Stingy Americans? Bite me!

[cantdog]

Yeah, it wouldn't do to provide development aid with no strings attached, now would it?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: Quote from Reuters:

Jan Egeland:

Asked about the response of rich nations to such crises, he said: "It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really."

"If actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income, I think that is stingy really. I don't think that is very generous," he said.

The United Nations urged rich nations a quarter of a century ago to give away 0.7 percent of their gross domestic product every year in the form of development aid.

To date, however, just a handful of European nations, most of them in Scandinavia, actually meet that goal.

The question I have Oggs, is whould a country in dire need prefer 40,000$ (that came form .6% of East nowhere's GDP) or would they perfer 1 million (that was only .1 % of Outer Everywhere's) ?

I think a percentage of GDP is just a dodge to to find a way to snipe at the U.S. Since they can't say we don't contribute, they find a way to make us look bad. Sorry if others disagree, but my current opinion of the UN is about as low as it has ever been

-Colly

 

[cantdog]

Well, we veto everything they propose and we ignore them and their "international law." Since they don't affect us, why get upset about 'em? Honestly, you'd think it made a difference, to hear you fellows complaining.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Well, we veto everything they propose and we ignore them and their "international law." Since they don't affect us, why get upset about 'em? Honestly, you'd think it made a difference, to hear you fellows complaining.

The only reason I don't advocate leaving is because we can block what we wish in the security council. If we leave we won't have that option.

 

[gauchecritic]

The only reason I don't advocate leaving is because we can block what we wish in the security council. If we leave we won't have that option.

Not wishing to argue colly but as far as I can see staying in to use a veto and ignoring other's vetoes and doing what they like when the UN don't move fast enough doesn't exactly inspire confidence or approval from other member nations.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Not wishing to argue colly but as far as I can see staying in to use a veto and ignoring other's vetoes and doing what they like when the UN don't move fast enough doesn't exactly inspire confidence or approval from other member nations.

I agree, although I also tend to echo Colly's frustration with the UN. If I'm interpreting Gauche correctly, he seems to be saying that we should either stay in and abide by the UN's rules and regulations or have the courage to say "we think for these reasons that we should no longer be a part of the UN or be governed by its institutions," and take what comes. This is not the most ruthlessly pragmatic approach, but is possibly the more honest and honorable one. I do think that there is room to argue that one has reasons not to be in the UN; while I understand frustration within the UN at the US, I do also have some sympathy for the argument that we're simply wearing the largest target because we're the biggest power at the moment. But if that is true, and we don't feel that we can get fair treatment at the UN, should we continue to involve ourselves in it? I understand that pragmatically - in strictly practical terms of what it can get us - the answer is probably still "yes." But would it be more honest to say "no"?

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

Yeah, it wouldn't do to provide development aid with no strings attached, now would it?

(Love the AV, by the way.)

I read this as sarcastic, but I think that there are good reasons to ask what one's aid will support. Many countries have customs, laws, and practices different to our own, and there are many that I would not care to support. While I am, of course, entirely in favor of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked (unless, of course, naked by choice) and sheltering the cold and weary, nearly all countries have a variety of other funded programs that might be a good deal less palatable. I would not care to fund China's "re-indoctrination and alignment with party values" programs or its ruthless pursuit of the one family/one child rule, for instance, or Islamic fundamentalist schools that teach that women should properly be treated as chattel, or the building of vast "presidential palaces" in countries in which the populace is starving. I think it's worth asking where the money is going; otherwise one ends up not only with hungry people and oppressive regimes, but with hungry people and increasingly powerful, wealthy, and well-armed oppressive regimes.

Shanglan

 

[cantdog]

You ignore the actual practice. We do not just want to direct the aid, we want economic concessions in return. Without a quid, we want to part with no quo.

That's the strings we ordinarily put on our "humanitarian" aid, let alone our "development" aid.

cantdog

 

[BlackShanglan]

You ignore the actual practice. We do not just want to direct the aid, we want economic concessions in return. Without a quid, we want to part with no quo.

That's the strings we ordinarily put on our "humanitarian" aid, let alone our "development" aid.

cantdog

Of course, agreed there. I was thinking theory and what ought best to be done, rather than what is.

