UK sailors captured at gunpoint

[swerve]

Well if you want to combine them to show there contribution thats fine as it reflects almost 650 million people. So I guess they should be paying more. As a matter of fact I would prefer they pay it all and we just get out .

Then I may get a tax reduction on my paycheck

About $14 per US citizen last year I've seen a full reckoning for, over half of which is for the voluntary contributions, which are for things the USA would be spending money on anyway (& in some cases was, before the UN was founded, to the same organisations, but they weren't under UN auspices back then), but which the UN provides a convenient umbrella for. Look forward to to 5 cents or so after they've deducted administrative charges.

BTW, where did the EU get all those extra people from? You seem to be adding Russia & a few other countries to the EU. I make it about 480 mn people, paying a bigger proportion of their incomes than the USA.

 

[swerve]

...
Sorry Swerve you are wrong. When you add up the US contribution to the UNs operating budget (which is where you get your 22% from) add in the US contribution to peacekeeping and humanitarian operations around the world and add the additional interagency funds given to the various UN organizations the number comes to about 50%. It's only 22% when you use the usual Euro fact twisting and conveniently leave the rest out.

As for not paying in full that again is a stretch. It happens rarely and usually a token amount when there is disagreement of how the UN should be run. I think if you pay the largest percentage of the bill you should have a say in how it is run don't you think thats fair?

Here, facts to enlighten you.
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060630-121948-5466r_page2.htm

Nope, I've done that. You're forgetting to add in the contributions other countries make to all those, & you're not factoring in the underpayments, which are not token, nor confined to the withholding of funds over disagreement on policy or administration.

In 2004 (the most recent year for which a full estimate is available), the USA paid about 30% of all UN & UN-associated costs - $4.2 bn. That's actual contribution, not budgeted, including all the agencies, peacekeeping, etc. Only 9% of that was towards the operating budget. The UK paid about $1.4 bn total, Japan $1.85 bn total. I don't have a full figure for EU countries, but it was $6.1 bn for the top 6 & the joint EU contribution. Add in the smaller EU countries, & you'll probably find that the EU is paying 50%.

 

[Thumper]

As usual you pull numbers out of the air. Care to back them up with a reliable citation or two Swerve?

Oops I forgot. The EU? Since when is it a member of the UN? Lets stick to comparing country to country shall we? Otherwise we may as well put all 50 states into the general assemble and have California, Texas and New York have votes on the Security Council. The nations of the EU cannot have it both ways so don't compare EU numbers to US numbers. Once again it is fact twisting on your part.

 

[Land-Man]

Hey guys! UK soldiers, remember? Iran?

 

[Thumper]

You are right. I did not mean to take part in hijacking the thread.

 

[Land-Man]

I tend to agree with you about the UN. I just wanted to know if Britain has a tenable rescue option.

 

[Thumper]

Did we have one back in 1979? Fact is if a country wants to take hostages short of a war there really is not much you can do forcefully. Frankly in this instance (and I would say the same if it where Americans) I think a calm, patient approach is a much better option. Right now I think most Iranians are getting tired of the antics of the nut jobs that are running things over there. Further Iran is being increasingly isolated every time their idiot president opens his hate filled mouth. The only thing I think keeping them afloat is the high price of oil. Overtly stirring things up, and being belligerent just plays into their hands.

I hate to say it but right now quiet diplomacy and the UN are the best options. Long term, we should try to go back to the old days and subvert the government by saying loudly that we have no hate for the common Iranian, in fact we want to be friends, and all the while identify and help fund any viable anti governement groups help overthrow the radicals who are running things.

 

[Manfred]

I tend to agree with you about the UN. I just wanted to know if Britain has a tenable rescue option.

If they do, I hope they are not telling anybody about it!

As of now, the Faye has not been released, and now the Iranians are talking about a trial. They must want the war very badly.

THe Iranian Revolutionary Guard functions in a similar way to what the Iraqi Republican Guard used to be; the local SS. Do they have sepperate bases and support infrastructure?

As for the Russians, I had assumed that the reason they pulled out of Iran's Nuclear program was non-payment of bills, and the instability of the Regime. Now it seems that they had some good spys in Tehran, and got the word about what was being planned.
I suspect that they believe that this will escalate to the point where Iran's Nuclear program will be a viable target, and pulled their men out.

Playing both sides? Putin is playing the only one he takes seriously; his own.

