snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Archived Forums » Politics Archive » Foreign Aid

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Foreign Aid
snopes
Return! Return! Return!


Icon 605 posted      Profile for snopes   Author's Homepage   E-mail snopes       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Why do we do it?

The United States gives out $13.3 billion tax dollars in direct
Foreign Aid annually. The United States is above and beyond
the single most generous benefactor of the United Nations,
donating $2.4 billion dollars of YOUR money, to primarily
third-world dictators.

This amount is 25% of the United Nations budget. In addition,
the United States also gives another $1.4 billion tax dollars
to United Nations' programs and agencies.
The American taxpayers fund more for the United Nations than
ALL of the other 177 member nations COMBINED.

What most Americans do not realize is that the vast majority of
the recipients of the of US Foreign Aid routinely vote against the
wishes of the United States in the United Nations at an average rate
of 74%. In other words, of the $13.3 billion tax dollars invested in
direct Foreign Aid only about 26% or $3.5 billion went to support
people who endorsed American initiatives or causes.
A staggering $9.8 billion tax dollars went to causes and people
who were and are in open and direct opposition to the
United States' interests and objectives.

Listed 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 U. S. 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.

US 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 in US Foreign Aid.

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 these taxes.

If you agree, send these facts to all your friends.

Posts: 36029 | From: Admin | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 01 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
The list of "Muslim/Arabic" countries is frighteningly long...I am pretty sure India is neither.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Four Kitties
Layaway in a Manger


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Four Kitties   E-mail Four Kitties   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DevilRdr:
The list of "Muslim/Arabic" countries is frighteningly long...I am pretty sure India is neither.

Isn't this why we have Pakistan in the first place? the Muslims were "encouraged" to leave India?

Don't know for sure, just asking.

Four Kitties

--------------------
If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales?

Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jason Threadslayer
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Jason Threadslayer     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
India was a mixed Hindu-Moslem-Sikh colony during the Raj. Gandhi attempted to build a secular mixed state out of the colony, but the deaths of his Moslem allies, the suspicions on both the part of the Hindu and of the Moslems, and the rise of Mohammed Ali Jinnah lead to the division of India into India as a majority Hindu state, East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and West Pakistan (now Pakistan) as majority Moslem states. I don't recall any expuslions of Moslems from India (I do see mentions of expulsions of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan, but none so far regarding Moslems from India), but there are frequently Hindu nationalist attacks on Moslems, particularly in Gujarat (see, for instance, Gujarat's Muslim heritage smashed in riots).

--------------------
All posts foretold by Nostradamus.

Turing test failures: 6

Posts: 5481 | From: Decatur, GA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Four Kitties
Layaway in a Manger


Icon 501 posted      Profile for Four Kitties   E-mail Four Kitties   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Where does Kashmir come into it?

--------------------
If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales?

Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Publius
Happy Holly Days


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Publius     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
The quasi-glurge in the OP is short-sighted on a number of levels. First, it assumes that foreign aid is given out of altruism, when in fact it is often vital to advancing US interests in a particular region (like the initial $600 million package that helped shore up some measure of Pakistani cooperation against the Taliban). Second, on a related note, it adopts the simplistic position of equating UN voting record with actual support of US interests. The airbase at al-Udeid in Qatar, to give just one example, is worth far more than any non-binding General Assembly vote. Third, why on earth does the writer include states like Libya, Syria, and Lebanon that don't receive US aid? Yeah, the Libyans aren't exactly our buddies. We get it.

I could go on, but it's getting late, and I'm tired, and I've hit my pointless rant quota for the time being.

An interesting note on India: for many years, more Muslims actually lived in that nation than in Pakistan. In fact, a fairly recent BBC article implies that this is still the case, though some quick math using the population figures in the CIA World Factbook suggests that Pakistani Muslims outnumber Indian Muslims by about 146 million to 126 million.

