Some scary numbers...

mick.fr

I heard the Pentagon annual budget represents 36 hours of the actual UN annual budget. 1,5 day

Also heard that the cost for the US operations in Irak is 2BN USD a week, which is the annual budget for the World Food Program, feeding 750M people worldwide each year.

Makes you think a bit

roverjoyce

And your point is????

Duffers

I read that cornflakes are a good source of B vitamins. It said it on the box.

trentf

Makes you think about what?

Manic Moran

mick.fr wrote: »

I heard the Pentagon annual budget represents 36 hours of the actual UN annual budget. 1,5 day

Also heard that the cost for the US operations in Irak is 2BN USD a week, which is the annual budget for the World Food Program, feeding 750M people worldwide each year.

Makes you think a bit

Yes, proof of the Pentagon's inefficiency. If WFP can feed 750m people a year, then at the same rate of expentiture the US should be capable of exterminating the population of the planet in a little over a month.

Well, in fairness, we probably could if someone would let us use nukes.

In another example of inefficiency, the State of California, population about 65m, spends some $8.5bn a year just building and maintaining roads. CalTrans should be capable of building and maintaining pretty much the entire road infrastructure in the US West of the Mississippi if as efficient as the WFP...

I would submit, however, that the UN's budget is probably lower than that of most countries as it provides generally fewer services. Some 90,000 people work in the IRS alone, just gathering taxes for the running of the US. How big is the UN staff? Does the UN need a budget as big as that of the Pentagon? Besides, since the US provides 22% of the UN's funding, I think the US can reserve the rest of its money for whatever use it happens to think most fitting.

NTM

neilled

roverjoyce wrote: »

And your point is????

Probably that the world spends more on ensuring it has vast capacities for destruction, rather than feeding people.

roverjoyce

Why should the US worry about the rest of the world
they are looking after themselves
whats wrong with that????

concussion

Manic Moran wrote: »

Besides, since the US provides 22% of the UN's funding, I think the US can reserve the rest of its money for whatever use it happens to think most fitting.

NTM

I thought it was 33% - has it changed or was it always 22%?

Thirdfox

roverjoyce wrote: »

Why should the US worry about the rest of the world
they are looking after themselves
whats wrong with that????

Because, as President Obama said - they want to lead the world. That means not only looking after national self-interest but global interests too.

Of course, many others would prefer if they didn't lead the world (whether by partaking instead in a consensus building forum e.g. the UN) or they just don't like the values of the US.

You can't have your cake and eat it (without consequences/reactions).

As for spending differences - it is somewhat cheaper to have pay for a judge in the International Court of Justice and his/her support staff than to run a super aircraft carrier with its support staff...

Manic Moran

concussion wrote: »

I thought it was 33% - has it changed or was it always 22%?

Used to be more.

Apparently the US Congress got fed up of paying so much of the UN's budget (and then getting flak for its vetoes or whatever) so they put a cap on the amount they were giving to the UN. This was less than the UN was 'billing' the US, and thus contributed to the whole "The US is X many dollars behind in its UN payments" thing. Recently the UN decided that maybe Congress had a point, and put a 22% cap from any particular country. The US is the only country to meet that cap right now.

NTM

Thirdfox

The US does like to use its veto though - roughly 10 times more than China or Russia I believe. Then again it is mainly down to the Israel issue. Maybe they do pay 10 times more than either country too (putting aside the issue of whether money buys "rightness").

trentf

I've come to the following conclusion about those who target the usa and complain constantly about it. The usa is dammed if it does and dammed if it doesn't. These are the mud slingers whose own countries sit by and do nothing, never did do anything and never had to fight a real battle in their short history. They sit on their thrones complaining about what the usa does and doesn't do for the world and do very little themselves. The slave driver if you will. Don't judge anyone till you have walked a mile in their shoes. Ever hear that saying? Obviously not, because the rose tinted glasses your wearing are shinning so bright

And besides why does the usa have to look after the rest of the world?

