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.

 

UN running out of cash, FINALLY !

page: 3
41
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig





The worst would be the rise of Empires happening again.


The pieces do appear to be being set up that way...interesting times indeed.




posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Like all controlling powers, the UN was sold to the people of the world as an altruistic entity with the goal of bringing peace to the planet. In reality, the United Nations is a tool of power itself, and I believe it always was intended to be so by those who set it up. Instead of being "peacekeepers" to the world crisis's, it seeks to influence political power with respect to the initiatives of it's member countries. Surely an internal struggle is always present to command the activities, again among the member countries. Yet, the United States, with it's endless budget has more or less been the deciding stakeholder since WW2. However, other member countries have succeeded in forming internal coalitions against the US for many years, for better or worse.

The United States must make a decision. Does it keep up this contribution and float the UN for more time, or does it withdraw because the return on investment no longer outweighs the cost?



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

Like any body that is both political and non political, it has been abused by both sides. The western powers, lead by the US, has used this to contain the Soviet Union and those that are communist powers. However in this kind of setting neither side has the advantage, and ultimately has to abide by the majority.

And you mentioned wars, funny how that initially they are proclaimed as civil wars. Rwanda, that is what it was determined to be by even the US until there was concrete proof of something far more sinister going on. Even the Balkans wars, was also viewed as such, until later on.

The UN was never suppose to govern, that was not its purpose, but a place to try to prevent world wars, like World War II. It has no real authority in any country, and can not just march in with guns blazing. And has to rely on member countries for support.

But there has been some good that has come out, like the World Health Organization, which has been working on trying to cure some of the deadlier diseases, allowing for organizations like the CDC and other countries to work together to develop cures and help those who have been ravished by such. During the ebola outbreaks, the WHO was on the ground, providing much needed logestics, and getting supplies out to those who need it the most.

But if you are going to let it die, are you willing to deal with the consequences of that? Mind you that once it is done, the US would have to pull out and withdraw from various countries around the world. Many of the US military and policies spawned from the cold war, and the installations were done such.



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 02:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: fernalley

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: M5xaz

Ive always felt Carbon Credits were intended to be the UN's tax base...good thing it hasn't happened.


Such as was mentioned here UN Finance



A global tax on currency or financial transactions, a carbon tax or taxes on the arms-trade might provide such revenue.

Even better the UN may have found more revenue ,ironically, through oil revenues of off shore oil off Canada's coast.



A deepwater oil project 500 kilometres from St. John's could generate a rich stream of revenue for Newfoundland and Labrador and tax benefits for Ottawa — but it also could eventually see funds flow all the way to the United Nations.


Canada signed on to UNCLOS in 2003 and the fight is on as to who would pay between the Feds or the provinces involved. But with Trudeau at the helm Canada will pay.
UN could cash in on Oil Project


Pay the UN ?
Totally uncalled for. What does the UN bring to the table ? NOTHING !!

It is NOT the UN's territory - it is no man's land.

Whichever NATION exploits it gets the benefits. PERIOD.

One more reason to abolish the UN



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 02:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: M5xaz
That global symbol of corruption, graft, support for terrorism and incompetence is finally running low on funding.
Contributing nations are late in payments .

While the ideal outcome, disbanding of the UN, is probably too much to hope for, perhaps this could trigger much needed reform.


www.foxnews.com...



I wonder why they are running late on payments?

Do they not have the money?

Is it because they consider the UN to be the US's global enforcer?

Are they late in paying as sign of resistance to US "lobbying Power" ?



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

The saddest thing of all is that those wanting war, often are risking nothing and are not willing to sacrifice for such, that only the poor that are the ones that are having to bear the brunt of that.

But there are few things that could happen if the UN fails, and the change of the world, the shifting of the dynamics, that would affect all of us, in ways we can not even begin to imagine. The worst would be the rise of Empires happening again.


Ridiculous.

No one on this board "wants war".

Provide ONE example where the UN prevented any war or human suffering - NONE

The UN makes things WORSE = best example is the UN continued support of the genocidal Khmer for 3 years after they were out of power.
To make a parallel, would you have supported NAZIs as the legitimate government of Germany until 1948, 3 years after their defeat in 1945 ?
Yes or No ?

