A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sorry Ken. For our Canadian friends. Totally OT



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 1st 04, 02:09 AM
B. Lafferty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



If W wins I may be joining my Canadian relatives. I almost went there
during the Vietnam conflict. There's a reason why so few came back when
amnesty was offered. There's civilization North of the border.


"Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote in message
...
**** CANADA. We need to revoke their application for statehood.

"TritonRider" wrote in message
...
From: "Jim Flom"


Nah, just keep killing Canadian servicemen like on April 18, 2002 when
an
F-16 dropped a 250-kilogram laser guided bomb on them in Afghanistan,
killing four and injuring eight. Then slap our servicemen on the wrist

when
they are found not to have followed procedure.

JF

That was a complete cluster****. How does that compare to Canada spending

a
lower percentage of their GNP on being able to support UN missions let

alone
NATO.
Canada needs to be booted out of Nato due to it's inability to meet it's
treaty obligations.
I'm tired of listening to Canadians espousing their superiority when
they
refuse to put their money where their mouth is. Canadian security is a
disaster. The crucified the sniper teams that served in Afghanistan with
distinction. They have chosen to support Sharia courts over the protests

of
women who are scared to death.
Show me where I am wrong!
Bill Crowther.







Ads
  #12  
Old November 1st 04, 02:21 AM
TritonRider
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From: "Jim Flom"

No! ;-) Although, if we're going to invoke multinational cooperative
efforts like NATO, how much less has the US supported the UN in meeting its
own commitments?


Where's Canada on this list? Pretty damn sad.

http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/e...nte_nationen/f
inanzen_html#1

The finances of the United Nations


Last updated on 9 August 2001

UN funding
Results of the negotiations on new scales of assessment
UN scale of assessments (regular budget) in 2001

UN funding
United Nations funding comes from three different sources:

assessed contributions to the regular budget,
assessed contributions for peacekeeping operations,
voluntary contributions for specialized agencies and subsidiary organizations.
The scale of assessments for contributions to the regular budget is determined
every 3 years on the basis of GNP and ranges from a maximum of 22% of the
budget (USA) to a minimum of 0.001% (developing countries). Apart from these
contributions, the regular budget is funded from revenues from the sale of
items such as UN souvenirs, special stamps, books and brochures.

On top of their contributions to the regular budget member countries contribute
to the peacekeeping operations budget and the cost of international courts and
tribunals. The level of these contributions is based initially on their
assessed contributions to the regular budget and is thus linked to each
country's financial capacity. However, the actual level of assessed
contributions to the peacekeeping operations budget also takes into account the
political responsibility of the permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Since peace missions vary in number and duration, contributions to the
peacekeeping budget also fluctuate more widely from year to year than
contributions to the regular budget.

Member countries also contribute on an entirely voluntary basis to the projects
and activities of the UN's specialized agencies and other subsidiary
organizations. The administrative costs of such bodies are met from the regular
budget.

For years the UN system has been in financial crisis, caused mainly by the
failure of certain member countries to pay their dues.

Results of the negotiations on new scales of assessment
After more than twelve months and a highly dramatic final phase, the
negotiations on new scales of assessment for contributions to the regular
budget as well as to the peacekeeping operations budget were concluded on 23
December 2000 in New York with an outcome favourable to Germany.

According to the scales of assessment for the next three years the German
share, which amounted to 9.857% in 2000, will be 9.493% (this year), 9.845%
(2002) and 9.769% (2003) of contributions to both budgets.

The EU had for some time been working towards a reform of the UN scales of
assessment in order to share the costs more equitably. In 2000 regular
negotiations on new scales of assessment were made more difficult and
complicated by the US demand to reduce its share unilaterally due to new US
budgetary legislation (the Helms-Biden Amendment). In return, the US announced
its intention to pay outstanding contributions from former years. In concrete
terms the Americans demanded a reduction of their share from 25% to 22% and a
maximum contribution of 25% to the peacekeeping operations budget (formerly
31%). Now that the US has achieved its aims there is hope that it will carry
out its promise to pay its arrears within a reasonable period of time.

Considering the substantial financial contributions Germany has made - as the
third largest contributor we paid a total of more than DM 691 million in 2000
for the regular and peacekeeping operations budgets - the German negotiating
aim was to avoid any further financial burden. Owing to the generally firm
joint position presented by the EU and the skilful negotiating of the French
Presidency we were able to achieve this aim. The additional burden placed on
the EU member states was relatively small (0.3%).

The share of contributions to the regular budget borne by the second largest
contributor, Japan, was reduced from 20.5% to 19.5% (2003).

