More casualties of the Iraq War: US Cuts Food Aid

Joined
May 16, 2001
Posts
8,144
Likes
14
Location
Brisbane
Thread starter Moderator #1
Of all the noble and humanitarian reasons for invading Iraq, wasn't one of them meant to be the saviour of people from oppression and death?

Yet of the billions spent on that war, how much could have been diverted to more effective work to achieve the same goal?

Not $600 million. Definately not $600 million.


U.S. Cutting Food Aid Aimed at Self-Sufficiency
By ELIZABETH BECKER

Published: December 22, 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/22/politics/22aid.html?oref=login&th

WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 - In one of the first signs of the effects of the ever tightening federal budget, in the past two months the Bush administration has reduced its contributions to global food aid programs aimed at helping millions of people climb out of poverty.

With the budget deficit growing and President Bush promising to reduce spending, the administration has told representatives of several charities that it was unable to honor some earlier promises and would have money to pay for food only in emergency crises like that in Darfur, in western Sudan. The cutbacks, estimated by some charities at up to $100 million, come at a time when the number of hungry in the world is rising for the first time in years and all food programs are being stretched.

As a result, Save the Children, Catholic Relief Services and other charities have suspended or eliminated programs that were intended to help the poor feed themselves through improvements in farming, education and health.

"We have between five and seven million people who have been affected by these cuts," said Lisa Kuennen, a food aid expert at Catholic Relief Services. "We had approval for all of these programs, often a year in advance. We hired staff, signed agreements with governments and with local partners, and now we have had to delay everything."

Ms. Kuennen said Catholic Relief Services had to cut back programs in Indonesia, Malawi and Madagascar, among other countries.

Officials of several charities, some Republican members of Congress and some administration officials say the food aid budget for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1 was at least $600 million less than what charities and aid agencies would need to carry out current programs.

"We are all at a crossroads, struggling with the budgetary crunch, but the problem is, there isn't enough to go around," said Ina Schonberg, director of food security programs for Save the Children. She said the cutbacks had had the biggest effect for her agency in Tajikistan and Nicaragua.

Ellen Levinson, head of the Food Aid Coalition, said the best estimate for the amount of food that was not delivered in November and December was "at least $100 million."

The administration attributed the recent cutbacks to the huge demands from food crises this year, especially in Africa, and the long delay in approving a budget.

Chad Kolton, spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget, said the administration "acknowledged the need for additional resources" in food aid, but said there was no way he could say whether more programs would be cut in the coming year. "The vast majority of resources available is going to emergency food aid," he said.

For the other programs that have been cut back, he said, "We are going to look at a couple of different things, such as the importance of the program and whether it is able to produce results."

One administration official involved in food aid voiced concern that putting such a high priority on emergency help might be short-sighted. The best way to avoid future famines is to help poor countries become self-sufficient with cash and food aid now, said the official, who asked not to be identified because of the continuing debate on the issue. "The fact is, the development programs are being shortchanged, and I'm not sure the administration is going to make up the money," the official said.

At a private meeting with charities last month, Lauren Landis, the director of the Food for Peace program at the Agency for International Development, warned that her budget for food aid was smaller than in recent years and that the increased costs of buying and shipping commodities presented "a significant challenge," according to the minutes of the meeting. She also warned that the Office of Management and Budget had been pressing her office "to reduce its spending on development programs, and this has been a consistent message over the past year."

Several Republican and Democratic members of Congress are joining with food aid advocates to convince the administration that food aid should not be cut.

Last month, Representative Jo Ann Emerson, Republican of Missouri, led an effort with more than 30 other legislators that persuaded the administration to release 200,000 tons of grain from a trust fund for emergency food aid to Sudan.

Now she is lobbying the administration to finance foreign food aid programs fully and, if possible, increase the money. "I'm not saying the president is opposed to this, but we haven't had any indication what will happen," said Ms. Emerson, who emphasized that hers was a bipartisan effort.

She also said Europe should increase its food aid and relieve some of the pressure on the United States, which is by far the largest donor to United Nations food programs, contributing almost half of the total.

Further complicating aid programs is a debate at the World Trade Organization over concerns that the United States has used food aid to dump surplus commodities in foreign countries where the supply has undercut local farmers' earnings.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
May 16, 2001
Posts
8,144
Likes
14
Location
Brisbane
Thread starter Moderator #2
... but to nobody's surprise there's plenty for "anti-terrorism".


