Bush administration officials help create that perception gap. Fuming at the charge of stinginess, Mr. Powell pointed to disaster relief and said the United States "has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world." But for development aid, America gave $16.2 billion in 2003; the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, those numbers were $13.2 billion for America, and $29.9 billion for Europe.
Originally posted by: freegeeks
the USA is going to do its part just like othe nations
Americans always have been generous when it comes to donations
in the end these threads are ridiculous pissing contests between "rich" people while people are dying because of this disaster
Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
For shame both you and Engineer for raping our Constitution to suit your emotional needs. That is horribly un-American. I suggest you both re-read our Constitution and Bill of Rights to see just how limited and small our government should be.
Oh, OK because you say your right I must believe you. I have never heard so much BS in my entire life. Point in fact, Article 1, Section 8 does specifically state things Congress can spend money on, but it does not set a limit to those powers. It also does not say congress can provide money for schools, roads, water, power, cable, air quality, police, fire departments, etc... so under your thought process the government is unconstitutionally providing money for those services. Interesting, I would love to see how long you (or anyone) would last without them. Also it saysSo by its own admission it has the power to make any law it needs to (even ones that are not listed here). So no I do not think we should disregard the Constitution because it makes me feel better."To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Also explain to me how you can possibly think that corporations show the world that the people run the government? Doesn?t that show the world that the corporations run the government, and the last time I checked I did not vote for a CEO to run things, I voted for a representative of the people, by the people, for the people. Big business is for itself and no one else. To think otherwise is wrong. Free market may set the prices of goods and services, but that does not represent what the "country" is doing as a whole.
You my friend are wrong, and I am right.
Originally posted by: loki8481
Published: December 30, 2004
President Bush finally roused himself yesterday from his vacation in Crawford, Tex., to telephone his sympathy to the leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia, and to speak publicly about the devastation of Sunday's tsunamis in Asia. He also hurried to put as much distance as possible between himself and America's initial measly aid offer of $15 million, and he took issue with an earlier statement by the United Nations' emergency relief coordinator, Jan Egeland, who had called the overall aid efforts by rich Western nations "stingy." "The person who made that statement was very misguided and ill informed," the president said.
We beg to differ. Mr. Egeland was right on target. We hope Secretary of State Colin Powell was privately embarrassed when, two days into a catastrophic disaster that hit 12 of the world's poorer countries and will cost billions of dollars to meliorate, he held a press conference to say that America, the world's richest nation, would contribute $15 million. That's less than half of what Republicans plan to spend on the Bush inaugural festivities.
The American aid figure for the current disaster is now $35 million, and we applaud Mr. Bush's turnaround. But $35 million remains a miserly drop in the bucket, and is in keeping with the pitiful amount of the United States budget that we allocate for nonmilitary foreign aid. According to a poll, most Americans believe the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent.
Bush administration officials help create that perception gap. Fuming at the charge of stinginess, Mr. Powell pointed to disaster relief and said the United States "has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world." But for development aid, America gave $16.2 billion in 2003; the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, those numbers were $13.2 billion for America, and $29.9 billion for Europe.
Making things worse, we often pledge more money than we actually deliver. Victims of the earthquake in Bam, Iran, a year ago are still living in tents because aid, including ours, has not materialized in the amounts pledged. And back in 2002, Mr. Bush announced his Millennium Challenge account to give African countries development assistance of up to $5 billion a year, but the account has yet to disperse a single dollar.
Mr. Bush said yesterday that the $35 million we've now pledged "is only the beginning" of the United States' recovery effort. Let's hope that is true, and that this time, our actions will match our promises.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/30/opinion/30thu2.html
I suppose everyone on the right will immediately dismiss this as liberal trash from the NYT, but it's more of a numbers piece.
IMO, people underestimate how much foreign aid helps our national security. by making promises and not delivering, and allowing poor people in 3rd world countries to live in squalor, we're missing out on opportunities to build good-will towards our country.