If the UN did NOT exist fewer millions would have died.

Stop being so gullible.
edit on 3-8-2018 by M5xaz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: M5xaz

Like any body that is both political and non political, it has been abused by both sides. The western powers, lead by the US, has used this to contain the Soviet Union and those that are communist powers. However in this kind of setting neither side has the advantage, and ultimately has to abide by the majority.

And you mentioned wars, funny how that initially they are proclaimed as civil wars. Rwanda, that is what it was determined to be by even the US until there was concrete proof of something far more sinister going on. Even the Balkans wars, was also viewed as such, until later on.

The UN was never suppose to govern, that was not its purpose, but a place to try to prevent world wars, like World War II. It has no real authority in any country, and can not just march in with guns blazing. And has to rely on member countries for support.

But there has been some good that has come out, like the World Health Organization, which has been working on trying to cure some of the deadlier diseases, allowing for organizations like the CDC and other countries to work together to develop cures and help those who have been ravished by such. During the ebola outbreaks, the WHO was on the ground, providing much needed logestics, and getting supplies out to those who need it the most.

But if you are going to let it die, are you willing to deal with the consequences of that? Mind you that once it is done, the US would have to pull out and withdraw from various countries around the world. Many of the US military and policies spawned from the cold war, and the installations were done such.



All of the heavy lifting of the UN is done by member countries anyway, which even you recognize.

What does an extra layer of UN bureaucracy bring to the table ? - NOTHING

The UN refused to get involved in the Balkans - thereby the need for NATO to do the job.

If the UN had not existed as an impediment, perhaps NATO could have helped reduce the Rwandan genocide.

With respect to the WHO, most of that work is really done by the US and the CDC.


Stop being so dreamy-eyed with the fantasy of what the UN could have been and face the reality of what it is.
Millions have DIED because of it.

Just give me a number, 1 million, 2-3-10-50 million ? How many more millions must suffer and die before you see the UN for the irredeemable failure that it is ?

Face reality.

Kind of reminds me of the idiots that keep pushing socialism.
"Socialism: 100+ years of failure and human misery prove nothing. Let's do it again..."



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Azureblue

originally posted by: M5xaz
That global symbol of corruption, graft, support for terrorism and incompetence is finally running low on funding.
Contributing nations are late in payments .

While the ideal outcome, disbanding of the UN, is probably too much to hope for, perhaps this could trigger much needed reform.


www.foxnews.com...




I wonder why they are running late on payments?

Do they not have the money?

Is it because they consider the UN to be the US's global enforcer?

Are they late in paying as sign of resistance to US "lobbying Power" ?





UN the US's global enforcer ?
Since when ?

When has the UN enforced anything ?

I gave everyone numerous examples above of dramatic UN failures.

Hopefully, some nations are starting to see it and starting to wonder why pay the UN at all.



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tempter
Like all controlling powers, the UN was sold to the people of the world as an altruistic entity with the goal of bringing peace to the planet. In reality, the United Nations is a tool of power itself, and I believe it always was intended to be so by those who set it up. Instead of being "peacekeepers" to the world crisis's, it seeks to influence political power with respect to the initiatives of it's member countries. Surely an internal struggle is always present to command the activities, again among the member countries. Yet, the United States, with it's endless budget has more or less been the deciding stakeholder since WW2. However, other member countries have succeeded in forming internal coalitions against the US for many years, for better or worse.

The United States must make a decision. Does it keep up this contribution and float the UN for more time, or does it withdraw because the return on investment no longer outweighs the cost?


The US should pullout and use the money to help directly nations in need.



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

It has plenty of company,many Euro nations,just that the US had more at stake,the rest of the world is just as crooked as another,they have the information,Euro people are good at pointing fingers,while over looking their hand in all of this



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 05:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: M5xaz
That global symbol of corruption, graft, support for terrorism and incompetence is finally running low on funding.
Contributing nations are late in payments .

While the ideal outcome, disbanding of the UN, is probably too much to hope for, perhaps this could trigger much needed reform.


www.foxnews.com...