Maybe if the rest of the world got up off their asses and actually did something for a change instead of looking at the usa and complaining the poor and starving would actually stand a chance. The usa has every right to spend that much on defence, what you want a nuclear armed iran in charge? The usa still protects europe with the missile defence shield and maintains its nuclear arsenal there. If iran got its way there won't be much of a Europe left. And believe me as soon as they do get nukes they will attack israel.

You should get down on your knees and thank the lord for the usa, not begrudge it. But deep down you really do despite your complaining because you know as do most logical thinking people when the sh(t hits the fan and it will the only one capable of coming to the rescue of the western world is the usa. The european bureaucrats like sarkozy and co are nothing but middle man appeasers, Cowards, the chinese and russian's self absorbed and the rest of the world is too weak and powerless to do anything

Hard Larry

trentf wrote: »

I've come to the following conclusion about those who target the usa and complain constantly about it. The usa is dammed if it does and dammed if it doesn't. These are the mud slingers whose own countries sit by and do nothing, never did do anything and never had to fight a real battle in their short history. They sit on their thrones complaining about what the usa does and doesn't do for the world and do very little themselves. The slave driver if you will. Don't judge anyone till you have walked a mile in their shoes. Ever hear that saying? Obviously not, because the rose tinted glasses your wearing are shinning so bright

And besides why does the usa have to look after the rest of the world?

Maybe if the rest of the world got up off their asses and actually did something for a change instead of looking at the usa and complaining the poor and starving would actually stand a chance. The usa has every right to spend that much on defence, what you want a nuclear armed iran in charge? The usa still protects europe with the missile defence shield and maintains its nuclear arsenal there. If iran got its way there won't be much of a Europe left. And believe me as soon as they do get nukes they will attack israel.

You should get down on your knees and thank the lord for the usa, not begrudge it. But deep down you really do despite your complaining because you know as do most logical thinking people when the sh(t hits the fan and it will the only one capable of coming to the rescue of the western world is the usa. The european bureaucrats like sarkozy and co are nothing but middle man appeasers, Cowards, the chinese and russian's self absorbed and the rest of the world is too weak and powerless to do anything

Didn't they vote a Mentally Disadvantaged guy in as President...twice?

Nah, they can't be trusted...at least if the Iranians were in power we could tell our wimmins to STFU and not get a plate thrown at us.

.

Poccington

Hard Larry wrote: »

Didn't they vote a Mentally Disadvantaged guy in as President...twice?

Nah, they can't be trusted...at least if the Iranians were in power we could tell our wimmins to STFU and not get a plate thrown at us.

.

You know how to solve that problem without the Iranians? Paper plates, mon ami

trentf

Hard Larry wrote: »

Didn't they vote a Mentally Disadvantaged guy in as President...twice?

Nah, they can't be trusted...at least if the Iranians were in power we could tell our wimmins to STFU and not get a plate thrown at us.

.

If the iranians were in power you wouldn't exist and one's thing for sure you wouldn't be allowed on a forum to discuss the annoyances of the opposite sex

Hard Larry

trentf wrote: »

If the iranians were in power you wouldn't exist and one's thing for sure you wouldn't be allowed on a forum to discuss the annoyances of the opposite sex

Yeah we'd have public stonings instead...a much better idea IMO

Ah cheer up mate being a muslim wouldn't be all that bad;

4 wives, falafel and mingy bread.

They pray 5 times a day coupled with the smoke breaks I take in a days works means I'd get paid for doing completely shag all.

Oh and on the whole existance thing...theres several hundered thousands Japenese civvies that might retort to your arguement were there ancestors not vapourised in a ball of fire.

I personally have nothing against America or its way of life in fact I've visited the fine place 4 times in my life time and am a regular contributer to their Porn Industry.

Thirdfox

trentf wrote: »

I've come to the following conclusion about those who target the usa and complain constantly about it. The usa is dammed if it does and dammed if it doesn't. These are the mud slingers whose own countries sit by and do nothing, never did do anything and never had to fight a real battle in their short history. They sit on their thrones complaining about what the usa does and doesn't do for the world and do very little themselves. The slave driver if you will. Don't judge anyone till you have walked a mile in their shoes. Ever hear that saying? Obviously not, because the rose tinted glasses your wearing are shinning so bright

First off, you've written quite a long comment with lots of interesting points - I don't agree with many of those points but can appreciate that others can feel just as strongly as I do on the same issues in different ways.

