France has change of heart! We can invade!
Kevin Gowen
"Many of those most opposed to the U.S.-led effort in Iraq now argue that
American participation is vital to the success of a proposed 5,000-strong
multinational peacekeeping mission to enforce a cease-fire. Among them are
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, leading European powers — including
France — and the editorial page of the New York Times."
--
Kevin Gowen
"When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing
the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day."
Dick Gephardt (D-MO), presidential candidate
Michael Cash
<kgowen...@myfastmail.com> belched the alphabet and kept on going
with:
>http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030701-115649-1264r.htm
>
>"Many of those most opposed to the U.S.-led effort in Iraq now argue that
>American participation is vital to the success of a proposed 5,000-strong
>multinational peacekeeping mission to enforce a cease-fire. Among them are
>U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, leading European powers ? including
>France ? and the editorial page of the New York Times."
Why does a country with 6% of the world's population pay 22% of the
UN's expenses?
--
Michael Cash
"There was a time, Mr. Cash, when I believed you must be the most useless
thing in the world. But that was before I read a Microsoft help file."
Prof. Ernest T. Bass
Mount Pilot College
Kevin Gowen
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:09:06 -0400, "Kevin Gowen"
> <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> belched the alphabet and kept on going
> with:
>
>> http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030701-115649-1264r.htm
>>
>> "Many of those most opposed to the U.S.-led effort in Iraq now argue
>> that American participation is vital to the success of a proposed
>> 5,000-strong multinational peacekeeping mission to enforce a
>> cease-fire. Among them are U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan,
>> leading European powers ? including France ? and the editorial page
>> of the New York Times."
>
the
> UN's expenses?
I fixed your spelling error.
Jason Cormier
"Michael Cash" <mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote:
>> http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030701-115649-1264r.htm
>>
>> "Many of those most opposed to the U.S.-led effort in Iraq now argue that
>> American participation is vital to the success of a proposed 5,000-strong
>> multinational peacekeeping mission to enforce a cease-fire. Among them are
>> U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, leading European powers ? including
>> France ? and the editorial page of the New York Times."
>
> Why does a country with 6% of the world's population pay 22% of the
> UN's expenses?
Because said country agreed to do so.
Brett Robson
and then didn't. How many years in arrears are they now?
---
"he [John Ashcroft] deliberately left Jesus out of office prayers to avoid
offending non-Christians." - Ben Shapiro 27/2/2003
Ernest Schaal
Therefore, if the county currently paying 22% of the UN's expenses
decides that enough is enough, and their share should be lower (say
6%), that would be perfectably acceptable?
Brett Robson
>
>http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030701-115649-1264r.htm
>
>"Many of those most opposed to the U.S.-led effort in Iraq now argue that
>American participation is vital to the success of a proposed 5,000-strong
>multinational peacekeeping mission to enforce a cease-fire. Among them are
>U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, leading European powers
>France ��� and the editorial page of the New York Times."
>
"The Bush administration remained noncommittal yesterday on whether it would
send U.S. troops to quell the civil war in Liberia, where President Charles
Taylor was defying a U.S. demand to step down. "
Of course
1. There's no oil
2. They're poor and black
3. There's no oil
4. High-tech weapons and massive fire-power are useless, soldiers would actually
have to do soldiering. No opportunity to "kick ass"
5. There's no oil
6. It's dangerous to health
7. There's no oil
8. Not even Americans are dumb enough to believe Al Queda have links to Liberia
9. There's no oil
10. Liberia is a shitty hole that doesn't look good on TV, and reporters won't
want to go there anyway.
11. There's no oil
mtfe...@netscape.net
And it didn't work the old way.
Mike
Ken
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>>http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030701-115649-1264r.htm
>>
>>"Many of those most opposed to the U.S.-led effort in Iraq now argue that
>>American participation is vital to the success of a proposed 5,000-strong
>>multinational peacekeeping mission to enforce a cease-fire. Among them are
>>U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, leading European powers ? including
>>France ? and the editorial page of the New York Times."
>
> Why does a country with 6% of the world's population pay 22% of the
> UN's expenses?
Because the contributions are loosely assessed on a "capacity
to pay" / "contributing country's share of world GDP" basis?
The average annual budget for the UN is about USD 1.1 billion,
of which the US are supposed to pay 22% -- i.e. about USD 250M.
Japan's contribution assessment is about 19.6%.
The EU's contribution assessment is about 37%
See e.g. http://www.un.int/france/pdf/fiche10.pdf
As a comparison, the US federal budget is about USD 2200 billion
per annum -- i.e. two thousand times the UN budget -- of which the
US Department of Defense gets about USD 400 billion.
The states' aggregate budget is about 1100 billion. These figures
help put the US contribution to the UN in perspective.
With its population of 280 million, the US contribution works out
to less than a dollar per person per year, for a country whose
GDP in 2001 was about USD 36000 per capita.
It's also interesting to note that the UN budget office said in
2001 that the US contribution arrears amounted to about USD 1.3
billion -- i.e. the arrears accumulated by the US exceeded the average
annual UN budget... Claims by the US that they are "paying" 22% of
the UN budget should thus be taken with a generous amount of salt.
Michael Cash
belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>Jason Cormier <fj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<BB28ADCD.4FAF9%fj...@hotmail.com>...
Please refer to Kevin's correction to my post.
I would favor Sepponia pulling out of the UN and kicking the
organization out of the country, except for one little thing.
Michael Cash
alphabet and kept on going with:
>Michael Cash wrote:
>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>
>>>http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030701-115649-1264r.htm
>>>
>>>"Many of those most opposed to the U.S.-led effort in Iraq now argue that
>>>American participation is vital to the success of a proposed 5,000-strong
>>>multinational peacekeeping mission to enforce a cease-fire. Among them are
>>>U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, leading European powers ? including
>>>France ? and the editorial page of the New York Times."
>>
>> Why does a country with 6% of the world's population pay 22% of the
>> UN's expenses?
>
>Because the contributions are loosely assessed on a "capacity
>to pay" / "contributing country's share of world GDP" basis?
If it seems reasonable to assess 6% of the world's population 22% of
the operating expenses of the Would-Be World Government, then would it
also be reasonable for non-Sepponians to quit bitching about 6% of the
world's population using 25% (give-r-take) of the world's resources?
>
>The average annual budget for the UN is about USD 1.1 billion,
>of which the US are supposed to pay 22% -- i.e. about USD 250M.
About 250 million too much.