 

[ssmoore]

About $14 per US citizen last year I've seen a full reckoning for, over half of which is for the voluntary contributions, which are for things the USA would be spending money on anyway (& in some cases was, before the UN was founded, to the same organisations, but they weren't under UN auspices back then), but which the UN provides a convenient umbrella for. Look forward to to 5 cents or so after they've deducted administrative charges.

BTW, where did the EU get all those extra people from? You seem to be adding Russia & a few other countries to the EU. I make it about 480 mn people, paying a bigger proportion of their incomes than the USA.

Ok fine I was wrong on the population.

I stand by what I said, the EU can pay it all and take it as far as Im concerned. As long as china has a voting position with veto power they can stick it up there you know what and with the interest on the 5 cents I will buy me a half a candy bar in 20 years.

As far as a operation to free the brit soldiers, I dont see how that is feasable. The other problem is if we take any kind of millitary action they would probally just kill them. All the US can do is stand by the brits and be there if they need us. After all its citizens of there country whos lifes are on the line and they should make the final decision.

 

[Manfred]

How feasible is a blockade?

Iran has only one refinery, and imports almost all of it's gasoline. We would be hurt if they shut off the crude, but they would be crippled.

 

[ssmoore]

Thats a option. Maybe it would even trigger a few naval battles . Remember back in the 80's when we sank one of there ships? Or was it 2 ships? I will have to go look and see

 

[Big-E]

How feasible is a blockade?

Iran has only one refinery, and imports almost all of it's gasoline. We would be hurt if they shut off the crude, but they would be crippled.

We don't actually import Iranian oil so the only effect would be a slight hiccup in the rise of cost per barrel. OPEC would take the opportunity to pump a little extra to take advantage of the price bump so total global supply would be the same. Japan and China would be in a world of pain though as they would have to get supplies elsewhere. The Gulf States could easily up capacity for a short term until the situation is resolved. We don't need to blockade Iran to bring it to it's knees. One bomb in the national refinery will send that nation back to the stone age. It's amazing they would allow themselves to be so vulnerable...

 

[gf0012-aust]

We don't actually import Iranian oil so the only effect would be a slight hiccup in the rise of cost per barrel. OPEC would take the opportunity to pump a little extra to take advantage of the price bump so total global supply would be the same. Japan and China would be in a world of pain though as they would have to get supplies elsewhere. The Gulf States could easily up capacity for a short term until the situation is resolved. We don't need to blockade Iran to bring it to it's knees. One bomb in the national refinery will send that nation back to the stone age. It's amazing they would allow themselves to be so vulnerable...

The other reason why China is taking a softly softly approach is because they've also purchased $30bn in LNG stocks, so they're feeling the pinch if things go ugly.

Both Japan and China have also purchased $bn LNG reserves from australia in the last 18 months. One suspects that both countries knew that there was a poss supply problem with Iran and hedged their bets in case their supply was compromised.

As much as there is this chatter about Iranian reserves, some of the more subdued data coming out shows that Iran only has another 5-10 years to play the oil card. Their reserves are not as good as prev thought. (much to Saudi and Kuwaiti delight). I do recall a Saudi oil minister on SBS passing comment that he thought that Irans reserves would be seriously challenged within 10 years.

One also needs to consider that the Iranians themselves are not the Iranian Govt, and the Govt is losing its credibility at home. I would not be surprised to see a more moderate entity take hold within 3-4 years.

IMV, Regime change will happen from within, and hopefully, without friction.

 

[swerve]

As usual you pull numbers out of the air. Care to back them up with a reliable citation or two Swerve?

Oops I forgot. The EU? Since when is it a member of the UN? Lets stick to comparing country to country shall we? Otherwise we may as well put all 50 states into the general assemble and have California, Texas and New York have votes on the Security Council. The nations of the EU cannot have it both ways so don't compare EU numbers to US numbers. Once again it is fact twisting on your part.

Took me two minutes on Google to find original documents from the USG & UN, including a list of the top ten financial contributors. It seems you don't want to.

As well as national contributions, there are joint EU contributions to UN programmes, & the EU as a whole was the 6th largest contributor to the UN in 2004 (on top of individual national contributions), so it is appropriate to speak of an overall EU contribution. As for membership - irrelevant. Switzerland contributed to UN agency spending for many years while not being a member, & non-membership didn't make Swiss money worth less.

And cut the rudeness. I have been polite, & you should respond in the same manner. There is no reason for name calling & false accusations.

