We help them, and they hate us anyway. UN: Hello?

That money goes to help the poor of those countries. The U.N. should just be what the leaders feel is right. Understandably the leaders of the countries don't like the U.S., but we should continue to give aid to help the poor, not the leaders. The amount of money and how the countries vote should have nothing to do with each other.

Bomb em all. Fuck em.

[--edited out some **** I wrote earlier]

Seriously, don't put too much fatih in statistics. They can be made to say anything their author wants. Kuwait and all others are still independent nations and as such are free to vote what they think. "Vote for us or we stop paying" is a bad way to do democracy. That they vote againt the US more often than not does not mean they hate anyone, it just might mean that their interests are not exactly the same as ours. Not surprising considering the difference between Kuwait and the US.

And as for the new UN buildings, it is delegates from other countries and not the UN itself that do the voting. We should be proud that the UN has its buildings in the US, it shows what an important role the US has in global politics.

One could similarly argue that no citizen should be allowed to vote against whatever government is in power, i.e. while the Republicans hold office no-one should be allowed to vote Democrat. After all, look at all the good things the government does. Look at all the money the government is spending for us. It would be most ungrateful to vote against it --- of course that is A LOAD OF B***S***, if you have free votes/elections then everybody must be free to vote whatever they want. I think that applies to the UN too.

Glitch, [-- some more ****] but is that a realistic solution?

koopa wrote:BH4, of course I agree with anyone that has an AGN popularity like yours 😊

Koopa wrote:Glitch, I don't like disagreeing with moderators either 😊 but is that a realistic solution?

Britannianhero4 wrote:n as a world power and "good guy" so important that we are giving away our own hard earned money to people who hate us, and they still hate us? 😮dd: Obviously they'd hate us anyway, but ... there comes a point where it's just stupid to be funding the activities of nations who hate the U.S.

Though, better not to stop funding them, because then it would just make the U.S. look bad. These nations will undoubtedly campaign against the U.S. saying things like "They're blackmailing us into liking them! But WE WON'T LET THEM!" ... They'll probably do anything to make the U.S. look bad under any conditions. What do you think?

So you're saying that the USA is attempting to bribe these countries using foreign aid payments?

I agree w/ glitch. Bomb 'em. All of them. By the way, a quick question, are we the only country paying this aid or are there others? If so, how much?

Whoa there, I completely agree with phattonez. The money we give to the UN is not going to leaders who cast these votes in the UN, but to the country's wretched and starving people who most certainly have no say in their country's foreign policy whatsoever. Withdrawing relief money out of pure spite for the few who happen to be in power in that geographic region would be abhorrent (not to mention terribly un-Christian, to those for whom such matters.)

Firstly, yes, the money is going to people who desperately need it. Secondly, ever consider that the fact that we give them money may be part of why they hate us so much? Just a thought. Nobody ever likes to be on the receiving end of chariy... It makes 'em feel bad. Hating the United States is one way to deal with that feeling - I mean, as long as we're the bad guys, they don't have to worry about feeling bad that we're helping them out, and they don't have to feel like they owe us anything in return. It's all psychomocology.

I support the immediate cessation of all foreign aid.

goKi wrote:So you're saying that the USA is attempting to bribe these countries using foreign aid payments?

Another impression I seem to be getting from this may not be an accurate one, for we must also consider their point of view on the matter. For all we know, they might actually be using the money to improve their countries rather than build weapons with which to point at us. But that's obviously difficult to tell unless we investigate.

I think I'm more inclined to agree with Phattonez and Rainman (<- Happy birthday man! :thumbsup: ... You and your brother ... ) on this one. Though I would imagine it would be somewhat more "involved" than the differences between republicans and democrats. 😉 It would be like comparing AGN's reputation statistics to the statistics listed above in the first post in this thread. Two entirely different numbers. But numbers, yes.

EDIT: Oh, and koopa, I appreciate the thought. 😉 Nice of you. But reputation isn't everything, as I'm sure people here could tell you. 😛 But that's not for now.