If you are disappointed by the $35mil piss in a bucket then pull out your.. pen and write a check for more. Biggest whiners probably didn't give a solitary cent of their own money.Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Im tired of this neo-racism bullsh!t, these people are not just foreigners. They're men, children, rich or poor that need our help. 35 million dollars is a piss in a bucket, hell we spend more than 35 million dollars on a single military aircraft. Giving money to people will help us win friends in the world. It will get us the respect in the world thats slowly being eaten away by our adventure in Iraq.
HalosPuma, you know what country is being funded by our 'welfare'? Israel, and now Iraq. We are actually FUNDING the countries that make the world more dangerous. Israel is why the world is pissed at us, and Iraq is gonna be the next Iran.
What the hell has Israel and Iraq done for us?
Originally posted by: Engineer
Well, the pressure took hold....US has now upped it 10X to $350 million.
Originally posted by: Rockhound
Engineer you really are a moron. Did you really believe that the U.S. would not give additional funds as it ALWAYS HAS over the decades for disaster relief? It was only a matter of time, not that we are stingy.
Ok all you French Bastards, your turn to match you cheap freaking bastards. How much did they give now? What was it only $75 mil? Hahahahahahhahaha, U.S. $385 million already tops all other nations giving aid.
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Rockhound
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: Rockhound
The problem with the Europeans is that they have a different philosophy. They feel that taxing the people and the government giving away the money is the solution. We on the other hand rely more on private donations. Its as simple as that. Just because Europe doesn't like it or us doesn't mean their method is right and ours is wrong. Obviously Europe is highly jealous of the US and its power not only militarily but economically. They just can't stand the fact that we beat them at every turn no matter what. The only way they seem to be able to "raise" money is by taking it away from those who have it and distributing it. It seems otherwise they are the ones who would be considered stingy because Europeans simply wouldn't donate like Americans, either through government or privately.
:thumbsup: One of the reasons we revolted against Britain.
I still don't know why some of the ATPN'ers here get upset when I suggest to keep donations private. It's as if no one will donat if they are private and they must force each and every one of us to pony up money for their "feel-good" project.
Fine. Let's make Iraq and Israel money from PRIVATE donations, and not the government. What? I didn't think so.
We give Israel about 5 Billion in aid each year. Let's just make all of that private donations? That would be fine by me....so would making Iraq reconstruction private.
Hey Engineer, I'm all with you on Israel. I think they are self-sufficient and I don't see the point in giving them aid or at the very least cut it back. However, Iraq is a different story. The money we are spending there is for the long run. Is it a lot of money? Sure it is. Think of what a democratic or at least an Iraq without a tyrant at the wheel is going to mean for the region. This same sort of thinking was applied to rebuilding Europe (i.e. France, Britain, Germany, etc.) after WWII. Do you remember the Marshall Plan? Was that money well-spent in the end? How about when we got Japan back on its feet also?
No, we didn't start that war like we did this one, but Saddam started it in 1991 when he invaded Kuwait. He was the real "Hitler" of modern days, not Bush. Europe was liberated after WWII and Iraq will have been liberated after this one.
But, by your logic also we'd have to call into question all foreign aid then. Fine by me. Most of the countries that get it are corrupt anyway and don't use it for its intended purposes.
:thumbsup:...Let's make it ALL private and return the extra money to the taxpayers here. They can then decide if they want to donate their extra PRIVATE money or not. Considering the hand picked, no bid contracts in Iraq go to SELECT US companies.
And yes, I think the initial offer by the US was stingy. We give BILLIONS to Iraq. We give BILLIONS to Israel. Hell, we gave BILLIONS to Africa. One of the single largest disasters in modern history hits that region and we offer 15 MILLION initially. The simple embarassment is what has driven the administration to offer more (loans no less *blah* - we ask for Billions in loan forgiveness for Iraq and then offer LOANS for this disaster?).
An on Iraq...NOBODY will convince me that this was worth it. I've said it and I'll say it again...show me the big ole pile of WMD's that threatened us that we went there for, and I'll eat my crow. Until then, it was unwarranted!!! End of discussion on my part. I'll repeat it if necessary!