These reductions and the avoidance of additional burdens were made possible by
the more prosperous states of the G77 who agreed to assume greater shares.
South Korea, Brazil, Chile, Thailand, Iran and others will in the future
contribute more to the UN budgets, as will countries like Poland and the Czech
Republic. Russia will voluntarily pay an increased share of 1.2%.

In concrete terms the criteria for determining contributions to the UN budgets
are now the following:

contribute is now 22% (the deficiency resulting from reduced US contributions
is cushioned by the Turner the maximum percentage that any one state must
Foundation in 2001, so that the other member states are only affected as from
2002);
base periods for determining each state's GNP are now between three and six
years (4.5 years);
gradient for countries with low per-capita income: 89%;
debt stock of developing countries is taken into account;
minimum assessment: 0.001%;
maximum assessment for LDC: 0.01%;
transitional assistance for the 15 countries whose share is increasing by more
than 58%.
Contributions to the regular budget form the basis for determining the
contributions to the peacekeeping operations budget. Now there are 10 groups of
countries compared to the former four. Groups C to J receive discounts ranging
from 7.5% to 90% which are borne by group A (permanent members). As before,
Germany, as a member of group B, contributes the same percentage to the
peacekeeping operations as to the regular budget.

The consequences of these decisions for the German regular budget will depend
on several parameters. This year Germany's contribution to the regular budget
will definitely only amount to $ 98 million instead of $ 103.9 million. A
possible further reduction may result from the weakening dollar, in view of the
fact that the budget was drawn up when the dollar was still valued at DM 2.26.
Germany's actual contributions for 2002 and 2003 have not yet been calculated:
the next biannual UN budget will be negotiated later this year.

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 %

  #13  
Old November 1st 04, 02:21 AM
TritonRider
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From: "Jim Flom"

No! ;-) Although, if we're going to invoke multinational cooperative
efforts like NATO, how much less has the US supported the UN in meeting its
own commitments?


Where's Canada on this list? Pretty damn sad.

http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/e...nte_nationen/f
inanzen_html#1

The finances of the United Nations


Last updated on 9 August 2001

UN funding
Results of the negotiations on new scales of assessment
UN scale of assessments (regular budget) in 2001

UN funding
United Nations funding comes from three different sources:

assessed contributions to the regular budget,
assessed contributions for peacekeeping operations,
voluntary contributions for specialized agencies and subsidiary organizations.
The scale of assessments for contributions to the regular budget is determined
every 3 years on the basis of GNP and ranges from a maximum of 22% of the
budget (USA) to a minimum of 0.001% (developing countries). Apart from these
contributions, the regular budget is funded from revenues from the sale of
items such as UN souvenirs, special stamps, books and brochures.

On top of their contributions to the regular budget member countries contribute
to the peacekeeping operations budget and the cost of international courts and
tribunals. The level of these contributions is based initially on their
assessed contributions to the regular budget and is thus linked to each
country's financial capacity. However, the actual level of assessed
contributions to the peacekeeping operations budget also takes into account the
political responsibility of the permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Since peace missions vary in number and duration, contributions to the
peacekeeping budget also fluctuate more widely from year to year than
contributions to the regular budget.

Member countries also contribute on an entirely voluntary basis to the projects
and activities of the UN's specialized agencies and other subsidiary
organizations. The administrative costs of such bodies are met from the regular
budget.

For years the UN system has been in financial crisis, caused mainly by the
failure of certain member countries to pay their dues.

Results of the negotiations on new scales of assessment
After more than twelve months and a highly dramatic final phase, the
negotiations on new scales of assessment for contributions to the regular
budget as well as to the peacekeeping operations budget were concluded on 23
December 2000 in New York with an outcome favourable to Germany.

According to the scales of assessment for the next three years the German
share, which amounted to 9.857% in 2000, will be 9.493% (this year), 9.845%
(2002) and 9.769% (2003) of contributions to both budgets.

The EU had for some time been working towards a reform of the UN scales of
assessment in order to share the costs more equitably. In 2000 regular
negotiations on new scales of assessment were made more difficult and
complicated by the US demand to reduce its share unilaterally due to new US
budgetary legislation (the Helms-Biden Amendment). In return, the US announced
its intention to pay outstanding contributions from former years. In concrete
terms the Americans demanded a reduction of their share from 25% to 22% and a
maximum contribution of 25% to the peacekeeping operations budget (formerly
31%). Now that the US has achieved its aims there is hope that it will carry
out its promise to pay its arrears within a reasonable period of time.

Considering the substantial financial contributions Germany has made - as the
third largest contributor we paid a total of more than DM 691 million in 2000
for the regular and peacekeeping operations budgets - the German negotiating
aim was to avoid any further financial burden. Owing to the generally firm
joint position presented by the EU and the skilful negotiating of the French
Presidency we were able to achieve this aim. The additional burden placed on
the EU member states was relatively small (0.3%).