Big Cities Will Get More in Antiterrorism Grants
By ERIC LIPTON

Published: December 22, 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/22/politics/22grants.html?th

WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 - Responding to repeated calls from big-city mayors, the Department of Homeland Security is shifting a larger share of its annual $3.5 billion in antiterrorism grants to the nation's largest cities, allowing them to accelerate purchases of equipment and training needed to better defend against - or at least rapidly respond to - an attack.

The biggest beneficiary of the shift is New York City, which has been awarded a $208 million grant for the 2005 fiscal year, compared with $47 million in the 2004 fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30. That should allow the city to buy more devices that can detect chemical, biological or other hazards, increase training for its police and firefighters and spend more money on an intelligence center where it analyzes possible terrorist threats, one state official said.

Los Angeles, Washington, Chicago and Boston also are getting larger grants, although the increase is not nearly as substantial as in New York.

"We've been protecting the nation's financial and communications center on our own dime," said Raymond W. Kelly, New York City's police commissioner. "It's a national responsibility."

Proponents of the shift say they hope it is only a first step in a more fundamental revamping of homeland security grants. But the change has evoked protests from cities that have dropped off the list or whose allocations have shrunk, including Orlando, Fla.; Memphis; and New Haven.

"We are at the crossroads of America, for cars, for trains, for river traffic," said Claude Talford, director of emergency management services in the Memphis area, which received a $10 million grant for 2004 but is not slated to get any direct grant in 2005. "We are a prime location, a prime target, any way you look at it."

Lobbying efforts are under way to try to reinstate financing to these communities. But homeland security officials said the grant allocations were final.

Two shifts in homeland security financing are resulting in the reallocation of the grants. First, in the 2005 fiscal year, at the urging of President Bush, a larger share of the grants will be distributed directly to cities, instead of through a state program set up to ensure that both urban and rural areas got a cut.

Second, of the money earmarked for high-risk cities, much more of it is going to the biggest cities: in the 2005 fiscal year, New York, Washington and Los Angeles will get 42 percent of the money, compared with 16 percent for the top three cities in 2004. This shift took place, homeland security officials said, because more possible targets - bridges, signature buildings, government facilities and other importanat structures - have been added to a database they use to calculate threats. Domestic terrorism incidents, whether actual attacks or just false reports, also are now factored into the formula. And instead of taking into account only population density, the department also now factors in a city's overall population.

These changes explain not only why New York, Chicago and Los Angeles are getting larger grants, said Marc Short, a Homeland Security Department spokesman. They are also part of the reason that cities like Fresno, Calif.; Albany; and Richmond, Va., were dropped from the 2005 high-risk grant list, while cities like Jacksonville, Fla.; Arlington, Tex.; and Oklahoma City were added, Mr. Short said.

Mr. Bush and some members of Congress had wanted to give an even greater share of the money directly to cities using a threat-based formula, instead of a state-by-state system, responding in part to criticism that states like Wyoming now get more per capita in terrorism grants than New York. But Congress this year curtailed the extent of the shift to threat-based grants.

"This is a huge, huge step in the right direction, but it absolutely does not answer the need," Washington's city administrator, Robert C. Bobb, said of the $91 million the capital area will get in the two major homeland security grants, compared with $45 million this year. "We are the face of the United States, one of the most visible centers of government power and strength."

For now, cities like New York, Washington and Los Angeles are preparing plans for spending their bigger-than-expected grants. In the Los Angeles area and New York, officials want to invest more in an intelligence clearinghouse to collect raw information on possible terrorist threats and then decide how to respond to them.

"This will allow us to make some investments into some items that were just out of reach before," said Mark Leap, the assistant commanding officer in the Los Angeles Police Department counterterrorism bureau, of the $61 million grant to the Los Angeles area, compared with $28 million in the 2004 fiscal year.

Washington wants to enhance its capacity to communicate with area residents in an emergency and to improve the ability of the capital region's public safety departments to communicate with one another, Mr. Bobb said.

New York City officials also want to build a backup computer system allowing them to maintain operations in the event of an attack, as well as spend more money on training and, when necessary, station officers around possible targets.

The Homeland Security Department still has more grants to give out for the 2005 fiscal year, so it remains impossible to predict how urban states like New York, California and Illinois will end up, on a per capita basis, compared with more rural states. But elected officials from these states say their push to direct money to the highest-risk cities is far from over.

