It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.N. slams U.S. as 'stingy' over tsunami aid!

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Be pretty funny if we and the other "stingy" nations yanked that guy's visa and sent him packing....




posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Most aid given to foreign countries by governments and private organizations is not exactly FREE. There is generally an ulterior motive, they are often more of an investment than actual compassionate contributions.

E.G.

Bill Gates gave $100 million to India to help fight aids. Was this given unconditionally, with no expectation of any return. I think not.
At the same time, with far less fanfare, Bill Gates invested $400 million to increase support for his software platform, in competition with Linux and others.
Was the $100 million "donated" to India just part of that "investment". I think so.
Capturing the software market in India is an important step for Microsoft.
India has potentially one tenth of the worlds software developers.

And being a monster MS [Microsoft] shareholder himself, a Big Win in India will enrich him [Bill Gates] personally, perhaps well in excess of the $100 million he's donating to the AIDS problem. Makes you wonder who the real beneficiary of charity is here. Thomas Green

Long term investment is what it's all about. Just like when we go and re-build a country after war, it's all about developing ever new markets.
We like to pat ourselves on the back and think how compassionete we are for our countries donations, but the reality is we contribute to nothing but more wealth and power for the rich. Whilst those that are really in need continue needing. And the rich, well....

More here;
www.globalissues.org...



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odd
to America... highest total contribution thus far.
to the UN: as was said, they get upset whenever we make our own decisions, but their hands are in our pockets just the same.
to France... say what you will, that won't change the fact that they've sent around $2.50 per dead citizen, and I'm sure the numbers of wounded and homeless are much higher.


France gave 15 million Euros. ($20 million)


channelnewsasia
On Tuesday EU aid commissioner Louis Michel announced a further 20 million euros in aid for India, Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Indonesia, adding to three million euros agreed within hours of the tragedy striking.

That money comes from collective EU funds, and adds to whatever individual EU nations are ready to contribute, whether in terms of funds, equipment or other resources.

A number of EU capitals have already announced aid: 20 million from Germany, 15 million euros from France, 15 million pounds (21.3 million euros) from Britain.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Canada has just upped its commitment to $40 M. And we are 1/10th the population of the US. Canada is also sending its advance team for D.A.R.T. I feel a little better now about my country.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Anyone know what monies/resources either Israel or Saudi Arabia has contributed to this awful disaster. I should think the latter would have ample funds to assist with.


brill



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 02:16 AM
link   
hrmm...

the US consistently comes out lowest as a donator for foreign aid of all the OECD countries, as a percentage of GDP...

think of it in terms of the US taxpayers donation. what a US citizen, myself included, gives is the LOWEST of all developed nations. the fact that we give the highest amount in absolute terms means little compared to the fact that we give barely anything compared to the rest of the western world as a percentage of our taxes.

and 35 million? how much does 1 F-16 cost?

and remember folks, Volckers' report isn't out yet. you can be sure more than 35mil of that oil-for-food money went to US companies.

for the money we're spending killing people in iraq, what we're giving in aid where it could really help people is a pittance.

-koji K.

[edit on 30-12-2004 by koji_K]

[edit on 30-12-2004 by koji_K]



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by brill
Anyone know what monies/resources either Israel or Saudi Arabia has contributed to this awful disaster. I should think the latter would have ample funds to assist with.


brill


Saudi Arabia is donating $10 million and so is Qatar.
Kuwait is giving $2 million

I think Israel offered military personell to assist but it was turned down by Sri Lanka.
They ended up sending medical supplies, food and emergency equipment.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mfourl
Am sorry to say it but the UN has got a point. Us westerners grow fat while the rest of the world gets poar. People never think about there neighbours these days.




www.usatoday.com...

So... someone tell me exactly WHY does America have to take the
lead in relief efforts? We are doing that, but WHY do we have to?
It's the U.N.'s job to take the lead. Where are they? Koffi Annan
FINALLY made a statement Wednesday, THREE DAYS after the
earthquake. Why did it take so long? Because HE WAS ON
VACATION!!

Here is an opportunity for the U.N. to prove that it is worth
something, but they fail again.

Also ... much of the area that was hit (not India, but the other
areas) is MUSLIM. Where are the MUSLIM countries? Oil rich
Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. etc. ???? They
gave ... but considering their oil wealth why aren't they being
dissed??? They certainly could give and do more.

Anyone have stats on what, if anything, they are doing to help
their fellow muslims? Or is it us, the great satan, (AMERICA) that
once again gives the most and yet still gets yelled at for not
doing 'enough'?

to the U.N. and
to those critical of America and our
efforts to help.

BTW - the BIG donations are given freely. The US government
STARTED with a 35$ million donation, but it's private donations
given through amazon.com, catholic charities, and heck even
UPS is donating airplanes ... it's freewill donations that are
pushing the American donations WAY UP. Not forced donations
given by the government.

[edit on 12/30/2004 by FlyersFan]



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 07:53 AM
link   
N/M

[edit on 30-12-2004 by AceOfBase]



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Anyone have stats on what, if anything, they are doing to help
their fellow muslims? Or is it us, the great satan, (AMERICA) that
once again gives the most and yet still gets yelled at for not
doing 'enough'?