Edit: Especially since we BORROW 1.8 BILLION PER DAY for daily US funding.
Originally posted by: Rockhound
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Rockhound
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: Rockhound
The problem with the Europeans is that they have a different philosophy. They feel that taxing the people and the government giving away the money is the solution. We on the other hand rely more on private donations. Its as simple as that. Just because Europe doesn't like it or us doesn't mean their method is right and ours is wrong. Obviously Europe is highly jealous of the US and its power not only militarily but economically. They just can't stand the fact that we beat them at every turn no matter what. The only way they seem to be able to "raise" money is by taking it away from those who have it and distributing it. It seems otherwise they are the ones who would be considered stingy because Europeans simply wouldn't donate like Americans, either through government or privately.
:thumbsup: One of the reasons we revolted against Britain.
I still don't know why some of the ATPN'ers here get upset when I suggest to keep donations private. It's as if no one will donat if they are private and they must force each and every one of us to pony up money for their "feel-good" project.
Fine. Let's make Iraq and Israel money from PRIVATE donations, and not the government. What? I didn't think so.
We give Israel about 5 Billion in aid each year. Let's just make all of that private donations? That would be fine by me....so would making Iraq reconstruction private.
Hey Engineer, I'm all with you on Israel. I think they are self-sufficient and I don't see the point in giving them aid or at the very least cut it back. However, Iraq is a different story. The money we are spending there is for the long run. Is it a lot of money? Sure it is. Think of what a democratic or at least an Iraq without a tyrant at the wheel is going to mean for the region. This same sort of thinking was applied to rebuilding Europe (i.e. France, Britain, Germany, etc.) after WWII. Do you remember the Marshall Plan? Was that money well-spent in the end? How about when we got Japan back on its feet also?
No, we didn't start that war like we did this one, but Saddam started it in 1991 when he invaded Kuwait. He was the real "Hitler" of modern days, not Bush. Europe was liberated after WWII and Iraq will have been liberated after this one.
But, by your logic also we'd have to call into question all foreign aid then. Fine by me. Most of the countries that get it are corrupt anyway and don't use it for its intended purposes.
:thumbsup:...Let's make it ALL private and return the extra money to the taxpayers here. They can then decide if they want to donate their extra PRIVATE money or not. Considering the hand picked, no bid contracts in Iraq go to SELECT US companies.
And yes, I think the initial offer by the US was stingy. We give BILLIONS to Iraq. We give BILLIONS to Israel. Hell, we gave BILLIONS to Africa. One of the single largest disasters in modern history hits that region and we offer 15 MILLION initially. The simple embarassment is what has driven the administration to offer more (loans no less *blah* - we ask for Billions in loan forgiveness for Iraq and then offer LOANS for this disaster?).
An on Iraq...NOBODY will convince me that this was worth it. I've said it and I'll say it again...show me the big ole pile of WMD's that threatened us that we went there for, and I'll eat my crow. Until then, it was unwarranted!!! End of discussion on my part. I'll repeat it if necessary!
Edit: Especially since we BORROW 1.8 BILLION PER DAY for daily US funding.
Excuse me Engineer, but EXACTLY what did the U.N. do when there was GENOCIDE going on in Rwanda and now also in other parts of Africa? WHAT WHAT WHAT??!!!! ANSWER: NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING! 800,000+ people died and what did the U.N. do to stop it? Until you can seriously answer why the U.N. did nothing about this, then you have absolutely NO CREDIBILITY!!! For all their talk, they really don't do much unless we the U.S. are involved which tells you a lot. Good 'ol Kofi thinks that pleading with murderers and begging them to stop is going to solve the problem. Well, Rwanda is a perfect case. It didn't do anything. As long as we're at it, what did the Europeans do for Rwanda when it was all happening I ask you?? Again, NOTHING!!! You know why? Because the U.N. and the Europeans for all their bravado are impotent when it comes to actually doing something about crises.