The share of contributions to the regular budget borne by the second largest
contributor, Japan, was reduced from 20.5% to 19.5% (2003).

These reductions and the avoidance of additional burdens were made possible by
the more prosperous states of the G77 who agreed to assume greater shares.
South Korea, Brazil, Chile, Thailand, Iran and others will in the future
contribute more to the UN budgets, as will countries like Poland and the Czech
Republic. Russia will voluntarily pay an increased share of 1.2%.

In concrete terms the criteria for determining contributions to the UN budgets
are now the following:

contribute is now 22% (the deficiency resulting from reduced US contributions
is cushioned by the Turner the maximum percentage that any one state must
Foundation in 2001, so that the other member states are only affected as from
2002);
base periods for determining each state's GNP are now between three and six
years (4.5 years);
gradient for countries with low per-capita income: 89%;
debt stock of developing countries is taken into account;
minimum assessment: 0.001%;
maximum assessment for LDC: 0.01%;
transitional assistance for the 15 countries whose share is increasing by more
than 58%.
Contributions to the regular budget form the basis for determining the
contributions to the peacekeeping operations budget. Now there are 10 groups of
countries compared to the former four. Groups C to J receive discounts ranging
from 7.5% to 90% which are borne by group A (permanent members). As before,
Germany, as a member of group B, contributes the same percentage to the
peacekeeping operations as to the regular budget.

The consequences of these decisions for the German regular budget will depend
on several parameters. This year Germany's contribution to the regular budget
will definitely only amount to $ 98 million instead of $ 103.9 million. A
possible further reduction may result from the weakening dollar, in view of the
fact that the budget was drawn up when the dollar was still valued at DM 2.26.
Germany's actual contributions for 2002 and 2003 have not yet been calculated:
the next biannual UN budget will be negotiated later this year.

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 %

  #16  
Old November 1st 04, 03:00 AM
Jim Flom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jim Flom" wrote ...

You would've appreciated a recent editorial in
the Vancouver Sun...


You'll like this:
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Too Many Canadians Love to Hate Americans
Marilyn Baker
"...Pathetically, our anti-Americans still avidly watch American movies,
listen to American music, buy American fashions and line up for their triple
lattes at Starbucks. Even as we benefit from American achievements in
medicine, culture, and science, we vociferously object to spending serious
money on our military. And why should we? We count on Americans to keep us
secure. Being Canadian means never having to choose a helicopter. Or pay
full price for a submarine.
"The next time you hear someone bash Americans, ask them which race, sex,
religion or creed they hate the most. Ask them if their pension plan
invests in good old American know-how: Microsoft, GM, Gillette, Intel,
Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, IBM come to mind. Ask them if they know any Americans
personally. My bet is that they will fluster and blubber and get even
angrier.
"As for me, I'm happy to bear witness to the American election. No matter
who wins, I'm glad that through the accident of birth, I'm lucky enough to
be their neighbour."


  #17  
Old November 1st 04, 03:00 AM
Jim Flom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jim Flom" wrote ...

You would've appreciated a recent editorial in
the Vancouver Sun...


You'll like this:
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Too Many Canadians Love to Hate Americans
Marilyn Baker
"...Pathetically, our anti-Americans still avidly watch American movies,
listen to American music, buy American fashions and line up for their triple
lattes at Starbucks. Even as we benefit from American achievements in
medicine, culture, and science, we vociferously object to spending serious
money on our military. And why should we? We count on Americans to keep us
secure. Being Canadian means never having to choose a helicopter. Or pay
full price for a submarine.
"The next time you hear someone bash Americans, ask them which race, sex,
religion or creed they hate the most. Ask them if their pension plan
invests in good old American know-how: Microsoft, GM, Gillette, Intel,
Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, IBM come to mind. Ask them if they know any Americans
personally. My bet is that they will fluster and blubber and get even
angrier.
"As for me, I'm happy to bear witness to the American election. No matter
who wins, I'm glad that through the accident of birth, I'm lucky enough to
be their neighbour."


  #18  
Old November 1st 04, 04:24 AM
Sierraman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
link.net...


If W wins I may be joining my Canadian relatives. I almost went there
during the Vietnam conflict. There's a reason why so few came back when
amnesty was offered. There's civilization North of the border.


Get free healthcare too. The quality is not bad from what I have heard
firsthand from people on the ground. I heard there are 45 million folks
without healthcare in this country. My health benifits have been steadily
drying up year after year. Same with friends who paychecks shrink as their
employers take out more and more each year for healthcare insurance. Sweden
is the best, but Canada is not bad. On the flip side, America has the best
cutting edge care for the rich and the best trama and emergency care, but
that doesn't relieve me much if I am dying a slow death. Every year I get
older, it keeps looking better all the time. Cheaper drugs too!


"Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote in message
...
**** CANADA. We need to revoke their application for statehood.

"TritonRider" wrote in message
...
From: "Jim Flom"

Nah, just keep killing Canadian servicemen like on April 18, 2002 when
an
F-16 dropped a 250-kilogram laser guided bomb on them in Afghanistan,
killing four and injuring eight. Then slap our servicemen on the

wrist
when
they are found not to have followed procedure.

JF

That was a complete cluster****. How does that compare to Canada

spending
a
lower percentage of their GNP on being able to support UN missions let

alone
NATO.
Canada needs to be booted out of Nato due to it's inability to meet

it's
treaty obligations.
I'm tired of listening to Canadians espousing their superiority when
they
refuse to put their money where their mouth is. Canadian security is a
disaster. The crucified the sniper teams that served in Afghanistan

with
distinction. They have chosen to support Sharia courts over the

protests
of
women who are scared to death.
Show me where I am wrong!
Bill Crowther.









  #19  
Old November 1st 04, 04:24 AM
Sierraman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
link.net...


If W wins I may be joining my Canadian relatives. I almost went there
during the Vietnam conflict. There's a reason why so few came back when
amnesty was offered. There's civilization North of the border.


Get free healthcare too. The quality is not bad from what I have heard
firsthand from people on the ground. I heard there are 45 million folks
without healthcare in this country. My health benifits have been steadily
drying up year after year. Same with friends who paychecks shrink as their
employers take out more and more each year for healthcare insurance. Sweden
is the best, but Canada is not bad. On the flip side, America has the best
cutting edge care for the rich and the best trama and emergency care, but
that doesn't relieve me much if I am dying a slow death. Every year I get
older, it keeps looking better all the time. Cheaper drugs too!


"Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote in message
...
**** CANADA. We need to revoke their application for statehood.

"TritonRider" wrote in message
...
From: "Jim Flom"

Nah, just keep killing Canadian servicemen like on April 18, 2002 when
an
F-16 dropped a 250-kilogram laser guided bomb on them in Afghanistan,
killing four and injuring eight. Then slap our servicemen on the

wrist
when
they are found not to have followed procedure.

JF

That was a complete cluster****. How does that compare to Canada

spending
a
lower percentage of their GNP on being able to support UN missions let

alone
NATO.
Canada needs to be booted out of Nato due to it's inability to meet

it's
treaty obligations.
I'm tired of listening to Canadians espousing their superiority when
they
refuse to put their money where their mouth is. Canadian security is a
disaster. The crucified the sniper teams that served in Afghanistan

with
distinction. They have chosen to support Sharia courts over the

protests
of
women who are scared to death.
Show me where I am wrong!
Bill Crowther.









  #20  
Old November 1st 04, 04:56 AM
jquinn1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well what are you waiting for????? If life is so good there then by all
means go. If you can't walk the walk then don't talk the talk.


"Sierraman" wrote in message
...

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
link.net...


If W wins I may be joining my Canadian relatives. I almost went there
during the Vietnam conflict. There's a reason why so few came back when
amnesty was offered. There's civilization North of the border.


Get free healthcare too. The quality is not bad from what I have heard
firsthand from people on the ground. I heard there are 45 million folks
without healthcare in this country. My health benifits have been steadily
drying up year after year. Same with friends who paychecks shrink as their
employers take out more and more each year for healthcare insurance.
Sweden
is the best, but Canada is not bad. On the flip side, America has the best
cutting edge care for the rich and the best trama and emergency care, but
that doesn't relieve me much if I am dying a slow death. Every year I get
older, it keeps looking better all the time. Cheaper drugs too!


"Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote in message
...
**** CANADA. We need to revoke their application for statehood.

"TritonRider" wrote in message
...
From: "Jim Flom"

Nah, just keep killing Canadian servicemen like on April 18, 2002
when
an
F-16 dropped a 250-kilogram laser guided bomb on them in Afghanistan,
killing four and injuring eight. Then slap our servicemen on the

wrist
when
they are found not to have followed procedure.

JF

That was a complete cluster****. How does that compare to Canada

spending
a
lower percentage of their GNP on being able to support UN missions let
alone
NATO.
Canada needs to be booted out of Nato due to it's inability to meet

it's
treaty obligations.
I'm tired of listening to Canadians espousing their superiority when
they
refuse to put their money where their mouth is. Canadian security is a
disaster. The crucified the sniper teams that served in Afghanistan

with
distinction. They have chosen to support Sharia courts over the

protests
of
women who are scared to death.
Show me where I am wrong!
Bill Crowther.











 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Giant american and canadian models???? jazu Mountain Biking 4 October 11th 03 11:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.