The UN wants American taxpayers to...

[memphis mike]

still a fact:



Dear Congressman:

I urge you to vote NO on all efforts to get Congress to appropriate a billion dollars, more or less, to the United Nations for our so-called "back dues."



The notion that we "owe" the UN $1.2 billion in back assessments is ridiculous. For years, we've been paying 25 percent of the budget while being treated like a Third World nonentity. Sob stories about the UN's "financial crisis" deserve a belly laugh. The UN's cash shortage is caused by its corrupt and extravagant spending, not by a backsliding or penurious United States.



The general annual UN budget has expanded from $20 million and 1,500 employees in 1945, to $10 billion and 50,000 employees today. Of this, U.S. taxpayers are contributing an estimated $4 billion a year.



The United States is assessed 25 percent of the UN's general budget, double that of any other nation. Japan is assessed 12.45 percent, the United Kingdom 8.93 percent, and more than 90 countries only 0.01 percent each. The other UN countries even ganged up and voted the U.S. off of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions which makes up the UN budgets.



When he was Secretary General, Boutros-Ghali endorsed the notion that the UN should impose global taxes in order to relieve the UN of any accountability for contributions from its member nations. The first thing Madeleine Albright should do is demand that UN Secretary General Annan repudiate that impudent suggestion.



The UN "peacekeeping" budget has expanded from $700 million in 1990 to $3.5 billion today. The UN assesses the United States 31.7 percent of the "peacekeeping" budget (U.S. law now limits us to 25 percent), compared with 8.5 percent for Russia, 6.3 percent for the United Kingdom, and 7.6 percent for France, all of whom have more direct interest in the various UN expeditions than we have.



We are being told that, since we succeeded in dumping Boutros-Ghali, we should pay our "peacekeeping arrears" so that we can demand fiscal reform. That puts the cart before the horse; if we fork over the cash first, we'll never get reform.



The United States is the only country that really wants UN reform. Most of the others are not spending their own money, they are spending ours, and their overpaid UN representatives feel threatened by American ideas of fiscal integrity.



The arrogant UN bureaucrats didn't even pay lip service to reform until Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL) introduced his bill called the United Nations Withdrawal Act. It would require the United States to withdraw from the UN by the year 2000, while retaining membership in a few independent agencies.



For starters, Congress should reduce our contribution to 20 percent of the UN budget, and we should withhold all payments until the staff is reduced by at least 10 percent. That's the only language the UN understands.



Even more important is dealing with UN mischief. Congress should expose the fakery of UN participation in "peacekeeping" expeditions to places where there is no peace to keep. Under Boutros-Ghali, UN "peacekeepers" were sent to intervene in civil wars and to carry out a nebulous new activity called nation-building. Of course, such projects are expensive and always involve more missions, more time, more risk, and more troops than anticipated.



But the worst part is that they involve U.S. troops and U.S. risk in faraway places where we have no national security interest. Congress should make it clear that U.S. armed services are not UN policemen or a UN foreign legion, and will be sent only on missions required by the U.S. national interest and voted by Congress.



Congress should reassert its constitutional authority over the U.S. armed services, making it clear that we will not engage in any UN military action disguised as "peacekeeping," that UN troops will never serve in UN uniform, or under UN command or UN rules of engagement, and that no U.S. ground troops will be committed for any UN enterprise.

-------



The US has one vote, but is assessed over 25% ot total dues-that is taxation without representation and yes indeed the large majority of countries have not paid their member dues including many that have more to gain from a UN and are assessed at .01%

[debbie mannas]

I assume you wrote this letter? I dont see any other referenced source.

Quote:

---

still a fact:



Dear Congressman:

I urge you to vote NO on all efforts to get Congress to appropriate a billion dollars, more or less, to the United Nations for our so-called "back dues."



