Article of the same name as the subject:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Hayworth20030604.shtml

God I hope the legislation that Congressman Hayworth is introducing gets passed!

Sorry I linked the wrong post before, I have edited to put in the correct article.

[ June 04, 2003, 16:49: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

Do you believe this stuff?
First of all i don't think that USA has won these two wars and i don't think that the writer wasn't guided by the White House to write this article my friend.
I think you are being misleaded big time :(

Mith,

Sorry, I linked the wrong article, I have edited to post to correct.
:o

He should've just raised one issue to make his point rather than bringing in the extraneous whining about the UN. He starts of whining about how the US is opposed by UN members. Now, I think a number of nations when in doubt just oppose the US simply because they think the US is too strong and take an opportunity when it presents itself to provide a setback, no matter how minor, to the US. However, in most circumstances they vote differently because they disagree. They are under no obligation to vote as the US does so it is extreme arrogance to whine and complain that someone voted different than the US when it simply boils down to whining that they didn't do what the US wanted. It's hypocritical too. The article accuses France of wanting to have things its way while it whines about not getting things its way.

Putting aside that issue, which is largely irrelevant to the other issue, he may have a point. Why should one permanent member pay so much more than another when the benefits they receive are identical? More importantly, why is it arranged in such a way that there is such a massive disparity? Only one thought here -- the UN is based out of NY right? I'd be interested in seeing how much money flows into the US because the UN is based there. Might that offset the inequity of it all? *shrug*

So basically the guy's saying the UN should go through reforms because ... it currently hinders US interests.

And evil France wants to take over the world, beware! :D

Ok, US contribution to UN regular budget :341 millions.
France's contribution: 100 millions.

Given the respective size of their economy (America's GDP must be at least five times France's GDP), France actually contribute more than the US, or did I read something wrong?

I think you're missing the salient points. China has the second larges economy in the world and pays 24 million. Russia pays 19 million. So the US pays 314 million? They all receive the same benefit ostensibly: veto power.

According to the article, the combined GDP of the other security council members equals the US' but the US still pays 100+ million more than the others combined. Further, even if it was capped like he is talking about the US total contribution would still be 1.4 Billion to the UN which is pretty hefty.

If those numbers are true, putting aside personal dislikes for a second, it does make you raise your eyebrow a bit doesn't it? Caveat - I'm taking the numbers at face value

Oxymore,

How would you like it if everyone who makes 1/2 of what you do got to pay 1/2 of what you do for everything they buy?

You satement is one of pure class warfare. Just because you have more money doesn't mean that you are obligated to give more, unless of course you are the one receiving the money, then you believe that it is totally fair.

This reminds me of somthing I read the other day.

(As the curtain rises we find Congressman Dewey Cheatem sitting behind his desk in his home district office. Ima Whiner, one of his constituents, has wormed her way into an appointment with Congressman Cheatem to voice some concerns.)
Yes, Ms. Whiner, what can I do for you?

I need some help. I just can’t make ends meet any more.

What kind of help?

Money. I need some money. I just don’t make enough money to support my family.

Your family? Tell me about them.

I have two kids. Seven and ten.

What does your husband do?

I’m not married.

Divorced?

No. I’m just not married.

Does the kid’s father help to support them?

No, neither one of them do.

Neither one of them?

Yeah. They have different fathers.

What do you do for a living?

Nails.

You do nails?

Yeah, you know, nails. I do nails at Nail Fantasy at the mall.

How much money do you make doing nails.

Not enough. I make about $14,000 a year.

How much education do you have?

I like finished high school, you know, but college just wasn’t for me. I wanted a new car, you know, and I needed to go to work to get the money for payments.

Your oldest child is ten. How old are you?

I’m 26.

OK .. what do you want from me? Why did you come see me today?

I need more money. I know there must be some sort of like government checks I can get. I keep hearing about people getting checks for all sorts of things. I want a check.

With your income, you don’t pay income taxes, do you?

No, but I have payroll taxes … and I should get some of that money back. Other people are getting checks. I want a check.

Wait a minute --- I have something here that might help you.

(Congressman Cheatem reaches into his desk drawer and pulls out a .38 caliber revolver – he pushes it across the desk to Ima.)

Do you know what this is?

It’s a gun.

Can you use one?

Yeah, my first baby’s daddy showed me how.

