigns should be done, but that doesn't mean they are right either. Its only when the world learns to cooperate will things speed up. Personally, I think Sudan was in far greater need of a military intervention than Iraq, but that doesn't mean I am right either.

At 2/1/05 07:39 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Its like, our troops are our troops. Why they should be subordinate to somebody solely because the UN ordered it is preposterous. Last I cheeced they are not the leaders of some world goverment, just some beuracrats. Call me shortsighted, whatever. We should not be forced to hand over the keys of our military to the UN. If we want to cooperate by letting foreigners lead our military, whatever. But we shouldnt be forced.

Gah, take your fukin ball and go home then, sheesh. You sound like a little kid who brought the ball to the playing field. "It's my ball and were playing by my rules". Note to Fabo, when you're part of a world organization, sometimes you dont always get to call the shots. Sometimes "american knowhow" isn't necessary therefor you put someone else in charge. And besides, you only have 429 troops in the UN, actually, it's 8 troops, 17 observers, and 404 civilian police, so what are you worried about?

At 2/1/05 10:16 PM, bcdemon wrote: Gah, take your fukin ball and go home then, sheesh. You sound like a little kid who brought the ball to the playing field. "It's my

ball and were playing by my rules".

Well, then, thats the way it goes. I dont want a person from another responsible for our troops lives (our mine because I am damn near positive I will get into ROTC). They ARE our troops and they will play by "our rules." And I think that is shit for a comparison. Comparing soilders lives to a dodgeball or whatever?

Note to Fabo, when you're part of a world organization, sometimes you dont always get to call the shots.

Im fine with that. But they can tell us what to do and what the ROE are, but that is far as it goes. I never what a foreigner in control of American assets unless America is 100% ok with it.

Sometimes "american knowhow" isn't necessary therefor you put someone else in charge. And besides, you only have 429 troops in the UN, actually, it's 8 troops, 17 observers, and 404 civilian police, so what are you worried about?

I am not referring to those 429 people in the UN. I am referring to when, if ever, we get involved in a UN action again, they will not have control of our troops. Those 429 they can do whatever with they want to do. Because the US is okwith that. But I am not ok with our countrys forces being subordinate to a leader from another country.

Look at it this way. The people with the most troops should be the most represented by the leadership. And if we get involved in a UN action, you can bet we will have the lions share of the troops in the field. So that is a better way of looking at it if you want.

The US would face very little consequences if they left the UN. ESPESCIALLY not decreased trade, that has absolutely nothing to do with he UN.

If anything, more nations, espescially those who feel disenfranchised, which is a great deal, would leave the UN too, and perhaps start a new organization.

But of course, thier is always the chance that everyone would just not care, being that the UN doesn't really do much anyways.

Hey FAB, are you ok with foriegn troops being under the control of American generals? What about if the US doesn't have the most troops there, because its not always the case.

UN won't send in troops to be under US command. I guess you can't have it both ways. Expect others to give you their troops when you won't do the same for them.

At 2/1/05 11:52 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Hey FAB, are you ok with foriegn troops being under the control of American generals? What about if the US doesn't have the most troops there, because its not always the case.

UN won't send in troops to be under US command. I guess you can't have it both ways. Expect others to give you their troops when you won't do the same for them.

US population views on the UN. Just incase you want to take a look.

At 2/1/05 11:52 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Hey FAB, are you ok with foriegn troops being under the control of American generals? What about if the US doesn't have the most troops there, because its not always the case.

If they want to be under our control, whatever. If not, whatever. If we dont have the most troops, then I think we should be given strategic goals and let the tactics be left up to the units.

UN won't send in troops to be under US command. I guess you can't have it both ways. Expect others to give you their troops when you won't do the same for them.

I am completly OK with that. If thats how countries want to do it, thats fine. I just dont want our military to be forced to be subordinate to some dude from some other country. I never once said I expect other people to be subordinate to US Generals. If they want to be seperate but still work towards the same goal, thats fine.

Heres how I would set it up. Give people broad goals from a board multinational command staff but represented by how much each nation represents the forces in the field. Then let the people plan or whatever. I just dont want any foreign generals to have tactical control over American units, from platoon to corp level. People from other countries should never hold the lives of our troops at their fingertips. Dont think that would ever be right, personally. But I can also see where it would be needed, but I would hope not commonly.

At 8/2/04 10:34 PM, K-BOB wrote: I think that the UN is a terrible organization that hates the US but needs us to survive. I think if all there going to do is speak against us yet at the same time beg us for aid we should just leave. Im hoping to get some responses on this hopefuly for me but against me will work too.

Leave?! the us should be kicked the fuck out, your country has broken so many sanctions and international laws.....its unbelevalbe, like using napalm gas on falluja, which for those of you who dont know, is illegal because its is one of the most painful and gruesome deaths imaginable.