Like I had written before - many countries would prefer if the US didn't try to lead the world and would prefer consensus building (Euro-weenies as the Republicans might put it) or see America lose its spot as the sole super-power in the world.

"Mud-slingers" as you put it (I'd actually like to know which countries you're referring to as each country/groups of people has different priorities and reasons for their attitudes to the US) - but just generalising - see that the sole super power acting irresponsibly and most have walked a mile in the US's shoes - look at the EU, after hundreds of years of war within Europe we have managed to come together and work alongside one another (though we still have bumps every now and then). The "self-absorbed" countries that you mention - their reason for disliking US actions is exactly because the US is not quiet and content with its lot, but rather influencing the world outside its borders both negatively and positively.

And besides why does the usa have to look after the rest of the world?

"the world" probably prefers it doesn't try to do that...but the US is "looking after" the world often out of its self-interest and using its dominant power to be a force for good in some cases, but other more destructive purposes sometimes too. So while we would prefer if you work together with us, if you don't, at least you should use your power as a positive influence for the rest of the world.

Maybe if the rest of the world got up off their asses and actually did something for a change instead of looking at the usa and complaining the poor and starving would actually stand a chance. The usa has every right to spend that much on defence, what you want a nuclear armed iran in charge? The usa still protects europe with the missile defence shield and maintains its nuclear arsenal there. If iran got its way there won't be much of a Europe left. And believe me as soon as they do get nukes they will attack israel.

For example - looking at Kyoto (notwithstanding how good the signatory countries have been in enforcing the protocol) - the US itself is such a major player in greenhouse gases (along with many of the developing countries) that the everyone else trying to make a difference, doesn't actually have enough of an impact.

And instead of bombing countries into the ground (hyperbole definitely) perhaps one could understand why they hate you so much? And does putting embargoes around them and pointing missiles at them help change that attitude? As some people point out about the situation in Israel/Palestine - every Hamas terrorist that Israel kills results in more martyrs being creating as you're just killing off the final end product and not addressing the original problem, the root of the issue.

Unless you truly believe that Muslims, Chinese etc. etc. just really hate "you" (whatever that means since there are many American Muslims, Chinese etc.) then there must be some reasonable/unreasonable reason why they act the way they do. Things aren't black and white - fighting a war on terror is such a bad idea - you can't defeat ideas with bombs, you must have people want to be like you, truly believe in your ideals too (and you shouldn't close yourself off to contemplating whether their ideals etc. might be a better option than what you hold as true).

You should get down on your knees and thank the lord for the usa, not begrudge it. But deep down you really do despite your complaining because you know as do most logical thinking people when the sh(t hits the fan and it will the only one capable of coming to the rescue of the western world is the usa. The european bureaucrats like sarkozy and co are nothing but middle man appeasers, Cowards, the chinese and russian's self absorbed and the rest of the world is too weak and powerless to do anything

Do you see any contradictions in your passage? You state that the rest of the world is too weak - but then ask why must the US look after the world. Assuming that the ideals espoused by the US is truly an indication of what they want (which many countries are suspicious about) then how could they not feel obligated to do the most for the world, from the privileged position that they currently occupy.

trentf wrote: »

If the iranians were in power you wouldn't exist and one's thing for sure you wouldn't be allowed on a forum to discuss the annoyances of the opposite sex

I'd agree to a large extent - though everyone that I've met who has travelled to Iran spoke of how much they loved the country and its people - of course not the government though.

Though you may be surprised by what is allowed and what isn't. Just like factual errors/bias is to be found in the CCTV (Chinese state news), similarly our news agencies are often quite biased/factually wrong in their reporting too. Travelling around the world - I find that any ideas of there is only "one right answer" for everyone is quite absurd... people have different values and different systems... and as long as basic rights are not infringed then live and let live.

Speaking from my home in the US right now

trentf

lol

Thirdfox

?