Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Some interesting statistics about the United Nations....

by Jack Ammann / April 12, 2006 6:10 PM PDT

...From my in-box:

How they vote in the United Nations and aid to those countries:

Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:

Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time.

Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time.

Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time.

United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.

Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.

Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.

Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.

Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.

Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.

Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.

Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.

Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.

India votes against the United States 81% of the time.

Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.

Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.


U S Foreign Aid to those countries:


Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.

Jordan votes 71% against the United States.
And receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

Pakistan votes 75% against the United States.
Receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

India votes 81% against the United States.
Receives $143,699,000 annually.


Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay for taxes and gasoline.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Some interesting statistics about the United Nations....
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Some interesting statistics about the United Nations....
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Response
by JP Bill / April 12, 2006 8:24 PM PDT

Stop giving aid AND stop buying their oil.

That'll show'em

Collapse -
Do you have any links
by Glenda / April 13, 2006 2:31 AM PDT
In reply to: Response

for the foriegn aid Canada gives and any idea how much oil Canada uses from these same Arab countries? Just wondering

Collapse -
The purpose of foreign aid
by JP Bill / April 13, 2006 4:18 AM PDT
In reply to: one link I found
Unfortunately, in practice, Canadian aid policy contradicts these recommendations: the less economic freedom in a country, the more likely Canada is to contribute foreign aid to that country

Prior research shows that aid has only proven to be beneficial in countries with higher levels of economic freedom, indicating some guiding principles for the allocation of aid. Thus, there should be a shift of aid money from countries with low levels of economic freedom towards countries demonstrating greater economic freedom.


IMO this applies to both USA and Canada and

''Foreign aid should be based on encouraging the development of institutions that protect the rule of law and private property, and policies that move the country towards greater economic freedom such as freer trade, low and stable inflation, and the ability to exchange domestic currency for foreign currency,''

Foreign aid is NOT to get the country receiving foreign aid to ''vote for me'' (the country giving the aid)

Which is Jack's reason for withdrawal of aid..
Collapse -
We're trying to buy off hostile governments from becoming
by Ziks511 / April 14, 2006 5:23 PM PDT

even greater havens for terrorists.

Additionally, Foreign aid was supposed to be based on need within that country, not how staunchly pro-American or pro-Western the countries were.

Perhaps it is time to have someone sensible (that rules out Bolton), strong, sympathetic, but not a push over running US foreign aid. Somebody who will say, "You need this much money. How are you going to deliver it to the people who are starving? You're using your brother in laws trucking firm? No chance! Try making sure that all of the aid gets to where its supposed to go and take your cut out of somebody else's aid, otherwise we find an NGO that can deliver the aid to the people and cut you out altogether or we take our money and go home. Its your choice."

But foreign aid was only about aid in the years following WW2, and the early Cold War. Now its about politics and paying off various leaders in various ways. Pakistan, if it were an honest regime, and had the power to control all of its provinces would be a great place to put money, but half of it goes into the wrong pockets, and they don't control most of their provinces.

Besides who are we in the face of corporate scandal after corporate scandal, and no bid contracts to Halliburton and all the corruption attendant there, who are we to criticize corruption elsewhere? When we talk to the rest of the world we talk as if we have no faults, we have no corruption, that we are the best place in the world, but our faults and our mistakes are glaringly apparent in the news services of even our allies like Britain, France and Germany. Think about what the coverage of Hurricane Katrina did to the image of the United States as all powerful. Its still a disaster area down there, there are still miles of wrecked and destroyed housing, and there are people now being moved out of the trailers they were given, because the time limit is up.

I used to watch Deutche Welle on sattelite in Britain, and could struggle through most of the news programs. Not a pretty picture. Nor was what came across on SkyNews despite its relation to Fox News, or the BBC.

Perhaps we're in a "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." situation. We need a President and a strong administration who's priority is probity, legality, fairness, and honesty, and a Congress and Senate he is strong enough to dominate and whip into shape. We need campaign funding reform and a whole new look at what should be the rules for Congressmen and Senators, and total financial disclosure.

VP Cheney received nearly 9 million dollars mostly in deferred stock options, and paid 450 thousand dollars tax. Gee, I wish that was my tax bracket: 5%, nice work if you can get it (and yes I know he's suppose to have given over 2 million to "charity", so that means he paid 450 K on 6 million bucks or 15%, wish I was in that tax bracket too).