Shanglan

 

[cantdog]

Ah. My error.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Not wishing to argue colly but as far as I can see staying in to use a veto and ignoring other's vetoes and doing what they like when the UN don't move fast enough doesn't exactly inspire confidence or approval from other member nations.

It dosen't. However, as long as we hold the power to veto, it seems counter productive to leave. The soviet's learned that during the Korean war and to my knowledge haven't missed a meeting since.

 

[cantdog]

We do all the vetoing these days.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

We do all the vetoing these days.

That begs the question why we stay if we feel the need to use our veto all the time. I think the answer is we stay because we can veto.

 

[amicus]

The failed League of Nations proposed by President Wilson following world war one and the United Nations, the brain child of The Roosevelt's, following world war two, were both attempts to create a global organization to deal with problems on a world wide basis.

The idea, in itself is laudable. However in practical terms, it is virtually unworkable for dozens of reasons.

The World Health Organization and many other off shoots of the idea of a 'united world' all attempt to do 'good things' (if any litsters can even agree what 'good' is).


Unfortunately with the majority of member nations being 'controlled societies' in one form or another, it has been a tiresome process of the 'free world' running up against the stonewall of communist nations and other dictatorships that resist an open 'accountable' civilizations attempt to cooperate and coordinate on a global basis.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reports this morning speak of private donations by Americans as the largest ever in history for the Asian Tsunami disaster. Both the Red Cross and Unicef are saying there were more donations of larger amounts in the last 48 hours than the entire year preceding, including the huge outpouring for the Florida hurricane disasters.

It speaks volumes of good for the 'Stingy, ugly Americans'

Bite me!


amicus...

 

[gauchecritic]

Unfortunately with the majority of member nations being 'controlled societies' in one form or another, it has been a tiresome process of the 'free world' running up against the stonewall of communist nations and other dictatorships that resist an open 'accountable' civilizations attempt to cooperate and coordinate on a global basis.

It speaks volumes of good for the 'Stingy, ugly Americans'

Bite me!


amicus...

No. Bite me

 

[oggbashan]

Re: Re: Quote from Reuters:

The question I have Oggs, is whould a country in dire need prefer 40,000$ (that came form .6% of East nowhere's GDP) or would they perfer 1 million (that was only .1 % of Outer Everywhere's) ?

I think a percentage of GDP is just a dodge to to find a way to snipe at the U.S. Since they can't say we don't contribute, they find a way to make us look bad. Sorry if others disagree, but my current opinion of the UN is about as low as it has ever been

-Colly

Any help, from anywhere is appreciated.

As for Jan's criticism. He didn't specify the US. The media added that spin.

It also depends how you count the percentage of GDP. If you include private citizen's donations as well as government contributions in cash and kind then most democratic countries provide high figures of overseas aid.

The amount of money flowing out of the UK in normal times to relatives of people here is astonishing. One employee here might be supporting 20 relatives in a 3rd world country.

The UN may be a flawed organisation but it is all we have. Given the nature of some of the governments of member states it is surprising that it works at all. The US's 'shall we, shan't we' and 'we won't pay all of our contribution unless you do everything we want' attitudes doesn't help to make the UN's institutions stable.

As has been said 'Jaw, Jaw is better than War, War'.

The Commonwealth Of Nations (formerly the British Commonwealth) is a slightly better example of international cooperation but that too has internal conflicts. The Commonwealth found that dealing with difficult problems such as Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe are too complex for the Commonwealth's processes to manage.

The UN is holding the line between combatants in many parts of the world. Whether it should? If it doesn't, who will?

Og

 

[BlackShanglan]

No. Bite me

Well, if you insist.

 

[amicus]

Og, if memory serves it was "talk, talk, fight, fight.." a quote from Mao tse as a strategy of war, keep the enemy talking until you are ready to strike?

 

[Liar]

Reports this morning speak of private donations by Americans as the largest ever in history for the Asian Tsunami disaster. Both the Red Cross and Unicef are saying there were more donations of larger amounts in the last 48 hours than the entire year preceding, including the huge outpouring for the Florida hurricane disasters.

