Posted on 09/25/2001 5:23:25 PM PDT by freedomnews
by John Whitesides
Monday, September 24, 2001 4:18 p.m. EDT
- - - - - WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives, hoping to smooth U.S. efforts to rally diplomatic support for the "war on terrorism," gave final approval on Monday to a long-delayed $582 million debt payment to the United Nations.
On a unanimous voice vote
, House members backed a quick transfer of the second installment of U.S. debt to the world body in the aftermath of attacks on Washington and New York that left nearly 7,000 people dead or missing.
The battle over owed U.N. dues has frayed relations between Washington and the United Nations for years and threatened the U.S. leadership role there.
The payment, approved by the Senate in February, had been hung up in Congress for months by a series of political skirmishes, including House Republican Whip Tom DeLay's efforts to link it to a measure preventing U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court.
But DeLay dropped his objections and House members quickly approved the Senate-passed measure so the issue will not linger while President Bush tries to rally international support for counter-strikes against the those held responsible for the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center.
"The United States cannot act alone and expect to prevail in this painful, long-term struggle against terrorism," said California Rep. Tom Lantos, ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee.
"The U.N. is the world's premier forum and will be one of the primary theaters for U.S. diplomacy on this matter," he said.
The payment is the second of three installments of back dues owed to the United Nations. The House approved it in May, but a House-Senate dispute over conditions for the payments and DeLay's attempts to link it to the international court issue delayed completion of the measure.
By passing the Senate-approved measure, the bill goes straight to Bush for fast enactment.
"Every day we fail to pay our debts to the U.N., we make our work that much more difficult," Connecticut Republican Rep. Christopher Shays said.
Under a deal brokered by former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Richard Holbrooke, U.N. members agreed in December to cut the U.S. general dues assessment from 25 percent to 22 percent of the $1.1 billion annual administrative budget, and a separate assessment for peacekeeping from 31 percent to about 27 percent this year and 26.5 percent by 2003.
The deal did not fully meet the conditions set by Congress in a 1994 law and in legislation sponsored two years ago in the Senate by North Carolina Republican Jesse Helms and Delaware Democrat Joseph Biden that required the U.S. peacekeeping contribution be capped at 25 percent.
But Helms and other lawmakers say the United Nations has come far enough on reform efforts that Congress should go ahead with the payments.
The United States made the first payment of $100 million last year. The House has voted to freeze next year's third and last installment of $244 million in U.S. arrears to the United Nations until the United States regains its lost seat on the U.N. Human Rights Commission.
The Senate has not taken up the issue of payment of the third installment of the back dues.
THEY ARE U.N BOYS NEXT WILL COME THE U.N COURT AND A TAX
But you are wrong about the "cheap stuff", (except the cereal and cigarettes). With Wal-mart and Sams, there really isn't a need to buy at the BX much.
C'mon, admit it...you're really AAAPatriot. Or maybe you're ALOHA RONNIE. Or maybe you're Inspector Harry Callahan. Then again, maybe you're Arator. If not, you really should look them up and join their little "No Moon Landing Club".
What's wrong with a little trading?
Okay class, this is what is known as an incomplete sentence.
But the next war we fight is not going to be a massive mobilization of troops going to another country to establish beachheads, capture territory, etc. The next war we fight is going to see ground troops, but it's going to be a small number of elite, well-trained ground troops going in and getting a job done. Some reservists will be called up, of course, as reservists are primarily in support roles.
No one knows how the next war is going to be fought or who will invade and us and by what means. We had one launched this month on our soil. We could not respond in time. We had a plane brought down by China we could not respond in time. Think about it some of our biggest military targets do not so much as have a fighter jet in the whole state. Why? Cutbacks is why. I'm glad to know that I live less than 20 miles from such and only have a refueling squadron near by to protect it. September 11 showed us our military needs help that is can not cover our own soil. Closing more bases will not solve that problem. But giving the base another squadron, another couple of combat units, or even traing more NG's makes a lot more sense than saying nope can't happen here we got to close them down.
Why did the Twin Towers Fall? Ask not this question, ask why pork barrel defense appropriators closed Floyd Bennet Field in Brooklyn as an Air Force base years ago, but kept bases open in such crucial Homeland defense areas as the rural south and west.
Most military bases are like Farm subsidies and corporate handouts - Republican welfare payments.
I can.
The demise of America's military is by design.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.