America is Stingy

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
There are over six billion people living on our planet. Of that six
billion, almost two billion are Muslims. That's roughly a third of the
total population of the earth.

The earthquake that triggered the killer tsunami was centered just off the
coast of the Indonesian island of Sumatra. Indonesia is the world's most
populous Muslim country. It was also the most severely devastated by the
wave. Nearly 100,000 of the victims of the December 26 catastrophe were
Indonesian Muslims.

The vast majority of the victims were either Muslims, Buddhists or Hindu.
Got all that? Good.

Now, to the United Nations. The United Nations consists of 186 countries.
The most powerful voting bloc is the fifty-seven Islamic countries that
generally vote with one voice, especially when the United States or Israel
are voting the other way.

The United Nations' head of humanitarian relief, Jan Egeland, criticized
the West for being stingy. He didn't specifically mention America, but he
cited the exact percentage of the US GDP that is budgeted for foreign aid,
so there is little doubt of who the 'stingy West' was, at least in
Egeland's mind.

Egeland slammed the United States for not raising taxes so that America
could give a greater percentage of its GDP to the UN to distribute as part
of the UN's foreign aid package.

Editorials in the Washington Post, the New York Times and other liberal
newspapers echoed Egeland's charge, with the New York Times calling
America's $350 million in direct government aid 'miserly'.

The United States makes up some six percent of the world's total
population, but we pay a quarter of the United Nation's total budget. The
United States pays forty percent of the world's total disaster relief aid,
and sixty percent of the world's total food donations.

The $2.4 billion (that's BILLION) dollars Washington spent in emergency aid
in 2003 represented 40 percent of the total amount of emergency assistance
from all bilateral donors provided that year. Evidently, that isn't enough.

It didn't take long for these same liberal elitists to turn Mother Nature
into an American right-wing hater of Islam.

Not only had America's imperialistic self-enrichment policies created the
natural disaster, but also cold-hearted Muslim hating President Bush
wouldn't leave his ranch in Texas... which by the way, is his home -- not a
vacation destination -- and only offered a 'stingy' initial monetary donation.

While these elitist journalist were assailing President Bush and expounding
the mantra that America should be giving more money to the devastated
region in a token gesture that would 'show Islam that America didn't hate
Muslims', UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was still on his vacation skiing
in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. He returned to New York four days later.

The wave struck on Sunday, and it took only until Monday before the US
announced its $350 million in initial aid, sent the USS Abraham Lincoln
into the region, including helicopters, and C-130 transport planes, sent
hundreds of tons of pre-packaged emergency aid supplies, and deployed some
14,000 American troops to help with the recovery and cleanup.

In Indonesia, U.S. helicopters flew at least 30 sorties, delivering 60,000
pounds of water and supplies, from the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln
along a 120-mile stretch of Sumatra island's ravaged coastline.

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the richest nations in the Islamic world, donated
a paltry $10 million each. The United Arab Emirates donated some $20
million to relieve the suffering of their Islamic 'brothers'.

Egypt's contribution at the time of this writing is $104,000.00. (Note:
Egypt gets $2 BILLION in US foreign aid annually)

And did anybody notice that the majority of the private donations came from
those evil corporate types the left so loves to loathe?

Pfizer donated $10 million in cash and $25 million in drugs. (That is more
than oil-rich Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined). General Motors pledged $2
million in cash, agreed to match employee donations dollar for dollar, and
is sending vehicles to transport food and medical supplies to the region.

Other corporate donors include Nike Inc., American Express, General
Electric, First Data Corp., Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Exxon-Mobil, Citigroup,
Marriott International and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

On the other hand, where are all the Hollywood liberals? Activist actors
such as Ben Affleck, Susan Sarandon, Al Franken, Tim Robbins, Martin Sheen,
and Barbra Streisand have not been heard from.

And where is George Soros, the world richest left wing liberal?

Actress Sandra Bullock donated one million dollars, but Bullock is neither
an activist nor a liberal. (She also donated one million following
September 11.) Super-rich liberals like Bono and Bruce Springsteen are
promising to hold another 'aid concert' to collect money (not theirs) for
the victims.

