Burma

Got my yes vote on that

Image Could Not Be Found

.

I agree as it was over 6 weeks before Maningrida and Oenpelli and other communities had help after cyclone Monica, these people already lived in 3rd would conditions, in a country that is one of the richest in the world.

The kids were going to school at Oenpelli with a huge mahogany tree smashed through the classrooms, there were many other dangerous situations as well but there was a huge 0 care factor from anyone of importance.

Did you give a RATS about them Mike ? Probably not as no one new about them as it wasn't important.

Cheers Steve.

Get my vote as well

Well said Steve

Perhaps it's not a matter of "Them or us".
Perhaps it's a matter of "them AND us" ?

Ahhh Footy,

Upsetting the apple-cart by posting common sense again, are we? ;-))

Bware, certainly hope revvin Kevin's little helper thinks the same when they read my email :)

Well said disco.

Dare I say that the people of Burma have the President of the USA to thank for the inactions of the UN, as he rendered them a useless organization, after he ignored there sanctions and invaded Iraq.

I don't think there is much oil there either, so that counts out the USA for any help.

Cheers Steve.

Steve,

LOL the UN was a useless organization long before George W came along.

Yeah Gramps Fair call, he just made sure of it.

Cheers Steve.

>I don't think there is much oil there either, so that counts
>out the USA for any help.

BBC - text and optional video

You have one child, I think, Steve.

BBC - Burma young 'starving to death'

Mike Harding

It's good to see you haven't changed Mike.

Cheers Steve.

I agree totally Steve.

The man has always been one of solid principles.

Jim.

So Jim you think Mike is a man of principal ?

Yet my way of thinking is, a man of principal would have discredited all the posts on here that thought like I did 96% of them, yet he chose to discredit me alone, not that I care as I can take his comment how I feel and not give a bleep .

Jim as for you, I was told the other night by a member that you were not the D!ckhead I thought you were, then you come along and post you crap and prove him wrong.

Feel free to post your derogatory remarks about me any time you like as I really don't give a bleep what you think, I am sure that I am not the only one who thinks this way.

I will not post on any of your threads or Mikes for that matter ever again, If you choose to post something in mine or post something about me in others, feel free to do so knowing that I will not respond to your pathetic attempts to degrade me.

Now I suggest to you to go and grow up and get a life, rather than sit behind you keyboard and make a fool of your self.

Steve.

I grew up ages ago and have a wonderful life.

You couldn't begin to understand how great things are for me.

Life is beautiful.

Jim.

For those of you who think that the US was responsible for the inaction of the UN and for rendering it a useless organisation, I don't think you could be any further from the truth.

The irony is that the US decision to take unilateral action in Iraq, actually saved the UN from a very embarrassing back down in the face of Iraq's refusal to comply with UN (not US) weapons inspection programs. The UN's impotence was there for all the world to see, but at least the US led invasion of Iraq took the focus away from one simple fact; Saddam Hussein had thumbed his nose at the UN over weapons inspection and human rights demands since the end of the first Gulf War, because he KNEW that as an organisation they were powerless to enforce them. He badly misread the US resolve to act outside of the UN umbrella however and ultimately paid a big personal price for his brinkmanship. Now right or wrong, the US invasion of Iraq probably prolonged whatever credibility the UN had.

To suggest that the US doesn't want to get involved in Burma because there is no oil is misleading and simplistic. Who have been the loudest in demanding that the junta allow aid in? Who do you think will bankroll and supply the bulk of the aid that goes in? Who has been most vocal in suggesting that a stronger line should be taken in forcing aid into the country? The answer would be the same country that funds 22% of the UN's operating budget. The same country that has more peacekeepers deployed around the globe than the remaining UN members combined.

To suggest that the US is responsible for emasculating the UN ignores the fact that the US contributes nearly three times the funds to the UN than its nearest security council friends (Germany, UK and France), 10 times the contribution of China and nearly 20 times the contribution of Russia (who as a permanent security council member don't even make the top 10 list of contributing countries).

So don't let your anti-US bias cloud the facts. Inevitably they will supply and fund the vast majority of whatever aid gets into Burma and will remain very vocal in pressuring the junta to accept the assistance that is on offer and waiting.

Matt.

quote:
The U.S. arrears issue

The UN has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the U.S. For a number of years, the U.S. Congress refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force UN compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment.