"The system is still flawed," said Representative Christopher Cox, Republican of California, who is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. "It is at the intersection of threat and vulnerability that our money should be directed. But right now we are using a seat-of-the-pants analysis."
 

- PC -

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
30,268
Likes
23
Location
Where No Birds Fly
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide/Sturt/Wingfield
#3
Appleyard said:
Of all the noble and humanitarian reasons for invading Iraq, wasn't one of them meant to be the saviour of people from oppression and death?

Yet of the billions spent on that war, how much could have been diverted to more effective work to achieve the same goal?

Not $600 million. Definately not $600 million.


U.S. Cutting Food Aid Aimed at Self-Sufficiency
By ELIZABETH BECKER

Published: December 22, 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/22/politics/22aid.html?oref=login&th

WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 - In one of the first signs of the effects of the ever tightening federal budget, in the past two months the Bush administration has reduced its contributions to global food aid programs aimed at helping millions of people climb out of poverty.

The administration attributed the recent cutbacks to the huge demands from food crises this year, especially in Africa, and the long delay in approving a budget.
Actually the budgets have been reduced because of 1.Iraq 2. ''Star Wars'' 2

One administration official involved in food aid voiced concern that putting such a high priority on emergency help might be short-sighted. The best way to avoid future famines is to help poor countries become self-sufficient with cash and food aid now, said the official, who asked not to be identified because of the continuing debate on the issue. "The fact is, the development programs are being shortchanged, and I'm not sure the administration is going to make up the money," the official said.
Dont say that about aborigines...croc will call you racist.Self sufficiency should be the goal of ALL care agencies

She also said Europe should increase its food aid and relieve some of the pressure on the United States, which is by far the largest donor to United Nations food programs, contributing almost half of the total.
You got yourselves in this mess, you get yourself out

Further complicating aid programs is a debate at the World Trade Organization over concerns that the United States has used food aid to dump surplus commodities in foreign countries where the supply has undercut local farmers' earnings.
No they wouldnt would they :rolleyes:


I am sure the Hawks on here will dig deep and contribute Gurujane etal money please.
 
Joined
May 16, 2001
Posts
8,144
Likes
14
Location
Brisbane
Thread starter Moderator #4
Appleyard said:
"The system is still flawed," said Representative Christopher Cox, Republican of California, who is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. "It is at the intersection of threat and vulnerability that our money should be directed. But right now we are using a seat-of-the-pants analysis."
So save your bloody money and put it where it is NEEDED, not just where it is wanted for political reasons.
 

dan warna

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Posts
20,557
Likes
190
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
#5
need the money to help blow up children and steal the assets from their land, besides where's the short term profit in feeding the poor, when you can kill them and steal their oil, and let your mates profit by buying the bullets off them and give them the oil to sell

merry christmas haliburton, home of the corrupt and the criminal murderers.
 

finders

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 24, 2004
Posts
6,078
Likes
349
Location
Brighton
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Cricket,Olympics,F1GP,Tennis,Boxing
#6
Its really enjoyable to watch the US get deeper and deeper in the s*** in Iraq it seems they learnt NOTHING from the Vietnam defeat.
Then again with an idiot Vietnam coward like Bush in charge trying to prove how tough he is- what would you expect?
 

Birdy

Team Captain
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Posts
318
Likes
0
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
#7
finders said:
Its really enjoyable to watch the US get deeper and deeper in the s*** in Iraq it seems they learnt NOTHING from the Vietnam defeat.
Then again with an idiot Vietnam coward like Bush in charge trying to prove how tough he is- what would you expect?
The mind boggles at how anyone apart from terrorists themselves could find the bloodshed in Iraq enjoyable. Terrorist loving scumbags are un-Australian and a disgrace, they should all be locked up.
 

Leper

Premiership Player
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Posts
3,285
Likes
517
Location
E106o44' S06o17'
AFL Club
Richmond
#8
finders said:
Its really enjoyable to watch the US get deeper and deeper in the s*** in Iraq it seems they learnt NOTHING from the Vietnam defeat.
Then again with an idiot Vietnam coward like Bush in charge trying to prove how tough he is- what would you expect?
It's interesting living in Vietnam hearing "the other side of the story" about what they call "the American War". And that, despite this war, they don't seem to show any animosity to the Americans.

