|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 % |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Giant american and canadian models???? | jazu | Mountain Biking | 4 | October 11th 03 11:09 PM |