You can argue what are we doing in Iraq, ok fine. But why then wasn't the U.N. and the rest of Europe involved in Rwanda when there was a massacre going on?? Explain this please.
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Rockhound
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Rockhound
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: Rockhound
The problem with the Europeans is that they have a different philosophy. They feel that taxing the people and the government giving away the money is the solution. We on the other hand rely more on private donations. Its as simple as that. Just because Europe doesn't like it or us doesn't mean their method is right and ours is wrong. Obviously Europe is highly jealous of the US and its power not only militarily but economically. They just can't stand the fact that we beat them at every turn no matter what. The only way they seem to be able to "raise" money is by taking it away from those who have it and distributing it. It seems otherwise they are the ones who would be considered stingy because Europeans simply wouldn't donate like Americans, either through government or privately.
:thumbsup: One of the reasons we revolted against Britain.
I still don't know why some of the ATPN'ers here get upset when I suggest to keep donations private. It's as if no one will donat if they are private and they must force each and every one of us to pony up money for their "feel-good" project.
Fine. Let's make Iraq and Israel money from PRIVATE donations, and not the government. What? I didn't think so.
We give Israel about 5 Billion in aid each year. Let's just make all of that private donations? That would be fine by me....so would making Iraq reconstruction private.
Hey Engineer, I'm all with you on Israel. I think they are self-sufficient and I don't see the point in giving them aid or at the very least cut it back. However, Iraq is a different story. The money we are spending there is for the long run. Is it a lot of money? Sure it is. Think of what a democratic or at least an Iraq without a tyrant at the wheel is going to mean for the region. This same sort of thinking was applied to rebuilding Europe (i.e. France, Britain, Germany, etc.) after WWII. Do you remember the Marshall Plan? Was that money well-spent in the end? How about when we got Japan back on its feet also?
No, we didn't start that war like we did this one, but Saddam started it in 1991 when he invaded Kuwait. He was the real "Hitler" of modern days, not Bush. Europe was liberated after WWII and Iraq will have been liberated after this one.
But, by your logic also we'd have to call into question all foreign aid then. Fine by me. Most of the countries that get it are corrupt anyway and don't use it for its intended purposes.
:thumbsup:...Let's make it ALL private and return the extra money to the taxpayers here. They can then decide if they want to donate their extra PRIVATE money or not. Considering the hand picked, no bid contracts in Iraq go to SELECT US companies.
And yes, I think the initial offer by the US was stingy. We give BILLIONS to Iraq. We give BILLIONS to Israel. Hell, we gave BILLIONS to Africa. One of the single largest disasters in modern history hits that region and we offer 15 MILLION initially. The simple embarassment is what has driven the administration to offer more (loans no less *blah* - we ask for Billions in loan forgiveness for Iraq and then offer LOANS for this disaster?).
An on Iraq...NOBODY will convince me that this was worth it. I've said it and I'll say it again...show me the big ole pile of WMD's that threatened us that we went there for, and I'll eat my crow. Until then, it was unwarranted!!! End of discussion on my part. I'll repeat it if necessary!
Edit: Especially since we BORROW 1.8 BILLION PER DAY for daily US funding.
Excuse me Engineer, but EXACTLY what did the U.N. do when there was GENOCIDE going on in Rwanda and now also in other parts of Africa? WHAT WHAT WHAT??!!!! ANSWER: NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING! 800,000+ people died and what did the U.N. do to stop it? Until you can seriously answer why the U.N. did nothing about this, then you have absolutely NO CREDIBILITY!!! For all their talk, they really don't do much unless we the U.S. are involved which tells you a lot. Good 'ol Kofi thinks that pleading with murderers and begging them to stop is going to solve the problem. Well, Rwanda is a perfect case. It didn't do anything. As long as we're at it, what did the Europeans do for Rwanda when it was all happening I ask you?? Again, NOTHING!!! You know why? Because the U.N. and the Europeans for all their bravado are impotent when it comes to actually doing something about crises.
