Print

[..[[ModBoxMaster]]..]

What the hell are yall guys worrying about?

Jeez live your lives, nothings going to happen in our lifetime,

which is good, but the tsunami thing was a joke

what would of happen if WE usa didn't do anything? they would be pissed right?

ok we still are doing stuff and they are still pissed at us americans, i say screw all  the

people who hate us!

[gronne]

QUOTE(..[[ModBoxMaster]].. @ Jan 16 2005, 02:42 AM)

What the hell are yall guys worrying about?

[damam]

QUOTE(gronne @ Jan 19 2005, 04:30 AM)

U.N. fear USA will not give out the money they promised for the tsunami victims. They're afraid they only use it as propaganda, and in the end they don't give hardly anything. Why? Because they've done it before according to U.N.

I just want to add that every nation does this from time to time . . .
But, I am curious as to what specific incidents are you refering too?

cause usually their are other reasons and circumstances that lead to it

[EverythingButAnAnswer]

The only reason the developed world cares, is because some white people died. Look at Rwanda.

[gronne]

QUOTE(damam @ Jan 19 2005, 06:39 PM)

I just want to add that every nation does this from time to time . . .

[damam]

QUOTE

Well I use to say that you should refrain from saying these strong accusations without any backup. I seriously don't know, but I even think it was Annan himself who said it. It was said a few days after the tsunami-disaster occured.

Sounds to me like Annan is playing politics.  The majority of americans want to see that money get to the victims, they just dont want it to go through the UN.  There are many reasons for this, just one of which is the "Oil for Food" scandal.  Annan really wants that money cause it makes him look better in the eyes of the people its aiding.  This also would not be the first time the US gave money directly rather than through the UN.

QUOTE

The only reason the developed world cares, is because some white people died. Look at Rwanda.

I think that natural disasters are different.  The big problem with the UN is in their inability to declare genocide in places like Rwanda and Sudan.  Which really shows how impotent the UN is, cause one of their primary charters is to stop genocide when its occuring.  Why the UN decided to intervene in the serb-croatian conflict and not in the Rwanda or Sudan is beyond me.  How long did it take the UN to decide that genocide had occured in Rwanda?  10 yrs.  Smells like racism to me.  Lesson learned: if your experiencing genocide AND your not white, dont wait for the UN to save you.

[gronne]

QUOTE(damam @ Jan 19 2005, 07:34 PM)

Sounds to me like Annan is playing politics.  The majority of americans want to see that money get to the victims, they just dont want it to go through the UN.  There are many reasons for this, just one of which is the "Oil for Food" scandal.  Annan really wants that money cause it makes him look better in the eyes of the people its aiding.  This also would not be the first time the US gave money directly rather than through the UN.

[damam]

QUOTE(gronne)

I'm not 100% certain about this either, but I think it was said that either the money isn't spent, or they redirect them to other interests like curing cancer in USA(or something like that). But I'm not certain this was whay they said.

If you find it I would seriously be interested in seeing it.  I tried googling for it and couldnt find anything.

In response to your statement above:
Its hard to respond to it because we dont know the context of the statement, or where the money was supposed to go.
It is fair to say pledge 50mil to fight cancer, and then give it to american companies seeking cures for cancer and not to the UN.  Curing cancer in the USA would result in a cure world wide, hence helping the entire world.  Most of the world steals our patents anyways.

I work for a foundation and we run into a similar problem all the time.  We will pledge to help education do [X], and every time the State Department of Education (SDE) assumes that means were just giving cash to them.  They assume wrong every time.  We have no interest in wasting money that way.  We funnel the money into specific programs that our researchers say are most likely to accomplish [X].  Then SDE gets mad and slanders us by saying we promised money for [X] and never gave it, when in fact we did give it (and usually quite a bit extra and we can prove it through our taxes ).  We just did not give it to them the way they wanted it.

QUOTE(Arvarden)

Even if the US spent 0$ on aid take a look at the hardware they are providing.

And that stuff isnt cheap to run either.

[gronne]

I think it was a combination of how the swedish text-tv interpreted his speech and information I got from the internet. I searched for it like crazy now, and i realize it was a bit hard to find anything good about it but here's a link. I refer to his quote "fresh and additional money, not robbing Peter to pay Paul, pulling it from other crises.". I remember fro swedish text-tv that read between the lines that he specifically refered to USA, and they said something about USA redirecting the money to other areas. Unfortunately I can't get that text as it was in swedish, and apparently he didn't directly accuse USA. I mixed it up with the swedish text.

And btw, I agree with you that you should aim for the longterm aspects instead of wasting money for something that'll eventually fall. But if they expect you do deliver it in a certain way, you should at least be clear about this before you take the order.

[ThaCrip]

cause winning this "war on terror" aint gonna happen if u ask me! just to many places in the world where terrorists can hide etc. it think it's close to impossible to get em all.