America, as noted at the outset, represents six percent of the global
population. But in any catastrophe, it gets one hundred percent of the
blame. The UN's nose is out of joint because the Bush administration
refuses to funnel its aid through the UN's various aid agencies.

Kofi Annan wants to use the catastrophe to shore up the UN's sagging image
in the wake of the Oil-For-Food thefts from Iraq. The United States wants
to ensure the aid doesn't end up lining the pockets of UN officials. So the
US is 'too stingy' and gets another black eye.

Where is the rest of the Islamic world? There are fifty-seven Islamic
nations, and the world's biggest Islamic nation is the one that took the
hardest hit. But it is the United States -- the world's largest donor
nation -- that is grabbing all the headlines for being 'stingy'.

To put things in perspective, I saw a news photo yesterday of one of the
Indonesian victims.

He was wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the face of Osama bin Laden.

Text
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
It's funny because I haven't seen any non-US helicopters delivering aid on the news. I know several people down there right now aiding in the relief effort.

Stingy bastards.
 

Stumps

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2001
7,125
0
0
thats because we prefer to use the good ole C-130 hercules...it holds more aid than the stingy helicopters :D
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Hmm...a rant from a freeper? Wouldn't be filled with half-truths and omissions, would it?
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
No libs responding? Conjur?
I'm a lib, and I don't think we've been stingy at all. In fact, a few foreign aid groups have stopped taking donations because they recieved so many...that says something.

What could be sad is that you sheep believe one OP/ED piece speaks the mind for an entire "group" of Americans.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
The
United States pays forty percent of the world's total disaster relief aid,
and sixty percent of the world's total food donations.

The $2.4 billion (that's BILLION) dollars Washington spent in emergency aid
in 2003 represented 40 percent of the total amount of emergency assistance
from all bilateral donors provided that year. Evidently, that isn't enough.

I don't think that the US is stingy, especially when the only thing people bring up when they say that is one donation program, but does anyone have a better source for these numbers?
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Egeland slammed the United States for not raising taxes so that America could give a greater percentage of its GDP to the UN to distribute as part of the UN's foreign aid package.

What a collectivist @sshole.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I find it amazing the US gave so much considering most of the people getting the aid either dislike the US or want to kill us. The US gives a lot of charitable donations through many different channels. We have a tax system that encourages charitable donations. The Church I belong to (LDS -- MORMON) plans on using many of its welfare resources to help the needy people in Indoneasia and the surrounding countries. We have a very well developed and thought out system for collecting funds and storing food to help the needy worldwide. I regularly audit Mormon Churches in my area for financial records and I see a few of the checks going to help people locally who are temporarily suffering from financial stress. There are plenty of chartible organizations in the US that regularly help poorer nations in time of need or natural disaster. I recall things like Unicef Drives, Feed The Children, Bucket Brigade which paints houses locally, outfit president Carter helps to build houses for the poor and other organization like the Peace Corps, and the Red Cross.

You could not even count the dollars flowing out of the USA or to people in the USA to help our fellow man.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
No libs responding? Conjur?

What exactly needs responding to? The article sets up a strawman and proceeds to bash it to pieces. Well done and all that, and it certainly got the Bushies riled up, but it's just not true.

Although I'm not a "lib", you guys probably can't tell the difference, so I'll respond anyways. I think the US donations are generous and I'm glad we're helping out. Same goes for all the companies (and other countries) that donate. The fact that we have means far exceeding those of other countries does not diminish the impressiveness of our donation. As I've said before, the idea is to help people, not get into a pissing contest.

What I get a kick out of is how many of you pro-Bush people on this forum see this mainly as a chance to beat people over the head with how great the US is. Let's just forget your stupid desire to attack SOMEONE at all times and remember that the money is going to help millions of people who were harmed by a disaster. It would really go a long way towards restoring my respect of the right on this board if this kind of sh!t would stop. It's a donation, not a damn stick to beat your "enemies" with.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
It's funny because I haven't seen any non-US helicopters delivering aid on the news. I know several people down there right now aiding in the relief effort.

Stingy bastards.