After prolonged negotiations, the U.S. and the UN negotiated an agreement whereby the United States would pay a large part of the money it owes, and in exchange the UN would reduce the assessment rate ceiling from 25% to 22%. The reduction in the assessment rate ceiling was among the reforms contained in the 1999 Helms-Biden legislation, which links payment of $926 million in U.S. arrears to the UN and other international organizations to a series of reform benchmarks.

U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. Of this, $612 million is payable under Helms-Biden. The remaining $700 million result from various legislative and policy withholdings; at present, there are no plans to pay these amounts.

Under Helms-Biden, the U.S. paid $100 million in arrears to the UN in December 1999; release of the next $582 million awaits a legislative revision to Helms-Biden, necessary because the benchmark requiring a 25 percent peacekeeping assessment rate ceiling was not quite achieved. The U.S. also seeks elimination of the legislated 25 percent cap on U.S. peacekeeping payments in effect since 1995, which continues to generate additional UN arrears. Of the final $244 million under Helms-Biden, $30 million is payable to the UN and $214 million to other international organizations.
+ U.S. debt to the United Nations, from 1995 to 2005
Year Regular budget Peacekeeping Total
31 December 1995 $414 million (73%) $816 million (47%) $1.231 billion (56%)
31 December 1996 $376 million (74%) $926 million (57%) $1.303 billion (61%)
31 December 1997 $373 million (79%) $940 million (60%) $1.313 billion (64%)
31 December 1998 $316 million (76%) $976 million (61%) $1.294 billion (64%)
31 December 1999 $167 million (68%) $995 million (67%) $1.170 billion (67%)
31 December 2000 $165 million (74%) $1.144 billion (56%) $1.321 billion (58%)
31 December 2001 $165 million (69%) $691 million (38%) $871 million (41%)
31 December 2002 $190 million (62%) $536 million (40%) $738 million (44%)
31 December 2003 $268 million (61%) $482 million (45%) $762 million (48%)
31 December 2004 $241 million (68%) $722 million (28%) $975 million (33%)
30 September 2005 $607 million (82%) $607 million (28%) $1.246 billion (41%)

source: Wikipedia: United States and the united Nations

Steve.

So that's it? A cut and paste from Wikipedia? What is the point you are trying to make?

If you are saying that the US owes arrearages then you are entirely correct. And guess what, they are not alone. Under Article 19 of the UN Charter, countries with arrears totaling more than the member’s assessments for the two preceding years lose their vote in the UN General Assembly. There are about 16 countries in this situation at the moment, but not the US, although it came close in 1999 as the Helms-Biden Legislation was being developed.

Helms-Biden, as you noted in your cut and paste was, in part, an effort by the US to tie its funding of UN activities to a series of benchmarks which governed the way the UN spent its money and how that was governed. Is it unreasonable for a country to ensure that the money it gives (supplied by its taxpayers) is spent in a manner that is sound and accords with the contributing country's principles? Maybe, maybe not.

Arrears notwithstanding, the US is still the largest financial contributor to the United Nations, with Japan second.

Cheers,

Matt.

FFS What's the point of posting a comment here when it provokes such irelevant crap, pro and anti USA comments, and personal criticism.

GROW UP!!!!.


The tragedy is the people of Burma who are dying as a result of their so called government 's inaction.


Disco.

'For the same reason I opposed, and still do, the Coalition of the Willing and their invasion activities in the Middle East and adjoining lands.

"The greatest threat to peace in our time is the current President of the mighty USA."
God save us from lunatics like him !'

What do you mean Disco? Are you referring to the sort of irrelevant anti-American crap like the quote above?

Now where did I get that from?

disco driver,

"For the same reason I opposed, and still do, the Coalition of the Willing and their invasion activities in the Middle East and adjoining lands.

"The greatest threat to peace in our time is the current President of the mighty USA."
God save us from lunatics like him !"

What was that drivel for? Who cares what you think of Iraq etc. Exactly what relevance did it have to this post?

Before you start getting on your high horse I suggest you have a damn good look at yourself.

Yeah, and the list goes on and on and on. Totally agree with your statement and "charity begins at home" sooo many holes to filled up in Oz before we commit our hard earned money to others. As for the UN and USA ... ha,ha,ha, Great joke.
Regards
dedabatoImage Could Not Be Found

Yes its true charity begins at home ..... But it should never end there!!

