snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Urban Legends » Politics » UN forcing total Gun ban? (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: UN forcing total Gun ban?
MaxGunnar
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for MaxGunnar   E-mail MaxGunnar   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Of course they're gonna take our guns and then recieve further instructions found on the back of highway and road signs in order to establish a one world government run by the zionists.
Posts: 283 | From: Richmond, Virginia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Spc. Sharki
Deck the Malls


Icon 213 posted      Profile for Spc. Sharki   E-mail Spc. Sharki   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
As a member of the NRA, I get daily; make that hourly email on this subject. I actually think that the NRA is overreacting. Unbelievable I know.
This resolution has no chance of passing. If the recent rejection of the hand gun ban in Brazil and the drive to end Canada’s firearm database are any indication, the international antigun movement is losing steam. Even if this resolution did pass, no President in their right mind would ever sign it because it would give the impression that a foreign entity could dictate US domestic policy (this is just my opinion, feel free to disagree). I fully support the NRA and their mission to protect one of the most basic freedoms, but on this I think that they are being a bit too apocalyptic.
Besides, if you actually read the document, it makes clear that it has no bearing on preexisting laws.
11. Reaffirming the right of self-determination of all peoples, taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, and recognizing the right of peoples to take legitimate action in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to realize their inalienable right of self-determination. This shall not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action that would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples ,

--------------------
Let your TV bleed- Tom Petty

Posts: 329 | From: Wiesbaden, Germany | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
csel's in 2nd Grade
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales


Icon 1 posted      Profile for csel's in 2nd Grade     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
DemonWolf:
quote:
What dues?

The US contends that it allows the UN to use the UN building (very expensive real estate) in NY rent free in exchange for exemption from dues. I doubt that the UN is really interested in convincing the US to pay dues as it wiould mean the UN having to pay rent, which, considering the location, could be very costly.

I'm not arguing that "who owes what" point one way or the other - the UN says the US owes dues, has for years, and the US doesn't pay them, no matter what the UN says or does, including a few threats. So, how the NFBSK is the UN going to enforce a gun ban if it can't even collect the dues it says it is owed?!?!

But, as Glass Papaya pointed out with excellent links, the UN isn't talking about a gun ban, anyway. And Spc. Sharki is, I believe, absolutely correct about this never being signed in this country even if it should pass, because the US never signs anything that could potentially cripple sovereign rights of the state in any form, even if it's something that seems to make perfect sense and nonthreatening to the rest of us. But that is a different argument... [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
"What is sin? I think sin is failure to grow."
-Lauren Slater, "Prozac Diary"

Posts: 172 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
forceflow15
I Saw Three Shipments


Icon 1 posted      Profile for forceflow15     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Besides these meetings are about eradication of the TRADE in small arms light weapons. I worked at the Small Arms Light Weapons project at the Dept. of Defense (http://www.dtra.mil/toolbox/directorates/osi/programs/smarms/history.cfm is the project's site, I helped to put it together) and know some of the US reps to these meetings. They discuss how to destory weapons in 3rd world countries that have more guns than men in their military. One country i worked with had 1.5 million guns, a 500,000 man army and 5 million or so citizens. The UN runs programs to destory these overstocks.

--------------------
Forceflow

"There was Joye in the courtroom, but he slipped on a-peel." = Prof. Kutner

Posts: 101 | From: Pittsburgh, PA | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DemonWolf:
quote:
Originally posted by csel's cshells:
I have no cites for this - but my biggest question is how is the UN going to do this? They can't even get the US to pay their dues..... [Confused]

What dues?

The US contends that it allows the UN to use the UN building (very expensive real estate) in NY rent free in exchange for exemption from dues. I doubt that the UN is really interested in convincing the US to pay dues as it wiould mean the UN having to pay rent, which, considering the location, could be very costly.

I'm not sure where you got your information from, but you're way wrong.

The UN owns the UN complex of buildings. It might not pay any taxes on it (I can neither confirm nor deny), but the United States does not own them.

And each member-state of the UN pays dues based upon the state's GDP.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DemonWolf     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by csel's cshells:
I'm not arguing that "who owes what" point one way or the other - the UN says the US owes dues, has for years, and the US doesn't pay them, no matter what the UN says or does, including a few threats. So, how the NFBSK is the UN going to enforce a gun ban if it can't even collect the dues it says it is owed?!?!

Okay, I will agree with that point. It has long been my contention that the UN is pretty toothless as it is. And with the strength os the US military and economy, the UN has even less power.