OK then. I want you to take this gun, go find someone who has been more responsible with their life than you have, and I want you to use this gun to rob them. That way you should be able to get the money you say you need.

Rob them? I can’t just walk up to someone and rob them! Are you crazy?

Why can’t you?

Because that’s, you know, illegal. It’s, like, illegal! I could get caught and they could put me in jail!

But you’re here asking me for a check! What if there was some sort of a government check you could get, where do you think that money would come from?

I don’t know. The government?

Sure, the government. But where does the government get its money?

The taxpayers, I guess.

Yeah, the taxpayers. So you want me to arrange for some money to be taken from these taxpayers and given to you, right?

Well, other people are getting checks. Why can’t I get one?

Why don’t you just take this gun and go get some!

I can’t!

You mean you won’t. You won’t pick up this gun and go take someone else’s money, but you feel perfectly comfortable coming into my office and asking me to, right?

What do you mean?

Well just how in the hell do you think we get the money you want us to give to you? Do you think these people just come wandering in here with buckets of their money just begging us to find some irresponsible losers to give it to? Come on, girl? We take it, just like I suggested you take it. We take it at the point of a gun! We point that gun at those poor saps and we say “hand it over, or we’ll take every damn thing that you own.”

Well, everybody has to pay taxes!

You don’t!

I know, but that’s because, like , I don’t make enough money!

And whose fault is that?

It’s not my fault. I can’t help it if I just haven’t been as lucky as those other people.

Yeah, you can’t help it. You decided that you needed a new car and you couldn’t afford one if you were going to college, then you decided to get pregnant as a teenager by two different deadbeats who got between your legs and then out of your life … and it’s all someone else’s fault.

Hey! I don’t have to take that from you!

OK … calm down. (The Congressman puts the gun back in his desk drawer) You don’t need to use this gun. You don’t need to because we can.

Who’s “we?”

We .. the government. We can do what you can’t. Like I said, we can use this gun to take property from someone else … and I’ll see to it that some of that money gets to you. You’ll get your check.

Oh, thank you!

But there’s a catch here. You have to do something for me.

Sure! Anything!

No, no. Button your blouse up. That’s not what I had in mind. I have plenty of interns around here that would cause me a lot less grief than you would. What you have to do is get out there and register to vote … register to vote, and then remember just who it is that put that check in your pocket the next time an election rolls around.

No problem! I’ll do it, I promise!

From Boortz dialy blog, http://www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm, 5/30/03

Contributing to the UN budget doesn't mean "buying" veto power in the security council. You make it seem like it is some kind of privilege for which you must pay a fee. I tend to see contribution to UN budget as the same as paying taxes for your government, the rich pay more taxes than the poor (still the poor pay the same prices in shops, then again I don't consider veto power as something that is for sale).

Perhaps the various contributions must be reevaluated, imo it would be best to level upwards (or else one day everyone will contribute the same as Haiti)

IMO it contributions should be trended downward, as matter of fact, when it comes to the UN, my favorite number is -0-. I don't buy spoiled food, I don't buy broken goods, and I don't give to charities that create dependance. The UN has no legal or moral right to "tax" anyone, so I do not equate funds donated to the UN as that type of revenue.

I am just thankful that I live in a country where the UN is looked at as a forum for attempting to negotiate solutions for international differences (they do a piss poor job of it, but I guess the intent is there), not a world government that supercedes national governments.

Considering the US contribution to the UN a maybe noteworthy thing is that together germany's and japan's payments to the UN budged iirc top the US's 110 million. And both countries don't even have a veto. How stupid must we be. UN scale of assessments (regular budget) in 2001 USA 22 % Japan 19.628 % Germany 9.493 % France 6.283 % United Kingdom 5.380 % Italy 4.922 % Canada 2.573 % Spain 2.448 % Brazil 1.702 % Netherlands 1.688 % Australia 1.604 % Korea, Republic of 1.318 % Russia 1.200 % Belgium 1.098 % Sweden 0.998 %More info on the web site of our Auswärtiges Amt (http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/en/aussenpolitik/vn/vereinte_nationen/finanzen_html). Poor exploited america :rolleyes:

This dude wants the UN to be a club of cheerleaders who support the US. Well, that kinda causes friction with the national interest of other countries, france as well as others. What's good for the US isn't necessarily good for the rest of the world as well. Dissent indeed might be the result of that.