Try this - http://www.securitycouncilreport.or...PBC TroopFinancialContributorLists 2Feb06.pdf

Or just search for ( UN financial contributions ). You'll find plenty. You'll also find that no overall totals were published until 2006 (for 2002-2004), as the contributions to all the disparate programmes had never previously been added up. It seems to have been done to settle the arguments over who was giving what, such as this one.

And that's it. Facts, with sources. I hope that will stop the yelling of insults, & let us get back to the topic.

 

[aprasadi]

Dear all, If i ever go into enemy area and got surrounded by 100 enemy soldiers what will I do....definately surrender. If I would have been in my area I would have immediately called for back up and fought with the intruders. This is all planned game by Bush....to create such a situation so that all the world starts believeing that see poor UK and USA soldiers are being held by iran and they should take action and start war.
whatever is happening is highly planned...gr88 USA minds at work to get a reason and start war

 

[Big-E]

Dear all, If i ever go into enemy area and got surrounded by 100 enemy soldiers what will I do....definately surrender. If I would have been in my area I would have immediately called for back up and fought with the intruders. This is all planned game by Bush....to create such a situation so that all the world starts believeing that see poor UK and USA soldiers are being held by iran and they should take action and start war.
whatever is happening is highly planned...gr88 USA minds at work to get a reason and start war

He already has several reasons to start a war, he doesn't have to cook this up. He will just say Iran has already built a nuclear bomb. If he really was going to go that far they would be American service members just like he bombed the Twin Towers... duh. nfloorl:

 

[Tasman]

Dear all, If i ever go into enemy area and got surrounded by 100 enemy soldiers what will I do....definately surrender. If I would have been in my area I would have immediately called for back up and fought with the intruders. This is all planned game by Bush....to create such a situation so that all the world starts believeing that see poor UK and USA soldiers are being held by iran and they should take action and start war.
whatever is happening is highly planned...gr88 USA minds at work to get a reason and start war

Are you suggesting that President Bush persuaded PM Blair to instruct the RN to order the captain of HMS Corwall to send two unescorted RHIBs with the intention that the crews would be captured in order to start a war? Or have I slightly misunderstood your post?

Cheers

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

If I would have been in my area I would have immediately called for back up and fought with the intruders.

So you would have committed suicide in the face of superior firepower? You obviously have no real knowledge of the military and are just a troll out to cause trouble.

No one's fooled by your nonsense.

:nutkick

 

[Schumacher]

We don't actually import Iranian oil so the only effect would be a slight hiccup in the rise of cost per barrel. OPEC would take the opportunity to pump a little extra to take advantage of the price bump so total global supply would be the same. Japan and China would be in a world of pain though as they would have to get supplies elsewhere. The Gulf States could easily up capacity for a short term until the situation is resolved. We don't need to blockade Iran to bring it to it's knees. One bomb in the national refinery will send that nation back to the stone age. It's amazing they would allow themselves to be so vulnerable...

What are your thoughts on the factors holding US from attacking the nuke sites now ?

 

[Rich]

How feasible is a blockade?

Iran has only one refinery, and imports almost all of it's gasoline. We would be hurt if they shut off the crude, but they would be crippled.

Interesting point. I would say not very feasible for a number of reasons. First off the confined/shallow waters of the Gulf are not optimal for the blue water USN and our allies. Much of such work, or at least monitoring, would be done by our submarines and the shallow waters are bad news for our boats. We have huge SSNs that need deep water to operate at full effectiveness. Also, shallow water doesn't have the temperature layers for our boats to hide under to help keep them from being discovered.

Carriers in the Gulf are also at great risk from AshMs. Out in the open ocean they would have escorts spread out providing layers of defense, along with their aircraft. Such deployments aren't feasible in the gulf.

OK, so we go out in the open ocean of the Gulf of Oman and catch ships coming out of the Gulf? That would start problems with the countries that own the ships and need the oil. Not just that but the mouth of the Persian gulf, and surrounding waters, are like an ocean super highway. Imagine how many ships you would have to stop, and how many navy platforms needed to complete the mission?

Lastly Iran would probably view it as an act of war and attack the naval vessels. That's not so big a problem but it does beg the question if we go thru all that then why not just attack them first? Why let them control the engagement?

Our allies wouldn't go along with it anyways. They are more interested in selling goods to Iran http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1552 And if they dont even go along with economic sanctions how can we expect the mainland Euros to go along with military force. Which is what a blockade is. The price of oil, after such a move, would increase by factors of "X" and would increase the INTL hostility pointed at us for launching a blockade.

The Chinese and Russians have already said "nyet" to any force against Iran which precludes any U.N. authorization.