I would like to note that who ever made the stastics is infact brain dead as India is not, nor has ever been an Islamic state. The split and the tensions that resulted with Pakistan are because India is infact a Budhist state, while Pakistan as a whole is Islamic

phattonez wrote:That money goes to help the poor of those countries. The U.N. should just be what the leaders feel is right. Understandably the leaders of the countries don't like the U.S., but we should continue to give aid to help the poor, not the leaders. The amount of money and how the countries vote should have nothing to do with each other.

I completely agree with this. Plus, wtf does the UN voting record have to do with hating? Democrats vote against Republicans all the time, but they usually are friends, or at least friendly, outside of politics.

Britannianhero4 wrote:Am I forcing the thought on you as the final impression that you should all have? Funny. No. Not at all. It's just a thought though. 😉 One impression of many.

Thinking money should sway the opinions of these countries is in essence, bribery. Perhaps we'll see Mr. Bush throw in a few extra million to those numbers of a few fence-sitting countries when he needs a proposal approved. But hell, he could just do what he's done before, and do whatever the hell he wants outside of UN Jurisdiction. Does it make a difference how these countries vote. Bush proved with Iraq that a country a powerful as the United States doesn't have to get UN approval to do whatever the hell they want. The UN weapon inspections come up clean, they take Iraq to war anyway. George Bush is a fucking tyrant. Think he truly cares what these countries think of him?

BH4, thanks. As to the statistics it would be interesting to have the same for nations like Great Britain, Canada, etc. Do you have an exact link?

Glitch, I'm so used to writing 😊 for "this is ironic" that I quite overlooked that it may not be so here at AGN. Sorry.

untitled_foe, as far as I know each country pays / recieves money from the UN according to its GDP which means that rich countries like US, Japan etc. pay and the poorest recieve. Though a lot of foreign aid is directly country-to-country and does not go over the UN.

I support the idea that the richer countries should help the poorer. How and how much is open to debate. I think that any help that goes to the people not the government of, say, Egypt is well placed. The people are not free to vote or have their opinions in many of the listed countries and what the stats show is how the rulers voted. That the government of Syria doesn't like the US doesn't mean we're unpopular with the people. That under Saddam 99% of the people "voted" for him and that they "hated the US" just shows that Saddam was an a***h*** and we're better off without him. (Looking forward to the trial) I would fully suport regime change in Syria and if we helped them to set up a democracy it would benefit us all. I'm quite prepared to pay taxes for that. But obviously not for the corrupt leaders over there.

And in cases like now in Pakistan after the earthquake, it seems many people are grateful that the US comes in and saves their lives and brings them food. That their government can't do it speaks for itself. At the end of the day, Pakistanis are humans too and I as a christian believe it is good to help other humans when they need it. Even if it costs us money. And many a Pakistani might take note that the US sent in helicopters while the government of Pakistan told them they just had to wait.

And finally, the UN is in my opinion a pigsty at the moment but it's the best pigsty we have. At least countries come together to talk and sometimes vote. It was of some use in the cold war and during decolonisation. I think it needs a lot of reform but it's still better than not talking to each other.

How much foreign aid? How often??? Then how come every year they have the same amount or more homeless/starving people? I honestly don't believe that money is going to the poor and needy. It's most likely lining the wallets of the people who are already rich over there. And even if it IS going to the poor people.. They're poor for a reason. There's too many goddamn people in their country. If you feed them then they'll think it's ok to breed more. Full healthy people are more likely to make babies than starving sickly people. The more babies they make the more in foreign aid we have to send them. Fuck that. Tell them to get some goddamn jobs. If there aren't any jobs, I'm sure they could figure out SOMETHING to sell. Shit. sell your body if you have to. it's not that hard to feed yourself. humans have been doing it successfully for hundreds of thousands of years.

@firebug: Agreed.