>
>Japan's contribution assessment is about 19.6%.
>
>The EU's contribution assessment is about 37%
>See e.g. http://www.un.int/france/pdf/fiche10.pdf
I thank you heartily for the link, and hope that others will benefit
from it. But I don't really care that much about the matter. I will
use the time I save to sort/organize this mountain of porn I've been
downloading instead. It's important to prioritize, you know.
>
>As a comparison, the US federal budget is about USD 2200 billion
Also waaaaaay too damned much.
>per annum -- i.e. two thousand times the UN budget -- of which the
>US Department of Defense gets about USD 400 billion.
>The states' aggregate budget is about 1100 billion. These figures
>help put the US contribution to the UN in perspective.
Yes, perhaps they do. But they would put it in better perspective for
someone who accepts the premise that Sepponia should be paying them
anything at all. Zero times any multiple yields the same result, so no
matter what the US federal and state budgets are, it really doesn't
help me with understanding the UN budget.
>
>With its population of 280 million, the US contribution works out
>to less than a dollar per person per year, for a country whose
>GDP in 2001 was about USD 36000 per capita.
I want my dollar back.
>
>It's also interesting to note that the UN budget office said in
>2001 that the US contribution arrears amounted to about USD 1.3
>billion -- i.e. the arrears accumulated by the US exceeded the average
>annual UN budget... Claims by the US that they are "paying" 22% of
>the UN budget should thus be taken with a generous amount of salt.
Alright. I will take your word as to the amount the US is in our ears
on regular UN dues. But doesn't the US make non-dues contributions to
the UN as well? I'm asking you because: 1) you seem knowledgable 2)
you seem to give a shit and 3) I have heard that such contributions
are made. What is the status on those sorts of contributions?
Michael Cash
belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>On 7/2/03 14:54, in article hga6gv49qigj8hfco...@4ax.com,
Nobody ran a chit by me.
Declan Murphy
> On 3 Jul 2003 00:13:37 -0700, dvd...@hotmail.com (Ken) belched the
> alphabet and kept on going with:
>>With its population of 280 million, the US contribution works out
>>to less than a dollar per person per year, for a country whose
>>GDP in 2001 was about USD 36000 per capita.
>
> I want my dollar back.
In which case you might also want to get your yen based contributions
back first. A slightly higher proportion of your current taxes paid in
this country heads to the UN than would be the case if you were driving
your truck in Sepponia.
--
"Forget Spanish. There's nothing in that language worth reading except
Don Quixote, and a quick listen to the CD of Man of La Mancha will take
care of that. Who speaks it that you are really desperate to talk to?
The help? Your leaf blower? Study French or German, where there are at
least a few books worth reading, or if you're American, try English."
Dame Edna Everage
"If you have to explain satire to someone, you might as well give up,"
Barry Humphries
Michael Cash
<declan...@hotmail.com> belched the alphabet and kept on going
with:
>Michael Cash wrote:
>> On 3 Jul 2003 00:13:37 -0700, dvd...@hotmail.com (Ken) belched the
>> alphabet and kept on going with:
><snip>
>>>With its population of 280 million, the US contribution works out
>>>to less than a dollar per person per year, for a country whose
>>>GDP in 2001 was about USD 36000 per capita.
>>
>> I want my dollar back.
>
>In which case you might also want to get your yen based contributions
>back first. A slightly higher proportion of your current taxes paid in
>this country heads to the UN than would be the case if you were driving
>your truck in Sepponia.
Good point. Especially since I don't pay any US taxes anyway.
I want my yen back.
Kevin Gowen
I have good news for you about that one little thing. But first, I have to
address Jason's statement.
I suppose that Jason's statement is true insofar as the US is a Member State
of the UN and thus agreed to Article 17 of the UN Charter, which provides
that the General Assembly will consider and approve the UN budget and then
apportion the expenses among the Member States, but I find it to be slightly
misleading. The GA could decide that Cameroon should pay 57% of the UN's
expenses, but it might be a little misleading to say that Cameroon agreed to
do so as there was no explicit agreement to pay a given percentage of the
UN's expenses between Cameroon and the UN. Same for the US. A Member State
does not agree to pay a given percentage of the UN's expenses; the GA simply
tells it what its share of the pie is.
That having been said, many people are unaware that not only is it
impossible for a Member State to owe anything to the UN, as there is no debt
incurred, but that payment of a Member State's apportionment is voluntary.
Look for the part of the UN Charter that provides for collections. There is
no such mechanism. The only thing that can happen to a Member State that
falls into arrears by a certain amount is that it can lose its vote in the
General Assembly (Article 19, UN Charter). It cannot lose that one little
thing. News reports about the US or any other Member State being behind in
their UN "dues" are simply irresponsible. No Member State pays dues to the
UN. "Dues" are a charge or fee for membership, and there is no such thing at
the UN. If there were, I very much doubt that the UN would have come into
existence.
Much is often made of the US's payment of the share of UN expenses that have
been apportioned to it by the General Assembly. Never have I read such a
news article deal with the direct and indirect expenses incurred by the US
in performing UN peacekeeping missions. For example, FY 1996-2001, the US
paid $3.45 billion in direct contributions to UN peacekeeping operations,
including current and past peacekeeping apportionments. During that same
period, the US paid indirect contributions of $24.2 billion. This is because
US troops do not move about on UN aircraft carriers. The 37,000 US troops on
the Korean border who are there under UN auspices do not draw a paycheck
that says "United Nations" on it. To give some comparison, the UN
peacekeeping budget for those years hovered between $0.9 and $3.8 billion
(the average was $1.9 billion), totally $13.3 billion. Over that same
period, the US paid $27.65 billion in direct and indirect contributions for
peacekeeping. I smell a rebate!
(All numbers from "U.N. PEACEKEEPING:Estimated U.S. Contributions, Fiscal
Years 1996-2001", GAO-02-294)
Tomorrow is the 4th of July, and Americans all over will be cheering and
saying, "Yeah! We have independence! We fought for it and we won it!" Not a
small percentage of those same Americans will be thinking to themselves,
"...and we had better never do that again unless the UN says so"
Kevin Gowen
> On 3 Jul 2003 00:13:37 -0700, dvd...@hotmail.com (Ken) belched the
> alphabet and kept on going with:
>
>> Michael Cash wrote:
>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030701-115649-1264r.htm
>>>>
>>>> "Many of those most opposed to the U.S.-led effort in Iraq now
>>>> argue that American participation is vital to the success of a
>>>> proposed 5,000-strong multinational peacekeeping mission to
>>>> enforce a cease-fire. Among them are U.N. Secretary-General Kofi
>>>> Annan, leading European powers ? including France ? and the
>>>> editorial page of the New York Times."