I am not saying your wrong. But I do have a question.

If the UN is disbanded, what platform will the nations of the earth use to communicate?



Ummm...twitter...?

Muahahaha...

Edit to add:...oops...I see Pheonix358 beat me to the punch
Great minds and all...





YouSir
edit on 3-8-2018 by YouSir because: Too late to the party...



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 05:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: M5xaz
That global symbol of corruption, graft, support for terrorism and incompetence is finally running low on funding.
Contributing nations are late in payments .

While the ideal outcome, disbanding of the UN, is probably too much to hope for, perhaps this could trigger much needed reform.


www.foxnews.com...



I am not saying your wrong. But I do have a question.

If the UN is disbanded, what platform will the nations of the earth use to communicate?




TWITTER.



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 06:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: projectvxn

But we NEED layer after layer of bureaucratic hoobajoo within and without each national government. I weep for the EU. They needed like 3 or four more layers at least above the their governments, and the EU oligarchy, and the UN, and up and up and up. Get with The Programming or get out of our planet!!



Ummm...I know...right...?

After the master plan of having everyone on the freaking planet employed in some fashion or other by the government...why...project utopia will be complete...and kumbaya's will be sung the whole world round...

So...lets all join hands and sing...





YouSir



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 06:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: M5xaz
That global symbol of corruption, graft, support for terrorism and incompetence is finally running low on funding.
Contributing nations are late in payments .

While the ideal outcome, disbanding of the UN, is probably too much to hope for, perhaps this could trigger much needed reform.


www.foxnews.com...



I am not saying your wrong. But I do have a question.

If the UN is disbanded, what platform will the nations of the earth use to communicate?



Ummm...twitter...?

Muahahaha...

Edit to add:...oops...I see Pheonix358 beat me to the punch
Great minds and all...





YouSir



Congratulations you are the second on this thread, 2 great minds indeed....



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

The corruption in the UN is a symptom of the corruption among the leadership of the nation's of the world.
As an attempt to form a new league of nation's it failed as did the first league of nation's but still maintained it's cohesion and did not break apart because it was useful.
As a prototype of a world government it never stood a chance and even it's child the EU is doomed to failure.
Without the American's and the Former Soviet Union to support it and use it for there public relations on a choreographed public stage it has faced diminishing importance.

But remember, before the Second World War the League of Nations' failed and disbanded.
So what does this mean for the future, the UN for all of it's absolute failure at least the UN served a stage for nations to come to agreement's and it has headed off at least SOME wars and prevented some problem's.

Closing the UN down will be a way of closing down an avenue of diplomacy between nation's and that despite the UN's corruption is actually a very bad choice to bring about.

And it may indeed be the precursor of the third world war and then another League of Nations or United Nation's shall be born, perhaps it is destined to be the puppet of new powers after the coming storm and perhaps it shall be the puppet of a militaristic one world tyranny.

Without it's main backers though the UN is today becoming irrelevant upon the world stage, the rise of coalition's of nations has created new power block's that undermine it's control and diplomatic power over there individual nation's, the rise of the power of Asian nations and the shifting balance of economic power has also undermined it's old power base.

For the UN to remain relevant it will have to move it's base of operations to a neutral country which is willing to host it and gain both military and financial backing but without the US to back it up then all it become's is a voice for whichever coalition then control's it's purse string's.

It is a shame but when good dream's go back perhaps it is time to wake up.



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

This keeps being said, but seriously, which war exactly did the UN prevent ?
Myth.
M Y T H

WW2 had nothing to do with the League of Nations, was neither caused by it's downfall or reduced in scope or prevented.

The League of Nations collapsed because it proved to be a useless utopian sideshow, like the UN.
Should the UN be gone, it will also have zero impact, negative or positive, on war. I bet the funds saved will help more people though.

Both organizations were founded at a time where modern communications largely did not exist and ambassadors actually had to speak for their governments. UN is obsolete.