The notion that we "owe" the UN $1.2 billion in back assessments is ridiculous. For years, we've been paying 25 percent of the budget while being treated like a Third World nonentity. Sob stories about the UN's "financial crisis" deserve a belly laugh. The UN's cash shortage is caused by its corrupt and extravagant spending, not by a backsliding or penurious United States.



The general annual UN budget has expanded from $20 million and 1,500 employees in 1945, to $10 billion and 50,000 employees today. Of this, U.S. taxpayers are contributing an estimated $4 billion a year.



The United States is assessed 25 percent of the UN's general budget, double that of any other nation. Japan is assessed 12.45 percent, the United Kingdom 8.93 percent, and more than 90 countries only 0.01 percent each. The other UN countries even ganged up and voted the U.S. off of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions which makes up the UN budgets.



When he was Secretary General, Boutros-Ghali endorsed the notion that the UN should impose global taxes in order to relieve the UN of any accountability for contributions from its member nations. The first thing Madeleine Albright should do is demand that UN Secretary General Annan repudiate that impudent suggestion.



The UN "peacekeeping" budget has expanded from $700 million in 1990 to $3.5 billion today. The UN assesses the United States 31.7 percent of the "peacekeeping" budget (U.S. law now limits us to 25 percent), compared with 8.5 percent for Russia, 6.3 percent for the United Kingdom, and 7.6 percent for France, all of whom have more direct interest in the various UN expeditions than we have.



We are being told that, since we succeeded in dumping Boutros-Ghali, we should pay our "peacekeeping arrears" so that we can demand fiscal reform. That puts the cart before the horse; if we fork over the cash first, we'll never get reform.



The United States is the only country that really wants UN reform. Most of the others are not spending their own money, they are spending ours, and their overpaid UN representatives feel threatened by American ideas of fiscal integrity.



The arrogant UN bureaucrats didn't even pay lip service to reform until Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL) introduced his bill called the United Nations Withdrawal Act. It would require the United States to withdraw from the UN by the year 2000, while retaining membership in a few independent agencies.



For starters, Congress should reduce our contribution to 20 percent of the UN budget, and we should withhold all payments until the staff is reduced by at least 10 percent. That's the only language the UN understands.



Even more important is dealing with UN mischief. Congress should expose the fakery of UN participation in "peacekeeping" expeditions to places where there is no peace to keep. Under Boutros-Ghali, UN "peacekeepers" were sent to intervene in civil wars and to carry out a nebulous new activity called nation-building. Of course, such projects are expensive and always involve more missions, more time, more risk, and more troops than anticipated.



But the worst part is that they involve U.S. troops and U.S. risk in faraway places where we have no national security interest. Congress should make it clear that U.S. armed services are not UN policemen or a UN foreign legion, and will be sent only on missions required by the U.S. national interest and voted by Congress.



Congress should reassert its constitutional authority over the U.S. armed services, making it clear that we will not engage in any UN military action disguised as "peacekeeping," that UN troops will never serve in UN uniform, or under UN command or UN rules of engagement, and that no U.S. ground troops will be committed for any UN enterprise.

---

[memphis mike]

This is your "Glory Board" and that's all it is!

[memphis mike]

and now that i recognize this, you can have it back...

[memphis mike]

It's obviously a form letter intended to be used by anyone who shared the belief. lIt had no source to refer to. i have no idea who actually wrote it....I just said it's still a fact....and no i have no idea who Dave is..why would you care who wrote it? Again, just another nonsensical retaliation. More "mental masturbation" on your part......you won't even respond for solutions to Hamas,,that's because you have no concern other than the reasons i stated. It's all a mind game to you...

Edited by: memphis mike at: 6/28/03 4:05 am

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

still a fact:

---

Jesus H Christ, do you believe all this bunk?

Quote:

---

you won't even respond for solutions to Hamas

---

I had a long paragraph written.

I will not post in that thread, though.



Larree's got it all figured out anyway.

[debbie mannas]

"Larree's got it figured out"

[LarreeMP3]

Damned right I have it "figured out."



Guns are legal and hunting is fun.