>>>
>>> Why does a country with 6% of the world's population pay 22% of the
>>> UN's expenses?
>>
>> Because the contributions are loosely assessed on a "capacity
>> to pay" / "contributing country's share of world GDP" basis?
>
> If it seems reasonable to assess 6% of the world's population 22% of
> the operating expenses of the Would-Be World Government, then would it
> also be reasonable for non-Sepponians to quit bitching about 6% of the
> world's population using 25% (give-r-take) of the world's resources?
Actually, the US accounts for over 1/3 of the global GDP, so everyone should
be thankful that we are only using 25% of world resources.
>> It's also interesting to note that the UN budget office said in
>> 2001 that the US contribution arrears amounted to about USD 1.3
>> billion -- i.e. the arrears accumulated by the US exceeded the
>> average annual UN budget... Claims by the US that they are "paying"
>> 22% of
>> the UN budget should thus be taken with a generous amount of salt.
According to this:
http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_1382040,00.html
the US is only $500 million in arrears. Of course, given my previous post
about a rebate being due, complaints about the US being in arrears should
thus be taken with a generous amount of salt.
Regarding the $1.3 billion that Ken said, it is worth noting that at the
same time, the United Nations Association claimed that the US was $1.6
billion is arrears. Well, which one is it?
One also might want to look at the United Nations Erroneous Debt Act that
Roscoe Bartlett introduced in 1997. It seems that sometime between 1992 and
1995, an improper "gift" of $4,720,600,000 had in effect been provided to
the United Nations by the United States. I smell a credit!
> Alright. I will take your word as to the amount the US is in our ears
> on regular UN dues. But doesn't the US make non-dues contributions to
> the UN as well? I'm asking you because: 1) you seem knowledgable 2)
> you seem to give a shit and 3) I have heard that such contributions
> are made. What is the status on those sorts of contributions?
Check the other post I just made. There is simply no such thing as UN dues.
Even if there were, US indirect expenses on UN peacekeeping etc. would far
outweight them.
Jason Cormier
"Ernest Schaal" <esc...@justice.com> wrote:
>>>> http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030701-115649-1264r.htm
>>>>
>>>> "Many of those most opposed to the U.S.-led effort in Iraq now argue that
>>>> American participation is vital to the success of a proposed 5,000-strong
>>>> multinational peacekeeping mission to enforce a cease-fire. Among them are
>>>> U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, leading European powers ? including
>>>> France ? and the editorial page of the New York Times."
>>>
>>> Why does a country with 6% of the world's population pay 22% of the
>>> UN's expenses?
>>
>> Because said country agreed to do so.
>
> Therefore, if the county currently paying 22% of the UN's expenses
> decides that enough is enough, and their share should be lower (say
> 6%), that would be perfectably acceptable?
They would need to renegotiate; they would also lose influence in the
balance. It's up to them which is more important.
Jason Cormier
"Michael Cash" <mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote:
>>>> http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030701-115649-1264r.htm
>>>>
>>>> "Many of those most opposed to the U.S.-led effort in Iraq now argue that
>>>> American participation is vital to the success of a proposed 5,000-strong
>>>> multinational peacekeeping mission to enforce a cease-fire. Among them are
>>>> U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, leading European powers ? including
>>>> France ? and the editorial page of the New York Times."
>>>
>>> Why does a country with 6% of the world's population pay 22% of the
>>> UN's expenses?
>>
>> Because said country agreed to do so.
>
> Nobody ran a chit by me.
Nobody asked you if the US should fund a Navy, either.
Jason Cormier
Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030701-115649-1264r.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Many of those most opposed to the U.S.-led effort in Iraq now
>>>>>> argue that
>>>>>> American participation is vital to the success of a proposed
>>>>>> 5,000-strong
>>>>>> multinational peacekeeping mission to enforce a cease-fire. Among
>>>>>> them are
>>>>>> U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, leading European powers ?
>>>>>> including
>>>>>> France ? and the editorial page of the New York Times."
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does a country with 6% of the world's population pay 22% of the
>>>>> UN's expenses?
>>>>
>>>> Because said country agreed to do so.
>>>
>>> Therefore, if the county currently paying 22% of the UN's expenses
>>> decides that enough is enough, and their share should be lower (say
>>> 6%), that would be perfectably acceptable?
>>
>> Please refer to Kevin's correction to my post.
>>
>> I would favor Sepponia pulling out of the UN and kicking the
>> organization out of the country, except for one little thing.
>
> I have good news for you about that one little thing. But first, I have to
> address Jason's statement.
>
> I suppose that Jason's statement is true
Yes.
Kevin Gowen
Um, Jason, why do you think the US could renegotiate? Member States don't
get to negotiate what percentage of UN expenses is apportioned to them by
the General Assembly.
Kevin Gowen
Jason, I have to apologize for that practical joke I pulled on you. Remember
when I gave you that copy of the U.S. Constitution? Well, I erased Article
I, Section 8, Clause 13 from it. Sorry about that.
Kevin Gowen
I see that you are an avid reader of Maureen Dowd's column.
Jason Cormier
Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030701-115649-1264r.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Many of those most opposed to the U.S.-led effort in Iraq now
>>>>>> argue that American participation is vital to the success of a
>>>>>> proposed 5,000-strong multinational peacekeeping mission to
>>>>>> enforce a cease-fire. Among them are U.N. Secretary-General Kofi
>>>>>> Annan, leading European powers ? including France ? and the
>>>>>> editorial page of the New York Times."
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does a country with 6% of the world's population pay 22% of the
>>>>> UN's expenses?
>>>>
>>>> Because said country agreed to do so.
>>>
>>> Nobody ran a chit by me.
>>
>> Nobody asked you if the US should fund a Navy, either.
>
> Jason, I have to apologize for that practical joke I pulled on you. Remember
> when I gave you that copy of the U.S. Constitution? Well, I erased Article
> I, Section 8, Clause 13 from it. Sorry about that.
You seem to have missed the point.
Jason Cormier
Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>>> I suppose that Jason's statement is true
>>
>> Yes.
>
> I see that you are an avid reader of Maureen Dowd's column.
Nope, I haven't read the Times in months. I'm just a fan of Kevin.