My five-second summary of the origin of the Kashmir situation: The Hindu raja (prince) of the state ceded control of the region to India, despite the fact that the Kashmiris were about 80% Muslim. Pakistan felt that that the Muslim-majority province rightfully belonged under its rule, and went to war with India to prevent the cession. This left control of Jammu-Kashmir split between New Dehli and Islamabad - a condition that continues today, despite several open armed conflicts and a sustained guerrilla/terrorist campaign since that time.

Here is a brief article on the history of Jammu-Kashmir that, on a cursory reading, appears reputable and objective.

Posts: 1640 | From: New Haven, CT | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Felessan
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Felessan   E-mail Felessan   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Four *Hissing* Kitties:
Where does Kashmir come into it?

It's part of India, but with a majority Moslem population, and shares a border with Pakistan. There's a separatist movement, almost certainly backed by Pakistan, that has committed terrorist acts against India (including an assault on the Indian parliament).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/kashmir/Story/0,2763,729830,00.html

--------------------
You fool! That's not a warrior, that's a banana!
- a surreal moment in a role-playing game

Posts: 2480 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mad Jay
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Mad Jay     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Four *Hissing* Kitties:
Where does Kashmir come into it?

Kashmir was a state with Muslim majority but a Hindu ruler, Maharaj Shri Hari Singh. When India became independent, and soon split into 3 parts, Kashmir was given the option to either join India or Pakistan or stay independent. Hari Singh wanted to stay independent. However, the Indian Army marched in, and Hari Singh got scared and signed the Instrument of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir State . The instrument acceded control to India, with the caveat that a plebescite had to occur before J&K acceddes to India. Indian history books say that plebescite occurred and the people voted to join India. However, Pakistan says that India never held one. Here are some links that might give you more info
India's viewpoint
Liberationist/Pakistan's viewpoint

--------------------
Nico Sasha
In between my father's fields;And the citadels of the rule; Lies a no-man's land which I must cross; To find my stolen jewel.

Posts: 4912 | From: VA | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mouse
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 503 posted      Profile for Mouse   E-mail Mouse   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
So we should only give money to countries that comply with our every wish and demand? Besides we don't give this most financial aid, Norway does. (I think.)

--------------------
"You see? The mysteries of the Universe are revealed when you break stuff." Coop from MegasXLR

"I distrust who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." -- Susan B. Anthony

Posts: 2246 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Elkhound
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Elkhound         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Four *Hissing* Kitties:
Where does Kashmir come into it?

In addition to British India, in which the British ruled directly, there were the 'native states', where the King-Emperor was suzerein over a local prince (raja, maharaja, sultan, etc.). Just before independance, the native princes were stripped of their power and their states were integrated into either India or Pakistan.

Now, which into which? There were two principles--majority of population or adherance of the ruling family. In most cases these were the same; however, in Kashmir the majority of the population was Hindu, but the ruling family was Muslim (or, perhaps, the other way around--I don't really remember; in either case, there was a large minority of the other religion in the population). Both India and Pakistan claimed Kashmir on the basis of a separate clause of the rule.

--------------------
"The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch

Posts: 3307 | From: Charleston, WV | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Dara bhur gCara
As Shepherds Watched Their Flocks Buy Now Pay Later


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Dara bhur gCara     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
The United States is above and beyond
the single most generous benefactor of the United Nations,
donating $2.4 billion dollars of YOUR money, to primarily
third-world dictators.

But isn't America in enormous arrears with the UN? Last time I heard, they were the UN's biggest debtors, not benefactors. And does the majority of UN funds go to third-world dictators? Unicef and Unesco will be disappointed.

--------------------
This wrinkle in time, I can't give it no credit, I thought about my space and it really got me down.
Got me so down, I got me a headache, My heart is crammed in my cranium and it still knows how to pound


Posts: 2794 | From: London, UK | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ULTRAGLORIA
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 01 posted      Profile for ULTRAGLORIA     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dara the Beastly:
But isn't America in enormous arrears with the UN? Last time I heard, they were the UN's biggest debtors, not benefactors. And does the majority of UN funds go to third-world dictators? Unicef and Unesco will be disappointed.