You can argue what are we doing in Iraq, ok fine. But why then wasn't the U.N. and the rest of Europe involved in Rwanda when there was a massacre going on?? Explain this please.
I could care less whether the UN said that the US was stingy. I thought that the initial offer was stingy and still do. It's nice to see the offer upped. If it took the embarassment and pressure of the "pissing contest" between the rest of the world to achieve it, so be it.
Have a nice day.
Originally posted by: Rockhound
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Rockhound
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Rockhound
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: Rockhound
The problem with the Europeans is that they have a different philosophy. They feel that taxing the people and the government giving away the money is the solution. We on the other hand rely more on private donations. Its as simple as that. Just because Europe doesn't like it or us doesn't mean their method is right and ours is wrong. Obviously Europe is highly jealous of the US and its power not only militarily but economically. They just can't stand the fact that we beat them at every turn no matter what. The only way they seem to be able to "raise" money is by taking it away from those who have it and distributing it. It seems otherwise they are the ones who would be considered stingy because Europeans simply wouldn't donate like Americans, either through government or privately.
:thumbsup: One of the reasons we revolted against Britain.
I still don't know why some of the ATPN'ers here get upset when I suggest to keep donations private. It's as if no one will donat if they are private and they must force each and every one of us to pony up money for their "feel-good" project.
Fine. Let's make Iraq and Israel money from PRIVATE donations, and not the government. What? I didn't think so.
We give Israel about 5 Billion in aid each year. Let's just make all of that private donations? That would be fine by me....so would making Iraq reconstruction private.
Hey Engineer, I'm all with you on Israel. I think they are self-sufficient and I don't see the point in giving them aid or at the very least cut it back. However, Iraq is a different story. The money we are spending there is for the long run. Is it a lot of money? Sure it is. Think of what a democratic or at least an Iraq without a tyrant at the wheel is going to mean for the region. This same sort of thinking was applied to rebuilding Europe (i.e. France, Britain, Germany, etc.) after WWII. Do you remember the Marshall Plan? Was that money well-spent in the end? How about when we got Japan back on its feet also?
No, we didn't start that war like we did this one, but Saddam started it in 1991 when he invaded Kuwait. He was the real "Hitler" of modern days, not Bush. Europe was liberated after WWII and Iraq will have been liberated after this one.
But, by your logic also we'd have to call into question all foreign aid then. Fine by me. Most of the countries that get it are corrupt anyway and don't use it for its intended purposes.
:thumbsup:...Let's make it ALL private and return the extra money to the taxpayers here. They can then decide if they want to donate their extra PRIVATE money or not. Considering the hand picked, no bid contracts in Iraq go to SELECT US companies.
And yes, I think the initial offer by the US was stingy. We give BILLIONS to Iraq. We give BILLIONS to Israel. Hell, we gave BILLIONS to Africa. One of the single largest disasters in modern history hits that region and we offer 15 MILLION initially. The simple embarassment is what has driven the administration to offer more (loans no less *blah* - we ask for Billions in loan forgiveness for Iraq and then offer LOANS for this disaster?).
An on Iraq...NOBODY will convince me that this was worth it. I've said it and I'll say it again...show me the big ole pile of WMD's that threatened us that we went there for, and I'll eat my crow. Until then, it was unwarranted!!! End of discussion on my part. I'll repeat it if necessary!
Edit: Especially since we BORROW 1.8 BILLION PER DAY for daily US funding.
Excuse me Engineer, but EXACTLY what did the U.N. do when there was GENOCIDE going on in Rwanda and now also in other parts of Africa? WHAT WHAT WHAT??!!!! ANSWER: NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING! 800,000+ people died and what did the U.N. do to stop it? Until you can seriously answer why the U.N. did nothing about this, then you have absolutely NO CREDIBILITY!!! For all their talk, they really don't do much unless we the U.S. are involved which tells you a lot. Good 'ol Kofi thinks that pleading with murderers and begging them to stop is going to solve the problem. Well, Rwanda is a perfect case. It didn't do anything. As long as we're at it, what did the Europeans do for Rwanda when it was all happening I ask you?? Again, NOTHING!!! You know why? Because the U.N. and the Europeans for all their bravado are impotent when it comes to actually doing something about crises.