Jason Cormier
Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030701-115649-1264r.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Many of those most opposed to the U.S.-led effort in Iraq now
>>>>>> argue that American participation is vital to the success of a
>>>>>> proposed 5,000-strong multinational peacekeeping mission to
>>>>>> enforce a cease-fire. Among them are U.N. Secretary-General Kofi
>>>>>> Annan, leading European powers ? including France ? and the
>>>>>> editorial page of the New York Times."
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does a country with 6% of the world's population pay 22% of the
>>>>> UN's expenses?
>>>>
>>>> Because said country agreed to do so.
>>>
>>> Therefore, if the county currently paying 22% of the UN's expenses
>>> decides that enough is enough, and their share should be lower (say
>>> 6%), that would be perfectably acceptable?
>>
>> They would need to renegotiate; they would also lose influence in the
>> balance. It's up to them which is more important.
>
> Um, Jason, why do you think the US could renegotiate? Member States don't
> get to negotiate what percentage of UN expenses is apportioned to them by
> the General Assembly.
Interesting choice of words. The percentage isn't negotiated but the total
amount certainly is. Do you think the apportioned expenses are numbers
pulled out of thin air and without any prior discussion?
Michael Cash
belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>On 7/3/03 3:54, in article 59o7gvkgut9r7510i...@4ax.com,
Which is precisely why I don't contribute to its upkeep.
Kevin Gowen
Whoosh.
> I'm just a fan of Kevin.
Which one?
Kevin Gowen
> On 7/3/03 12:46, in article be1mkr$a5he$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de,
> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>>>> http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030701-115649-1264r.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Many of those most opposed to the U.S.-led effort in Iraq now
>>>>>>> argue that American participation is vital to the success of a
>>>>>>> proposed 5,000-strong multinational peacekeeping mission to
>>>>>>> enforce a cease-fire. Among them are U.N. Secretary-General Kofi
>>>>>>> Annan, leading European powers ? including France ? and the
>>>>>>> editorial page of the New York Times."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why does a country with 6% of the world's population pay 22% of
>>>>>> the UN's expenses?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because said country agreed to do so.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, if the county currently paying 22% of the UN's expenses
>>>> decides that enough is enough, and their share should be lower (say
>>>> 6%), that would be perfectably acceptable?
>>>
>>> They would need to renegotiate; they would also lose influence in
>>> the balance. It's up to them which is more important.
>>
>> Um, Jason, why do you think the US could renegotiate? Member States
>> don't get to negotiate what percentage of UN expenses is apportioned
>> to them by the General Assembly.
>
> Interesting choice of words.
No more interesting than Article 17(2):
"The expenses of the Organization shall be borne by the Members as
apportioned by the General Assembly."
> The percentage isn't negotiated but the
> total amount certainly is.
Here we have a shift of ground. The US has gone from agreeing to pay a given
percentage of the UN budget to simply agreeing to the total amount of the UN
budget.
> Do you think the apportioned expenses are
> numbers pulled out of thin air and without any prior discussion?
I never said anything of the kind, Jed. Of course there is prior discussion,
but not in the General Assembly. Discussion takes place in the GA's
Administrative and Budgetary Committee (5th committee of the UNGA). The
United States has no representative in its bureau.
Kevin Gowen
The point seemed to be that Mike hadn't consented to the United States
funding a navy.
Ernest Schaal
fj...@hotmail.com wrote on 7/4/03 1:40 AM:
First, I think in the present system we have a LOT of power in that
renegotiate.
Second, there does not appear any correlation with the amount we pay and our
influence.
Personally, I consider a major renegotiation is required.
Jason Cormier
"Michael Cash" <mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:43:31 GMT, Jason Cormier <fj...@hotmail.com>
> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>
>> On 7/3/03 3:54, in article 59o7gvkgut9r7510i...@4ax.com,
>> "Michael Cash" <mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030701-115649-1264r.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Many of those most opposed to the U.S.-led effort in Iraq now argue that
>>>>>> American participation is vital to the success of a proposed 5,000-strong
>>>>>> multinational peacekeeping mission to enforce a cease-fire. Among them
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, leading European powers ? including
>>>>>> France ? and the editorial page of the New York Times."
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does a country with 6% of the world's population pay 22% of the
>>>>> UN's expenses?
>>>>
>>>> Because said country agreed to do so.
>>>
>>> Nobody ran a chit by me.
>>
>> Nobody asked you if the US should fund a Navy, either.
>
> Which is precisely why I don't contribute to its upkeep.
So why whine that you weren't asked about the UN; you don't contribute to
America's up keep of it, either. (Before you respond that you contribute
through Japan, remember that you also contribute to its armed forces without
being asked.)
Jason Cormier
Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I suppose that Jason's statement is true
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> I see that you are an avid reader of Maureen Dowd's column.
>>
>> Nope, I haven't read the Times in months.
>
> Whoosh.
Kevin, I'm afraid that you are, once again, suffering from premature Usenet
ejaculation. Do explain how I have been whooshed.
>> I'm just a fan of Kevin.
>
> Which one?
Tee hee.
Jason Cormier
Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030701-115649-1264r.htm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Many of those most opposed to the U.S.-led effort in Iraq now
>>>>>>>> argue that American participation is vital to the success of a
>>>>>>>> proposed 5,000-strong multinational peacekeeping mission to
>>>>>>>> enforce a cease-fire. Among them are U.N. Secretary-General Kofi
>>>>>>>> Annan, leading European powers ? including France ? and the
>>>>>>>> editorial page of the New York Times."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why does a country with 6% of the world's population pay 22% of
>>>>>>> the UN's expenses?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because said country agreed to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody ran a chit by me.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody asked you if the US should fund a Navy, either.
>>>
>>> Jason, I have to apologize for that practical joke I pulled on you.
>>> Remember when I gave you that copy of the U.S. Constitution? Well, I
>>> erased Article I, Section 8, Clause 13 from it. Sorry about that.
>>
>> You seem to have missed the point.
>
> The point seemed to be that Mike hadn't consented to the United States
> funding a navy.
So you *do* get it. I have to then wonder why you needed to post a silly
irrelevance such as you have above....
Jason Cormier
Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>>> Um, Jason, why do you think the US could renegotiate? Member States
>>> don't get to negotiate what percentage of UN expenses is apportioned
>>> to them by the General Assembly.
>>
>> Interesting choice of words.
>
> No more interesting than Article 17(2):
> "The expenses of the Organization shall be borne by the Members as
> apportioned by the General Assembly."