At 2/1/05 11:52 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Hey FAB, are you ok with foriegn troops being under the control of American generals? What about if the US doesn't have the most troops there, because its not always the case.

Keep in mind, the UN can't do anything on it's own, the last time it tried to do something was Kosovo, right? And yeah that turned out great.

At 2/2/05 04:27 AM, Jimsween wrote: Keep in mind, the UN can't do anything on it's own, the last time it tried to do something was Kosovo, right? And yeah that turned out great.

Actually the last time they tried to do something, was Iraq. They were trying to peacefully disarm a person who didnt have any arms, then some yahoo came riding in on donkey and shot the place to shit.

Oh and FABO, I think I would almost have to agree with you, now that I have thought about it some. I don't want our troops under US control either, you guys have WAY to many "friendly fire" incidents.

The reasoning for all the nations troops to be under one commander is to increase effiecency, better communication and sharing of information. If you have 20 different countries all working in the same areas with broad goals, how do you make sure they don't end up conflicting with each other. One country may be conducting nighttime live fire training in an area and they might get engaged with friendly troops who aren't aware of whats going on. It allows for faster response as well.

Case and point Somalia. The US didnt inform anyone of the raid in Mogadishu and when it went bad it took longer for the UN to mobilize a rescue team because they werent prepared to move out.

You make it sound as if any non-American Generals are incompetent at tatics or would be unable to properly utilize US troops. Or that they would use they as a sacrifice to protect their own troops. NEWSFLASH, you may have the latest equipment, but tactics are mostly standard, and have been used for years, everyone has the same playbook.

At 8/2/04 10:34 PM, K-BOB wrote: I think that the UN is a terrible organization that hates the US but needs us to survive. I think if all there going to do is speak against us yet at the same time beg us for aid we should just leave. Im hoping to get some responses on this hopefuly for me but against me will work too.

The UN doesn't like the US because the US usually ignores anything that the UN does and then the US does whatever it wants. Like a parent without control of their child.

At 2/2/05 12:31 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: I am completly OK with that. If thats how countries want to do it, thats fine. I just dont want our military to be forced to be subordinate to some dude from some other country.

Do you even know what the UN army is?

At 8/2/04 10:53 PM, K-BOB wrote:

At 8/2/04 10:36 PM, witeshark wrote: The UN may need some organizing, but I see no reason the US should leave it

All im saying is that we support alot of the world's population. I mean a little appreciation for the US would be nice.

No, the US shouldn't leave the UN. But you do have a valid point. You may think that the US is not getting any appreciation for the things we do, but in reality there are alot of people who are thankful to us (like the people who suffered in the tsunami who are receiving aid from us). The reason the UN is a little bitter to the US is that we are a power-hungry who feels that we could do anything we want (like going to war with Iraq). If the US were to leave the United Nations, then the UN would probably fall apart and corrupted countries would try to take over the world, which would possibly result in WWIII.

At 8/2/04 10:58 PM, -Wraith- wrote: Oh God, it'd be a public relations disaster! Even though we've gone against their ruling, and basically trampled the Geneva convention, the only thing keeping everyone from killing us is the fact we're still a part of the UN.

And besides, we've broken at least 250 UN sanctions. I'm just glad that we're still alive. Why should they appreciate anything we do, since all we've done lately is spit on them?!

Exactly, the UN is one of the greatest achievement the world made TOGETHER for once ... and all the US have done lately is destroying everything it stands for. Seriously, I'm not blaming ANY of you for what has been done by your government and nobody should, but I can blame you for approving their behavior ... and I do.

At 2/2/05 04:48 PM, n0t0 wrote:

At 8/2/04 10:53 PM, K-BOB wrote:

At 8/2/04 10:36 PM, witeshark wrote: The UN may need some organizing, but I see no reason the US should leave it

All im saying is that we support alot of the world's population. I mean a little appreciation for the US would be nice.

If the US were to leave the United Nations, then the UN would probably fall apart and corrupted countries would try to take over the world, which would possibly result in WWIII.

Don't flatter yourselves. There are 191 countries in the UN. One of two thing could cause the UN to collapse if the US left, but the US leaving on its own wouldnt be enough. If a.) the US through corrupt foriegn policy using aid as a bribe gets more countries to follow suit, we are talking about 30 countries, since the west couldn't be "bought" out of the UN. That could cause instability. The other would be if the US were to cause a direct confrontation with the UN. That would result in probally WW3 which if there were to be any winners would be the UN. Hey the US has the technology but they lack in numbers and they have NEVER successfully defended their own soil in the last 100 years. But there would probally be no winners and we would all die. The US would have to be totally stupid to do eithe rof these things.