Indeed, the UN does reflect end of WW-II power situations, manifesting them in the the veto rights. Personally I have to say, a UN reform where the financial contribution would equal in voting privileges would be more than welcome to me.
But on the other hand, would the US like to give away their untouchable status thanks to their veto right? I mean, breaking international law and getting away with it is only possible that way.

Let's look at it this way: your taxes pay the police in your country, right? But the police doesn't run the country. If you don't want a police force then you better have a gun, I guess it is the case for America right now, but it won't last forever. Right now you feel you don't need the UN, but in a few decades, another superpower might take over global leadership, then you'd be glad there's an international body whose function is to promote peace, because if there isn't one, you're stuck with opposing alliances, that led to world war two times already.

Darkwolf the UN are there not to help one superpower to achieve her own goals but to prevent the unfair treatment of weak nations by this superpower. Maybe over time USA has forgotten but it was USA that backed up this plan and this philosophy for the UN but now it seems that this plan has backfired, doesn't it?
Now the USA thinks it can rule :confused: the world and find UN as an obstacle and tries to get rid of him?
And something else in real Democracy money DO NOT buy votes one vote for one person that is that will ever be.
Your administration wants to redistribute the votes or the expenses ok i agree with that but it may not come to your interest :cool:

The website you link is kinda funny Ragusa because it talks about Germany negotiating to avoid further financial burden because at 9% they think they pay enough thank you very much. It also talks about how the EU is working to "reform... the scales of the assessment in order to share the costs more equitably." Now, it goes on to blame the US for reducing its payment from 25% to 22% and reducing its total bill for peace keeping missions from 31% to 25% but it seems to me that the web site is talking out of both ends of its mouth:

"The disgusting US has reduced its payment from 25 to 22%." and then "the EU needs to make the scale more equitable because we are paying a whole 9%!"

By the way, they base the assessment on GNP and that in and of itself seems like a screwy way to approach things to me.

Indeed germany, just as the US, had an interest in fixing it's comittment in the UN. And it has an interest in the other EU partners increasing their contribution. The point was that somehow the few points the US reduced their payment had to be compensated by others. Germany did just the same within the EU.

The AA page doesn't make an open moral statement on the US behavior, eventually they are diplomats. However, much more interesting than the reduction in payments was that part: For years the UN system has been in financial crisis, caused mainly by the failure of certain member countries to pay their dues (http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/docs/duesdies.htm).Germany may have reduced it's payments, but at least it was reliable and paid regularly.

It was always felt to be a little hypochritical that over years the US refused to pay their bill at the UN (besides, while permanently profiting from veto-induced immunity as well as the veto-rights) making the organisation notoriously underfinanced while claiming that it's lack of efficiency was displayed by it's inability to get through with the money available. This behavior also undermined the payment morale of other countries, adding to the financial misere of the UN.

It might have been a good idea for Mr. Hayworth to look back a few years to check his views for the impression of hypochrisy (or, let's be nice, myopia).

[ June 05, 2003, 16:57: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Is it about, who should have veto power ? Or how much a country should contribute financially to the UN ? Or both ?

I take on Veto-Power.

Why should any nation have a permanent seat and veto power in the security council? Now, if the idea is, that the securty council is the only part of the UN, which can actully make binding resolutions, the veto-powers and a permanent seat are pure Realpolitik. Meaning, that the most powerfull should stop things, they don't like. Things they feel are not good for their own interest. So, it's only rational to have a gremium, where great powers can talk, before stepping on eachothers toes. It's better they know of disagreement through talking about an issue, then to have to correspond through manoevering (sp ?) man-o-wars around the sees.

So, who should have a seat ? The Americans and the Chinese surly.

The Russians. Complicated. There in a .... state of things ... Well, they still have enough nuclear weapons to **** up the whole planet, so..

The UK and France should not be there.

By itself, France is incapable of countering or competing with the U.S. militarily or economically, and that situation will only grow worse as France faces a demographically-driven decline.
I agree actually with that. The same is for the UK. Both are way too small countries. Both have nothing lost there.

But who else ?