Rob

Collapse -
Jack's reason for withdrawal of aid..
by jonah jones / April 14, 2006 5:59 PM PDT

the way i see it....

someone should teach the recieving countries "do not bite the hand that (helps) to feed you"


.

Collapse -
...and you know Jonah...I was really proud of our....
by Jack Ammann / April 15, 2006 4:37 AM PDT

...State Department for withdrawing all aid from those HAMAS VULTURES...

Collapse -
Its been my understanding they've been attaching
by Dragon / April 19, 2006 4:33 AM PDT

conditions to foreign aid, lately.

And so, you bet. It's an integral of our policy. We give a lot of aid out, by the way. We give aid to countries that may like us, may not like us, except in few instances. I have changed the development program, however, from -- let me say, I added on to the development programs to what's called the Millennium Challenge Account. And that is a conditional-based aid program. It's condition based upon poverty level, but it's also condition based upon behavior of government.

We should not be -- we should insist that governments fight corruption. It seems like to me it's a rational thing to do with taxpayers' money. And so part of the -- one of the criterion for the Millennium Challenge Account, it says, you don't get money if you don't fight corruption. We should insist that people invest in the health and education of their people. We should insist on marketplace reforms, open markets, so that people have a chance to realize the benefits of a growing economy. And we do. And so we give aid.

But the Millennium Challenge account is an additional program that is no question conditional-based, based upon I think rational criterion. I remember having the discussion with some friends of mine from another -- from another part of the world. They said, how can you insist upon conditions for the aid? I said, how can you not? Why does it not make sense to say, get rid of your corruption? Unless you people think -- unless people think that maybe the corruption is normal and necessary. It's not. A lot of people -- a lot of countries have suffered as a result of governments that didn't care about them.

Collapse -
Response
by duckman / April 12, 2006 9:00 PM PDT

Well, that just shows how wrong America is about everything

Collapse -
We and the needy would be better off...
by caktus / April 13, 2006 2:11 PM PDT

if we bypassed the [Un]united [N]ations and divied [necessary] aid to the [genuine] needy ourselves. I bet we'd out do the UN every time.

Collapse -
What do you base that statement/bet on?
by Terry Browne / April 15, 2006 1:33 AM PDT

"I bet we'd out do the UN every time."

Collapse -
[W]e'd be more careful how [O]ur $ are spent,
by caktus / April 18, 2006 6:12 AM PDT

beleive it or not.

Collapse -
Wanna Bet?
by Diana Forum moderator / April 18, 2006 9:17 AM PDT

The US government isn't careful how they spend our money. Why should it be any different with the UN's money?

Not when one congresscritter gets millions for a bridge to nowhere and, when that is cancelled, he still gets the money anyway.

Diana

Collapse -
Who said anything about "the UN's money"?
by caktus / April 19, 2006 4:33 AM PDT
In reply to: Wanna Bet?

BTW, foreign aid isn't pork barreling.

Collapse -
Oh I don't know about that
by Roger NC / April 19, 2006 6:13 AM PDT
foreign aid isn't pork barreling

It's not catering to the home voters by any means, but it is my impression there is more than one company from overseas with huge investments in a particular district that contribute heavily to candidates hoping to influence regulations affecting them.


Roger

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
Collapse -
It is when the government where the aid is going
by Diana Forum moderator / April 20, 2006 2:53 AM PDT

finds it's way into the pockets of those in power.

I've heard of foreign food aid mostly winding up in warehouses or on the black market (not just from the government either).

What I was talking about before was that we talk a good fight about waste and corruption in other governments and they need to clean up their acts, but perhaps we need to get our own house in order.

How can we expect a government to act globally when we can't even act nationally?

Diana

Collapse -
RE: into the pockets of those in power
by caktus / April 21, 2006 2:33 AM PDT

That's why I suggest ''we bypass the [Un]united [N]ations and divie [necessary] aid to the [genuine] needy ourselves''. Real government change has to start at the bottom.

Collapse -
About the bridge
by Dragon / April 19, 2006 4:35 AM PDT
In reply to: Wanna Bet?