To all: When one examines the statistics dealing with this, one can see that (surprise here!) THE POOR PEOPLE DON'T GET THE MONEY! The rich of these countries, often the tyrants ruling them, are just watching their treasuries overflow with US money. If we could find a way to help support the poor people and actually help them other than just handing them some cash and saying "Get off the street" I'd support it wholeheartedly; however, the system we have right nowjust doesn't work.

Britannianhero4 wrote: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 United States! 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 $192,814,000 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. Pass this along to every taxpaying citizen you know. And send to your congressman, who should be disgraced but couldn't care less.

First of all, just because they don't vote in our favor, doesn't meant they hate us. I'm sure many of the countries listed probably DO hate us, but I think the reason that most of those countries don't vote our way is related more to cultural and ideological differences rather than because they "hate" us.

Second, you seem to be implying that we should stop giving them money because they don't vote in our favor... isn't that extortion? Or at the very least, bribery.

DarkDragoonX wrote:Second, you seem to be implying that we should stop giving them money because they don't vote in our favor... isn't that extortion? Or at the very least, bribery.

I'm glad SOMEONE agrees with me!

I guess the idea is, we give so much money and aid to all these nations around the world, but they would screw us in a moment if it served their interests. Yet they expect to continue receiving aid...

I don't see how not voting our way is "screwing" us. It seems ridiculous to me to say that these countries should be expected to vote in our favor in exchange for our finiancial aid. Now, if the leaders of a country are squandering our financial assistance by lining their pockets, by all means, cut off funding. But a country that makes proper use of our aid shouldn't have to feel obligated to vote our way, dammit. If they voted other than the way they truly felt in the UN because we want them to in exchange for money, that would defeat the prupose of democracy. It's totally acceptable to expect some other kind of support from the countries we give money to, but expecting VOTES? That's the least ethical thing I have ever heard.

Who can know how a nation 'truly feel' about something in the UN? There are many pressures on each nation, from their neighbours, from their trading partners, from the people with the guns... we are but one competing interest.

Anyway, as I said before I would rather we do not send any aid at all to other countries. Let them clean up their own messes. Disasters such as big earthquakes are an exception, but I think we spend way too much on other nations when we have our own problems at home.

I think we have just as many people here who hate our country....or at least the government.

deathofspam wrote: India is infact a Budhist state

The majority of Indians are Hindus. Buddhism, while originating in India, is a minority religion in India.

right you are.

I'm not happy with the way aid is used as it does tend to go to the leaders not the people in those countries. But I still think giving aid is better than not giving anything, just that we should ensure it actually gets to where it should. And what their governments think of us should not stop us. Values like free speech and democracy are important to me.
If we can help other countries to acquire these values by setting a good example then we should.

Starkist, you say disasters like the earthquake are an exception.
There are people starving in Africa and dying of AIDS all the time and that is in my eyes a disaster too. Some of the people have no other way to survive than foreign aid. Partly it's due to the bad administration and corrupt leaders of their countries but although tackling corruption would be the best solution in the short term I think better to continue sending aid. How to change the systems down there is a separate question and I would support the US and UN putting pressure on any government that does not care about its people and wastes our aid. Aid should be helping those who want to improve to do so and stricter control of it might help.
We should see that it goes into helping them establish ways of helping themselves. But in the meantime there are far to many humans dying of starvation. I think we have a moral responsibility to help them.

BH4 wrote:... Okay, ... ... well that's just upsetting. Is the U.S's reputation as a world power and "good guy" so important that we are giving away our own hard earned money to people who hate us, and they still hate us? 😮dd: Obviously they'd hate us anyway, but ... there comes a point where it's just stupid to be funding the activities of nations who hate the U.S.

There are however coutnries that are insane just like there are congressman that are insane. Insanite unforetuneatly is hard to judge and deal with so we have to wait for that insanity to effect people before we can deal with it.

Starkist wrote:I support the immediate cessation of all foreign aid.