UN Freeloaders (link corrected, sorry!)

Remove all ads!

Yes, that's my point. Darkwolfs article made the point, that the US-Goverment wastes too much money for UN spending. My point is, the US-Goverment wastes much more tax-payer-money for their oversees stationing of troops. They talk about peanuts and let the giant melons untouched. And those melons are the cause of lot of problems, which cost more money.

Sidenote:Sprite, didn't you follow my former disputes with Darkwolf and why I think that the Republicans are very inclined to socialism, like Ronnie Reagan was ? But that does not mean, that I support that Cato-Site fully, there was an other article, right next to a side with shameless endorsment of monopols. "Monopoly is good for the health of your economy!". Tz, another schiozephrenic side.

And then, did the article of the first post say anything, about what UN-organisations actually do ? Now, as Swiss I say, there's not too much bad about the Red cross/Halfmoon. And then, going back to my post above about veto, there is no connection whatsoever with veto-rights and payment to the UN. Apples and Lemons ? And note, no word about what UN-organisations actually are doing.

For the sake of the length of my post, I won't go in detail. But that's money spend on the bureaucracy of the UN. This bureacracy's goal is to keep peace and organisising things. So, it's national interest of most states to invest in them. The American prefer to waste money in military basis. Everybody knows, "military" is a synomym for "inefficiency". Military is a money waste machine. And the cato article said, that there's no strategical gain.

Okinawa wants US-Troops ?

In most of those nations, there are a lot of people who want them to be gone, not all of them, but a lot. Most of the European countries are indifferent to them.

No, economic loss is a different thing. It's highly unlikely, that the existence or not existence of those bases have any impact on the economies of those nations. Strangley enough, the negative economical impact of those bases makes a lot of people in their neighbourhood to get rid of them.

My understanding is, if in Japan their is something like a trash bin, than it's Okinawa, that's why the Japanese goverment want the biggest bulk of the US-troops there.

One of the points, why the people in Okinawa (the other main point is the notorious criminal rates of the troops there) won't to get rid of those troops is, that the base is strangling the economy of the Island for years. Except whorehouses and construction companies, there is no business which profits from the Americans, it's a burden to all of the rest.

So, if people really would think, that bases would be an economical gain, they would be happy to have them, wouldn't they ? I guess economical profit from bases are nothing else but chapter out of mithology.


Good for Okinawa economy ?

[ June 06, 2003, 18:52: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Yago,

So you found some exceptions, the fact is, the government's of most of these nations like the economic gain they get not only from the land the US leases but the money that the soldiers spend. I will not claim that it is true 100% of the time, but if the Japanese really wanted us gone, we would be.

As far as the people of some nations not wanting us there, that is a problem for their government. The politicians to weigh the economic cost of a lost US base with the political loss of keeping it. But keep in mind, the vast majority of people will vote illogically when it comes to emotional issues, and truly are stupid. Most people really do deserve the tag sheeple (a combo of sheep and people, in other words they look like humans, but behave like sheep).

 

Darkwolf, I agree with what you said to some extend.

The fist sentence, I agree fully with. That's why the Japanes goverment puts as much of the US-Troops to Okinawa as possible. As far my understanding is, if their is something like far far away from Japan in Japan, it's Okinawa. So, the political impact of Okinawa on Japan is minimal and the Japanese goverment can afford to ignore it. As far my understanding is, because the different history and culture of Okinawa, most Japanes do not think, their "Japanese".

The second phrase. I doubt that Goverments weigh in ecenomical thinking, if it's about that. As I said, military bases are not good for regional economy, as far as my understanding is. Yes, locally will a "supplier" industry develop, mainly construction, food, amusement of any kind. But on the same time, the local region will not develop any other kind of economic, the infrastructure suffers and people will move away.

Economical thinking of a goverment may play a role indirectly, as the goverment maybe will be offered something else, which will be conditioned on the stationing of troops.

Now, most Europeans are indifferent, but I am not so sure about Iceland and Greenland. But the Cato-aricle I mentioned gets a good point over, why would Europeans need so much armies ? They is no big threat around, and Europeans can invest that money in different things. So, if those troops are away, they will probably not replaced by European troops, because there is no need for that. Then why keeping those troops in European countries in the first place ?

Economical thinking, I guess, will not play a major role, except by "suppliers" when it's about stationed troops. Quite frankly, I never heard that argument, resp. have read about it somewhere, without a connection to "suppliers". And we station are armiy usually at the places, which are as far away from any population as possible. Because the do to much economical harm the other way. The major argument is "fidelity" to the ally. They asked us, we said yes. They are our NATO-partners.

So, like Germany recently, many construction companies are going berzerk, because the loose some money, because American building stops, but then, that's a drop in a ocean, concerning the GDP and free-market is "innovative destruction". Mabye they should develop some other, more lucrative industries there.

He, he, that's maybe true. But I personally think, there is nothing better as a direct-democracy and a milita-system. People will decide for what's good for them. That obviously needs the necessary information. Concerning the Okinawa example, I think Japanese have usually very good information about what's happening.

 

Haven't had time to do more than skim this topic, but just thought it was noteworthy that one of the base facts portrayed here is a complete falacy.

China have nowhere near the second largest economy in the world.

In 2001 it had about the 7th largest economy per the OECD. All the following are larger: USA, Japan, Germany, France, The UK, Italy (not exhaustive but about right). Can't remember about the Ruskies.

It came in at some 113bn when the US economy was 10,045bn. Now I make that approximately 9 times the size.

The Chinese rate of growth is far higher than most of the rest of the world, but still only comes in at 7-8% per annum. I don't care how hard up the Japanese economy is, but in the same year it was more than 3 times the size of China, and about 150% of Germany.

Clearly to claim that China is the second largest as we stand is incorrect. I wonder what else he has not got right?

 

Not slamming anyone, but when it comes to measuring economic power there are:

Benjamin Disraeli


It just depends on how you measure economic power.

 

Winston Churchill.

I find that's the best quote about statistics.

Sidenote: I've read in a book today, that British statistics in the past centuries (19th and back) were very inaccurate. No offence Viking, I'm talking about the past. Maybe that's the reason, why British Prime Ministers left so much quotes about statistics ?

 

Yago, you are pure evil!

 

Ok, Ok, my evilness has seen, that this has gone a litte bit off topic. Back to the UN issue. What have conservatives against the UN ?

Darkwolf's article

What's so bad about the UNESCO ?

OMG, save the world from condoms !!!! And sex-education !!!! It would break the vicous circle of 16-year old girls getting pregnant. We don't want that to happen, do we ?