The US provides the bulk to trade for some nations like China and Tiawan. Other nations may be able to participate in an embargo, but it will be rather costly. The US makes most of its own weapons, so an arms embargo would be rather fruitless and counties like Isreal would not stop buying US made weapons. An oil embargo might be possible, but if the US's oil consumption is no longer a factor in the world market, the price of oil would plummet and the oil producing countries would lose a lot of money (ain't gonna happen).
It may be possible to invade and assign a "peacekeeping force" in the Us, but that could too costly to be worth the loss (of lives).

There is little that the UN can threaten that would be likely to succeed. Although they might be able to sue in US court. The US courts often rule against the other branches of the govenment, although they also have little power to compel compliance.

--------------------
Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!

IMJW-052804

Posts: 7224 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DemonWolf     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
The UN owns the UN complex of buildings. It might not pay any taxes on it (I can neither confirm nor deny), but the United States does not own them.


You are correct. Upon further research, it it taxes and not rent the the US does not charge the UN. But my point is still the same. THe UN HQ is locate on some very nice real estate and the tax bill would be quite sizable.

--------------------
Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!

IMJW-052804

Posts: 7224 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DemonWolf:
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
The UN owns the UN complex of buildings. It might not pay any taxes on it (I can neither confirm nor deny), but the United States does not own them.


You are correct. Upon further research, it it taxes and not rent the the US does not charge the UN. But my point is still the same. THe UN HQ is locate on some very nice real estate and the tax bill would be quite sizable.
I don't think it would amount to anything near what the US is levied in dues, though.

Furthermore, property taxes are collected on the local level, not federal, so wouldn't it be New York, as opposed to the US, that is making the sacrifice?

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Nick JK
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Nick JK   E-mail Nick JK   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DemonWolf:

It may be possible to invade and assign a "peacekeeping force" in the Us, but that could too costly to be worth the loss (of lives)

This would require a UN Security Council Resolution, and the US would veto any such resolution, which further supports your point that there is little the UN could do.
Posts: 41 | From: Bournemouth, UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
wolfe2dale
I Saw Three Shipments


Icon 1 posted      Profile for wolfe2dale   E-mail wolfe2dale   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
If the UN can't even stop the US torturing people in Guantanemo how on earth do they expect to stop them carrying guns around?
Posts: 80 | From: Hemel Hempstead, UK | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Dactingyl
Anchovy of a 1000 Days


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dactingyl   E-mail Dactingyl   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I though international or foreign governments didn't have to pay local taxes anyway?

That is certainly the argument for the US Embassy in London who is refusing to pay the congestion charge.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4359566.stm

--------------------
Dactingyl is meant to sound a bit like Christingle.

It's not very good but I couldn't think of anything else.

Sorry.

Posts: 257 | From: Hants, UK | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Nick JK
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Nick JK   E-mail Nick JK   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Checking the NRA website, it seems the agreement that they are concerned about is, as others have previously mentioned, the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons, which dates from 2001.

This agreement doesn't say that only police and the military should have arms. The police and military are mentioned in two paragraphs (Part II: 17 and 18), but mention is also made of 'any other body authorised to hold small arms and light weapons'.

Crucially, these two paragraphs also contain the phrase 'subject to the respective constitutional and legal systems of States', meaning that they in no way undermine the right to bear arms contained in the Bill of Rights.

The NRA really should have a little more faith in the US government.

Posts: 41 | From: Bournemouth, UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
First of Two
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for First of Two   Author's Homepage   E-mail First of Two   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by wolfe2dale:
If the UN can't even stop the US torturing people in Guantanemo how on earth do they expect to stop them carrying guns around?

If they can't even keep their own peacekeepers from engaging in child prostitution, I don't think they're going to be able to do anything about Gitmo, much less guns.

--------------------
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle

Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
wolfe2dale
I Saw Three Shipments


Icon 1 posted      Profile for wolfe2dale   E-mail wolfe2dale   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
If they can't even keep their own peacekeepers from engaging in child prostitution, I don't think they're going to be able to do anything about Gitmo, much less guns. [/QB]
Please explain this comment, I am unaware of the story behind it.
Posts: 80 | From: Hemel Hempstead, UK | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
KentuckyGhostHunter
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for KentuckyGhostHunter   E-mail KentuckyGhostHunter   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by wolfe2dale:
quote:
If they can't even keep their own peacekeepers from engaging in child prostitution, I don't think they're going to be able to do anything about Gitmo, much less guns.

Please explain this comment, I am unaware of the story behind it. [/QB]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3145-2004Dec15.html

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/UnitedNations/story?id=489306&page=1

http://www.refugeesinternational.org/section/publications/pk_missions/


*edited to remove snide remark about the UN that I realized would be taken way to wrong around here*

--------------------
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for freedom of thought, which they avoid."
--Kierkegaard

Posts: 303 | From: Ashland, KY | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DemonWolf     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cauvignac:
The NRA really should have a little more faith in the US government.

