USA Vs. The Others?

[Tom Earp]

-------Original Message-------

From: Winterringer Melody E SrA 336 TRSS/LGL
Date: 04/14/06 09:42:54
Subject: FW: STUPID UN





This ought to upset everybody:

How they vote in the United Nations:

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 that hate us:

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 million 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 the taxes (and gasoline).

[Rudey]

We should just stop funding these terrorists and use the money to help Willie Nelson develop his biofuels

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6826994/

-Rudey

Originally posted by Tom Earp
-------Original Message-------

From: Winterringer Melody E SrA 336 TRSS/LGL
Date: 04/14/06 09:42:54
Subject: FW: STUPID UN





This ought to upset everybody:

How they vote in the United Nations:

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 that hate us:

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 million 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 the taxes (and gasoline).

[ADSigMel]

Why is it phrased as XYZ country voted against the United States, instead of the United States voted against XYZ country? I mean, doesn't the fact that they are "voting against us" also mean that we are "voting against them"? Somehow I don't think any of these countries are drafting their foreign policy just to being doing the opposite of whatever the U.S. is doing. If that were the case, they wouldn't *have* their countries for very long.

BTW, I think it's pretty jacked up that someone would come right out and basically say that the fact that we give countries humanitarian aid means that we get to control them completely. I was under the impression that we gave other countries aid because we want to help people who are suffering, not because we want to control the world. Or at least that's why we're *supposed* to be giving out all this money.

Nothing in this message is to be construed as my support for the UN. I don't really care for it myself. I think it's a nice Utopian idea, but it won't work unless every country participates fully and equally, and unless it has some enforcement power (as in an actual Army, not just some pieces of paper called resolutions and the good will of the member States).

[moe.ron]

So, every countries that have voted against the US are anti-US. Is that the gist of your argument Tom?

[Kevin]

Originally posted by ADSigMel

BTW, I think it's pretty jacked up that someone would come right out and basically say that the fact that we give countries humanitarian aid means that we get to control them completely.

Quid pro quo is not exactly a "jacked up" or new concept.

[ADSigMel]

Quid pro quo means, "if we help you in your time of need, you should help us in our time of need" or "if we vote the way you do on some issues that are important to you, you should vote the way we do on some issues that are important to us." It does NOT mean "if we give you money to feed your starving children, you should vote the same way we do on matters of foreign policy." That's not quid pro quo. It's bribery - money in exchange for votes.

Furthermore, quid pro quo is simply another way of saying comity, which is not a formal requirement for doing business in this world the last time I checked. It's always nice to return a favor, but it's certainly not technically wrong not to.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by ADSigMel
Quid pro quo means, "if we help you in your time of need, you should help us in our time of need" or "if we vote the way you do on some issues that are important to you, you should vote the way we do on some issues that are important to us." It does NOT mean "if we give you money to feed your starving children, you should vote the same way we do on matters of foreign policy." That's not quid pro quo. It's bribery - money in exchange for votes.

Your argument presumes that these countries are using the cash we give them for humanitarian supplies. International aid money is bribery. It has very little to do with humanitarian needs. If we were interested in those, we'd stop paying farmers not to grow crops, and instead ship food to these countries.

Furthermore, quid pro quo is simply another way of saying comity, which is not a formal requirement for doing business in this world the last time I checked. It's always nice to return a favor, but it's certainly not technically wrong not to.

It's also not wrong that we expect it, or that countries receiving millions of our dollars do something in return for us. Or do you just feel guilty that you live in a great country? Does international aid make you feel better about yourself?

[PiKA2001]

The people in the middle east love to bite the hands that feed them. I think it's a shame that we are sending over so much aid to those people while we have americans that are living on the streets begging for food.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by moe.ron
So, every countries that have voted against the US are anti-US. Is that the gist of your argument Tom?

Don't hate on us Americans.

-Rudey

[Tom Earp]

Was not My argument moe.ron, just something that I passed along!

Now that I think of it, Why Should Our Tax Dollars go to Countries that turn around and crap on Us?

We are The Main Aid to Countries and do not take care of Our own first. Why is that?

Isnt it a little like shopping? Wanting to get what You spent Your money on?

[SOPi_Jawbreaker]

It's just one of the natural consequences of the US trying to be Policeman of the World. Nobody likes the PoPo.

[ADSigMel]

"It's also not wrong that we expect it, or that countries receiving millions of our dollars do something in return for us. Or do you just feel guilty that you live in a great country? Does international aid make you feel better about yourself?"