What 'congrescritter' was that? I'd like to look into it a bit.

Collapse -
Rep. Don Young (R-AK)
by caktus / April 19, 2006 6:06 AM PDT
In reply to: About the bridge
Collapse -
Here is another link
by Diana Forum moderator / April 20, 2006 3:30 AM PDT
In reply to: About the bridge
The Bridge to Nowhere

The interesting part of the article is Despite the willingness of many in Alaska to give back the bridge to pay for disaster relief, Alaska?s congressional delegation has dug in its heels, and many of the delegation?s colleagues, including all of congressional leadership, support its resistance. If Alaska loses some of its pork, they fear, so might they.

In opposing Senator Coburn?s amendment to defund the bridge, one prominent Senator told a closed-door meeting of conservatives that the plan was simply impractical. Many of the earmarks, he claimed, are counted towards a state?s equity bonus and thus are part of the state-by-state allocation formula. Defunding the bridge, he said, would direct at most $75 million to Louisiana, with the remaining $148 million returning to Alaska as money the state could use at its discretion for road projects.

Never mind that the Senator seems to view $75 million in taxpayers? dollars as a sum of little consequence; what the Senator sees as a problem in fact would be a considerable benefit to Alaska. Assuming the Senator?s numbers are right, Alaska?s Department of Transportation would gain $148 million in money it could spend on the state?s transportation priorities instead of a useless bridge that would serve a tiny fraction of the state?s citizens.


So, even if the state wants to give the money back, they can't give it all back and doesn't even look like they would be willing to re-direct to where it might do more good.

Diana
Collapse -
RE: opposing Senator Coburn?s amendment to defund
by caktus / April 20, 2006 9:08 AM PDT
In reply to: Here is another link

And to think even Barbara Boxer forewent a project so the $ could go to a better cause. Sometimes people are just so strange.

Collapse -
Wrong
by duckman / April 14, 2006 11:19 AM PDT

John Bolton is ours, so 99 % un-American

Collapse -
OK.
by Terry Browne / April 14, 2006 4:45 PM PDT

''Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay for taxes and gasoline.''

So, don't expect any oil from any of the Arab countries or any other oil producing countries. And don't expect any support whatsoever from UN and expect the troops to invade the US when we don't follow international laws.

And above all, don't let the door hit U$ in the a$$!

Collapse -
????????
by jonah jones / April 14, 2006 6:03 PM PDT
In reply to: OK.

Re: don't expect any oil from any of the Arab countries or any other oil producing countries.


your post implies that the US isn't already paying $70 a barrel for oil from Arab countries or any other oil producing countries as it is....


.

Collapse -
Wrong
by Terry Browne / April 15, 2006 1:24 AM PDT
In reply to: ????????

It implies that the Arab countries and any other oil producing country will not even sell to the US should we get out of the UN. At least that would be the most logical result of Jack's wish.

Collapse -
are you for real?
by jonah jones / April 15, 2006 1:34 AM PDT
In reply to: Wrong

Arab countries and any other oil producing country will not even sell to the US.....


if money talks and b/s walks, you must be half way to florida....


the day the arab oil producing countries lose the US market the proverbial fan will be so loaded down it will stop revolving...


.

Collapse -
That 's just ridiculous
by Evie / April 18, 2006 11:07 AM PDT
In reply to: Wrong

Some misguided Arab might try that, but then we would just get oil elsewhere. There will always be someone willing to sell to a reliable customer that buys a lot of anything!

Collapse -
You make it sound like.......
by hh / April 15, 2006 1:20 AM PDT
In reply to: OK.

The Arab world is doing us a favor? We pay for the crude around $70/bbl and believe me those oil sheiks are getting plenty rich out of that.
What does your statement got to do with what Jack was talking about?

Collapse -
We BUY oil ...
by Evie / April 18, 2006 11:06 AM PDT
In reply to: OK.

... without us to sell it to, their own economies will suffer. That is not at all similar to international charity.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Soooo glad......
by EdH / April 18, 2006 12:47 PM PDT
In reply to: OK.
Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

Does BMW or Volvo do it best?

Pint-size luxury and funky style

Shopping for a new car this weekend? See how the BMW X2 stacks up against the Volvo XC40 in our side-by-side comparison.