Oh, please put a sock in it. America is giving the lowest in terms of it's GDP than all of the countries. Anyway, this discussion is pointless, America is not obliged to give anything, so let's be thankful that it's giving something, peanuts though they maybe. So as long as you can knock it off the self-proclaimed high moral ground.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 08:11 AM
link   


So... someone tell me exactly WHY does America have to take the
lead in relief efforts? We are doing that

Nobody says that. The UN Guy meant the whole western world, including his own country. He has all the right to critizize the western world because he is a part of it. If he said something similiar about the arabs, would they give a cent?
But go ahead, turn off your brain and hate the UN, hate the UNHCR, hate the UNICEF, hate the WHO. Hate them because they are among the first to help, hate them because they have badly paid jobs at the UN just to help people. Hate them because they say that the world is not giving enough.



Why did it take so long? Because HE WAS ON
VACATION!!

Look below. Besides that is not exactly his job. And as you can see it took the UN not a single day to send help, annan one day to coordinate. He helped first, then gave the interviews. And you blame him for that?

26th December: Un Experts rush to Indian Ocean

27th DecemberUN launches unprecedented multiple effort to aid victims of Asia's devastating tsunami
29th December:UN's initial tsunami relief takes various forms in worst-hit countries
29th December Annan cuts sho
rt holidays to oversee massive UN relief effort after Asian tsunami




Over the past two days, Mr. Annan has spoken to the leaders of the nearly one dozen countries hit by the disaster to see what they need most urgently and has also been in touch with leaders of major donor nations to review the international relief effort and to underscore the UN's coordinating role, his spokesman said today.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Oh, please put a sock in it. America is giving the lowest in terms
of it's GDP than all of the countries. America is not obliged to
give anything, so let's be thankful that it's giving something,
peanuts though they maybe.


Put a sock in it? Not a chance. I said the truth.
America is giving the lowest in terms of it's GDP?
Guess you didn't read the article that I posted
stating that America's giving is IMMENSE. Mostly
through PRIVATE donations. Peanuts? Hardly.

Such typical comments from the Anti-America, blame
America first crowd.


I'll say it again. The oil-rich Arab countries don't seem
to be helping out too much. The Great Satan steps in,
AGAIN, and mostly through private donations helps feed
and take care of the victims while having to hear 'it's only peanuts'.



However, I agree with you. America isn't obliged
to give anything. It's the U.N. that is supposed to
be 'taking the lead'. (good luck with that)



[edit on 12/30/2004 by FlyersFan]



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by tsuribito


So... someone tell me exactly WHY does America have to take the
lead in relief efforts?

Nobody says that.


Actually, 'they' are all over the news saying it ... CNN, MSNBC, ETC.
The anti-american, blame-america-first crowd. It's revolting.

And YES it is the UN's job to take the lead. They claim to run the
world. Okay, here's their chance to prove they are worth something.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 08:31 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 08:35 AM
link   
It's nice to see other rich cash cows anti-up like.. like umm Canada? Yea, looks like those liberal bas*ards from the North have increased emergency relief donations to Asia at $40 million.

Relax America, the rest of the world is contributing despite low GDPs etc. Perhaps mankind might make it after all?

[edit on 30-12-2004 by syntaxer]



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 08:40 AM
link   
-Nevermind it works now -

[edit on 30/12/04 by tsuribito]



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Put a sock in it? Not a chance. I said the truth.
America is giving the lowest in terms of it's GDP?
Guess you didn't read the article that I posted
stating that America's giving is IMMENSE. Mostly
through PRIVATE donations. Peanuts? Hardly.

Such typical comments from the Anti-America, blame
America first crowd.


I'll say it again. The oil-rich Arab countries don't seem
to be helping out too much. The Great Satan steps in,
AGAIN, and mostly through private donations helps feed
and take care of the victims while having to hear 'it's only peanuts'.


I'm also stating the truth. However, you state America's donation is immense, and I am saying it is the lowest in terms of GDP(ability to give). We cannot be both telling the true. One of our statements is true:

America:

GDP: $10.9 trillion
% donation: $35 million or 0.000321%

Kuwait:

GDP: $41.46 billion
% donation $2 million or 0.0048%

So Kuwait has given approximately 10 times more than America in terms of it's ability to give. For America to match Kuwait's contribution it would have to give $350 million.

The American economy is 2692 times the Kuwait economy. This means America has the ability to give $5.4 billion wrt Kuwait.

So, which means America's contribution is 0.6% of what it could give wrt Kuwait. Therefore it is not immense, and hence my statement must be true. Good day.

[edit on 30-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Therefore it is not immense, and hence my statement must be true.
Good day.


You wish. Sorry to disappoint ya', but the private donations are
adding up. Example - UPS has donated airplanes. Worth how many
millions??? Private donations through Amazon.com are in the multi-millions. Same with Catholic Charities. ETC ETC IMMENSE it is. Once
again, Americans open their hearts and check books for those in need.
And once again, they get yelled at 'it's just peanuts'.
You are
obviously happy with not seeing the generosity of Americans.
I'll be praying for you. Good day right backchya.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 09:17 AM
link   
While the amount may seem low now wait until congress has a chance to appropriate funds. The president can't just cut a large check, Congress has to allow the spending. Also add the amount that is being privately donated by Americans to the amount that the governmant is spending. You cannot disregard the amount that is sent privately, especiaaly when you are equating donations to the GDP. Just looking at the Government donations vs. GDP is disingenuous. Look at the big picture, include all donations. Also look at the amounts given in the long run, when the money has been appropriated, not just the meager amount sent initially.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Perhaps American citizens should stop donating to charities that benefit other countries, since apparently to some people on the board, only donations from the government count. I for one will not be donating anything thanks to those members. I will let the government handle all aid since it is the only aid that seems to count.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join