I don't know if they have helicopters, but several countries are helping out militarily. When the American helicopter crashed yesterday, Australians camped at that field were the first on the scene.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
No libs responding? Conjur?

What exactly needs responding to? The article sets up a strawman and proceeds to bash it to pieces. Well done and all that, and it certainly got the Bushies riled up, but it's just not true.

Although I'm not a "lib", you guys probably can't tell the difference, so I'll respond anyways. I think the US donations are generous and I'm glad we're helping out. Same goes for all the companies (and other countries) that donate. The fact that we have means far exceeding those of other countries does not diminish the impressiveness of our donation. As I've said before, the idea is to help people, not get into a pissing contest.

What I get a kick out of is how many of you pro-Bush people on this forum see this mainly as a chance to beat people over the head with how great the US is. Let's just forget your stupid desire to attack SOMEONE at all times and remember that the money is going to help millions of people who were harmed by a disaster. It would really go a long way towards restoring my respect of the right on this board if this kind of sh!t would stop. It's a donation, not a damn stick to beat your "enemies" with.

Well see, the problem with your entire line of thought here, is, these responses by "pro-Bush" people have only come AFTER an attack by some socalist/elitist at the UN. And yes it was a clear attack on the US, even if he didnt out right us the words United States.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: AndrewR
It's funny because I haven't seen any non-US helicopters delivering aid on the news. I know several people down there right now aiding in the relief effort.

Stingy bastards.

I don't know if they have helicopters, but several countries are helping out militarily. When the American helicopter crashed yesterday, Australians camped at that field were the first on the scene.

'Don't mention the navy' is the BBC's line

Last week we were subjected to one of the most extraordinary examples of one-sided news management of modern times, as most of our media, led by the BBC, studiously ignored what was by far the most effective and dramatic response to Asia's tsunami disaster. A mighty task force of more than 20 US Navy ships, led by a vast nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the Abraham Lincoln, and equipped with nearly 90 helicopters, landing craft and hovercraft, were carrying out a round-the-clock relief operation, providing food, water and medical supplies to hundreds of thousands of survivors.

The BBC went out of its way not to report this. Only when one BBC reporter, Ben Brown, hitched a lift from one of the Abraham Lincoln's Sea Hawk helicopters to report from the Sumatran coast was there the faintest hint of the part that the Americans, aided by the Australian navy, were playing.

Instead the BBC's coverage was dominated by the self-important vapourings of a stream of politicians, led by the UN's Kofi Annan; the EU's "three-minute silence"; the public's amazing response to fund-raising appeals; and a Unicef-inspired scare story about orphaned children being targeted by sex traffickers. The overall effect was to turn the whole drama into a heart-tugging soap opera.

The real story of the week should thus have been the startling contrast between the impotence of the international organisations, the UN and the EU, and the remarkable efficiency of the US and Australian military on the ground. Here and there, news organisations have tried to report this, such as the Frankfurter Allgemeine in Germany, and even the China News Agency, not to mention various weblogs, such as the wonderfully outspoken Diplomad, run undercover by members of the US State Department, and our own www.eureferendum.blogspot.com. But when even Communist China's news agency tells us more about what is really going on than the BBC, we see just how strange the world has become.

One real lesson of this disaster, as of others before, is that all the international aid in the world is worthless unless one has the hardware and organisational know-how to deliver it. That is what the US and Australia have been showing, as the UN and the EU are powerless to do. But because, to the BBC, it is a case of "UN and EU good, US and military bad", the story is suppressed. The BBC's performance has become a national scandal.
 

Stumps

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2001
7,125
0
0
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: AndrewR
It's funny because I haven't seen any non-US helicopters delivering aid on the news. I know several people down there right now aiding in the relief effort.

Stingy bastards.

I don't know if they have helicopters, but several countries are helping out militarily. When the American helicopter crashed yesterday, Australians camped at that field were the first on the scene.

Not only has Australia sent it's C-130's we sent our UH-1's and Blackhawk's, Much of our navy was sent from Iraq, and those vessels that had returned for christmas were sent, I think 6 or 7 vessels,much of our armed forces are now deployed in the region, for aid purposes.