Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » UN Asshat calls US "Stingy" for "Only" 15 Million in Aid. (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: UN Asshat calls US "Stingy" for "Only" 15 Million in Aid.
Zacharias Sigismund
Member
Member # 2080

 - posted      Profile for Zacharias Sigismund   Email Zacharias Sigismund   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
THE thing is that America IS very stingy when it comes to aid in general. the international and historical agreement for al rich nations is to give away around 1 percent of BNP or GNP to poor nations. the us has consistently failed to do so. Actually the number even dropped, through negotiotians to 0.7 percent. But even that was too much for the US, not even less than 1 cent on the dollar, they could spare. Now, if that;s not stingy, i dunno whAT IS. yes, yes other countries are refusing to give too, but in view of the much larger number the us could give ... Besides, the US is always telling countries what to do, so ... What the UN guy was doing, was not just 'his job' as some of you with prolly less values have stated, he was trying to shame you into giving more on a structural basis.
Of course this nice guy from a friendly country like Norway doesn't truly realize that the US mostly consist of people like carmachu who simply have no shame, but only eyes for their ability to eat more pizza and clogging up the health system with their obscene obesity.
the way the us give aid might be through private funding but it goes more or less like this:
"hey we can give you money but not for an abortion or if you associate with abortion organisations you also don't get any money. We don;t care if you already have 12 children, because you were raped or something and you didn't have pills or condoms (we also frown on those) NO ABORTION related issues!!!"
Maybe the reason the us is 'donating' tru these private organisation, is that so they won't be held responsible for this, who knows.

you guys have and attitude like this and you still wonder why you get bombed? unreal.

And to even suggest that military expedition into iraq is aid, is a chutspah of the most devilish and evil kind.

compared to the japanese, 120 million people, 500 million dollar, you ARE stingy, 280 million people, 350 million dollars. And they have a lower BNP ...

I´d love to hear you whine on an on: "but it's our money, our money"

If thats the way you feel retract from the world bring all your troops home and de-invest al US business.

Posts: 8 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
QUOTE: Zacharias Sigismund said
quote:
the international and historical agreement for al rich nations is to give away around 1 percent of BNP or GNP to poor nations.
Name it. What is the name of this international and historical agreement? When did it take place? Where did it take place? Who participated? Who ratified it?

I do not see any information supporting this statement of yours in your post. I do recall reading an article comparing the annual aid donations of various countries as a percentage of their GNP, but there was no mention in the article I read about any international or historical agreement on what is considered an acceptable level of aid donations. Though there was plenty said about what a particular interviewee thought was appropriate.

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Zacharias -
quote:
Of course this nice guy from a friendly country like Norway doesn't truly realize that the US mostly consist of people like carmachu who simply have no shame
Welcome to the Ornery American forums, Zach.
Unsupported blanket generalizations like the quote above don't get you anywhere. You got evidence that most Americans are shameless? Or are you just letting your biases roam free and giving us insight into just how far you're willing to go without providing a shred of proof supporting your description?

Perhaps our unwillingness to spend a certain amonut of money on the UN is how poorly they implement their programs. When UN officials cruise through Kabul in top-of-the-line brand new Toyota Land Cruisers at our expense, we start asking questions. When current and former UN employees release a book that talks about big UN parties involving loads of drugs and sex, and misappropriation of money in "peacekeeping" operations, we start getting digusted. When the UN puts the worst human rights abusers in the world on the Humans Rights Committee but kicks out the US for a year from said committee, we start spitting at their hat-in-hand illegitimacy.

The amount of money we give to the UN is not indicative of how stingy or generous we are. We simply don't have confidence in the UN to handle much of anything outside of health.

But when we see a good cause halfway around the world, the US government puts up $350 million in short order and private Americans and American corporations give over $262 million (as of January 3).
We sent warships into the area that are producing huge amounts of fresh water and we've started using helicopters in relief aid.

What's that UN guy got to say about the UN's role?
quote:
"We are doing very little at the moment," U.N. emergency relief coordinator Jan Egeland acknowledged in New York.
What does he have to say about the US military's role?
quote:
The Abraham Lincoln arrived off the coast Saturday and immediately began launching the Seahawks inland to deliver the goods.

"Those helicopters are worth their weight in gold now," said UN emergency relief coordinator Jan Egeland.
[...]
The Seahawks were only part of a massive U.S. mobilization to help survivors in the region.

From a Thai air base the U.S. once used to bring about death and destruction in Vietnam, American planes now are bringing hope to millions.

About 400 U.S. troops already have arrived at Utapao Air Base two hours east of Bangkok and more are on the way.

A spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in the Thai capital said the total number of American military participating in the relief effort would likely be in the "tens of thousands."