If only the UN was solely run via the General Assembly...
>> The percentage isn't negotiated but the
>> total amount certainly is.
>
> Here we have a shift of ground. The US has gone from agreeing to pay a given
> percentage of the UN budget to simply agreeing to the total amount of the UN
> budget.
No, here we have Kevin putting another's words into my mouth. I never said
the US paid based on a a percentage. Michael wondered why their portion,
regardless of how that derived, was so high. I made the point that they were
not forced into this situation. I did not comment as to whether it was
decided as a percentage.
>> Do you think the apportioned expenses are
>> numbers pulled out of thin air and without any prior discussion?
>
> I never said anything of the kind, Jed.
Kevin, I thought you already felt secure in your superiority to us
intellectual lightweights. Yet here you are, sounding much like a person
with a massive inferiority complex.
> Of course there is prior discussion,
> but not in the General Assembly. Discussion takes place in the GA's
> Administrative and Budgetary Committee (5th committee of the UNGA). The
> United States has no representative in its bureau.
Are you familiar with the workings of such committees? (Not just budgetary.)
They do not operate in a vacuum and they most certainly do not make
decisions without outside input.
Kevin Gowen
> On 7/3/03 16:35, in article be243e$gko2$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de,
> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> Um, Jason, why do you think the US could renegotiate? Member States
>>>> don't get to negotiate what percentage of UN expenses is
>>>> apportioned
>>>> to them by the General Assembly.
>>>
>>> Interesting choice of words.
>>
>> No more interesting than Article 17(2):
>> "The expenses of the Organization shall be borne by the Members as
>> apportioned by the General Assembly."
>
> If only the UN was solely run via the General Assembly...
...then what? I'm not exactly sure of what you want to say. The GA's 5th
committee is responsible for the UN budget. It is a unique function. Did you
think the Security Council was involved in some fashion?
>>> The percentage isn't negotiated but the
>>> total amount certainly is.
>>
>> Here we have a shift of ground. The US has gone from agreeing to pay
>> a given percentage of the UN budget to simply agreeing to the total
>> amount of the UN budget.
>
> No, here we have Kevin putting another's words into my mouth. I never
> said the US paid based on a a percentage. Michael wondered why their
> portion, regardless of how that derived, was so high. I made the
> point that they were not forced into this situation.
Which is a bit misleading.
> I did not
> comment as to whether it was decided as a percentage.
I see. My mistake.
>>> Do you think the apportioned expenses are
>>> numbers pulled out of thin air and without any prior discussion?
>>
>> I never said anything of the kind, Jed.
>
> Kevin, I thought you already felt secure in your superiority to us
> intellectual lightweights. Yet here you are, sounding much like a
> person
> with a massive inferiority complex.
How so?
>> Of course there is prior discussion,
>> but not in the General Assembly. Discussion takes place in the GA's
>> Administrative and Budgetary Committee (5th committee of the UNGA).
>> The United States has no representative in its bureau.
>
> Are you familiar with the workings of such committees? (Not just
> budgetary.)
Yes, I am, althought I have never taken part. Such workings of the UN
comprised the bulk of my Public International Law class's curriculum.
Is there a followup question?
> They do not operate in a vacuum and they most certainly
> do not make
> decisions without outside input.
I never said that they did, but that is beside the point.
Kevin Gowen
> On 7/3/03 16:10, in article be22k4$f22b$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de,
> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>> I suppose that Jason's statement is true
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> I see that you are an avid reader of Maureen Dowd's column.
>>>
>>> Nope, I haven't read the Times in months.
>>
>> Whoosh.
>
> Kevin, I'm afraid that you are, once again, suffering from premature
> Usenet ejaculation.
Why are you so interested in my ejaculation?
> Do explain how I have been whooshed.
There, there.
>>> I'm just a fan of Kevin.
>>
>> Which one?
>
> Tee hee.
Well, we do have two.
Kevin Gowen
Nothing silly about it at all. Mike consents by virtue of his US
citizenship. Or, perhaps you don't believe in the social contract theory of
government.
Declan Murphy
> Tomorrow is the 4th of July, and Americans all over will be cheering and
> saying, "Yeah! We have independence! We fought for it and we won it!"
I suppose it would be too much to expect you to remember to thank the
French for their invaluable assistance at the time. Allez les Bleus.
Brett Robson
>
>Actually, the US accounts for over 1/3 of the global GDP, so everyone should
>
An oft quoted but completely bogus figure.
---
"he [John Ashcroft] deliberately left Jesus out of office prayers to avoid
offending non-Christians." - Ben Shapiro 27/2/2003
Brett Robson
>
>Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> Tomorrow is the 4th of July, and Americans all over will be cheering and
>> saying, "Yeah! We have independence! We fought for it and we won it!"
>
>I suppose it would be too much to expect you to remember to thank the
>French for their invaluable assistance at the time. Allez les Bleus.
>
I think that is a bit rude bringing that up on such an auspicious day.
BTW, what's the word for when you conspire with a foreign government/military to
overthrow your government?
Ken
[snip]
> Much is often made of the US's payment of the share of UN expenses
> that have been apportioned to it by the General Assembly. Never
> have I read such a news article deal with the direct and indirect
> expenses incurred by the US in performing UN peacekeeping missions.
> For example, FY 1996-2001, the US paid $3.45 billion in direct
> contributions to UN peacekeeping operations, including current
> and past peacekeeping apportionments. During that same period,
> the US paid indirect contributions of $24.2 billion. This is
> because US troops do not move about on UN aircraft carriers.
> The 37,000 US troops on the Korean border who are there under UN
> auspices do not draw a paycheck that says "United Nations" on it.
Actually, it's debatable whether the *entire* US contingent in Korea
is there under UN auspices. One should also consider the number of
troops stationed under the terms of the ROK-USA mutual defense treaty
concluded in 1953. PKO troops sent under UN auspices are under UN
command, and seldom conclude "Status of Forces Agreements" with the
host nation, nor do "host" nations usually allocate a cost-sharing
budget -- about US$ 500M for FY'2002 in Korea's case -- for these
foreign troops on their soil...
Given the recent calls for force reduction or outright withdrawal
from the Korean peninsula made by some US uniformed personnel and
politicians, one gets the impression that the troop presence's
scale might actually be more a function of US whims or interests
than of UN Security Council decisions... Didn't one Henry Kissinger
argue for a US troop presence in the Korean peninsula to contain
e.g. the Soviet Union and China in the sector? Has Kevin Gowen a
better grasp of the basis and rationale of some US foreign policy
initiatives than Kissinger?