I have heard stories (third hand) of locals laughing at how stupid the Americans were. Stories of how they'd be hiding in their tunnels in the jungle, and a few helicopters would land in a clearing. Two minutes later a bunch of US troops would come out and they would shoot them from behind the trees. Then they would hide in their tunnels before the napalm came. A few days later the same process would repeat itself. The US had all the technology of the time but their tactics were way too predictable.

I wonder if Iraq is any different.

Anyone who's been to Cu Chi tunnels (and other tunnel sites) will see how horrific (albeit ingenious and effective) some of their booby traps were.
 

- PC -

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
30,268
Likes
23
Location
Where No Birds Fly
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide/Sturt/Wingfield
#9
Birdy said:
The mind boggles at how anyone apart from terrorists themselves could find the bloodshed in Iraq enjoyable. Terrorist loving scumbags are un-Australian and a disgrace, they should all be locked up.
I read finders post a few times to see how you arrived at your conclusion Birdy, I still cant..apart from using the word enjoyable and America in the same paragraph?

I also looked to see where finder mentioned he was '' terrorist loving'' ? Unlike you I find it disturbing the leap of faith you make in relation to knowing exactly what finder meant. Thought police anyone?

I think what finder and people like leper and myself find disturbing are the paralells in American history , yet this time we had the courage to say right from the start it was unwinnable. Think about this Birdy..if they werent there they wouldnt be getting killed!!!

Birdy..you have a bbq for new years I turn up and start being a nuisance? Do you A. accept me with open arms B. Kick me out no matter what means you use?

Bet you a hunnerd its B


*****finder not leper..apologies to both
 

Leper

Premiership Player
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Posts
3,285
Likes
517
Location
E106o44' S06o17'
AFL Club
Richmond
#10
Think you got me mixed up with "Finders" Perth Crow.

Anyway, as you said, "if they werent there they wouldnt be getting killed!!!". To me it's a bit like the guy who deliberately steps on a ants nest and then runs around yelling "bloody ants" 'cos they bit him.
 

Birdy

Team Captain
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Posts
318
Likes
0
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
#11
Are you lot trying to tell me these murderers are somehow justified in their terrorist attacks against Iraqi civilians and US troops? They are not patriots or freedom fighters as some fools like to call them, they are evil murderers and are the enemy we should all be condemning.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

kirky

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 29, 2000
Posts
9,735
Likes
6,452
AFL Club
Adelaide
#12
Birdy said:
Are you lot trying to tell me these murderers are somehow justified in their terrorist attacks against Iraqi civilians and US troops? They are not patriots or freedom fighters as some fools like to call them, they are evil murderers and are the enemy we should all be condemning.
I for one do not condone their actions at all but in the same breath I can't condone the actions of a country invading another soverign country on the false pretences of WMDs (still looking I think). Just sit back and think about it for a moment and then maybe just maybe we may understand why this occurs. Still we are nearly two years since the war began and the amount of killing is not reducing, says much about the original invasion plans and the exit strategy (then again hard to implement an exit strategy if you never had one)
 

finders

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 24, 2004
Posts
6,078
Likes
349
Location
Brighton
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Cricket,Olympics,F1GP,Tennis,Boxing
#13
Birdy said:
The mind boggles at how anyone apart from terrorists themselves could find the bloodshed in Iraq enjoyable. Terrorist loving scumbags are un-Australian and a disgrace, they should all be locked up.
Listen sucker, tell that to the 100,000 yes atleast 100,000 innocent Iraqai men women and children that the Yanks have slaughtered in the name of freedom.
No wonder others have come in to help rid the country of the invaders.
Murderers are just that no matter where they come from.
This invasion will go down in history as one of the most tragic and inept of all time with no positive result possible for a long,long time.
Oh and btw I didnt say I enjoyed the bloodshed and destruction on either side just that the Yanks are so stupid for a country that thinks it is so smart and just.
 

Leper

Premiership Player
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Posts
3,285
Likes
517
Location
E106o44' S06o17'
AFL Club
Richmond
#14
I'm with finders on this one - no need to repeat what's just said.

If you don't like getting bitten don't step on an ant's nest.

Whilst it is sad for US troops who get killed and their families, they too have a choice about whether to go or not. Sadly they are probably all brainwashed.

*cough* oil *cough* halliburton *cough*
 

dan warna

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Posts
20,557
Likes
190
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
#15
Anyone with half a brain know that there are at least two, probably three major forces in Iraq fighting the americans.