Almost immediately after they touched down in Utapao, American C-130 aircraft began running supplies down to the stricken areas of Thailand's Andaman Sea coast. The planes disgorged badly needed food and clean water, blankets, temporary housing shelters and dry ice to keep thousands of badly decomposed bodies from wasting away any further.

The American relief operation will be "enormous and continuous," the embassy spokesman said.

And you just HAD to compare our government to that of the Japanese, the people who obviously would have the most sympathy for tsunami victims. How about comparing us with the rest of the world as of today, now that we've gone so far as to *illegally* promise an amount of money that Congress hasn't approved? How about comparing American corporations with others? Phizer's giving $35 million alone, Coca-Cola is giving $10 million, Amazon.com set up a link that's already gotten more than $13.3 million from visitors to the site, Exxon Mobil is giving $5 million, Bristoll-Myers Squibb is giving $5 million. Check out all American contributors as of last night.
How about American charities? Catholic Relief Services ("The official international relief and development agency of the U.S. Catholic community") is offering $25 million.
Then there's the American Red Cross with over $44 million. Mercy Corps is giving $4.5 million. Save the Children is giving $5 million. World Vision is giving $8 million. All American.

How about this? Americans don't need our government to give away our cash for us to be the most generous people in the world. Our citizens alone are generous enough to outclass everyone else by orders of magnitude in private donations and philanthropy. Consider the military aid (something we as citizens can't readily do) and $350 million from our government a perk.
American private parties, humph. Not like we've fed literally billions of people in the Third World when our greedy billionaires bankrolled the Green Revolution. Not like our money has been directly responsible for wiping many of the most terrible diseases from the planet. Not like American intervention has done more for the spread of human rights and democracy than any other country on earth. Much better to focus on the kill counts in our wars, focus on us "telling other countries what to do." Top notch, Zach.

And finally, wake up and smell the coffee. You can bitch and moan about how evil and stingy and whiny Americans are all you want, but without us you've got nothing. Remember that. Americans certainly remember the rest of the world, whether it be in charity donations (every day for the last six months at least, there has been one kind of charity promotion or another at my supermarket) when the world turns upside down. Our greedy, capitalist corporations and God-fearing church-goers are giving more than many Western *countries*. In case you hadn't noticed, we always give a lot of money. Not a month goes by without appeals for a specific charity at my church. Some nun who's been working in Central and South America for the last forty years comes in, talks about how terrible it is for some people, describes how far $40 can go there, and asks us to whip out our wallets and do it with a smile. And we do.

Insensitive, blind wrist-slappers and anti-American ivory tower residents need this kind of treatment.

quote:
you guys have and attitude like this and you still wonder why you get bombed? unreal.
And the award for the most shockingly insensitive, ignorant sarcastic remark goes to... Mr. Sigismund!
I mean, wow, consider the attitude of Saddam Hussein for decades. His idea of charity was $25,000 checks to families of suicide bombers who killed civilians at pizza parlors and on buses.
But you're right, it's much worse to send billions of dollars' worth of aid to a laundry list of countries. We're such ingrates. Bomb away!

[ January 04, 2005, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: WarrsawPact ]

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ed
Member
Member # 1673

 - posted      Profile for ed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
carmachu, an award appears to be in order... :>

ed

Posts: 219 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How about a reality check, Zacharias....pay attention to the bolded parts:

quote:


American stinginess is saving lives
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 04/01/2005)

A week ago, people kept asking me for my opinion of the tsunami, and, to be honest, I didn't have one. It didn't seem the kind of thing to have an "opinion" on, even for an opinion columnist - not like who should win the election or whether we should have toppled Saddam. It was obviously a catastrophe, and it was certain the death toll would keep rising, and other than that there didn't seem a lot to opine about.

I've never subscribed to Macmillan's tediously over-venerated bit of political wisdom about "events, dear boy, events". Most "events" - even acts of God - come, to one degree or another, politically predetermined: almost exactly a year before the tsunamis, there were two earthquakes - one measuring 6.5 in California, one of 6.3 in Iran. The Californian quake killed two people and did little physical damage. The Iranian one killed 40,000 and reduced an entire city to rubble - not just the glories of ancient Persia, but all the schools and hospitals from the 1970s and 1980s. The event in itself wasn't devastating; the conditions on the ground made it so.

That said, a sudden unprecedented surge by the Indian Ocean is as near to a pure "event" as one can get, and it seemed churlish to huff afterwards about why the governments of Somalia or the Maldives hadn't made a tsunami warning system one of their budgetary priorities.