A more realistic example of a UN-mandated military presence that
is not accounted for in the normal UN PKO budget would be e.g. the
32,000 *european* KFOR troops stationed in Kosovo... Guess who
pays for those?
> To give some comparison, the UN peacekeeping budget for those
> years hovered between $0.9 and $3.8 billion (the average was $1.9
> billion), totally $13.3 billion. Over that same period, the US
> paid $27.65 billion in direct and indirect contributions for
> peacekeeping. I smell a rebate!
A rebate? On what basis? Have your arithmetic or accounting skills
suddenly improved? Is "0.12 approximately double of 0.7" ? Besides,
what were the indirect costs shouldered e.g. by EU member countries
or Japan during that period?
--
"Fox News is fair and balanced"
Kevin Gowen
Declan Murphy
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:16:34 +0900, Declan ...
>
>>Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>
>>>Tomorrow is the 4th of July, and Americans all over will be cheering and
>>>saying, "Yeah! We have independence! We fought for it and we won it!"
>>
>>I suppose it would be too much to expect you to remember to thank the
>>French for their invaluable assistance at the time. Allez les Bleus.
>
> I think that is a bit rude bringing that up on such an auspicious day.
>
> BTW, what's the word for when you conspire with a foreign government/military to
> overthrow your government?
Depends who you ask. In the case of Sir Roger David Casement it was
called treason, but my grandmother might have defined it more accurately
as being nothing but strategy.
Brett Robson
>
>Tomorrow is the 4th of July, and Americans all over will be cheering and
>small percentage of those same Americans will be thinking to themselves,
>"...and we had better never do that again unless the UN says so"
>
AFN are celebrating the War of Colonial Succession by having a weekend of 80s
music. I guess if you close you eyes you can pretend Regean and Bush I are still
in power.
Last night "Patriot" was on TV. Of course the Red Coats were very nasty, going
around killing all the freedom loving colonists. Somehow they portray Mel
Gibson, a rich plantation owner, seeking to avoid paying taxes as a freedom
fighter seeking to defend his family.
Michael Cash
belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>No, here we have Kevin putting another's words into my mouth. I never said
>the US paid based on a a percentage. Michael wondered why their portion,
>regardless of how that derived, was so high. I made the point that they were
>not forced into this situation. I did not comment as to whether it was
>decided as a percentage.
Actually, it isn't the percentage that bothers me so much as the fact
that the US is in the damned thing at all.
Michael Cash
belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>On 7/3/03 15:32, in article k619gvcccllh6gjr6...@4ax.com,
>"Michael Cash" <mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:43:31 GMT, Jason Cormier <fj...@hotmail.com>
>> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>>
>>> On 7/3/03 3:54, in article 59o7gvkgut9r7510i...@4ax.com,
>>> "Michael Cash" <mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030701-115649-1264r.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Many of those most opposed to the U.S.-led effort in Iraq now argue that
>>>>>>> American participation is vital to the success of a proposed 5,000-strong
>>>>>>> multinational peacekeeping mission to enforce a cease-fire. Among them
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, leading European powers ? including
>>>>>>> France ? and the editorial page of the New York Times."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why does a country with 6% of the world's population pay 22% of the
>>>>>> UN's expenses?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because said country agreed to do so.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody ran a chit by me.
>>>
>>> Nobody asked you if the US should fund a Navy, either.
>>
>> Which is precisely why I don't contribute to its upkeep.
>
>So why whine
Because having once been a sailor and currently being a truck driver,
whining just comes naturally. When I stop whining, don't bother
checking for a pulse; just go ahead and pull the sheet up over my head
and call a hearse.
>that you weren't asked about the UN; you don't contribute to
>America's up keep of it, either. (Before you respond that you contribute
>through Japan, remember that you also contribute to its armed forces without
>being asked.)
There is no shortage of things I wasn't asked about and don't agree
with. Fortunately, I have just enough grasp left on sanity to realize
that in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter whether I
like something or not. This saves me from getting worked up over stuff
and not giving too much weight to my own rantings.
The primary difference with the UN contributions (talking about *my*
share here) and upkeep on the JSDF is that I accept the concept of a
standing military....even in Japan....and consider it part of the
social contract Kevin makes reference to. Hence, I have no objection
whatsoever to part of my tax money going to fund the JSDF. But no
matter whether I were in Sepponia, Japan, Ukland, or anywhere else, I
wouldn't care a fig for the Ongoing Theatre Of The Absurd and Debating
Society in NYC.
Michael Cash
the alphabet and kept on going with:
>On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:09:20 -0400, "Kevin ...
>>
>>Actually, the US accounts for over 1/3 of the global GDP, so everyone should
>>
>
>
>An oft quoted but completely bogus figure.
Penis envy.
wasabi
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:09:06 -0400, "Kevin ...
> >
> >http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030701-115649-1264r.htm
> >
> >"Many of those most opposed to the U.S.-led effort in Iraq now argue that
> >American participation is vital to the success of a proposed 5,000-strong
> >multinational peacekeeping mission to enforce a cease-fire. Among them are
> >U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, leading European powers
> >France ��� and the editorial page of the New York Times."
> >
>
> "The Bush administration remained noncommittal yesterday on whether it would
> send U.S. troops to quell the civil war in Liberia, where President Charles
> Taylor was defying a U.S. demand to step down. "
>
> Of course
> 1. There's no oil
> 2. They're poor and black
> 3. There's no oil
> 4. High-tech weapons and massive fire-power are useless, soldiers would actually
> have to do soldiering. No opportunity to "kick ass"
> 5. There's no oil
> 6. It's dangerous to health
> 7. There's no oil
> 8. Not even Americans are dumb enough to believe Al Queda have links to Liberia
> 9. There's no oil
> 10. Liberia is a shitty hole that doesn't look good on TV, and reporters won't
> want to go there anyway.
> 11. There's no oil
>
> ---
> "he [John Ashcroft] deliberately left Jesus out of office prayers to avoid
> offending non-Christians." - Ben Shapiro 27/2/2003
A lot more Bush bashing is called for so I contribute the following:
Norman Mailer has a fine piece on George Bush at
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16470
Here's the concluding paragraph:
Democracy, more than any other political system, depends on a
modicum of honesty. Ultimately, it is much at the mercy of a leader
who has never been embarrassed by himself. What is to be said of a
man who spent two years in the Air Force of the National Guard (as a
way of not having to go to Vietnam) and proceeded—like many another
spoiled and wealthy father's son—not to bother to show up for duty
in his second year of service? Most of us have episodes in our youth
that can cause us shame on reflection. It is a mark of maturation
that we do not try to profit from our early lacks and vices but do
our best to learn from them. Bush proceeded, however, to turn his
declaration of the Iraqi campaign's end into a mighty fashion show.
