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.

 

Bush 'Undermining UN with Aid Coalition'

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe


Let's face it, the US leads the world in quick and generous aid after natural disasters. Nothing to do with who is currently in the White House. We've been doing it successfully for years.


Is that why the Brittish Public quickly raise more than either the Us or UK government? The people, the real people, are the most generous, not the heads of state or the governments. Stop trying to gain Kudos for your country and start thinking of the victims instead.




posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by chebob

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Let's face it, the US leads the world in quick and generous aid after natural disasters.


Is that why the Brittish Public quickly raise more than either the Us or UK government? *SNIP* Stop trying to gain Kudos for your country and start thinking of the victims instead.

Nothing like folks putting words into my mouth.

I know nothing about the Brtish citizenry. I'm sure they are a generous and noble group.

However, my point is that the US and her citizens are quick to help and generous no matter if the disaster is in the US or elsewhere in the world. Since I'm repeatedly told we are the richest country in the world, I drew the conclusion I did.

I'm truly sick of people bashing the US over this mammoth disaster. We seem to be damned if we do give, and damned that we don't give enough.
Somehow I doubt all this "they gave this much" but "they only gave that much" and "they should have given more" is not the way charity should be meted out.


[edit on 2-1-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe


I'm truly sick of people bashing the US over this mammoth disaster. We seem to be damned if we do give, and damned that we don't give enough.
Somehow I doubt all this "they gave this much" but "they only gave that much" and "they should have given more" is not the way charity should be meted out.


[edit on 2-1-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]


Yep, its getting pretty ignorant. We upped our contribution from 35 mil to 350 mil. But that still is not enough is it. We are still stingy, yet the American population has donated MORE than any other country. Not our government, but OUR CITIZENS! Give me a break. Im just happy these people are finally getting the aid they so desperatly need. As long as there is an accountability system for the money handeling, I really dont care if Micheal Moore is doleing it out. Jeez, these people need all the help we can get and people are complaining about who is incharge of giving out the money



People, get over it and be glad these people are getting the help they need.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Are you suggesting that Bush wants a chance to pilfer funds from the relief donations? You must be joking. And what allegations are surrounding him?


That is exactly what I'm saying. Let's review the good president's fun stock of economic acusations:

1. Instead of food for oil, war for oil!
2. Haliburton, his 'former' company, gets some plum reconstruction contracts.
3. While your economy is imploding at an astounding rate, the president is killing state benefits like social security.

This not only constitutes as grand ineptitude in running your country, but also speaks to his character. Me? I wouldn't be surprised at a little graft.

DE



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I dont care who gives out the money as long as it gets there, but woe betide if any of that cash goes missing along the way by any party.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I think ALL the countries helping are doing a great job. Well done to all countries who are sending in supplies, resources and/or expertise, and doing what they can, however big or small. Good onya to all people of the world who have donated. This is a relief effort that will take months, if not years. Well done on the great work so far.

You guys are funny
... Brits, Yanks, Aussies, whatever your nationality.... we are helping our fellow man in need, together we will do a better job - we can all pat ourselves on our collective backs



[edit on 2-1-2005 by c_au]



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   
This will be slightly long, and I'm a terrible speller due to a learning dissability, so please bear with me.

I see no cause for debate on who is more corrupt or greedy. Without generalizing, I think it's more than safe to say that there are corrupt, greedy, opportunistic politicians in every country, and every international institution in the world.

This is why I feel this rift is happening now, though.

What's happened in the last five or six years is a definite shift in world opinion and policy (especialy when it comes to trans-atlantic relations) away from a unipolar U.S.-led world order, to the so-called "multipolar" order endorsed by others. I don't agree with either. I believe everyone should just shut up, and work together for the betterment of human kind, instead of getting hung up on who is, should be, or will be, the center(s) of power in the world. However, I unfortunately don't get a say in such matters lol.

So this is what I think is happening.

On the one hand, the U.S. wants to maintain it's position as the sole global superpower (whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing, it's still true), and until recently the U.N. was an effective way of facilitating this, while still remaining part of a community of nations, either by design, or purely by circumstance.

On the other hand, the E.U. and more specificaly, France and Germany, along with Russia to a lesser degree, are trying to assert some level of independance from Washington. We saw this in the opposition to the Iraq war, and in many instances since. Again, I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, I'm just trying to explain why I believe the U.S. is circumventing the U.N. in certain situations as of late.

France, Germany, and Russia (among others) believe (correctly) that asserting themselves within the U.N. provides an effective means of checking what they view (again, correctly) as U.S. dominance. We saw this in the run up to the Iraq war, as I said. The U.S. finaly said to hell with it, and went to war anyway. That was the begininng of a sea change that I believe will have far reaching implications in years to come.

The U.S. sees this, and has calculated that it's best chance of retaining global preiminence is to skirt the U.N. (and thus France, Germany, Russia, and others) when necessary, as well as utilize it's alliance and influence with the U.K. to the fullest, and form "coalitions of the willing" like the one in Iraq. In many ways, it is a defensive strategy, even though U.S. leaders continue to play it off as a sign of their unquestionable strength and influence in the world.

The end result of all of this is that, one way or another, the U.S. feels compelled to become more and more unilateral in policy, the U.N. loses the support of the U.S. (to some degree atleast), and Europe and the U.S. clash more and more often over foreign policy and trade policy.

I believe that is a no-win situation for everyone involved. Sooner or later it will lead to resource or manpower shortfalls when they are desperately needed, either in a disaster such as the tsunamis, or in a military situation such as in Iraq where forces are stretched woefuly thin (and I can see how that's a bad thing even though I'm staunchly anti-war).

I think everyone should start compromising more, that corruption and greed in ALL nations and institutions needs to be checked, and that maybe regular people like us can atleast start by recognizing that everyone across the board is corrupt, instead of arguing about who is "more" corrupt.

Just my two cents.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 03:54 AM
link   
If the UN is being undermined, its thru its own actions and inactions...
When you stroke the check, you get to decide who gets it...BIG DEAL!
If the USA and others want to pony up some $$$, they should be able to decide how its spent...it is theirs after all, not the UN's.

Or is it now, UN bashes the USA, UN asks for handout, UN bashes for the handout given, UN whines because the big boys play with their toys without the UN approval, permission, or even a concern with them?

When the UN shows it can again serve a purpose other than USA bashing and scandals, then mabey someone will trust them with $$$ again.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
I agree,

The UN needs absolutely NO assistance in undermining themselves.



And if they did need a hand the US and Israel will gladly oblige...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join