It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US quietly maneuvers to cut UN dues

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
The United States is seeking to reduce the financial burden placed on it by the United Nations. The amount of money being placed on the US tab fluctuates with the UN's peacekeeping costs and discounts given to other countries in back room deals.

www.foxnews.com...

Here are a few clips from the article.

"The basis of U.S. giving is the U.N. assessments scale -- currently set so that the U.S. pays 22 percent of the so-called “regular” U.N. Secretariat annual budget (about $2.8 billion in 2015), and 28.36 percent of its peacekeeping budget, which has ballooned in the past few years to $8.47 billion in 2014-2015."


"Saudi Arabia, for example, had an oil-inflated GDP of 746.25 billion in 2014, its highest level ever. But its share of the U.N. regular budget was a measly 0.864 percent, and its peacekeeping share, due to discounts, even lower: 0.518 percent.

Spain, with twice the GDP of Saudi Arabia, but a much larger population -- which means its per-capita wealth is significantly less -- pays more than three times as much as the Saudis for the regular U.N. budget, and nearly six times as much for peacekeeping."



The United States is not the only country getting the shaft by the United Nations.
Things like this cluster are hard to comprehend. Our leadership has been bad for so long that we just take the cards handed to us from the dealers stacked deck. We don't seem to be smart enough to step away from the rigged game.




posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

I am all for it. The United Nations is a perfect example of an inefficient, inept and dangerous governmental agency bloated with waste and lacking in any true oversight.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Created and designed by the USA in the 1940's, so no surprises there...

I do find these American "UN hating" threads so amusing... It's like hating your child...

The reason it is setup the way it is and is so damned useless is because it is the way it was designed to be.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: stumason
I do find these American "UN hating" threads so amusing... It's like hating your child...


Well, if your child turns out to be a corrupt mess with no redeeming societal benefits it may be time to disown them.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason


If you feel the need to be punished for your great grandfathers mistakes, that's on you.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22


the U.N. assessments scale -- currently set so that the U.S. pays 22 percent of the so-called “regular” U.N. Secretariat annual budget (about $2.8 billion in 2015), and 28.36 percent of its peacekeeping budget, which has ballooned in the past few years to $8.47 billion in 2014-2015."

Yah, bullets are more expensive nowadays and since when has the US given a rats ass about what other nations think of being invaded and decimated anyway? The US was just keeping up the facade of humanitarian "aid".

Talk is cheap, bombs away.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Bluntone22

I am all for it. The United Nations is a perfect example of an inefficient, inept and dangerous governmental agency bloated with waste and lacking in any true oversight.


Spoken like a true Imperialist.

Caesar came, saw and conquered.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Spoken like a true Imperialist.

Caesar came, saw and conquered.


Your typically un-witty bon mot makes little sense as my support of the United States cutting back on funding the United Nations has zero to do with Imperialism and more to do with the cessation of throwing more good money at the bad.




edit on 26-12-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: never go in against a Sicilian with death is on the line



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Totally agree


It's just the irony I like, especially from the more vociferous anti-UN lot from the States who seem to think it's out to destroy the USA, or that the USA should leave etc etc... Usually complaining about the very things the US insisted upon being part of the UN when they designed it.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Nah, I'm old, so it would just be my grandfathers - that said, he was British and we got told what the UN was going to be like and coerced into joining it by the US in return for War supplies and cash.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
UN been a useless waste anyway.
Down with the UN and down with the EU!



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: intrptr
Spoken like a true Imperialist.

Caesar came, saw and conquered.


Your typically un-witty bon mot makes little sense as my support of the United States cutting back on funding the United Nations has zero to do with Imperialism and more to do with the cessation of throwing more good money at the bad.

"Bad" as in the court of world opinion? That has everything to do with empire building. Not only was it begun in the west, based in the west (New York), but it was defanged right away by making a special voting (trading) pit called the Security Council, that had more say than the 'little guys' which were slated to be victimized anyway.

Go ahead and hide behind the little 'cents' you wish to provide while calling for disbandment of the only court of International opinion left on the planet.

Shine up your Roman breast plate, its showing a little rust.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason
The UN arose from the ashes of WWII back when everyone agreed there should be a venue for small nations to have an equal say on the world stage so that the ravages of WWII, caused by the NAZI empire, would never happen again.

How short our memories are.

And you're right, the same forces have made it impotent out the gate. Based in New York, home of the Empire state building.