I have no idea what you are getting at here. Assuming that the money we give to other countries is humanitarian aid, I do think it is wrong to expect U.N. votes in return for it. Individuals don't give aid to the needy in our own country with any expectation that we will get something in return from them, do we? I thought we did it because it was the right thing to do.

If the aid we give to other countries is not intended to be humanitarian in nature, but is sent for the express purpose of buying foreign policy votes, okay, that's one thing. It's bribery, and I don't like it, but if that's what it is, then that's what it should be called. However, the argument in the original post seemed to be that States to which we provide any foreign aid should vote with us, and I just find that morally reprehensible. Perhaps I am overly idealistic.

I do not feel guilty that I live in a great country. I feel BLESSED. And, yes, international aid does make me feel better about myself. I am an American, and everything that America does to help others makes me proud.

That being said, while I don't agree with "The people in the middle east love to bite the hands that feed them," I do think that America could stand to devote its valuable aid money to fixing internal problems of poverty rather than sending it off to other places, whether those other places are our allies or not. After all, charity begins at home.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by ADSigMel
"It's also not wrong that we expect it, or that countries receiving millions of our dollars do something in return for us. Or do you just feel guilty that you live in a great country? Does international aid make you feel better about yourself?"

I have no idea what you are getting at here. Assuming that the money we give to other countries is humanitarian aid, I do think it is wrong to expect U.N. votes in return for it. Individuals don't give aid to the needy in our own country with any expectation that we will get something in return from them, do we? I thought we did it because it was the right thing to do.

If the aid we give to other countries is not intended to be humanitarian in nature, but is sent for the express purpose of buying foreign policy votes, okay, that's one thing. It's bribery, and I don't like it, but if that's what it is, then that's what it should be called. However, the argument in the original post seemed to be that States to which we provide any foreign aid should vote with us, and I just find that morally reprehensible. Perhaps I am overly idealistic.

I do not feel guilty that I live in a great country. I feel BLESSED. And, yes, international aid does make me feel better about myself. I am an American, and everything that America does to help others makes me proud.

That being said, while I don't agree with "The people in the middle east love to bite the hands that feed them," I do think that America could stand to devote its valuable aid money to fixing internal problems of poverty rather than sending it off to other places, whether those other places are our allies or not. After all, charity begins at home.

You're right. We should just give aid to the Taliban so that they can build their schools and after-school programs.

We have no right to consider what people do with the money or what they think of us at all.

Newsflash, the US is not in the business of charity.

-Rudey

[Kevin]

Originally posted by ADSigMel
. . . Assuming that the money we give to other countries is humanitarian aid, I do think it is wrong to expect U.N. votes in return for it.

That's a heck of an assumption there. I can't think of a lot of examples (or any) where the vast majority of America's donation to an individual country went to humanitarian aid. Know of any success stories?

Individuals don't give aid to the needy in our own country with any expectation that we will get something in return from them, do we? I thought we did it because it was the right thing to do.

The United States as Rudey has pointed out is definitely not in the business of charity. We give money to shore up militaries in countries that we consider key to our interests. We give money to ensure the supply of inexpensive goods and labor, quid pro quo is the governing principal of our foriegn aid and that of most other nations.

If the aid we give to other countries is not intended to be humanitarian in nature, but is sent for the express purpose of buying foreign policy votes, okay, that's one thing. It's bribery, and I don't like it, but if that's what it is, then that's what it should be called. However, the argument in the original post seemed to be that States to which we provide any foreign aid should vote with us, and I just find that morally reprehensible. Perhaps I am overly idealistic.

You're right -- you're overly idealistic.

I do not feel guilty that I live in a great country. I feel BLESSED. And, yes, international aid does make me feel better about myself. I am an American, and everything that America does to help others makes me proud.

It seems you're conflicted. That lack of pride you feel if we're not providing 'humanitarian aid' to others is called guilt.

That being said, while I don't agree with "The people in the middle east love to bite the hands that feed them," I do think that America could stand to devote its valuable aid money to fixing internal problems of poverty rather than sending it off to other places, whether those other places are our allies or not. After all, charity begins at home. [/B]

Don't you think it's a little simplistic to say that money would be the cure of all ills at home?

[squirrely girl]

ummmmmm... so by the original post (no offense tom) we simply know the percentage of the time that these nations voted against the US - not WHAT they were voting on or when and why

now i may be the idealistic one here - but just because we're the US doesn't mean we're always right - and i loathe the thought that many people truly believe this...

hell, i'm 'bout proof positive there are policies and actions that i would vote against if given the opportunity

sometimes people and nations are just wrong (hopefully not 87% of the time though!) and no amount of foreign aid/bribery should change that fact

- marissa