The Europeans could take one seat. But that's not possible in the nearer future, because the would have to find a way to make up their mind together. Not possible. At least, the changing of the world around Europe could have an impact on the thinking of the average European, which leads to a change of things. By the way, I don't think it has to be the EU, it might be well possible, to create a new alliance of Europeans, just for the sake of foreing policies, in no way connected to the EU. Anyway, the Europeans will have, compared to titans like China and India, no great influence in international politics. The population of the continent looks small compared them already. They have giantic military and econonomical potential. But loosing influence isn't a bad thing per se. There has never been something better then splendid isolation. Just enough influence to secure the independence of the Europeans, more is not needed.

India, like China a demographical powerhouse. India is behind Chinda in it's development, but it's potential is alike. Both will shape the next century.

Latin-America ? Probably the same situation like Europe. They would need to overcome internal differences and pull on the same streak, to further their own goals and protect their interests. Frankly, I'm talking about a region nearly completly unknown to me.

Mith,

Maybe over time USA has forgotten but it was USA that backed up this plan and this philosophy for the UN but now it seems that this plan has backfired, doesn't it?The UN is not what it was when it was created, it has grown from a forum by which contries were to meet and have their disagreements arbitrated to an entitity that believes it rules the world.

Now the USA thinks it can rule the world and find UN as an obstacle and tries to get rid of him? Name the last piece of territory that we occupied and still rule, or had to be forced out of (a'la Germany and France). Other than Iraq you would have to go back a long way in history to find one. And no, we will not be occupying Iraq indeffinetly. The US really behaves like a nation that is out to rule the world. :rolleyes:

I think that the citizens of a lot of nations have something similar to small man's syndrom. They can't be #1, so they are going to try to tear down whoever is, and the UN is the best tool they have available. I can't imagine why I don't support that! :rolleyes:

Other than Iraq you would have to go back a long way in history to find one. And no, we will not be occupying Iraq indeffinetly. The US really behaves like a nation that is out to rule the world Talking about tax-payers money and troops outside the country, defending security interests. How much do those troops in foreign countries cost the tax-payer ? How much would that sum be compared to the sum the US pays to the UN ?

(I Haven't found and £-numbers)

From Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/dailys/7-24-98.html) 1998

The United States has over 200,000 troops stationed in 144 countries and territories. At any given time, it usually has another 20,000 sailors and Marines deployed afloat on Navy ships. In the more benign post-Cold War international environment, why does the United States need all of those forces positioned overseas?

Most of the 100,000 troops in Europe (mainly in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Spain, Iceland, Belgium and Portugal) and almost all of the 75,000 troops in Asia (in Japan and South Korea) are supporting wealthy nations against mild or declining threats. For example, the combined economies of the NATO allies exceed the economy of the United States. Each of the economies of Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom exceeds that of Russia -- a country with a decimated economy and military. The economy of South Korea is 24 times the size of that of its arch enemy North Korea, an economic basket case. The economy of Japan is almost twice that of China -- a nation that has not yet become a serious military threat -- and almost eight times that of Russia.

The other 10,000 troops in Europe (in Hungary and Bosnia) are conducting and supporting a peace enforcement mission in Bosnia that has nothing to do with American vital interests. Indeed, the mission is already becoming a quagmire that is unlikely to prevent a resumption of fighting after NATO's withdrawal.

Other relics of the Cold War include the U.S. military presence in Panama (6,000 troops) and Guantanamo, Cuba (almost 2,000 troops). With the end of the Cold War, the Panama Canal faces a drastically reduced threat of closure. Besides, the very large U.S. aircraft carriers cannot fit through it. With the Department of Defense acknowledging that the Cuban military poses little threat, the expensive U.S. base at Guantanamo serves only the symbolic purpose of tweaking Fidel Castro's nose.

The United States also has almost 4,000 troops in the Persian Gulf (Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) to guard against an Iraqi attack that is now improbable. An analyst from the Defense Intelligence Agency noted that, because of the Persian Gulf War and grinding economic sanctions, less than 40 percent of Iraq's military remains; Iraq is probably incapable of conducting an assault over an extended distance into Saudi Arabia.

Therefore, most of the 200,000 American troops stationed overseas and most of the 20,000 sailors and Marines performing overseas naval presence missions could be withdrawn without harming U.S. national security. With no major adversary on the horizon in the post-Cold War world, the United States does not need to police every portion of the globe for its rich allies.

I believe that Yago covered me completely :thumb:

Most of the nations that we have those troop in don't want them to leave because of the economic loss to that nation. Not only would there be an increase in cost to that nation in having to provide a greater military of their own, but our personnel spend millions of $'s every year in the markets of these foreign nations. I would love to see the US close the majority of our foreign bases along with eliminating the subsidies that we pay to nations who routinely stab us in the back.

