KillingtonZone.com

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/un.tsunami/index.html

You suck America, but hey can make the check payable to the UN?

Pedro wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/un.tsunami/index.html

You suck America, but hey can make the check payable to the UN?

f*** Anan. How do people like he and Kurt Waldheim end up in such a position???

from article above wrote:Americans last year gave an estimated $241 billion to charitable causes -- domestic and foreign -- according to a study by Giving USA Foundation. That's up from $234 billion in 2002. The foundation did not break down how much was for domestic causes and how much for foreign.

It just sux that the whole world uses the double edged sword against the US.

Many of these nations around the world will be the first to criticize our president, elections, government, and US citizens. However, these same nations will be the first in line to ask for aid for disasters or terrorist attacks. (I'm generalizing, not just talking about the recent tsunamis)

Frankly, I'm sick of this sh*t. We can't win.

E

The quote reads:

<i>"If, actually, the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of the gross national income, I think that is stingy, really," he said. "I don't think that is very generous."</i>

In the previous paragraph the author infers that the U.N. spokesman is being critical of the "U.S. and others" who only contribute aide at the 0.1 or 0.2 percent level, but no where does the U.N. rep single out the U.S. by name or any other country for that matter.

Unless the CNN piece is misquoting, I fail to see how anyone can reasonably interpret this as singling out the U.S. for criticism. The U.S. and bunch of other western countries, certainly. But the U.S. alone hardly.

BigKahuna13 wrote:The quote reads:

<i>"If, actually, the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of the gross national income, I think that is stingy, really," he said. "I don't think that is very generous."</i>

In the previous paragraph the author infers that the U.N. spokesman is being critical of the "U.S. and others" who only contribute aide at the 0.1 or 0.2 percent level, but no where does the U.N. rep single out the U.S. by name or any other country for that matter.

Unless the CNN piece is misquoting, I fail to see how anyone can reasonably interpret this as singling out the U.S. for criticism. The U.S. and bunch of other western countries, certainly. But the U.S. alone hardly.

BK, I just clicked on that link again, Didn't see the word stingy in the article, but I did note that the date on this article now reads 28 Dec, 747 AM. I posted this on Monday morning the 27th, I guess they can't stand by there own blasphemy.

Here you go Here is another one:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... ingy_x.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/ ... index.html

BigKahuna13 wrote:The quote reads:

<i>"If, actually, the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of the gross national income, I think that is stingy, really," he said. "I don't think that is very generous."</i>

In the previous paragraph the author infers that the U.N. spokesman is being critical of the "U.S. and others" who only contribute aide at the 0.1 or 0.2 percent level, but no where does the U.N. rep single out the U.S. by name or any other country for that matter.

Unless the CNN piece is misquoting, I fail to see how anyone can reasonably interpret this as singling out the U.S. for criticism. The U.S. and bunch of other western countries, certainly. But the U.S. alone hardly.

I know....but according to the text and the UN rep. the comment was aimed towards the "rich countries" which does include the US.

Furthermore I just noticed the link was changed:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/1 ... index.html

I think since we are the wealthiest nation in the world...the fact that we don't give aid at the same percentage of our GNP (I think this is it) compared to other countries. In actuality since we are the largest nation in the world, we simply don't need to give THAT much aid to other countries.

But I agree, the article did not point out "The US". However, it did point out "Richest Nations" which we fall under that category. And I think the earlier paragraph I wrote is what that UN rep. said what he did. Just my .02.

E

Who really cares what some silly Norseman has to say anyway - the reality is that the U.S. will pour more aid into that reqion than all others combined.

Never mind that many of the recipients of that aid in Indonesia were recently in the streets calling for death to America and pledging alliegence to al Qaeda - we will help them just the same.

I dontated $100. My drop in the bucket.

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:I think since we are the wealthiest nation in the world...the fact that we don't give aid at the same percentage of our GNP (I think this is it) compared to other countries. In actuality since we are the largest nation in the world, we simply don't need to give THAT much aid to other countries.

But I agree, the article did not point out "The US". However, it did point out "Richest Nations" which we fall under that category. And I think the earlier paragraph I wrote is what that UN rep. said what he did. Just my .02.

E

[flamesuit]Now, if the Democrats' viewpoint on taxes was applied here, they'd be calling for us to donate a larger percentage of our GNP because we have more.[/flamesuit]

I donated this morning. Did you? https://www.redcross.org/donate/donation-form.asp

A scientist said to President Bush, "It's possible for tidal waves to hit Hawaii, the west coast, and the north east. What are you going to do about it? Bush replied, "Nothing... they're blue states."

-- Slap Shot

har har har!