Why should they? No one else does.

--------------------
Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!

IMJW-052804

Posts: 7224 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Alex Buchet
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Alex Buchet   E-mail Alex Buchet       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DemonWolf:
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
The UN owns the UN complex of buildings. It might not pay any taxes on it (I can neither confirm nor deny), but the United States does not own them.


You are correct. Upon further research, it it taxes and not rent the the US does not charge the UN. But my point is still the same. THe UN HQ is locate on some very nice real estate and the tax bill would be quite sizable.
The UN injects some $5 billion a year into the New York economy.

So, contrary to what is often asserted, in this case it's the USA which is the freeloader.

Posts: 202 | From: Paris, France | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
KentuckyGhostHunter
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for KentuckyGhostHunter   E-mail KentuckyGhostHunter   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Buchet:
quote:
Originally posted by DemonWolf:
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
The UN owns the UN complex of buildings. It might not pay any taxes on it (I can neither confirm nor deny), but the United States does not own them.


You are correct. Upon further research, it it taxes and not rent the the US does not charge the UN. But my point is still the same. THe UN HQ is locate on some very nice real estate and the tax bill would be quite sizable.
The UN injects some $5 billion a year into the New York economy.

So, contrary to what is often asserted, in this case it's the USA which is the freeloader.

I would like to know, and I honestly mean that...I don't know...what the cost to the US is in terms of foreign aid through UN programs, troop support, etc..annually...compared to $5 billion in New York we actually get from them being there. My guess, and I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this, is that the $5 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to what we give out.

If that comes off wrong I'm sorry...I'm genuinely curious as to what the figures are and I can't search for them at the moment...and it's always nice to find out what some people around here have lying around in their folders..

--------------------
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for freedom of thought, which they avoid."
--Kierkegaard

Posts: 303 | From: Ashland, KY | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Nick JK
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Nick JK   E-mail Nick JK   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
From David Armstrong, Lorna Lloyd and John Redmond, International Organisation in World Politics Third Edition (2004):
quote:
The UN is not very expensive. In 2000 the budget for the UN's key functions - the Secretariat in New York, Geneva, Vienna, Nairobi and five regional commissions - was just $1.25 billion a year. That is, 4 per cent of New York City's annual budget, and nearly a billion dollars less than the annual costs of running Tokyo's fire department. The cost of two days of Operation Desert Storm against Iraq in 1991 - about $2 billion - would easily have covered all the UN's expenses, including peacekeeping and emergency operations, for a whole year.
ETA: The UN peacekeeping budget is assessed separately from the UN's regular expenses and has risen dramatically since 1991, so the actual costs of the UN might be higher than the above quote suggests.
Posts: 41 | From: Bournemouth, UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
glass papaya
Jingle Bell Hock


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glass papaya   E-mail glass papaya   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Perhaps this information from the US State Department website is what you're looking for.

Estimated US contributions for FY 2002 were about $3 billion.

ETA: correct the name of the website

Posts: 544 | From: Onalaska, WI | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Nick JK
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Nick JK   E-mail Nick JK   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
According to some lecture notes I found lying around in a folder, the UN peacekeeping budget for 2005-6 was $3.5 billion.

Just to explain the apparent discrepancy between the figures, the information in the link provided by glass papaya includes US contributions to the whole UN system, including for example the World Health Organisation, International Atomic Energy Agency etc., while the quote from my previous post referred only to the main UN organisation.

Posts: 41 | From: Bournemouth, UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
GenYus
Away in a Manager's Special


Icon 1 posted      Profile for GenYus   E-mail GenYus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Buchet:
The UN injects some $5 billion a year into the New York economy.

So, contrary to what is often asserted, in this case it's the USA which is the freeloader.

The USA would only be a freeloader if that $5 billions was given to the New York economy. Since it is probably payment for goods and services, then it is no more a freeloader than I am a freeloader for receiving salary.

--------------------
IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan

Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Alex Buchet
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Alex Buchet   E-mail Alex Buchet       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
It's economic inflow. It's not a zero-sum game.

Remember that the delegations from all the UN members, who live in the NY area, are paid directly by their home countries.

Posts: 202 | From: Paris, France | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
GenYus
Away in a Manager's Special


Icon 1 posted      Profile for GenYus   E-mail GenYus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, it is money coming to the US from other countries. But New York isn't getting the money for nothing (what I would call a freeloader). New York citizens and businesses are trading that money for goods and services.