1. the sunni resistance fighters
2. the shi'ite resistance fighters
3. the al qaeda terrorists.

the fact is that al qaeda was a minor bit player prior to s11, and would have been close to being extinguished if the americans hadn't waltzed in iraq and had tens of thousands of otherwise passive non combatants signing up to whatever force assisted them in fighting the americans, so folks ideologically opposed or ambivalent to al qaeda principles are joining al qaeda to fight the americans.

by example if Australia was invaded by Nazi Germany 60 odd years ago, there would have been slimey collaboratours who worked for the nazi's or some who just needed an income to feed their family who got jobs working for the new nazi rulers (as happened throughout europe), however almost everyone cheered every time that a nazi was killed, a supply train wiped out, or a nazi installation hit.

the iraqi's feel the same way about the americans. the americans used a lie to invade iraq, killed 100,000 civilians and about 150,000 soldiers (thats about 1% of the population murdered), allowed the law to fall to pieces, and took control of the oil resources while allowing the water and food supplies to dry up.

I don't endorse the al qaeda and never have, but I hope that the genuine freedom fighters of Iraq, the vast majority of the people get THEIR wish and eject the Americans from THEIR nation.
 

Birdy

Team Captain
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Posts
318
Likes
0
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
#16
America slaughtered 100 000 iraqis? I don't think so. A third of that number would have been killed by insurgents, and the other two thirds would have been while killing the insurgents who hide in densely populated residential areas. They are cowards who use civilians as shields, blow them up in suicide bombs, torture them, saw their heads off, and who do the liberals blame for all this? America and their allies! Unbelievable.

Dan warna do you really think your terrorists will succeed in their evil plans to murder and torture as many people as possible because liberals like you will point the finger at the good guys? The majority of Iraqis want elections to go ahead and want a democracy. The minority terrorists are an evil and barbaric enemy that don't want to see a peaceful future for Iraq.
 

dan warna

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Posts
20,557
Likes
190
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
#17
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html

BZZZ wrong again you apologist for AMericans who murderer children and women Birdy.

as for torture, the Americans are expert at it, with torture being conducted daily it seems around the world with over 10,000 defenders of iraq kept in concentration camps illegally by the illegal invasion force of the US army in iraq.

100,000 civilians murdered and 150,000 iraqi legitimate soldiers murdered by US bombs.

the MAJORITY of iraqi's want the US out of iraq, which is why the US won't allow pollsters outside their approved stooges in iraq for the most part

In the latest survey, 81 percent of Iraqis also expressed “no confidence” in Coalition forces

But while they acknowledge benefits from dumping Saddam a year ago, Iraqis no longer see the presence of the American-led military as a plus. Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as "liberators" or "occupiers," 71% of all respondents say "occupiers."

"I would shoot at the Americans right now if I had the chance," says Abbas Kadhum Muia, 24, who owns a bicycle shop in Sadr City, a Shiite slum of 2 million people in Baghdad that was strongly anti-Saddam and once friendly to the Americans. "At the beginning ... there were no problems, but gradually they started to show disrespect (and) encroach on our rights, arresting people."

Sabah Yeldo, a Christian who owns a liquor store across town, says American failures have left the capital with higher crime and less-reliable services, including electricity. That is "making everybody look back and seriously consider having Saddam back again instead of the Americans."

In the multiethnic Baghdad area, where a Gallup Poll last summer of 1,178 residents permits a valid comparison, only 13% of the people now say the invasion of Iraq was morally justifiable. In the 2003 poll, more than twice that number saw it as the right thing to do.


That figure reaches 81% if the separatist, pro-U.S. Kurdish minority in northern Iraq is not included. The negative characterization is just as high among the Shiite Muslims who were oppressed for decades by Saddam as it is among the Sunni Muslims who embraced him.


Live from the mouth of rumsfeld the coward if you like Birdy, but the IRAQI PEOPLE WANT THE USA OUT OF IRAQ, and only murderers, theives, haliburton and cowards want them to stay.

I SUPPORT THE IRAQI PEOPLE IN THEIR BID FOR FREEDOM FROM THE ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL OCCUPATION BY THE USA AND SUPPORT THEIR ATTACKS AGAINST HALIBURTON EMPLOYED DEATH SQUADS LIKE BLACKWATER AND THE RAPE OF THEIR OILFIELDS BY HALIBURTON, I DO NOT SUPPORT AL QAEDA get that through your head.

you of course don't give a damn about iraqis and are happy for them to die as long as haliburton gets their oil which is why you are supporter of murderers and theives.
 