You can argue what are we doing in Iraq, ok fine. But why then wasn't the U.N. and the rest of Europe involved in Rwanda when there was a massacre going on?? Explain this please.
I could care less whether the UN said that the US was stingy. I thought that the initial offer was stingy and still do. It's nice to see the offer upped. If it took the embarassment and pressure of the "pissing contest" between the rest of the world to achieve it, so be it.
Have a nice day.
Key phrase here: Initial. Like I said, you didn't really think this wouldn't have increased did you? Did you honestly, seriously think it was going to be $35 mil and that's it? Its an inital amount until we get a clear picture as to what exactly they need the most. It wasn't meant to be the entire lump sum all at once. What number exactly would have satisfied you? $75 mil? $100 mil? $500 mil? A couple billion?
Originally posted by: Siwy
Originally posted by: spidey07
heh, whiny babies they all are.
Look - after all is said and done the US will have contributed more aid for this disater than all of western europe combined in all likelyhood.
That is just baseless speculation you pulled out of your ass.
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Siwy
Originally posted by: spidey07
heh, whiny babies they all are.
Look - after all is said and done the US will have contributed more aid for this disater than all of western europe combined in all likelyhood.
That is just baseless speculation you pulled out of your ass.
*cough* 350 mill *cough*
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Rockhound
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Rockhound
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Rockhound
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: Rockhound
The problem with the Europeans is that they have a different philosophy. They feel that taxing the people and the government giving away the money is the solution. We on the other hand rely more on private donations. Its as simple as that. Just because Europe doesn't like it or us doesn't mean their method is right and ours is wrong. Obviously Europe is highly jealous of the US and its power not only militarily but economically. They just can't stand the fact that we beat them at every turn no matter what. The only way they seem to be able to "raise" money is by taking it away from those who have it and distributing it. It seems otherwise they are the ones who would be considered stingy because Europeans simply wouldn't donate like Americans, either through government or privately.
:thumbsup: One of the reasons we revolted against Britain.
I still don't know why some of the ATPN'ers here get upset when I suggest to keep donations private. It's as if no one will donat if they are private and they must force each and every one of us to pony up money for their "feel-good" project.
Fine. Let's make Iraq and Israel money from PRIVATE donations, and not the government. What? I didn't think so.
We give Israel about 5 Billion in aid each year. Let's just make all of that private donations? That would be fine by me....so would making Iraq reconstruction private.
Hey Engineer, I'm all with you on Israel. I think they are self-sufficient and I don't see the point in giving them aid or at the very least cut it back. However, Iraq is a different story. The money we are spending there is for the long run. Is it a lot of money? Sure it is. Think of what a democratic or at least an Iraq without a tyrant at the wheel is going to mean for the region. This same sort of thinking was applied to rebuilding Europe (i.e. France, Britain, Germany, etc.) after WWII. Do you remember the Marshall Plan? Was that money well-spent in the end? How about when we got Japan back on its feet also?
No, we didn't start that war like we did this one, but Saddam started it in 1991 when he invaded Kuwait. He was the real "Hitler" of modern days, not Bush. Europe was liberated after WWII and Iraq will have been liberated after this one.
But, by your logic also we'd have to call into question all foreign aid then. Fine by me. Most of the countries that get it are corrupt anyway and don't use it for its intended purposes.
:thumbsup:...Let's make it ALL private and return the extra money to the taxpayers here. They can then decide if they want to donate their extra PRIVATE money or not. Considering the hand picked, no bid contracts in Iraq go to SELECT US companies.
And yes, I think the initial offer by the US was stingy. We give BILLIONS to Iraq. We give BILLIONS to Israel. Hell, we gave BILLIONS to Africa. One of the single largest disasters in modern history hits that region and we offer 15 MILLION initially. The simple embarassment is what has driven the administration to offer more (loans no less *blah* - we ask for Billions in loan forgiveness for Iraq and then offer LOANS for this disaster?).