How ironic.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Go ahead and hide behind the little 'cents' you wish to provide while calling for disbandment of the only court of International opinion left on the planet.


We have a court system in the United States and a second is superfluous, particularly one as inept and buffoonish as the International Court of 'Justice'. If they were truly concerned with justice they would have incarcerated themselves years ago.


Shine up your Roman breast plate, its showing a little rust.


Was that you trying to be clever and funny again?



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   
United States and peacekeepingdon't go together.

They shouldn't pay for keeping peace, they should pay trillions for debt and destruction of other nations.

One cannot escape karma, look at Rome.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Created and designed by the USA in the 1940's, so no surprises there...

I do find these American "UN hating" threads so amusing... It's like hating your child...

The reason it is setup the way it is and is so damned useless is because it is the way it was designed to be.


funny every history book i've ever read( including ones from europe) tells me that 5 counties including yours,America, Russia, Britain, France, and China, started the UN, and was based on the The Atlantic Charter which Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt drafted, in your country. things that make you say hmmm.

ETA: back on topic, i think it's high time, and say that we should even get out of it all together. most of the world hates the U.S. so let them pay and take care of the messes themselves and and not stick their hand out to us.
edit on 26-12-2015 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

The original 5 weren't involved in it's creation.

The Atlantic Charter, while it may have Churchill's name on it, was essentially the US saying to the British

"This is how it is going to be after the War. You must give up your Empire, you must pay us money for 60 years and you must acquiesce to our bidding - your time is over".

To think we had any input in the decision making is laughable. The US tried to swindle us every step of the War and, largely, got away with it. The only time Churchill told the US to naff off was when the US demanded the Caribbean Islands in return for some destroyers... We did, however, give you all our research on radar, jet engines and nuclear weapons just to get you to join us in the first place - see the Tizard Mission



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


We have a court system in the United States and a second is superfluous, particularly one as inept and buffoonish as the International Court of 'Justice'. If they were truly concerned with justice they would have incarcerated themselves years ago.

"Justice"? Do tell me from your higher moral pulpit how justly this country behaves towards other nations.

Excuse me while I hurl



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

typical british crying, we had to give up our empire, we had to pay you back for helping us not lose to germany, we gave you all your technology for radar, jets and such.

what you don't think the Uk shouldn't have to had pay back what was owed, leased or sold to them, you don't think they should have shared technology with others fighting the war so it could be brought to a end. remember the majority in the U.S wanted nothing to do with the war and with out the equipment that was leased to you before we came over you would have been finished.

so you think that the british empire should have been kept in place, wasn't hitler trying to build empire to. and i think it safe to say that during the UK's empire period many more people died than during hilter's, what is it 20 year rule. the british even though they banned slavery before the U.S. had a dismal human rights record, just look to India, the Middle East and yes the Caribbean to see how they treated the indigenous people, hell the UK was notoriously bad about getting people in lands they occupied to help them fight others, grow crops , import and export other goods only to stab those same people in the back when they got what they wanted.


Churchill came to the conclusion that the UK was not gonna be king sh@@ on turd hill after the war and made the best deal he could. be glad he was smart enough to do that.




edit on 26-12-2015 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Typical Yank idiocy..

Please, do point out where I was actually complaining or bemoaning the loss of the Empire?

I was merely stating a fact.

To get US help, the UK had to sacrifice pretty much everything and even then, it took the US actually being attacked to assist the UK, who had stood alone against fascism for 2 years, to actually join in.

I suppose you're under the impression that the US raced to the rescue of the world and without US help, we would have been overrun? Utter bollocks, of course. The war was won by Russia and by 1940, the UK had already fought off the Germans on it's own who abandoned plans to invade.

For the USA's part, you made damn sure you made as much out of the War as possible - there was no altruism involved at all. For the record, the majority of Congress and the people supported Germany at the outbreak of the War, so any Hollywood nonsense about saving the Jews or rescuing the "free world" was just propaganda. Had Japan not attacked, there was no guarantee that the US would have ever joined the War at all.

A pretty poor effort to put words in my mouth, really.

EDIT: As for your quip at the end about Churchill being "clever enough", you couldn't be more wrong and it shows just how little you know about the War. Also, it is pretty clear you haven't read much about the Atlantic Charter, despite referencing it, because opposition from Churchill over pretty much all of it was strong.
edit on 26/12/15 by stumason because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join