UN GA resolution: the list of countries voting against us

originally posted by: amazing
You guys are blowing this way out of proportion. It's one little vote. They disagree with us on something, they're not declaring war on us, and good heaven's they aren't even "unfriending" us. LOL

It's okay special snowflakes. LOL

AS you grow older, you'll learn that it's okay to have disagreements and that people that disagree with you can still be your friends. You'll also learn that you won't be right about everything. Some how in American society, we seem to think that once we reach the age of 18 we're magically right about everything. That's going to be a hard lesson for some of you to learn, you must accept that you are wrong sometimes.

Apparently you didn't read some of the harsh comments from some of the countries leaders about this vote.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Isn't Jerusalem where the anti-Christ sets up shop to rule the world ? yea lets get the show on the road peoples

Yeah, I'm ready to pull off that bandaid as well.

a reply to: StallionDuck
Canada and Mexico hardly backed the US they were just too timid to vote against their more powerful neighbour.
Abstaining is not support, it is just being too scared to voice and opinion lmao

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
I would expect the United Nations will soon learn that symbolic condemnations of their wealthiest, most powerful, first to respond to calls for assistance member had real world impacts which they will likely feel some itching and burning over down the road.

This vote does absolutely jack all nothing to the United States or to Israel and their capital city of Jerusalem, nothing will change this administration from acknowledging what is right and accurate... All it does is paint a giant "ingrates" stamp across the foreheads of 130-some UN member states and makes it obvious and clear that the US has a wonderful opportunity right now to not only save our country a great deal of money and unappreciated support efforts around the globe, but also free up some prime real estate along the East River in Manhattan.

Agreed. Just the top few countries amounts to BILLIONS! I'll all for defunding every one of them that voted YES. We should.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: StallionDuck
Canada and Mexico hardly backed the US they were just too timid to vote against their more powerful neighbour.
Abstaining is not support, it is just being too scared to voice and opinion lmao

Still, it means either:

They didn't vote against us
They didn't vote against Israel
They didn't care either way
It would hurt them politically if they voted yes

Either way, they didn't vote against us and or Israel and that's just as good as a No in my book.

a reply to: StallionDuck

Canada abstained because it was the only option that wouldn't have nullified our security council bid, before the bid was even officially tendered.

The whole topic is largely a 'nothing burger' on this side of the border. PM Trudeau could have instructed our ambassador to flip a coin and it would have amounted to a fraction of a fraction of a voter change, locally.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: Wreckclues
a reply to: JBurns

Will the US boycott these countries? Or will we cut off aid?

I just crunched the numbers from 2016 (yah, I have no life) if we cut off all aid we stand to save $21,508,752,498, which seems kind of low maybe my calculator broke...
Of all the nations that voted against us only Iceland, Ireland and Norway receive no aid, but we will likely lose $863,206 from the Netherlands

explorer.usaid.gov...

UK voted against US.
UK receives no charity from US.
UK buys your military hardware and US gets Airstrip One.
It ain't charity or aid as most people regard aid and charity.

Your wrong the UK couldn't afford advanced weapons budgets but get full access to us military technology. Also get to cut back military expenses knowing US military helps defend the UK. Then the US also supplies the nuclear subs with strident something at the moment the UK is incapable of doing. The UK also receives benefits from US citizens visiting and spending huge amounts on tourism because many Americans assumed them to be a friend. 22.5 billion £ in 2016 is a huge boost to an economy. Losing the ally status for the UK would deeply effect their economy.

It is not aid in the sense of charity for goodness sake.The UK purchases US military hardware, it is not a gift. And if you accounting for research and development costs then that is as silly as Ford claiming anyone who buys their cars is receiving aid from them lol
Tourism isn't "aid" either lmao.
Nope the UK receives no cash aid from the US no matter how hard you try to spin it so any comments that UK should be grateful and vote for America in the UN is well, ridiculous.

Your a fool if you think the UK military doesnt benefit from US military. Buying it means nothing look at stealth fighters Russia has countries buy in to their development program just to be able to purchase. The UK is never charged development costs and buys it at same cost as US orders. Meaning they get weapons capabilities well beyond what they can afford. As I mentioned they built new subs but had nothing to arm them with so they get supplied trident.

If the UK had to develop their own tech there wouldn't be money left to buy lunch. They also know if they need assistance in battlefield awareness they rely on US satellites and recon. They also rely on US troops to protect the UK don't kid yourself US basses in the UK are far less important then Germany or even Turkey. They are there solely to prevent an attack on the UK from a strategic point of view should have been closed.

The U.K. is the largest foreign investor into The U.S.

This investment gives jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Think about that.

ofii.org...