As I read Mike Hardings post he is suggesting we lobby our Govt to pressure Burma to allow the international aid thats sitting in ships offshore to actually get to where its needed. Who could be against such a suggestion - no harm can be done but people power may make a difference. He is not suggesting we ask our Govt to increase aid to Burma.

In any case the federal Govt allocates a certain amount of funding for overseas aid each year - whether it goes to Burma or anywhere else depends on natural disasters and need etc. This is not money taken away from our own citizens as such as its especially allocted for overseas aid and has been for decades by both sides of Government.

Cheers,
Glen

Glen,

It's good to hear the voice of reason :-))

regards

Brian

Gday Saharaman,

"This is not money taken away from our own citizens as such as its especially allocted for overseas aid and has been for decades by both sides of Government."

Hahaha.........
I supose they just picked it off that big money tree.

I agree with putting pressure on their so called government or millitary but not at another huge cost when their are people in Australia commiting sucide because of financial loss and getting bugger all help from the Gov.

HI hairy,
Thanks for your comment.
The point I was making is that overseas aid and extra financial help for our own citizens are NOT alternatives. The Federal Government always budgets a certain amount for overseas aid every year (used to be based on a %age of GDP). This money goes to developing countries in our region (eg PNG) as well as some is kept for emergencies like natural disasters. So its nothing to do with taking money from our own citizens. The Govt has a $21.7 billion surplus - if they wanted to increase pensions or help needy Australians they could do so without reducing the overseas aid budget. Yes the overseas aid comes out of consolidated revenue but the point is if it wasn't used for overseas aid it would NOT be given back to Australian in need anyway. The Rudd Govt made a choice not to increase pensions - but it has absolutely nothing to do with our level of overseas aid.

Cheers,
Glen

Oh and yes Mike, a sad series of events both in Burma and China also.

I have some real problems with their politics and policies but not with their people.

Cheers.....Lionel.

Agreed Jim.

I have been both disappointed and astonished by many of the responses to this thread.

All I sought was that people lobby our politicians to pressure the international community to get aid into Burma - is that a bad thing? Do we, as human beings, wish to see others suffer and die? Perhaps we do.

Mike Harding

Mike,

I was disappointed, but certainly not astonished.

Sadly, I half expected the comments. My expectation was exceded.

The world is full of selfish, bigotted bastards. I suppose we have to get used to that.

If my comments cost me a sale or two, I don't care.

Regards,

Jim Best.

Jim/Mike....I dont think lambasting [Ithink thats the word] people because they have a different opinion than yourselves is helpful.

It would take a hard man not to be affected by the reports and pictures flooding in from these places. In fact a recent programme by SBS showed what kiddies endure in a Bucharest orphanage had me in tears. Even the wife said she hadnt seen me weep before.

Opinions are usually based on media, rumour, discussion and experience. However, I dont know of any law that forbids one from having an opinion.

To label a person as selfish and biggoted would be as bad as labeling someone as stupid and naive.

Just my response to what appeared as an overly strong comment.

Still mates

Cheers.....Lionel.

Loinel,

I agree that everyone is entitled to an opinion.

When someone effectively makes a statement of 'let the poor bastards starve to death because they are not Australian it is my opinion that they are selfish and bigotted, should have added cold blooded and heartless.

That's just my opinion.

Cheers,

Jim.

internet accessability allows the demographic at a place like this, to widen, rapidly.

old school (and I include myself there) need to make the decision to stay or go, participate/tolerate/educate where applicable or lurk. it's difficult some people change their user name to lurk or retreat perhaps. i guess i'll just keep a constant rev and speak when i am prompted to.

not a bad thing, but just proves the continuing theme, the world is getting smaller. learn to live with each other.

yep, some people seem to "bone up" and all of a sudden after being a quiet contributor become full of passion, or whatever .... good. but it's all a balance and respect needs to be patient on the internet.

love and quiches everyone....ha ha......time to light another fire in the backyard, it's a clear sky tonight.


ha ha he hits the submit button without caring to check what he typed....

Fair enough mate, well argued.

Just fired my two emails away.

Cheers....Lionel.

PS: Rereading the entire post again, I began to notice a sort of 'pack' mentality creeping in. It maybe just me. If it is, i'll have to stop playing with the dogs.

Davoe,

you are right, there are many battles to fight. We are called to fight certain ones, and we should try to fight some, whatever we can do. Mike was called and has posted, I am not about to put him down, and no, am not suggesting you are.