This may be why the UN will likely not endorse war against Iraq.

FR | 2/10/03 | m. felton

[Mark Felton]

There is an old saw to consider when seeking motivations behind otherwise incomprehensible behaviour: "Follow the Money".

It is clear that the expense for using force against Iraq will be borne by directly by the US and by other countries directly contributing to the effort. This expense will be between $10B and $100B.

The US is currently, and disproportionately, the largest financial contributor to UN.

If the UN "authorizes" the use of force before hand then the US might choose to credit their military expenses against any current and future UN dues. This would be entirely fair, and it would also bankrupt the administrative body of the U.N., unless the other member states would dramatically increase their financial contributions.

If the UN chooses not to authorize the use of force, then the UN will be discredited but at least it may not so quickly go broke.

Note: If the US truly wanted UN authorization it would provide guarantees about future funding levels and even provide assistance with the building of a new UN headquarters. It would pay them off.

[B-bone]

Ding..ding..ding...ding... We have a winner!!!!

[jdege]

I'm all for a new UN HQ - if it's tents in North Dakota.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[facedown]

If the UN "authorizes" the use of force before hand then the US might choose to credit their military expenses against any current and future UN dues.

We should do this anyway.

[redangus]

I was thinking more like Brundi. I have always wondered how many of these life-time international bureaucrats would want to live and work in some G-d forsaken third world country. Living and working in The US is probably a dream come true for these jerks. Add in immunity, bloated pay checks, free transportation and the chance to feel self important and these clowns are in heaven.

[clamper1797]

We need US to be out of the UN

[Kaslin]

I'm all for a new UN HQ - if it's tents in North Dakota.

Why North Dakota?

[Renegade]

I'll vote for Death Valley .

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I'm all for a new UN HQ - if it's tents in North Dakota.

Don't be so cheap. The UN should have the best and plushiest headquarters that money can buy.......in Sweden!

[TXnMA]

I'm all for a new UN HQ - if it's tents in North Dakota.

I'd prefer tents in North Korea. That is what you meant... right?

[Amelia]

I read somewhere a while back that the U.N. has "custody" of Iraq's "Oil for Food" bank account & is making quite a bit of interest, etc., for administering the account. You might also want to look at that.

[ErnBatavia]

I'll vote for Death Valley . No! Mt. Washington, New Hampshire!...

[Kaslin]

I'll vote for Death Valley .

Why not get them out of the US. Let the French have them

[jdege]

Miserable weather, no entertainment facilities, and well-armed locals that despise everything they stand for.

[Types_with_Fist]

We need US to be out of the UN

And the UN OUT of the US!

[nicmarlo]

I'm all for a new UN HQ - if it's tents in North Dakota.

I'm all for pulling OUT of the UN, including our funding.

[Poohbah]

Actually, my guarantee would be a negative guarantee: "If you idiots hold up this resolution another day, we're walking out, and the UN becomes just another private organization under US law. Y'all get to pay parking tickets and property taxes."

[Cicero]

The chief economic incentive for the UN is that the UN is currently the trustee of Iraqi oil funds, and is now sitting on about $10 billion squirrelled away in the bank. It collects the money and parcels it out, but it's very SLOW in parcelling it out.

This huge sum of money dwarfs the UN's regular budget.

You can live pretty high off the hog with expense accounts funded by the interest from $10 billion. And Saddam doesn't object because it puts Kofi Annan and the UN bureaucracy firmly on his side.

[Kev-Head]

I agree we should get out of the UN.