Don't confuse US foreign aid with US dues to the United Nations. Two completely seperate things.

And UN funds going to third world dictators, even if true, would have nothing to do with US foreign aid going to third world dictators. Two completely seperate pots of money.

--------------------
A Lie can run around the world before the Truth can get its boots on. - Terry Pratchett

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions; but everyone is not entitled to their own facts. - Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Posts: 2495 | From: Connecticut | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Steve
Happy Holly Days


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Steve     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mouse:
So we should only give money to countries that comply with our every wish and demand? Besides we don't give this most financial aid, Norway does. (I think.)

Norway gives about half the amount that the US does, as does Sweden. These countries have populations of roughly 4.5 and 9 million, so per capita they're doing better than we are. But the US does give the most.

As for the US debt to the UN, I believe this was at its worst under Clinton. Not only did he simply not pay the dues, but when the UN wanted to borrow military equipment for use in Rwanda, he delayed while thinking about how much to charge for it.
I've heard Bush has been better with his dues, though I don't have a cite and don't believe he's paid every cent. --Steve

Posts: 1699 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
reflex
Jingle Bell Hock


Icon 01 posted      Profile for reflex   E-mail reflex   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boo-blius:
The quasi-glurge in the OP is short-sighted on a number of levels. First, it assumes that foreign aid is given out of altruism, when in fact it is often vital to advancing US interests in a particular region (like the initial $600 million package that helped shore up some measure of Pakistani cooperation against the Taliban). Second, on a related note, it adopts the simplistic position of equating UN voting record with actual support of US interests. The airbase at al-Udeid in Qatar, to give just one example, is worth far more than any non-binding General Assembly vote. Third, why on earth does the writer include states like Libya, Syria, and Lebanon that don't receive US aid? Yeah, the Libyans aren't exactly our buddies. We get it.

Also crucial to note is that the aid we give to many countries, while reported in dollar amounts is not actual monetary aid. Much of the aid we provide, like to Colombia for example, come in the form of military training (see the School of the Americas for more info)...

And I concur that much of the aid benefits the United States in the long run.

quote:
As for the US debt to the UN, I believe this was at its worst under Clinton. Not only did he simply not pay the dues, but when the UN wanted to borrow military equipment for use in Rwanda, he delayed while thinking about how much to charge for it.
I've heard Bush has been better with his dues, though I don't have a cite and don't believe he's paid every cent.

Nice try, but no. The Clinton administration was in preparation to repay the UN, but if I recall correctly, the republican US Congress stepped forward and put some very big stipulations on the repayments, which, of course, weren't made especially after the US was voted off of the human rights board...Bush has done *nothing* in the way of garnering foreign support, nor have his actions in any way ever benefited the UN.

--------------------
The opinions expressed herein do not represent those of any rational human being and are solely for the purpose of entertainment.

Posts: 487 | From: Brick City (Newark), NJ | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ursa Major
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by steve:
As for the US debt to the UN, I believe this was at its worst under Clinton.

Under Clinton. Not because of Clinton. Every Clinton White House attempt to square the UN debt was thwarted by (Senate Foreign Relations Chairman) Jesse Helms.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Steve
Happy Holly Days


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Steve     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by reflex:

quote:
As for the US debt to the UN, I believe this was at its worst under Clinton. Not only did he simply not pay the dues, but when the UN wanted to borrow military equipment for use in Rwanda, he delayed while thinking about how much to charge for it.
I've heard Bush has been better with his dues, though I don't have a cite and don't believe he's paid every cent.