He chose—this overnight clone of Honest Abe—to arrive on the deck of
the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln on an S-3B Viking jet that came
in with a dramatic tail-hook landing. The carrier was easily within
helicopter range of San Diego but G.W. would not have been able to
show himself in flight regalia, and so would not have been able to
demonstrate how well he wore the uniform he had not honored. Jack
Kennedy, a war hero, was always in civvies while he was commander in
chief. So was General Eisenhower. George W. Bush, who might, if he
had been entirely on his own, have made a world-class male model
(since he never takes an awkward photograph), proceeded to tote the
flight helmet and sport the flight suit. There he was for the
photo-op looking like one more great guy among the great guys. Let
us hope that our democracy will survive these nonstop foulings of
the nest.
Happy 4th, Jr. but I think America deserves someone much better than you.
W.
John W.
> 1. There's no oil
> 2. They're poor and black
> 3. There's no oil
> 4. High-tech weapons and massive fire-power are useless, soldiers would actually
> have to do soldiering. No opportunity to "kick ass"
> 5. There's no oil
> 6. It's dangerous to health
> 7. There's no oil
> 8. Not even Americans are dumb enough to believe Al Queda have links to Liberia
> 9. There's no oil
> 10. Liberia is a shitty hole that doesn't look good on TV, and reporters won't
> want to go there anyway.
> 11. There's no oil
>
Somalia, even though they're hardly the same.
John W.
Declan Murphy
> On 3 Jul 2003 17:49:51 -0700, Brett Robson <jet...@deja.com> belched
> the alphabet and kept on going with:
>
>>On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:09:20 -0400, "Kevin ...
>>
>>>Actually, the US accounts for over 1/3 of the global GDP, so everyone should
>>
>>An oft quoted but completely bogus figure.
>
> Penis envy.
That explains it. My prudish American professors couldn't bring
themselves to say "Penis" to the impressionable youth gathered for the
lectures, and so all this time I was misguided into thinkin "GDP
adjusted for PPP" had sometink to do with Purchasing Price Parity. Its
kinda distressing to discover all that is involved is a bunch of
beancounters shooing away the dunny budgies and adjusting GDP with their
dongers. A waste of good tuition.
Jason Cormier
Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>>> No more interesting than Article 17(2):
>>> "The expenses of the Organization shall be borne by the Members as
>>> apportioned by the General Assembly."
>>
>> If only the UN was solely run via the General Assembly...
>
> ...then what? I'm not exactly sure of what you want to say. The GA's 5th
> committee is responsible for the UN budget. It is a unique function. Did you
> think the Security Council was involved in some fashion?
No, what I know is that the committees do much of their work outside of
official meetings. Like many governments, the grunt work is done through
lobbying, informal meetings, and outside input.
>> No, here we have Kevin putting another's words into my mouth. I never
>> said the US paid based on a a percentage. Michael wondered why their
>> portion, regardless of how that derived, was so high. I made the
>> point that they were not forced into this situation.
>
> Which is a bit misleading.
Only if I was interested in confirming the percentage; I was only interested
in pointing out that the US was not helpless in this area.
>>> I never said anything of the kind, Jed.
>>
>> Kevin, I thought you already felt secure in your superiority to us
>> intellectual lightweights. Yet here you are, sounding much like a
>> person
>> with a massive inferiority complex.
>
> How so?
...and in denial, too. Fair enough.
>>> Of course there is prior discussion,
>>> but not in the General Assembly. Discussion takes place in the GA's
>>> Administrative and Budgetary Committee (5th committee of the UNGA).
>>> The United States has no representative in its bureau.
>>
>> Are you familiar with the workings of such committees? (Not just
>> budgetary.)
>
> Yes, I am, althought I have never taken part. Such workings of the UN
> comprised the bulk of my Public International Law class's curriculum.
>
> Is there a followup question?
No but there is follow-up info. My Grandfather had two five-year postings to
the UN as part of the Canadian Mission. One was with aviation and I cannot
recall the other. I suppose I could ask him the next time I see him. Most of
his work with the committees was done outside of the official framework. The
amount of lobbying that went on was immense and he was quite specific in
stating that the US, Russia (Soviet Union fist time around) and France were
the three nations most actively involved. For these three nations there were
no surprises in committee and very little that was decided without some
degree of influence.
>> They do not operate in a vacuum and they most certainly
>> do not make
>> decisions without outside input.
>
> I never said that they did, but that is beside the point.
I'm afraid it was not. Many a decision on the committees with which my
Grandfather worked were heavily influenced by nations with a significant
interest, even if they themselves did not have a vote.
Jason Cormier
Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
> Jason Cormier wrote:
>> On 7/3/03 16:10, in article be22k4$f22b$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de,
>> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>> I suppose that Jason's statement is true
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see that you are an avid reader of Maureen Dowd's column.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, I haven't read the Times in months.
>>>
>>> Whoosh.
>>
>> Kevin, I'm afraid that you are, once again, suffering from premature
>> Usenet ejaculation.
>
> Why are you so interested in my ejaculation?
Only when it gets all over the NG. Get over yourself, lad.
Jason Cormier
Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030701-115649-1264r.htm
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Many of those most opposed to the U.S.-led effort in Iraq now
>>>>>>>>>> argue that American participation is vital to the success of a
>>>>>>>>>> proposed 5,000-strong multinational peacekeeping mission to
>>>>>>>>>> enforce a cease-fire. Among them are U.N. Secretary-General
>>>>>>>>>> Kofi Annan, leading European powers ? including France ? and
>>>>>>>>>> the editorial page of the New York Times."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why does a country with 6% of the world's population pay 22% of
>>>>>>>>> the UN's expenses?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because said country agreed to do so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nobody ran a chit by me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody asked you if the US should fund a Navy, either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jason, I have to apologize for that practical joke I pulled on you.
>>>>> Remember when I gave you that copy of the U.S. Constitution? Well,
>>>>> I erased Article I, Section 8, Clause 13 from it. Sorry about that.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to have missed the point.