However, I don't think Yago covered anything of my question, unless you are claiming that our bases are occupation, which is so laughable that I even hesitate to bring it up. Any nation who seriously asks us to leave gets their wish. Usually however, those requests are really just demand for more money.

So again I ask, name the last nation that America conquered and didn't turn back over to its people to rule. We are not interested in conquering the world, hell, we don't even like most of the world, and wouldn't accept it as part of the US if every person living there begged us. We already have everything we need here, what we import is simply a matter of convenience or cost.

And one last thing, what the hell does how much we spend on maintaining our military have to do how much we allow the UN to extort from us? Sorry, but I see apples and oranges here. This look like a little more “small nation’s syndrome” rising to the surface to me. Maybe you can get the UN to pass a resolution condemning the US for its lack of compassion based upon its military spending compared to its UN contributions. Knowing how the UN is so strong in its enforcement I am sure that we will fall right in line!

[Darkwolf walks away, laughing his ass off thinking about the oxymoron of “UN enforcement”]

The UN has no legal or moral right to "tax" anyone, so I do not equate funds donated to the UN as that type of revenue.
Totally true. Those funds don't pay for peacekeeping troops - the countries providing those troops pay that bill. What those funds do, for the most part, is pay UN bureaucrat salaries. They pay, for example, a member of the Libyan government to head up a human rights commission. I sure don't think that's a moral use of anyone's money. In fact I think it's making the taxpayers an accessory to a crime.

Yago, your choice of source is an excellent one, from my point of view. The Cato Institute is hardly making the point that the US is occupying other countries to benefit itself at their expense - it is making the point that US tax dollars are being wasted on foreign countries. Is that the point you are making? Darkwolf, make room- Yago is coming over to sit on our bench. :lol:

it is making the point that US tax dollars are being wasted on foreign countries Yes, that's my point. Darkwolfs article made the point, that the US-Goverment wastes too much money for UN spending. My point is, the US-Goverment wastes much more tax-payer-money for their oversees stationing of troops. They talk about peanuts and let the giant melons untouched. And those melons are the cause of lot of problems, which cost more money.

Sidenote:Sprite, didn't you follow my former disputes with Darkwolf and why I think that the Republicans are very inclined to socialism, like Ronnie Reagan was ? But that does not mean, that I support that Cato-Site fully, there was an other article, right next to a side with shameless endorsment of monopols. "Monopoly is good for the health of your economy!". Tz, another schiozephrenic side.

And then, did the article of the first post say anything, about what UN-organisations actually do ? Now, as Swiss I say, there's not too much bad about the Red cross/Halfmoon. And then, going back to my post above about veto, there is no connection whatsoever with veto-rights and payment to the UN. Apples and Lemons ? And note, no word about what UN-organisations actually are doing.

And one last thing, what the hell does how much we spend on maintaining our military have to do how much we allow the UN to extort from us? Sorry, but I see apples and oranges here For the sake of the length of my post, I won't go in detail. But that's money spend on the bureaucracy of the UN. This bureacracy's goal is to keep peace and organisising things. So, it's national interest of most states to invest in them. The American prefer to waste money in military basis. Everybody knows, "military" is a synomym for "inefficiency". Military is a money waste machine. And the cato article said, that there's no strategical gain.


Most of the nations that we have those troop in don't want them to leave because of the economic loss to that nation Okinawa wants US-Troops ? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1155935.stm)

In most of those nations, there are a lot of people who want them to be gone, not all of them, but a lot. Most of the European countries are indifferent to them.

No, economic loss is a different thing. It's highly unlikely, that the existence or not existence of those bases have any impact on the economies of those nations. Strangley enough, the negative economical impact of those bases makes a lot of people in their neighbourhood to get rid of them.

The head of American military forces on the Japanese island of Okinawa has apologised for calling local officials "nuts" and "wimps" in an e-mail he sent to 13 other officers.

The general was said to have been responding to a call by the local assembly for reductions in the American forces based on Okinawa.


Okinawa is host to about 30,000 of the 47,000 US troops stationed in Japan, and residents have long complained that the ratio is unfair.