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: StallionDuck
Canada and Mexico hardly backed the US they were just too timid to vote against their more powerful neighbour.
Abstaining is not support, it is just being too scared to voice and opinion lmao

Still, it means either:

They didn't vote against us
They didn't vote against Israel
They didn't care either way
It would hurt them politically if they voted yes

Either way, they didn't vote against us and or Israel and that's just as good as a No in my book.

As you state, fear of political fallout is the only reason they didn't vote against you.
That is like being to scared to tell your mate when he's being a dick in case he gets angry, some friendship lol

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: Wreckclues
a reply to: JBurns

Will the US boycott these countries? Or will we cut off aid?

I just crunched the numbers from 2016 (yah, I have no life) if we cut off all aid we stand to save $21,508,752,498, which seems kind of low maybe my calculator broke...
Of all the nations that voted against us only Iceland, Ireland and Norway receive no aid, but we will likely lose $863,206 from the Netherlands

explorer.usaid.gov...

UK voted against US.
UK receives no charity from US.
UK buys your military hardware and US gets Airstrip One.
It ain't charity or aid as most people regard aid and charity.

Your wrong the UK couldn't afford advanced weapons budgets but get full access to us military technology. Also get to cut back military expenses knowing US military helps defend the UK. Then the US also supplies the nuclear subs with strident something at the moment the UK is incapable of doing. The UK also receives benefits from US citizens visiting and spending huge amounts on tourism because many Americans assumed them to be a friend. 22.5 billion £ in 2016 is a huge boost to an economy. Losing the ally status for the UK would deeply effect their economy.

It is not aid in the sense of charity for goodness sake.The UK purchases US military hardware, it is not a gift. And if you accounting for research and development costs then that is as silly as Ford claiming anyone who buys their cars is receiving aid from them lol
Tourism isn't "aid" either lmao.
Nope the UK receives no cash aid from the US no matter how hard you try to spin it so any comments that UK should be grateful and vote for America in the UN is well, ridiculous.

Your a fool if you think the UK military doesnt benefit from US military. Buying it means nothing look at stealth fighters Russia has countries buy in to their development program just to be able to purchase. The UK is never charged development costs and buys it at same cost as US orders. Meaning they get weapons capabilities well beyond what they can afford. As I mentioned they built new subs but had nothing to arm them with so they get supplied trident.

If the UK had to develop their own tech there wouldn't be money left to buy lunch. They also know if they need assistance in battlefield awareness they rely on US satellites and recon. They also rely on US troops to protect the UK don't kid yourself US basses in the UK are far less important then Germany or even Turkey. They are there solely to prevent an attack on the UK from a strategic point of view should have been closed.

The U.K. is the largest foreign investor into The U.S.

This investment gives jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Think about that.

ofii.org...

Irrelevant. That investment is driven by business and they care about returns. Jerusalem will play no part in those investment decisions.

The UK has been and will remain (even more so now) desperate for the support of the USA.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Canada and Mexico hardly backed the US they were just too timid to vote against their more powerful neighbour.

All former Prime Minsters of Canada collect a fat pension from the USA .Maybe Mexico has a similar benefit .That might explain the abstaining to vote .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Canada and Mexico hardly backed the US they were just too timid to vote against their more powerful neighbour.

All former Prime Minsters of Canada collect a fat pension from the USA .Maybe Mexico has a similar benefit .That might explain the abstaining to vote .

What? How does that pension from the US work? Wouldn't surprise me but either way Canada did not back America it just didn't have the balls to publicly disagree.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

What? How does that pension from the US work? Wouldn't surprise me but either way Canada did not back America it just didn't have the balls to publicly disagree.

I had read about it years ago when Paul Martin was in office . I just did a google search and couldn't find anything on it ...It may not be true but it stuck in my mind ..I will check a bit further .

a reply to: UKTruth

Irrelevant

You may think so.

Americans who's jobs depend on U.K. investment would think otherwise.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: UKTruth

Irrelevant

You may think so.

Americans who's jobs depend on U.K. investment would think otherwise.

Excellent point.It has been hilarious reading American posts here making out the UK barely survives by clinging on to their skirt tails

Ontopic did you read the list of 9 countries which actually voted with the US? That is even more hilarious!

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: dragonridr
Only a fool would think military trading agreements are 'aid' in the charitable sense you imply. You sell arms and agree a price with the customer. I have already used research a development costs example as Ford whining that selling it's cars is aid to customers - ridiculous.

And your airbases go ahead close them, nobody is invading the UK anytime soon, your fears are so last year and cold war paranoid.

So yeh, Britain doesn't depend on any US aid but we'll keep on buying your arms if they are any good. Close your airbases, the UK isn't begging you to keep them here.