But the waters recede and the familiar contours of the political landscape re-emerge - in this case, the need to fit everything to the Great Universal Theory of the age, that whatever happens, the real issue is the rottenness of America. Jan Egeland, the Norwegian bureaucrat who's the big humanitarian honcho at the UN, got the ball rolling with some remarks about the "stinginess" of certain wealthy nations. And Clare Short piled in, and then Polly Toynbee threw in her three-ha'porth, reminding us that " 'Charity begins at home' is the mean-minded dictum of the Right". But even Telegraph readers subscribe to the Great Universal Theory. On our Letters Page, Robert Eddison dismissed the "paltry $15 million from Washington" as "worse than stingy. The offer - since shamefacedly upped to $35 million - equates to what? Three oil tycoons' combined annual salary?"

Mr Eddison concluded with a stirring plea to the wicked Americans to mend their ways: "If Washington is to lay any claim to the moral, as distinct from the military, high ground, let it emulate Ireland and Norway's prompt and proportionate attempts to plug South-East Asia's gaping gap of need and help avert a further 80,000 deaths from infection and untreated wounds."

If America were to emulate Ireland and Norway, there'd be a lot more dead Indonesians and Sri Lankans. Mr Eddison may not have noticed, but the actual relief effort going on right now is being done by the Yanks: it's the USAF and a couple of diverted naval groups shuttling in food and medicine, with solid help from the Aussies, Singapore and a couple of others. The Irish can't fly in relief supplies, because they don't have any C-130s. All they can do is wait for the UN to swing by and pick up their cheque.

The Americans send the UN the occasional postal order, too. In fact, 40 per cent of Egeland's budget comes from Washington, which suggests the Europeans aren't being quite as "proportionate" as Mr Eddison thinks. But, when disaster strikes, what matters is not whether your cheque is "prompt", but whether you are. For all the money lavished on them, the UN is hard to rouse to action. Egeland's full-time round-the-clock 24/7 Big Humanitarians are conspicuous by their all but total absence on the ground. In fact, they're doing exactly what our reader accused Washington of doing - Colin Powell, wrote Mr Eddison, "is like a surgeon saying he must do a bandage count before he will be in a position to staunch the blood flow of a haemorrhaging patient". That's the sclerotic UN bureaucracy. They've flown in (or nearby, or overhead) a couple of experts to assess the situation and they've issued press releases boasting about the assessments. In Sri Lanka, Egeland's staff informs us, "UNFPA is carrying out reproductive health assessments".

Which, translated out of UN-speak, means the Sri Lankans can go screw themselves.

One of the heartening aspects of the situation is how easy it is to make a difference. By the weekend, the Australians had managed not just to restore the water supply in Aceh, but to improve it. Even before the tsunami, most residents of the city boiled their water. But 10 army engineers from Darwin have managed to crack open the main lines and hook them up to a mobile filtration unit. This is nothing to do with Egeland and his office or how big a cheque the Norwegians sent.

Indeed, the effectiveness of these efforts seems to be what Miss Short finds so objectionable. Washington's announcement that it would be co-ordinating its disaster relief with Australia, India and Japan smacked too much of another "coalition of the willing". "I think this initiative from America to set up four countries claiming to co-ordinate sounds like yet another attempt to undermine the UN," she told the BBC. "Only really the UN can do that job. It is the only body that has the moral authority."

I didn't catch the interview, but I'm assuming that the Oil-for-Fraud programme and the Child-Sex-for-Food programme notwithstanding, Miss Short managed to utter that last sentence with a straight face. But, if you're a homeless Sri Lankan, what matters is not who has the moral authority, but who has the water tankers and medical helicopters. President Bush didn't even bother mentioning the UN in his statement. Kofi Annan, by contrast, has decided that the Aussie-American "coalition of the willing" is, in fact, a UN operation. "The core group will support the UN effort," he said. "That group will be in support of the efforts that the UN is leading."

So American personnel in American planes and American ships will deliver American food and American medicine and implement an American relief plan, but it's still a "UN-led effort". That seems to be enough for Kofi. His "moral authority" is intact, and Guardian columnists and Telegraph readers can still bash the Yanks for their stinginess. Everybody's happy.


Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If at the end this is still called a "UN-led effort" I'm going to write letters to all my representatives telling them to pull out of the UN and only send our checks to the WHO and their agricultural development program. The rest of the UN is rapidly proving how worthless they really are.
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
carmachu
Member
Member # 1691

 - posted      Profile for carmachu   Email carmachu   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ed:
carmachu, an award appears to be in order... :>

ed

Sorry ed, thats a forum special. Their not ready for that here.......

Thanks warrsawpact, you pretty much hit everything I would have.

carmachu

Posts: 52 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
carmachu
Member
Member # 1691

 - posted      Profile for carmachu   Email carmachu   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh and just for Zach S. A VERY good reason not to give money to the UN:


More on "The UNcredibles": WFP (World Food Program) has "arrived" in the capital with an "assessment and coordination team." The following is no joke; no Diplomad attempt to be funny or clever: The team has spent the day and will likely spend a few more setting up their "coordination and opcenter" at a local five-star hotel. And their number one concern, even before phones, fax and copy machines? Arranging for the hotel to provide 24hr catering service. USAID folks already are cracking jokes about "The UN Sheraton." Meanwhile, our military and civilians, working with the super Aussies, continue to keep the C-130 air bridge of supplies flowing and the choppers flying, and keep on saving lives -- and without 24hr catering services from any five-star hotel . . . . The contrast grows more stark every minute.