An on Iraq...NOBODY will convince me that this was worth it. I've said it and I'll say it again...show me the big ole pile of WMD's that threatened us that we went there for, and I'll eat my crow. Until then, it was unwarranted!!! End of discussion on my part. I'll repeat it if necessary!
Edit: Especially since we BORROW 1.8 BILLION PER DAY for daily US funding.
Excuse me Engineer, but EXACTLY what did the U.N. do when there was GENOCIDE going on in Rwanda and now also in other parts of Africa? WHAT WHAT WHAT??!!!! ANSWER: NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING! 800,000+ people died and what did the U.N. do to stop it? Until you can seriously answer why the U.N. did nothing about this, then you have absolutely NO CREDIBILITY!!! For all their talk, they really don't do much unless we the U.S. are involved which tells you a lot. Good 'ol Kofi thinks that pleading with murderers and begging them to stop is going to solve the problem. Well, Rwanda is a perfect case. It didn't do anything. As long as we're at it, what did the Europeans do for Rwanda when it was all happening I ask you?? Again, NOTHING!!! You know why? Because the U.N. and the Europeans for all their bravado are impotent when it comes to actually doing something about crises.
You can argue what are we doing in Iraq, ok fine. But why then wasn't the U.N. and the rest of Europe involved in Rwanda when there was a massacre going on?? Explain this please.
I could care less whether the UN said that the US was stingy. I thought that the initial offer was stingy and still do. It's nice to see the offer upped. If it took the embarassment and pressure of the "pissing contest" between the rest of the world to achieve it, so be it.
Have a nice day.
Key phrase here: Initial. Like I said, you didn't really think this wouldn't have increased did you? Did you honestly, seriously think it was going to be $35 mil and that's it? Its an inital amount until we get a clear picture as to what exactly they need the most. It wasn't meant to be the entire lump sum all at once. What number exactly would have satisfied you? $75 mil? $100 mil? $500 mil? A couple billion?
No, I actually didn't think that it would stay at that level. I'm not sure what number would have sufficed. Is 350 million enough now? Don't know, but it's alot better.
And yes, your original post about me bitching about Iraq is dead on. I don't care that the UN said we're stingy...I'm was pissed off at the drop in the bucket amount when we can give 100 billion a year to Iraq.
My 2 cents - Moronic or not!
Originally posted by: loki8481
good to hear about the 350 million... I can't really understand why they released the 15-35 million figure in the first place, though. if they had been planning to increase it substantially but hadn't worked out the exact figure yet, you'd think they'd have held off releasing a number at all and just promised "significant" aid until the final figure was worked out.
now it looks like Bush bowed to political pressure.
Did you ever think Engineer that maybe we wouldn't have to invest so much in Iraq if the U.N. and the European countries along with Saddam didn't steal $21 Billion dollars from the Iraqi people? Why are they being so secretive and not releasing ALL the information regarding this scandal? What is Kofi hiding exactly? Maybe its because they know they stole it and don't everyone to know what lowlifes they are. They should all be held accountable for this and be required to pay all the money back and then pay us back! The U.N. is nothing but a worthless organization of criminals.
Media echoed false claim that U.N. official called U.S. "stingy"
Over the last week, the media have tirelessly echoed a false report by Washington Times senior White House correspondent Bill Sammon that the United Nations humanitarian aid chief called a U.S. pledge of $15 million in aid to tsunami victims "stingy." In fact, U.N. undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs Jan Egeland applied the "stingy" label to "rich countries," "donor countries," and "Western countries" in general, never singling out the United States. Moreover, his remark specifically addressed foreign aid budgets not related to the tsunami. In explaining why he expected rich countries to contribute money for tsunami aid, Egeland said that their regular foreign aid allocations were too "stingy" to cope with such an extraordinary disaster.