>>>
>>> The point seemed to be that Mike hadn't consented to the United
>>> States funding a navy.
>>
>> So you *do* get it. I have to then wonder why you needed to post a
>> silly irrelevance such as you have above....
>
> Nothing silly about it at all. Mike consents by virtue of his US
> citizenship. Or, perhaps you don't believe in the social contract theory of
> government.
Does not the US Constitution gives exclusive jurisdiction in foreign affairs
to the federal government? Explain to me how he does not also consent to the
government making the decision to be a member of the UN by virtue of his
citizenship.
Michael Cash
belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>On 7/3/03 19:48, in article be2fd1$jd9o$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de, "Kevin
So you see, Kevin, he is more interested in your ejaculate than your
ejaculation.
Michael Cash
belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>On 7/3/03 19:50, in article be2fg0$kgua$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de, "Kevin
(Psssst! I'm with the guys who tried to secede. Remember?)
Jason Cormier
"Michael Cash" <mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:23:40 GMT, Jason Cormier <fj...@hotmail.com>
> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>
>> On 7/3/03 19:48, in article be2fd1$jd9o$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de, "Kevin
>> Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jason Cormier wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/03 16:10, in article be22k4$f22b$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de,
>>>> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suppose that Jason's statement is true
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see that you are an avid reader of Maureen Dowd's column.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, I haven't read the Times in months.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whoosh.
>>>>
>>>> Kevin, I'm afraid that you are, once again, suffering from premature
>>>> Usenet ejaculation.
>>>
>>> Why are you so interested in my ejaculation?
>>
>> Only when it gets all over the NG. Get over yourself, lad.
>
> So you see, Kevin, he is more interested in your ejaculate than your
> ejaculation.
The process is his alone; the results are there for all of us to see.
Kevin Gowen
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:23:40 GMT, Jason Cormier <fj...@hotmail.com>
> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>
>> On 7/3/03 19:48, in article be2fd1$jd9o$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de,
>> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jason Cormier wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/03 16:10, in article be22k4$f22b$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de,
>>>> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suppose that Jason's statement is true
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see that you are an avid reader of Maureen Dowd's column.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, I haven't read the Times in months.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whoosh.
>>>>
>>>> Kevin, I'm afraid that you are, once again, suffering from
>>>> premature Usenet ejaculation.
>>>
>>> Why are you so interested in my ejaculation?
>>
>> Only when it gets all over the NG. Get over yourself, lad.
>
> So you see, Kevin, he is more interested in your ejaculate than your
> ejaculation.
Isn't that boy getting enough to eat as it is?
--
Kevin Gowen
"It hurts when my 8-year-old daughter wants to go to the movies or even
have a meal at McDonald's and I have to say, 'No, Mommy can't afford
it.' If I had gotten a tax cut, I would spend it on the mountain of
bills that face me. Like millions of other working people, I would have
put that money right back into the economy."
- Margaret Gaffin, who does not understand that to be eligible for a
tax cut, one must pay taxes
Kevin Gowen
Yes.
> Explain to me how he does not also
> consent to the government making the decision to be a member of the
> UN by virtue of his citizenship.
Why would I explain a position that I don't hold?
Kevin Gowen
> On 7/3/03 19:47, in article be2fa8$jjqg$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de,
> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> No more interesting than Article 17(2):
>>>> "The expenses of the Organization shall be borne by the Members as
>>>> apportioned by the General Assembly."
>>>
>>> If only the UN was solely run via the General Assembly...
>>
>> ...then what? I'm not exactly sure of what you want to say. The GA's
>> 5th committee is responsible for the UN budget. It is a unique
>> function. Did you think the Security Council was involved in some
>> fashion?
>
> No, what I know is that the committees do much of their work outside
> of official meetings. Like many governments, the grunt work is done
> through lobbying, informal meetings, and outside input.
Still trying to discern the US role outside of the consent to Article 17.
>>> No, here we have Kevin putting another's words into my mouth. I
>>> never
>>> said the US paid based on a a percentage. Michael wondered why their
>>> portion, regardless of how that derived, was so high. I made the
>>> point that they were not forced into this situation.
>>
>> Which is a bit misleading.
>
> Only if I was interested in confirming the percentage; I was only
> interested in pointing out that the US was not helpless in this area.
While it has no member on the 5th Committee bureau?
[snip story about Gramps}
Unless he had anything to do with the 5th Committee's planning of the UN
budget, you can save yourself some typing.
>>> They do not operate in a vacuum and they most certainly
>>> do not make
>>> decisions without outside input.
>>
>> I never said that they did, but that is beside the point.
>
> I'm afraid it was not. Many a decision on the committees with which my
> Grandfather worked were heavily influenced by nations with a
> significant interest, even if they themselves did not have a vote.
Thank you for the wonderful and irrelevant information about the workings of
the aviation committee. Is Grandfather a proper noun in Canadian English?
Kevin Gowen
> On 7/3/03 19:48, in article be2fd1$jd9o$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de,
> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jason Cormier wrote:
>>> On 7/3/03 16:10, in article be22k4$f22b$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de,
>>> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> I suppose that Jason's statement is true
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see that you are an avid reader of Maureen Dowd's column.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, I haven't read the Times in months.
>>>>
>>>> Whoosh.
>>>
>>> Kevin, I'm afraid that you are, once again, suffering from premature
>>> Usenet ejaculation.
>>
>> Why are you so interested in my ejaculation?
>
> Only when it gets all over the NG. Get over yourself, lad.
It's not myself that I can't get over.
Michael Cash
belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>On 7/11/03 12:03, in article utntgv83g686aueqa...@4ax.com,
>"Michael Cash" <mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:23:40 GMT, Jason Cormier <fj...@hotmail.com>
>> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>>
>>> On 7/3/03 19:48, in article be2fd1$jd9o$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de, "Kevin
>>> Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jason Cormier wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/03 16:10, in article be22k4$f22b$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de,
>>>>> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I suppose that Jason's statement is true
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see that you are an avid reader of Maureen Dowd's column.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, I haven't read the Times in months.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whoosh.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kevin, I'm afraid that you are, once again, suffering from premature
>>>>> Usenet ejaculation.
>>>>
>>>> Why are you so interested in my ejaculation?
>>>
>>> Only when it gets all over the NG. Get over yourself, lad.
>>
>> So you see, Kevin, he is more interested in your ejaculate than your
>> ejaculation.
>
>The process is his alone
The honeymoon's over so soon?