--------------------
IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan

Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Redisca
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Redisca   Author's Homepage   E-mail Redisca   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Regarding the money that the UN allegedly "injects into" the New York's economy (not as a charity donation, as GenYus rightly pointed out), it is noteworthy that 25% of the UN budget is paid by the US. In addition, I am curious whether this alleged 5 billion figure is "net" or "gross" -- for UN diplomats' notorious flaunting of local laws is certainly costing the city a lot of money.
Posts: 111 | From: Jersey City, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redisca:
Regarding the money that the UN allegedly "injects into" the New York's economy (not as a charity donation, as GenYus rightly pointed out), it is noteworthy that 25% of the UN budget is paid by the US.



Do you know why this is?

quote:
In addition, I am curious whether this alleged 5 billion figure is "net" or "gross" -- for UN diplomats' notorious flaunting of local laws is certainly costing the city a lot of money.
Cites?

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Redisca
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Redisca   Author's Homepage   E-mail Redisca   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Do you know why this is?
Of course; but "why" does not change the fact of the US' monetary contribution.

quote:
Cites?
Certainly -- just as soon as I get the cite for the $5 billion/year figure.

But you are right: If such a rich city as New York gets that much in free money, that's just obscene. Accordingly, I propose that we move the UN headquarters to a much needier place -- say, Kabul. UN's presence there would certainly go a long way towards resuscitating that city's war-ravaged economy.

A similar approach should be adopted with respect to other similar international organizations as well. Those presently sitting in upscale and expensive places like Brussels and Hague should move to more economically disadvantaged locales. If their employees just cannot stomach the idea of leaving Europe, they should at least move to Chisenau, Moldova being Europe's poorest country. EU organizations? Determine which member of the EU has the lowest GDP and the highest unemployment, and set up camp there. Besides the obvious benefits to local economies, such a policy would help all those organizations reduce their operating costs, thereby allowing them to dedicate more of their funds to their actual raisons d'etre.

Posts: 111 | From: Jersey City, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Il-Mari
We Three Blings


Icon 303 posted      Profile for Il-Mari         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redisca:
Regarding the money that the UN allegedly "injects into" the New York's economy (not as a charity donation, as GenYus rightly pointed out), it is noteworthy that 25% of the UN budget is paid by the US. In addition, I am curious whether this alleged 5 billion figure is "net" or "gross" -- for UN diplomats' notorious flaunting of local laws is certainly costing the city a lot of money.

You're wrong, the US does not pay 25% - and it owes the UN about 1.3 billion in unpaid dues, so I rather think that you're more than a little off with your assertions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations

- Il-Mari

--------------------
When you mix faith with science, you serve neither and weaken both.

- Richard P. Sloan and Larry VandeCreek

Posts: 1094 | From: Helsinki, Finland | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redisca:
quote:
Do you know why this is?
Of course; but "why" does not change the fact of the US' monetary contribution.

quote:
Cites?
Certainly -- just as soon as I get the cite for the $5 billion/year figure.

I didn't make that claim, so mind the attitude, huh?

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DemonWolf     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redisca:

But you are right: If such a rich city as New York gets that much in free money, that's just obscene. Accordingly, I propose that we move the UN headquarters to a much needier place -- say, Kabul. UN's presence there would certainly go a long way towards resuscitating that city's war-ravaged economy.

A similar approach should be adopted with respect to other similar international organizations as well. Those presently sitting in upscale and expensive places like Brussels and Hague should move to more economically disadvantaged locales. If their employees just cannot stomach the idea of leaving Europe, they should at least move to Chisenau, Moldova being Europe's poorest country. EU organizations? Determine which member of the EU has the lowest GDP and the highest unemployment, and set up camp there. Besides the obvious benefits to local economies, such a policy would help all those organizations reduce their operating costs, thereby allowing them to dedicate more of their funds to their actual raisons d'etre.

Some points that you are missing is that building in a poorer area might actually increase costs as the UN will have to supplement the police and security forces of the host government as those may not already be in place and the host may not have funds to provide them, where a wealthier area may be able to generate that income or may be able to absorb the loss as an investment.

Kabul, for example, is practically a war zone. the UN would have to (and be largely unable to) gaurantee the safety of the delagates.

--------------------
Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!

IMJW-052804

Posts: 7224 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Redisca
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Redisca   Author's Homepage   E-mail Redisca   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
You're wrong, the US does not pay 25% - and it owes the UN about 1.3 billion in unpaid dues, so I rather think that you're more than a little off with your assertions.
Actually, that article states that UN "has always had problems" with "members" (unnamed) refusing to pay their dues. The US is named as the "most significant" debtor, because it is also the biggest sponsor. So let me amend: the US is obligated to pay 25% of the UN budget.