Creating yet another UN to be a future puppet to yet some other group seals the case for the disbanding of the UN, and relegating the concept to the dustbin of history, next to belief in flat Earth, and similar foolishness, etc

edit on 3-8-2018 by M5xaz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wreckclues
a reply to: M5xaz

Found this article from 2013 on how much the UN costs the city of New York with suggestions for moving it to Africa.



The UN gulps $25 million a year on maintenance, including $6 million on personnel to accommodate one million visitors annually.
The NYPD spends up to $7 million each year to provide security to foreign dignitaries who rain down on First Ave. for the September General Assembly.
Let's not forget that diplomats owe the city $17 million in unpaid parking tickets. And, since a federal appeals court ruled in 2010 foreign countries don't need to pay property tax for their Manhattan buildings, containing UN missions and ambassadors' apartments, the city has lost tens of millions of dollars in tax revenues.


How much would 17 acres of prime real estate overlooking the East River be worth?

www.nydailynews.com...#


I knew an IT contractor who worked in NY for a UN project. They had an established set of pay-bands so that people of equivalent rank has the same salary. Because of the project, his pay-band was the equivalent of a diplomat, and got arranged accommodation. The property agency let him into a prospective apartment. First thing he saw was a huge open plan apartment with a leather sofa, mezzanine level and high ceilings. He liked it. Then the property agency said, "No, this is just the hallway. The rest of the apartment is at the far end."



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 09:33 AM
link   
That's just great. The bastards owe me $300.



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: fernalley

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: M5xaz

Ive always felt Carbon Credits were intended to be the UN's tax base...good thing it hasn't happened.


Such as was mentioned here UN Finance



A global tax on currency or financial transactions, a carbon tax or taxes on the arms-trade might provide such revenue.

Even better the UN may have found more revenue ,ironically, through oil revenues of off shore oil off Canada's coast.



A deepwater oil project 500 kilometres from St. John's could generate a rich stream of revenue for Newfoundland and Labrador and tax benefits for Ottawa — but it also could eventually see funds flow all the way to the United Nations.


Canada signed on to UNCLOS in 2003 and the fight is on as to who would pay between the Feds or the provinces involved. But with Trudeau at the helm Canada will pay.
UN could cash in on Oil Project


Pay the UN ?
Totally uncalled for. What does the UN bring to the table ? NOTHING !!

It is NOT the UN's territory - it is no man's land.

Whichever NATION exploits it gets the benefits. PERIOD.

One more reason to abolish the UN

Obviously the UN is desperate for cash. Since our PM is adamant all the provinces impose an escalating carbon tax I think the Fed's should take this project and pay the carbon tax and remove it from the provinces (taxpayers). They can deal with the UN as well.

UNRAW is begging for cash as well since the US cut back. Since our PM IS a UN bootlicker he did give more but it is never enough and certainly not anywhere the US amount. They have been funding UNRAW since 1949. Maybe time to figure something out themselves.



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

Wrong the league of nations DID play a part in bringing about the second world war, a dog is weary of someone whom show's no fear but emboldened by those that do, in a pack it's nature is that of a wolf and it long's to become the alpha so if it senses weakness in its' companions it shall fight for dominance.

Germany under Hitler was that Dog and the weakness first of the League of Nation's leading to it's collapse and ultimately the weakness and appeasing policy's of European nations and there leaders notable among them Neville Chamberlain whom infamously declared "Peace in our time" as well as the belief that the US would not get involved due to it's short sighted policy of isolationism until it was too late and that Japan could keep it occupied anyway led to that Dog rabidly attacking it's neighbor's and creating a wound the world has still not healed from, a wound that brought about the beginning of the demise of the old western pre-eminence on the world stage and ending the age of empire but actually precipitating the rise of the short term American empire which has now come to a fork in the road, down one path lies glory, power and global pre-eminence and down the other isolationism and reducing global importance BUT which is actually better for the American people?.

The Future lies in Asia and even Russia whose own power is diminishing before there growth despite throwing it's lot in with them will diminish or it could of course merge with China at some point in the future in all but name trading land and mineral access for economic investment.

Our age is not yet past but it is teetering and bickering among ourselves, trade wars with your allies and new isolationism are definitely not the way to go.

edit on 3-8-2018 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)







 
41
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join