posted on October 16, 2003 09:23:58 AM new
The US - Iraq Security Resolution in the UN passes....with a vote of 15-0. A GREAT victory for the Bush administration.
posted on October 16, 2003 10:02:02 AM new
The U.N. is voting in the interest of the Iraqi people. I'm happy to see that now you see the value in a positive UN envolvement.
posted on October 16, 2003 10:19:58 AM new
If I had my way....the US would withdraw from the UN and have it removed from our soil....but you knew that.
Just one less thing for you to brag about in saying this President can't get the other world leaders to reach agreements with us. 15-0 speaks of a GREAT victory for Bush. And I know you're just as pleased as punch to see an agreement worked out.
posted on October 16, 2003 10:21:29 AM new
What's not positive about my comment Bear?
The resolution appeals to U.N. members to provide troops and money to support the struggling U.S. occupation of Iraq.
But France, Russia, Germany and Pakistan said after the vote that they would not make any new military or financial contributions to support the resolution.
posted on October 16, 2003 10:23:10 AM new "If I had my way....the US would withdraw from the UN and have it removed from our soil....but you knew that."
And you just called it a GREAT victory for Bush, LInda.
posted on October 16, 2003 10:27:48 AM new
helen - You just can't handle that an organization YOU support, and would like to make all the USA's decisions for, could reach an agreement where they will work together to get Iraq's new government running sooner.
But France, Russia, Germany and Pakistan said after the vote that they would not make any new military or financial contributions to support the resolution. I don't agree....from what I've heard so far...but say that's true. Then maybe you'd like to share with us just WHY you think they would have altered their position from one of opposition last week, to their support this week.
posted on October 16, 2003 10:38:46 AM new
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 the taxes.
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
posted on October 16, 2003 10:51:59 AM new
LOL - helen....because the president doesn't consult with you personally, doesn't prove he had no plans. He's stated his plans many times.
---------------
bear, you think she's going to be happy now that what she said needed to be done [an agreement reached by the UN Security Counsel], has happened. She'll never be happy.
posted on October 16, 2003 12:16:29 PM new
KD - You're missing the whole point. The UN and all the far lefties here wanted Bush to give up our control in Iraq in order to gain support from the UN. Something so important to them.
The UN Security Counsel voted 15-0 to help with Iraq, in different ways, even though Bush DID NOT give up our control.
Also, aside from Russia, France and Germany other countries have stated they would give support in Iraq IF the UN counsel reached an agreement.
That has now happened. That is the victory Bush can claim.
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 16, 2003 12:18 PM ]
posted on October 16, 2003 12:23:41 PM new
GOD willing one day soon that inept organization known as the UN will be removed from our soil and we are no longer a member.
posted on October 16, 2003 12:30:37 PM new
The U.N. had no other choice, Linda. It's Iraq that needs the help, not the U.S. But, I also agree with Bear, in saying Bush is damned if he does, etc... that's true with a lot of people, me included. It's difficult for me to see any good because my thoughts of him are so clouded by all the crap he's gotten the U.S. into. I'm sure Saddam had good in him too, but it's difficult to think that way because of the way he ran his country. (P.S. - I'm not comparing Bush to Saddam, OK?)
posted on October 16, 2003 12:43:57 PM new
Once again you're wrong helen.
You're just upset that Bush has been able to get this resolution passed without giving the UN total control of Iraq as you would have liked to have seen him do.
Some, like yourself, think the US shouldn't be able to do anything without approval from the UN.
Some, like myself, think the UN is a useless body that's all talk and no teeth.
Many think it's good to work with the UN on some issues, but if there is disagreement, we should do what's in the best interests of our country.
There's NO spin here....this was a victory for Bush.
posted on October 16, 2003 12:48:23 PM new
KD - Has that last statement [helps Iraq] ever been in dispute? I don't believe it has. Of course the whole purpose of this is to help the people of Iraq. But with more help from other world countries...that will make it easier on our pocket books & needing less troops. So...in that way it will also help the US.
posted on October 16, 2003 01:48:46 PM new
Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq isn't very popular with other countries, so helping to rebuild Iraq, to some, might look more like helping the U.S. out of the mess, than Iraq itself. That's all I meant, Linda.
posted on October 16, 2003 01:51:44 PM new
KD - That's all I meant. I know that, KD.
But I hope no US president EVER makes decisons on our nation security based on 'what is popular' with other countries. This isn't a popularity contest....it's a war on terrorism.
posted on October 16, 2003 02:02:38 PM new
What terrorists? I know that was the post 911 plan, but so far, not much has happened, unless you call the detainees in Cuba a big coup.
"Analysts and diplomats said the impact of the resolution would be limited, and perhaps not worth its cost of exposing the deep-seated resentments in the world community over the U.S. handling of the Iraq war. Few believe the Security Council's resolution will bring much in terms of pledges of troops or aid, even though the Bush administration originally sought the resolution for precisely that reason."
So, the U.S. is still alone...with a 500 billion dollar deficit and soldiers being killed every day.
posted on October 17, 2003 07:53:30 PM new
Helen, don't you get it?
The whole UN sux's; but it's a Victoryfor Bush to be able to work with them!!
(Kinda like overcoming a self-imposed disability?)
Well, if the UN sux and Bush was to have true VICTORY, then he should have told them all to take a hike.
But as it stands now, he just keeps trying to set-up the pretense of wanting the U.S. to be part of this nicey-nice global community. But you know if he had his way, he'd "strangle them by the throat" - (exemplary words and posture from our president - don't you think?)