Nice try, but no. The Clinton administration was in preparation to repay the UN, but if I recall correctly, the republican US Congress stepped forward and put some very big stipulations on the repayments, which, of course, weren't made especially after the US was voted off of the human rights board...Bush has done *nothing* in the way of garnering foreign support, nor have his actions in any way ever benefited the UN.
The BBC agrees with you and Ursa Major. Helms played a large role in not paying the debt. Now I'm curious--what was I "trying"--and for that matter, what does garnering support or benefitting the UN have to do with the debt? --Steve
Posts: 1699 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Grumpy
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 605 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
The United States gives out $13.3 billion tax dollars in direct Foreign Aid annually.
Comparing apples to apples (as much as possible)...
Net official development assistance from the USA in 1997 was 6.9 Billion, according to the CIA World Factbook 2003. Japan gave 9.1 Billion (in 1999). Granted, this statement doesn't claim USA is the biggest donor. And the ODA standard isn't the only apple in the fruit basket. There's also, for example, donations by charities -- like the Gates Foundation and Ted Turner.

quote:
The United States is above and beyond the single most generous benefactor of the United Nations... This amount is 25% of the United Nations budget. The American taxpayers fund more for the United Nations than ALL of the other 177 member nations COMBINED.

It's not exactly clear what's being used for the total here, but... If the USA funds more of the UN than every other member nation combined, that would be 51% at least, not 25%.

And there are 191 member states of the UN. There were, however, 178 prior to 1993 (narrows down the origin of this piece). Since then, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Macedonia, Eritrea, Monaco, Andorra, Kiribati, Nauru, Tonga, Tuvalu, Serbia & Montenegro, Switzerland, and East Timor have joined up.

Is foreign aid supposed to be some kind of UN vote-buying scheme? Is that what it's all about?

--Grump "foreign concepts" y

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 502 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by steve:
. . . Now I'm curious--what was I "trying" . . .

While "nice try" was probably not the right way to have responded, it appeared to some of us that you were making a partisan attack on Bill Clinton.

Silas

--------------------
When on music's mighty pinion, souls of men to heaven rise,
Then both vanish earth's dominion, man is native to the skies.

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Steve
Happy Holly Days


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Steve     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Which would make me a Republican? [Eek!]

Actually my language ("I think. . ." "I've heard. . .") made it clear I wasn't really attacking anyone over the UN dues. When I attack Clinton it is never in a partisan manner. --Steve

Posts: 1699 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jason Threadslayer
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Jason Threadslayer     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grumpy:
And there are 191 member states of the UN. There were, however, 178 prior to 1993 (narrows down the origin of this piece). Since then, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Macedonia, Eritrea, Monaco, Andorra, Kiribati, Nauru, Tonga, Tuvalu, Serbia & Montenegro, Switzerland, and East Timor have joined up.

Czechia and Slovkia were members as Czechoslovakia (net gain 1). Serbia & Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzogovinia, Croatia, and Slovenia were members as Yugoslavia (net gain 4).

Are there any states left that are not members of the UN?

--------------------
All posts foretold by Nostradamus.

Turing test failures: 6

Posts: 5481 | From: Decatur, GA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Grumpy
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 203 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jason the 13th Jinx:
Czechia [sic] and Slovkia were members as Czechoslovakia (net gain 1). Serbia & Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzogovinia, Croatia, and Slovenia were members as Yugoslavia (net gain 4).

[dunce] Good point. In fact, now that I look at it, there have never been only 178 members of the UN.

There were, by my count (and we know what that's worth), 176 until May 22, 1992, when Bosnia, Croatia, and Slovenia were admitted, separately from Yugoslavia. (BTW, that changes the net gain to 1 when Macedonia and Serbia were later admitted.) Poof -- 179.

So that doesn't really help narrow down when this piece was written, because the "other 177 member nations" would not have been accurate at any time. It's a mistake that could've been made in 1992 as easily as last week.

--Grump "Yugo, girl" y

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Fusca 1976
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Fusca 1976   E-mail Fusca 1976   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grumpy:
quote:
The United States is above and beyond the single most generous benefactor of the United Nations... This amount is 25% of the United Nations budget. The American taxpayers fund more for the United Nations than ALL of the other 177 member nations COMBINED.

It's not exactly clear what's being used for the total here, but... If the USA funds more of the UN than every other member nation combined, that would be 51% at least, not 25%.

And there are 191 member states of the UN.