As for the figure on UN's charitable contributions to the City of New York, CNN reported in 1997 that the UN was providing the city with approximately $1.2 billion per year in revenue (not adjusted for over 130,000 unpaid parking tickets) -- not nearly $5 billion, and I doubt it's quadrupled since then. http://www.cnn.com/US/9704/11/un.bye.bye/

quote:
Some points that you are missing is that building in a poorer area might actually increase costs as the UN will have to supplement the police and security forces of the host government as those may not already be in place and the host may not have funds to provide them, where a wealthier area may be able to generate that income or may be able to absorb the loss as an investment.

Kabul, for example, is practically a war zone. the UN would have to (and be largely unable to) gaurantee the safety of the delagates.

So my suggestion was extreme -- but, is there any serious discussion about reducing the operating costs of such organizations by housing them in places that are at least a little less ritzy? I'm not sure those delegates, demanding as their jobs may be, are in dire need of ultraluxury Manhattan housing, gourmet stores, and regular access to 4-star restaurants in order for them to be able to function. Mexico, I am sure, could host the UN on most of its territory without the UN having to supplement the police and security forces. Or how about some sovereign Caribbean island? (Even if it did have to supplement -- I am certain it would still save a bundle.) And, for those organizations in Europe -- why not Portugal? It's still safe, and the scenery is lovely -- but the prices are a lot lower than in Switzerland.

quote:
I didn't make that claim
But did you question it, as you questioned mine?

quote:
so mind the attitude, huh?
I urge you to report my "attitude" to this site's administration for further action. Either that, or, if it isn't too much trouble, kindly send all comments that are personal in nature to my private mailbox, where such stuff belongs. Much obliged.
Posts: 111 | From: Jersey City, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm questioning *your* claim, Redisca.

So, do you have a cite? No? Okay. Fine. Just say so, then. And mind the attitude.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mr. Baggins
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mr. Baggins   E-mail Mr. Baggins   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DemonWolf:

The US contends that it allows the UN to use the UN building (very expensive real estate) in NY rent free in exchange for exemption from dues. I doubt that the UN is really interested in convincing the US to pay dues as it wiould mean the UN having to pay rent, which, considering the location, could be very costly.

Excuse me? Pay rent?

The terrain that the UN building is on was bought with 8.5 million dollars donated by John. D. Rockefeller. Furthermore, it is NOT legally in New York. It is declared an international zone, belonging to all member states. My mind boggles a to who do you suppose they'd have to pay rent to.

I have to add that I find this state of affair sad. When the UN was conceived, several countries disputed the honor --yes, the honor-- of being the site of the United Nations. When some USians act as if they're doing the UN a favor "letting it" stay in New York... well, it makes me sick.

--------------------
"The system would also let you send your picture and contact details to a rough trade gay contact mailing list saying you like to be surprised with power tools in a non-consensual role play scenario – but that doesn’t mean you SHOULD do it.!"

Posts: 298 | From: Monterrey, Mexico | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Il-Mari
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Il-Mari         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redisca:
So let me amend: the US is obligated to pay 25% of the UN budget.

You're still wrong, seemingly because you appear to be unable to check the figures you like throwing about.

Here's a hint: the ceiling for payments to the UN budget by a single nation is below 25%.

quote:
As for the figure on UN's charitable contributions to the City of New York, CNN reported in 1997 that the UN was providing the city with approximately $1.2 billion per year in revenue (not adjusted for over 130,000 unpaid parking tickets) -- not nearly $5 billion, and I doubt it's quadrupled since then.
Since there's no source or breakdown for that $1.2 billion figure, it's pretty worthless (we don't even know what it includes and what it doesn't). Likewise, you're pithy comment about diplomats not paying for parking violations swings both ways, American don't do it abroad, so things probably even out pretty well (http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-nyhen104736217may10,0,6918122.column?coll=ny-rightrail-columnist)

- Il-Mari

--------------------
When you mix faith with science, you serve neither and weaken both.

- Richard P. Sloan and Larry VandeCreek

Posts: 1094 | From: Helsinki, Finland | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Alex Buchet
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Alex Buchet   E-mail Alex Buchet       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
The UN itself provides the city with $1.2 billion. But that figure doesn't count the delegations, who are paid by their countries, and that's thousands of people spending tens of thousands of dollars each.

And, BTW, the UN is one of the prime tourist attractions of NYC, drawing people from all over the world.

You won't find many New Yorkers dissing the U.N.

Posts: 202 | From: Paris, France | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2