It speaks volumes of good for the 'Stingy, ugly Americans'

Bite me!

Will you please stop being an idiot?

One last time, on bold and red letters, so that you might see them: The 'stingy' statement was directed at GOVERNMENTS in ALL wealthy countries. The horrible socialist Europe included. So you can stop pouting now. If you pulled your head out of Bill O'Reilly's ass, you might have noticed this.

The american PEOPLE, as well as other countries' citizens have been massing up donations for disater aid in a way that hasn't happened in decades, in many places (here too) far exceeding the mediocre numbers that the authorities are contributing with.

#L

 

[amicus]

I saw the goddamned broadcast and interview and there was and is no doubt at whom Egeland directed his comments. Pull your own head out of Michael Moore's ass and see daylight!

 

[Liar]

I've seen the broadcast thankyouverymuch. Need I post a transcript?

I guess you hear what you want to hear.

 

[Guest]

Will you please stop being an idiot?

I can't resist this... Amicus, you're a dude, but I swear Green Day wrote American Idiot with you in mind.

Lou

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: Re: Re: Quote from Reuters:

Any help, from anywhere is appreciated.

As for Jan's criticism. He didn't specify the US. The media added that spin.

It also depends how you count the percentage of GDP. If you include private citizen's donations as well as government contributions in cash and kind then most democratic countries provide high figures of overseas aid.

The amount of money flowing out of the UK in normal times to relatives of people here is astonishing. One employee here might be supporting 20 relatives in a 3rd world country.

The UN may be a flawed organisation but it is all we have. Given the nature of some of the governments of member states it is surprising that it works at all. The US's 'shall we, shan't we' and 'we won't pay all of our contribution unless you do everything we want' attitudes doesn't help to make the UN's institutions stable.

As has been said 'Jaw, Jaw is better than War, War'.

The Commonwealth Of Nations (formerly the British Commonwealth) is a slightly better example of international cooperation but that too has internal conflicts. The Commonwealth found that dealing with difficult problems such as Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe are too complex for the Commonwealth's processes to manage.

The UN is holding the line between combatants in many parts of the world. Whether it should? If it doesn't, who will?

Og

My point Oggs, has been from the start it was a terribly stupid thing to say. Whether he was adressing nations or peoples or a specific nation or specific people is really not pertinent. It was going to be spun, partially by the media, partially by politics, partially by a perverse wish to be angry I think.

At a time when unity among all people, to help people should have been the goal, this bone head is stirring up a row for what purpose? Perhaps as Lou noted in her thread, just to feed his ego. Perhaps it was just unwise or he didn't realize the possible consequences.

Percentage of GDP is, IMHO, a pretty duplicitous way of looking at statistics. As you noted, exactly how it is calculated can change dramatically the numbers. Deciding what is charitable can do the same. It seems geared to find a way to nit pick the U.S. since they cannot argue we send less. So now it's a smaller percentage of GDP. And if we fix that? Probably our percentage should be bigger because we are richer. Ad infinitum.

It's just my take, but I feel the animosity of officals and member nations in the UN is palpable and it gives me little or no confidence that the body is functioning as it was intended to.

 

[oggbashan]

I've seen the broadcast thankyouverymuch. Need I post a transcript?

I guess you hear what you want to hear.

It shows the limitations of communication.

What means something to one person is read as something completely different by another even if the words, intonation and body language are unchanged.

What has been read by some in the US as criticism of the US has been read elsewhere as criticism of all of us in the developed world.

The response by governments and individuals to this disaster might make the criticism unfair in retrospect. I hope that it does and that aid continues to flow when the disaster is no longer newsworthy.

Og

 

[amicus]

Dear Lou....you can be objective and rational enough to think back several months when this forum was overwhelmingly pro Kerry, anti bush, and largely anti american aka capitalism.

Even now, after months, I can think of only a handful that venture even a word in praise of the current administration or America in general.

I purposely take an extreme position and a very one sided one, just to counterbalance the abundance of contravening posts, it may not be very successful, but from the 'ignores' and all the name calling, I think I managed to piss off a few....

If you would like to switch roles for the next few months, I can argue either side.

cheers....the abominable one...