Japan has insisted on redeployments of troops within Okinawa, but does not want troops moved to the main islands where opposition would be just as intense. My understanding is, if in Japan their is something like a trash bin, than it's Okinawa, that's why the Japanese goverment want the biggest bulk of the US-troops there.

One of the points, why the people in Okinawa (the other main point is the notorious criminal rates of the troops there) won't to get rid of those troops is, that the base is strangling the economy of the Island for years. Except whorehouses and construction companies, there is no business which profits from the Americans, it's a burden to all of the rest.

So, if people really would think, that bases would be an economical gain, they would be happy to have them, wouldn't they ? I guess economical profit from bases are nothing else but chapter out of mithology.


Good for Okinawa economy ? (http://www.virtualokinawa.com/about_okinawa/articles/bases.html) On the one hand, Okinawa's new basic goal is to establish Okinawa as a unique and cultural development area. That means establish Okinawa as a Southern (Asia) international exchange land. In order to proceed with this plan, the U.S. Military bases, which take approximately 20% of the small land, are the huge obstacles. So as to enable the smooth, planned and gradual return of the bases, Okinawa has come up with the Base Return Action Program.



[ June 06, 2003, 18:52: Message edited by: Yago ]

Yago,

So you found some exceptions, the fact is, the government's of most of these nations like the economic gain they get not only from the land the US leases but the money that the soldiers spend. I will not claim that it is true 100% of the time, but if the Japanese really wanted us gone, we would be.

As far as the people of some nations not wanting us there, that is a problem for their government. The politicians to weigh the economic cost of a lost US base with the political loss of keeping it. But keep in mind, the vast majority of people will vote illogically when it comes to emotional issues, and truly are stupid. Most people really do deserve the tag sheeple (a combo of sheep and people, in other words they look like humans, but behave like sheep).

Darkwolf, I agree with what you said to some extend.

As far as the people of some nations not wanting us there, that is a problem for their government. The politicians to weigh the economic cost of a lost US base with the political loss of keeping it. The fist sentence, I agree fully with. That's why the Japanes goverment puts as much of the US-Troops to Okinawa as possible. As far my understanding is, if their is something like far far away from Japan in Japan, it's Okinawa. So, the political impact of Okinawa on Japan is minimal and the Japanese goverment can afford to ignore it. As far my understanding is, because the different history and culture of Okinawa, most Japanes do not think, their "Japanese".

The second phrase. I doubt that Goverments weigh in ecenomical thinking, if it's about that. As I said, military bases are not good for regional economy, as far as my understanding is. Yes, locally will a "supplier" industry develop, mainly construction, food, amusement of any kind. But on the same time, the local region will not develop any other kind of economic, the infrastructure suffers and people will move away.

Economical thinking of a goverment may play a role indirectly, as the goverment maybe will be offered something else, which will be conditioned on the stationing of troops.

Now, most Europeans are indifferent, but I am not so sure about Iceland and Greenland. But the Cato-aricle I mentioned gets a good point over, why would Europeans need so much armies ? They is no big threat around, and Europeans can invest that money in different things. So, if those troops are away, they will probably not replaced by European troops, because there is no need for that. Then why keeping those troops in European countries in the first place ?

Economical thinking, I guess, will not play a major role, except by "suppliers" when it's about stationed troops. Quite frankly, I never heard that argument, resp. have read about it somewhere, without a connection to "suppliers". And we station are armiy usually at the places, which are as far away from any population as possible. Because the do to much economical harm the other way. The major argument is "fidelity" to the ally. They asked us, we said yes. They are our NATO-partners.

So, like Germany recently, many construction companies are going berzerk, because the loose some money, because American building stops, but then, that's a drop in a ocean, concerning the GDP and free-market is "innovative destruction". Mabye they should develop some other, more lucrative industries there.

But keep in mind, the vast majority of people will vote illogically when it comes to emotional issues, and truly are stupid He, he, that's maybe true. But I personally think, there is nothing better as a direct-democracy and a milita-system. People will decide for what's good for them. That obviously needs the necessary information. Concerning the Okinawa example, I think Japanese have usually very good information about what's happening.

Haven't had time to do more than skim this topic, but just thought it was noteworthy that one of the base facts portrayed here is a complete falacy.

China have nowhere near the second largest economy in the world.

In 2001 it had about the 7th largest economy per the OECD. All the following are larger: USA, Japan, Germany, France, The UK, Italy (not exhaustive but about right). Can't remember about the Ruskies.