Fire

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Posts
9,997
Likes
2,889
AFL Club
North Melbourne
#18
I dont know what is more horrific, the Iraq war or the sheer number of people who share Birdy's viewpoint.

The people kidnapping and executing civilians are terrorists.
Thise fighting the Co-elition military are freedom fighters.

Just because they are both against you doesnt mean they are the same. However, I suppose if you are two narrow-minded to see how you could possibly have two different enemies in the same conflict, the sentemental crap the whitehouse spouts could begin to make sense.
 

mulhollanddrive

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Posts
3,618
Likes
6
Location
home
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#19
Its hard not to get angry at people like Birdy, but not everyone can see things past black and white, good and bad. Birdy what would the good guys have to do in order to be the bad guys? Or is that not possible in your view.
 

- PC -

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
30,268
Likes
23
Location
Where No Birds Fly
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide/Sturt/Wingfield
#20
mulhollanddrive said:
Its hard not to get angry at people like Birdy, but not everyone can see things past black and white, good and bad. Birdy what would the good guys have to do in order to be the bad guys? Or is that not possible in your view.
I just find the ''end justifies the means'' mentality very hard to understand? At what point ,as you say, do good guys become just as bad?

Everyone who supports the Bush admin always say Saddam was an @rsehole , yet when you point out there are plenty more they go quiet. I am sure there could have been more effective ways of removing Saddam and family,. But the cynic in me says that wouldnt have been an effective smokescreen to cover the disappointing effort in going after Osama.
 

Frodo

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 17, 2000
Posts
12,595
Likes
22
Location
Perth, Western Australia.
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Post Count: 125,527
#21
I find it amazing that with all the anti USA rhetoric on this board people still expect the USA to be giving MORE.

They want dole outs to fight terrorism and dole outs for food etc, this supposed vile nation.

What about the rest of the world contributing and that pathetic UN organization doing something useful for once?
 

dan warna

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Posts
20,557
Likes
190
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
#22
Frodo said:
I find it amazing that with all the anti USA rhetoric on this board people still expect the USA to be giving MORE.

They want dole outs to fight terrorism and dole outs for food etc, this supposed vile nation.

What about the rest of the world contributing and that pathetic UN organization doing something useful for once?
Maybe if the UN took away the VETO from all countries we might get a little more sense.

I think most countries were fed up during the 50s, 60s and early 70s of the Soviet Veto, and now almost everyone is fed up of the US abusing the Veto.

lets see the Veto taken away from China, russia, UK, France And the US, and the UN might function a bit better.
 

Frodo

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 17, 2000
Posts
12,595
Likes
22
Location
Perth, Western Australia.
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Post Count: 125,527
#23
dan warna said:
Maybe if the UN took away the VETO from all countries we might get a little more sense.

I think most countries were fed up during the 50s, 60s and early 70s of the Soviet Veto, and now almost everyone is fed up of the US abusing the Veto.

lets see the Veto taken away from China, russia, UK, France And the US, and the UN might function a bit better.
What's the point? The USA and other major nations would still veto by their actions. The fact is that the UN can only serve as a discussion forum and platform for diplomacy. The fact is that it has turned into a corrupt and hideous beaurocracy. Surely it is time for a rethink with the UN being scrapped and a more basic forum established.
 

demon_dave

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Posts
2,727
Likes
2
Location
Highett
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory,Chelsea
#24
Frogo, I suggest you and birdbrain go and live in the good ol' US of A as you seem to love it so much, I'm sure birdbrain would fit in well with the other fudamentalist christians. The US has never been in any control in Iraq and yes they have caused the death of 100,000 innocent people directly or indirectly, you will go to your grave believing otherwise but ignorance is born, you will die ignorant, I pity your family and friends
 

Frodo

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 17, 2000
Posts
12,595
Likes
22
Location
Perth, Western Australia.
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Post Count: 125,527
#25
demon_dave said:
Frogo, I suggest you and birdbrain go and live in the good ol' US of A as you seem to love it so much, I'm sure birdbrain would fit in well with the other fudamentalist christians. The US has never been in any control in Iraq and yes they have caused the death of 100,000 innocent people directly or indirectly, you will go to your grave believing otherwise but ignorance is born, you will die ignorant, I pity your family and friends
I'm happy here, thanks

And I'm much happier with the possibility of ignorance than the probability of mental illness, as appears to be your case.
 
Top Bottom