Posts: 52 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF in today's NYTimes:
quote:
In 2003, the latest year for which figures are available, we increased such assistance by one-fifth, for President Bush has actually been much better about helping poor countries than President Clinton was. But as a share of our economy, our contribution still left us ranked dead last among 22 top donor countries.
He isn't biased or anything. DEAD LAST when you stop the list after us.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
carmachu
Member
Member # 1691

 - posted      Profile for carmachu   Email carmachu   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
From NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF in today's NYTimes:
quote:
In 2003, the latest year for which figures are available, we increased such assistance by one-fifth, for President Bush has actually been much better about helping poor countries than President Clinton was. But as a share of our economy, our contribution still left us ranked dead last among 22 top donor countries.
He isn't biased or anything. DEAD LAST when you stop the list after us.
Well as someone once said, some countries may contribute the 1-2% but thats only $2 million, we may only give whatever percentage it is, but that is something in the area of $16 million....

But our real generosity comes privately, AS IT SHOULD BE, and that goes to show a Countries heart and giving, not how much a coutries government gives away at gunpoint from its citizens.....

carmachu

Posts: 52 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kit
Member
Member # 1299

 - posted      Profile for Kit   Email Kit   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If there is a major drop after the top 22, then that may be a valid point. I mean, if #23 is only a tenth as much as the #22, then that is definately a different category.

I doubt that's the case though. [Roll Eyes]

The worst thing is how easily that kind of statement slips past the bs filters.

Posts: 704 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It most likely is not an arbitrary cutoff point. There are 22 countries that are in the Development Assistance Committee, and are the ones generally counted when one considers foreign aid (US, Canada, Australia, NZealand, Japan, and pretty much all of Western Europe). Of course, the fact that all of this is related to GDP is bound to hurt the US, since our GDP is so ridiculously high. If you compare aid per capita, for instance, we're about average IIRC.

There's an article over at Foreign Policy in which they created an a commitment to development index for 21 countries (all of those mentioned above except Luxembourg). Basically, they compared the policies on a wide variety of topics related to improving developing nations, weighting various details and so forth. Thus, rather than simply looking at one number for aid, they factor in private giving, how efficiently it's used, and so forth. And then there's trade policies, migration, investments, security, and so forth. Using this index, the US (despite our score in aid and environment) ended up 7th out of 21 nations. So based on this index, we're in the top third, far better than the self-centered, stingy, greedy appearance other's think of us as.

Of course, one could say the index is biased (doubtful) or doesn't accurately take everything into account (more likely), but whatever. Just focusing on one number doesn't take everything into account either, but people love to jump on that as proof that the US is the great Satan. It's the same thing with this disasster- that initial $15 million may look bad at first, but our military's presence and work in setting up relief has proven to be completely invaluable. Whether or not we are dead last on one scale doesn't change the fact that the US has done a heck of a lot of good for the rest of the world.

Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JLMyers
Member
Member # 1983

 - posted      Profile for JLMyers   Email JLMyers   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fox News reported that the US is spending 6 million dollars a day in military assets. And that is above and beyond the 350 million.

Mr. Sigismund,

You think we deserve to be bombed because we reserve the right to donate to charities and countries with values we believe in? Well, like you said; It's our money. Asnd anybody that excuses those cowardly murdering terrorists in any way is a dispicable person.

KE

[ January 07, 2005, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: JLMyers ]

Posts: 2007 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And as I mentioned, private Americans have already eclipsed our government's offer of $350 million. Private Americans have already given over $400 million, with huge chunks of that coming from pharmaceutical companies and the big charities like Catholic Relief Services and the American Red Cross.
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh wow. Check this out:

quote:
"The United Nations and international donors on Thursday faced an unusual problem as they sought to rally help for victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami: not a shortage of money, but a surfeit - or at least far more promised cash than they can use in the coming months.

"An outpouring of public donations and government pledges from around the world has created an embarrassment of riches. The $5bn (€3.8bn, £2.65bn) promised amounts to about $1,000 for each of the estimated 5m people affected, much more than the typical annual income of a Sri Lankan fisherman or an Indian villager, let alone an African peasant. [emphasis added]

"UN officials do not want to stop the money flowing, but they admit that it poses some unexpected challenges, not least because the pledges are already five times greater than the $977m appeal launched on Thursday by Kofi Annan, UN secretary general, for emergency tsunami relief efforts over the next six months."

Check out that and more here:
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/01/friday-tsunami-update.html

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1