It came in at some 113bn when the US economy was 10,045bn. Now I make that approximately 9 times the size.

The Chinese rate of growth is far higher than most of the rest of the world, but still only comes in at 7-8% per annum. I don't care how hard up the Japanese economy is, but in the same year it was more than 3 times the size of China, and about 150% of Germany.

Clearly to claim that China is the second largest as we stand is incorrect. I wonder what else he has not got right?

From the World Factbook 2002:
In 2002, with its 1.28 billion people but a GDP of just $4,600 per capita, China stood as the second largest economy in the world after the US (measured on a purchasing power parity basis). GDP purchasing power parity:
US - $10 trillion
China - $6 trillion
Japan - $3.5 trillion
Germany - $2.2 trillion
UK - $1.5 trillion
France - $1.5 trillion

Not slamming anyone, but when it comes to measuring economic power there are:

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Benjamin Disraeli
:(

It just depends on how you measure economic power.

The first lesson that you must learn is, when I call for statistics about the rate of infant mortality, what I want is proof that fewer babies died when I was Prime Minister than when anyone else was Prime Minister. That is a political statistic.
Winston Churchill. :D

I find that's the best quote about statistics.

Sidenote: I've read in a book today, that British statistics in the past centuries (19th and back) were very inaccurate. No offence Viking, I'm talking about the past. Maybe that's the reason, why British Prime Ministers left so much quotes about statistics ?

Yago, you are pure evil! :evil: :p

Ok, Ok, my evilness has seen, that this has gone a litte bit off topic. Back to the UN issue. What have conservatives against the UN ?

Darkwolf's article (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Hayworth20030604.shtml)
As we have learned, U.N. reform takes time. Ronald Reagan pulled the U.S. out of UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, in 1984. It took 18 years for UNESCO to implement sufficient reforms for the U.S. to return (some even question whether the reforms were enough). More fundamental reform could take even longer.

What's so bad about the UNESCO ? (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/19/153742.shtml)
Friday, Sept. 20, 2002
Today we report on the news that the U.S. government intends to rejoin UNESCO, which it pulled out of during the Reagan era. Social conservatives will be deeply concerned over this since UNESCO, while not as bad as the U.N. itself, still supports the U.N. in promoting abortion and anti-family values around the world. Social conservatives will insist on one of their own for the U.S. UNESCO job.

UNESCO was established in 1945 to disseminate educational, cultural and scientific materials deemed essential for establishing toleration and peace. During the Reagan administration, the U.S. pulled out of UNESCO, charging the agency with rampant waste and fraud, and a hard-left pro-Soviet slant. Sharing many of these concerns, Great Britain also withdrew from UNESCO at about the same time.

Prior to its decision to rejoin UNESCO, the White House reached out to social conservatives, and was warned that many groups were increasingly concerned with UNESCO's ongoing support of the U.N.'s radical social agenda. A symbolic vote on the proposal was defeated in the U.S. House of Representatives, further signaling widespread U.S. distrust of the organization.

In a Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) memo requested by the White House and the State Department a year ago, it was pointed out that social conservatives would object to UNESCO's collaboration with the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) and its main NGO partner, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). In line with these groups, UNESCO now advocates for reproductive health services for children. In U.N. parlance, reproductive health services includes abortion. For instance, one UNESCO document praises Thailand's provision of abortion-causing "emergency contraceptives" to children as an "innovative strategy."

UNESCO is also a proponent of the International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights, a document written by UNAIDS and the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights. The document calls on governments to ensure a "right to safe and legal abortion," to legalize "same-sex marriages," to legalize prostitution, and to provide graphic sexual and homosexual education to children. The document also seeks the establishment of "criminal penalties" for people engaged in speech construed to be a "vilification" of homosexuality.

In the name of AIDS-reduction, UNESCO has fully embraced reproductive and sex education . In concert with UNAIDS and UNFPA, UNESCO has created curricula that many social conservatives would believe undermine parental authority, show disdain for traditional cultures and religious worldviews, and introduce dishonesty into education .


A great deal of UNESCO's other educational materials fall squarely in the camp of political correctness, endorsing liberal stances on such issues as gender and environmentalism.

OMG, save the world from condoms !!!! And sex-education !!!! It would break the vicous circle of 16-year old girls getting pregnant. We don't want that to happen, do we ?