Thread: Should we have bid for, and are we suited for the UN Security Council?..Bloody oath!!

FF, I think your math is a bit wonky, 25million is 1.5% of our GDP?

I think not

Originally Posted by Big Shed

FF, I think your math is a bit wonky, 25million is 1.5% of our GDP?

I think not

Oops, yeah you're right Fred. The ond drop three zeroes trap.

Actually should be 0.0016%, which is peanuts. Will correct below.

Just listened to Obama's superb victory speech. One of the fantastic points that he made was that in many countries people are willing to die for the right to argue.

Puts things into perspective eh?

Generally have to agree with you FF.

One point that comes to mind about the whingers opposition to the $25mill. spend
is that Australians are a generally tight fisted bunch. We don't give as generously to charities as
many other countries. We have for years been lagging behind in terms of overseas aid.

Look at how the commentary runs in regard to spending on refugees or, worse still, our indiginous
population and their problems.

The corporate sector here is not as generous a sector as it is in the States.
I believe this is reflected in the lack of scholarships available here in Aus.

As for Obama's election acceptance speech, yes it was a wonderful performance. He is a great orator!
One of his problems seems to be the lack of ability on his part to translate that soaring oratory into action.

My 2c.

Yeah, there's a stack of things we can improve upon. I generally think that the world economy will slowly start ticking up now, albeit in fits and starts.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Are we the “lucky country”? Not a favourite terminology of mine really. Ok, we are resource rich, and our climate is pretty good, but we don’t have a huge % of arable land. More to the point, all of that means nothing unless it’s well used.

When I was looking at buying some land in the early eighties a friend frowned at my aspirations and asked me if I knew why Australia was called the "lucky" country. Of course I didn't know and he told me it was because "you were lucky if you could make a go of it." He was refering to agriculture of course and I think there might be a few who would agree with him.

I think you have put the Australian situation into perspective very well. Basically we punch well above our weight. We enjoy a lifestyle that would be the envy of many other countries, even so-called westernised nations.

As far as the security council is concerned I think we should very much be there. I suspect we were only excluded in the past because we were considered too liberal and it did not suit the agenda of those already there.
I am not sure that our security services are that good, but the SAS troops have a good reputation and australians everywhere enjoy a good rap. They are gregarious, lighthearted and generally endear themselves wherever they throw down their swag.

25 mil? A fortune to us but not even petty cash to a government. In the days of typewriters they would have spent more on carbon paper.

Regards
Paul

$25 million may not be a huge amount in the scheme of thing, but it could re-open a few hospital bed for a while. Can someone explain how we benefit from being on the UN council, considering the expenses associated with such.

Originally Posted by chrisb691

$25 million may not be a huge amount in the scheme of thing,

And the billions that Rudd spent in aid to buy the votes needed.


Peter.

Originally Posted by chrisb691

$25 million may not be a huge amount in the scheme of thing, but it could re-open a few hospital bed for a while. Can someone explain how we benefit from being on the UN council, considering the expenses associated with such.

I thought I had Chris. I also noted that money can always be spent on something else, regardless of what it's being used for. Some would say hospital beds, others aged care, others suicide prevention, others on alternative energy research, and on and on until we find the single most needy use. I just don't think you can adopt that approach, because there's always something else.

I take it you don't think we should be on the UN SC (which is a fair enough view)?

One of the more pragmatic reasons that I like our voice being there is that we are a pretty responsible bunch with our approach to war and our behaviour during it (by and large).

Not to put too fine a point on it (or seen to be strident) we could​ cease all overseas aid and keep the money for use at home. Even the USA, with all of their problems, is still granting aid.

Originally Posted by artme

Generally have to agree with you FF.

One point that comes to mind about the whingers opposition to the $25mill. spend
is that Australians are a generally tight fisted bunch. We don't give as generously to charities as
many other countries. We have for years been lagging behind in terms of overseas aid.
.

We are supposed to be (per capita) the second richest nation in the world but in terms of aid I think we are in 13th place out of the 23 OECD nations ie hardly anything to be proud off.

Originally Posted by BobL

We are supposed to be (per capita) the second richest nation in the world but in terms of aid I think we are in 13th place out of the 23 OECD nations ie hardly anything to be proud off.

That's true Bob. And in that case, if in bidding for a position on the SC we spend more money on aid to buy the votes, then surely that's a better outcome, aid-wise.

If we are that good the fixed positions on the council (US, UK, France etc) should have reccommended us to the other voting nations.
We've been helping them try and dominate the others for a few years now.

Shouldn't have cost us a cent.

For all the good intentions Australia has for being a member of the UN Security Council, the usual suspects of the permanent members will veto decisions when push comes to shove.
Just look at the brutal savagery that has continued in the middle east; just how effective is the UN Security Council today.