Perhaps the reasoning could be the following:

US contributes with 25%
13 other nations contribute with 51%
The remaining 177 nations contribute with 24%

Then again, this would be more logical than I would expect from the diatribe on the OP...

Luís Henrique

Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
reflex
Jingle Bell Hock


Icon 01 posted      Profile for reflex   E-mail reflex   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by steve:
quote:
Originally posted by reflex:

quote:
As for the US debt to the UN, I believe this was at its worst under Clinton. Not only did he simply not pay the dues, but when the UN wanted to borrow military equipment for use in Rwanda, he delayed while thinking about how much to charge for it.
I've heard Bush has been better with his dues, though I don't have a cite and don't believe he's paid every cent.

Nice try, but no. The Clinton administration was in preparation to repay the UN, but if I recall correctly, the republican US Congress stepped forward and put some very big stipulations on the repayments, which, of course, weren't made especially after the US was voted off of the human rights board...Bush has done *nothing* in the way of garnering foreign support, nor have his actions in any way ever benefited the UN.
The BBC agrees with you and Ursa Major. Helms played a large role in not paying the debt. Now I'm curious--what was I "trying"--and for that matter, what does garnering support or benefitting the UN have to do with the debt? --Steve
I must have been confused. I read Not only did he simply not pay the dues and believed that he referred to Bill Clinton.
Not that I'm particularly defending Clinton, but for any Republican to say that the UN is in any better shape with a Republican than a Democrat in office is laughable. Take a simple poll of republicans and the major response you'll hear is that the UN is a joke, useless, etc...

But, if you weren't trying to infer that the UN was being stiffed by Clinton and is in better shape under Bush, then I apologize.

--------------------
The opinions expressed herein do not represent those of any rational human being and are solely for the purpose of entertainment.

Posts: 487 | From: Brick City (Newark), NJ | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Fusca 1976
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Fusca 1976   E-mail Fusca 1976   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by reflex:
Take a simple poll of republicans and the major response you'll hear is that the UN is a joke, useless, etc...

Yes, but this sounds like rank-and-file nonsense. Is it compatible with what the high-rank Republicans think and do?

Luís Henrique

Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Fusca 1976
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Fusca 1976   E-mail Fusca 1976   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by reflex:
Take a simple poll of republicans and the major response you'll hear is that the UN is a joke, useless, etc...

Yes, but this sounds like rank-and-file nonsense. Is it compatible with what the high-rank Republicans think and do?

Luís Henrique

Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jason Threadslayer
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Jason Threadslayer     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Saci-Perere:
quote:
Originally posted by reflex:
Take a simple poll of republicans and the major response you'll hear is that the UN is a joke, useless, etc...

Yes, but this sounds like rank-and-file nonsense. Is it compatible with what the high-rank Republicans think and do?
Ron Paul (R-TX) introduces a resolution for withdrawl from the UN every session.

--------------------
All posts foretold by Nostradamus.

Turing test failures: 6

Posts: 5481 | From: Decatur, GA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Fusca 1976
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Fusca 1976   E-mail Fusca 1976   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jason the 13th Jinx:
Ron Paul (R-TX) introduces a resolution for withdrawl from the UN every session.

And Ron Paul was also one of the very few representatives (both D or R) whose position about the Afghani adventure wasn't completely aligned to Bush's. So he seems to be not exactly a member of the club in charge now.

I mean: Bush, Asshcroft, Rice, Powell, Ruinsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney? Don't they really realise that UN is in fact a precious instrument for US foreign policy?

Luís Henrique

Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
heavyhand
Deck the Malls


Icon 01 posted      Profile for heavyhand   E-mail heavyhand   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
[/QUOTE]But isn't America in enormous arrears with the UN? Last time I heard, they were the UN's biggest debtors, not benefactors. [/QB][/QUOTE]

During the Clinton era, I BELIEVE I heard that the US paid just enough dues to be able to vote/veto on the security council

--------------------
(enter witty tagline here)

Posts: 227 | From: Shreveport, LA | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2