Lmao, I just realised by your definition of aid that the UK provides billions in aid to Saudi Arabia through our arms sales. See how ridiculous that sounds lol

An unprotected "UK" is a conquered UK. I believe if you take the US presence out of Europe 100%, there would soon come war. Do you really think people/dictators have grown up and just disappeared from the earth since WWI and WW2? Since the beginning of cities and armies? History says NO and it rinses and repeats often, and much of the time, many times in the same century. What's so different now?

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: Wreckclues
a reply to: JBurns

Will the US boycott these countries? Or will we cut off aid?

I just crunched the numbers from 2016 (yah, I have no life) if we cut off all aid we stand to save $21,508,752,498, which seems kind of low maybe my calculator broke...
Of all the nations that voted against us only Iceland, Ireland and Norway receive no aid, but we will likely lose $863,206 from the Netherlands

explorer.usaid.gov...

UK voted against US.
UK receives no charity from US.
UK buys your military hardware and US gets Airstrip One.
It ain't charity or aid as most people regard aid and charity.

Your wrong the UK couldn't afford advanced weapons budgets but get full access to us military technology. Also get to cut back military expenses knowing US military helps defend the UK. Then the US also supplies the nuclear subs with strident something at the moment the UK is incapable of doing. The UK also receives benefits from US citizens visiting and spending huge amounts on tourism because many Americans assumed them to be a friend. 22.5 billion £ in 2016 is a huge boost to an economy. Losing the ally status for the UK would deeply effect their economy.

It is not aid in the sense of charity for goodness sake.The UK purchases US military hardware, it is not a gift. And if you accounting for research and development costs then that is as silly as Ford claiming anyone who buys their cars is receiving aid from them lol
Tourism isn't "aid" either lmao.
Nope the UK receives no cash aid from the US no matter how hard you try to spin it so any comments that UK should be grateful and vote for America in the UN is well, ridiculous.

Your a fool if you think the UK military doesnt benefit from US military. Buying it means nothing look at stealth fighters Russia has countries buy in to their development program just to be able to purchase. The UK is never charged development costs and buys it at same cost as US orders. Meaning they get weapons capabilities well beyond what they can afford. As I mentioned they built new subs but had nothing to arm them with so they get supplied trident.

If the UK had to develop their own tech there wouldn't be money left to buy lunch. They also know if they need assistance in battlefield awareness they rely on US satellites and recon. They also rely on US troops to protect the UK don't kid yourself US basses in the UK are far less important then Germany or even Turkey. They are there solely to prevent an attack on the UK from a strategic point of view should have been closed.

The U.K. is the largest foreign investor into The U.S.

This investment gives jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Think about that.

ofii.org...

Create a void emptied by a country and it will be filled by our own or some other "allied" country. Apparently, if there is a company there and a job to do, it's needed. If one steps in and drags up, someone else will replace it. So what?

a reply to: StallionDuck

With no USA in Europe/UK then Russia would just take over. We can't compete against Russian military technology without USA help.

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: dragonridr
Only a fool would think military trading agreements are 'aid' in the charitable sense you imply. You sell arms and agree a price with the customer. I have already used research a development costs example as Ford whining that selling it's cars is aid to customers - ridiculous.

And your airbases go ahead close them, nobody is invading the UK anytime soon, your fears are so last year and cold war paranoid.

So yeh, Britain doesn't depend on any US aid but we'll keep on buying your arms if they are any good. Close your airbases, the UK isn't begging you to keep them here.

Lmao, I just realised by your definition of aid that the UK provides billions in aid to Saudi Arabia through our arms sales. See how ridiculous that sounds lol

An unprotected "UK" is a conquered UK. I believe if you take the US presence out of Europe 100%, there would soon come war. Do you really think people/dictators have grown up and just disappeared from the earth since WWI and WW2? Since the beginning of cities and armies? History says NO and it rinses and repeats often, and much of the time, many times in the same century. What's so different now?

You may belive that but I do not.Pure speculation but cute you think the US keeps the world safe because many could well argue the opposite.
I would be happy with none of your bases in the UK because I do not share your fear.
You may believe we need your protective embrace but I do not.Neither of us can know.

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
a reply to: StallionDuck

With no USA in Europe/UK then Russia would just take over. We can't compete against Russian military technology without USA help.

By that premise, Russia could sweep over the border into China.

They havn't though have they ?

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: UKTruth

Irrelevant

You may think so.

Americans who's jobs depend on U.K. investment would think otherwise.

Also irrelevant. Quite the contrary to losing jobs, I'd expect investment in the US to increase with the new lower corporate tax rate, so even if some looney board acted emotionally about Israel instead of doing thier jobs, those very few cases will be more than offset.