UN official slams U.S. tsunami aid as 'stingy'...

[NUKE]

Originally posted by straffo
Why only the number of troops ?
The amount of money or the percentage of GNP can give other figures don't you think ?

look at my other example in the thread.

Base the number of troops as a percentage of a country's population, then fund them with an equal percentage ( GDP) of every country.

Then we would have a fair deal all the way around. In fact, I can't see one flaw in that idea.

That way the poor counties like China and India ( who field huge armies) could contribute forces and die along with the Americans and British in equal percentages based on population when the UN decides to fight.

[patrone]

I have to Agree with Nuke on this.

Still he has forgotten that the Iraq "Thing" isīnt a UN mission.

But I think, after March this year, many countries will get involved to stabelize this area, after the failure of Brittish and US troops.

Crabofix

[straffo]

Well ...

It's more complex than that.
Introduce the cost of the army in your equation and it will be different.

Using your postulat the army with a lot of soldier should contribute the most even being inferior to a technological and more efficient army having less soldier.

Use a recent example like desert storm I (the 90's one )
Saddam army should have contributed more to a UN mission than the coalition.

But doesn't have Saddam's army been badly beaten ?

[cpxxx]

All this absurd chest beating while 120,000+ corpses lie rotting and millions are on the verge of starvation.

It's been established that the UN official was criticising all western nations not just America. So the UN bashing on this point is not valid.  The guy was attempting to everyone into action. But with the hypersensitivity some Americans have about any criticism of the USA it was used for point scoring by the usual suspects.

Let's get it clear here, the issue is about one of the largest natural disasters ever outside of China. They need aid and they need it now. America like everyone else will contribute their fair share I hope. If everyone in the USA gave $2 that would amount to about 600 million. Many countries have raised the equivalent in relation to their populations including mine. Governments will send more.  That how it is.

On the separate issue of aid by the USA to other countries. That is not only humanitarian it's strategic and in the best interests of the United States.  It's that simple.

As for the UN the USA won't pull out soon. Why? Because the US has a veto in the security council. Pull out and it's gone. In any case the US uses the UN as it suits. When it doesn't get it's own way it's goes it alone or with it's own allies. Just like everyone else. Really the amount of paranoia about the UN among some people is crazy. Some of you really need to get out more.

[patrone]

Straffo.

It all really depends on what task the force is going to fulfill.

Saddam was beaten 1990, yes. but the troops never stayed.
Look at the situation right now, a bigger amount would have been better.

Your little french freedom fried frog:Happy new year!

Crabofix
BOOOORK

[NUKE]

Im not paranoid of the UN, I just hate the UN and the thieves that run it.

[Gixer]

Originally posted by NUKE
Im not paranoid of the UN, I just hate the UN and the thieves that run it.

Before or after Bush started telling you that?



...-Gixer

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Gixer
Before or after Bush started telling you that?



...-Gixer

I have never had the pleasure to speak with President Bush myself.

 Can you name some stellar UN achievments for us Gixer?

[Crumpp]

15.79 billion is not 40% of the total 68.47 billion. It is 23%, and the US is still last on the list compared to GDP. That means that both your government and your population are the cheapest on that list. Perhaps compared "in capita" it looks better?

Now factor in the Private donations and the 23% jumps to 40% plus.

Crumpp

[patrone]

Crumpp

I see that the "AID" given to Iraq is in the figures at the link you provided.
It should not be in there, to make a justified "overlook".

Crabofix

[Crumpp]

I see that the "AID" given to Iraq is in the figures at the link you provided.

In your opinion.  I think it is fine.

I thought "Net ODA" was the total of government and public contributions. I think this because in percentage of GNP the Norwegian valuse should be about 0.2% not 0.8%.

No "Net ODA" is just official Government Aid.  It does not include donations from the private sector or unsolicited government money.

Crumpp

[Torque]

Still with all the fanfare per gnp or capita the Euros are more generous. Interesting to see the top three recipients of American ODA are Eqypt, Russia and Israel.

[Crumpp]

Still with all the fanfare per gnp or capita the Euros are more generous. Interesting to see the top three recipients of American ODA are Eqypt, Russia and Israel.

Depends on the country and depends on the stats.

Just use official sanctioned money and yes the US looks stingy.  

Include the private sector and unsolicitied Government funds and the US is about average per capita with Europe.

Egypt and Isreal - Mid-east peace......

Russia - Largest emerging Democracy.

Crumpp

[Rolex]

Are we stipulating no other nation has private sector and unsolicited government funds?

[Crumpp]

Of course not.  However you can bet the largest free market in the world will have the largest private sector donations.  Simply more fish in the barrel.  Our lower tax base encourages private donations.

Due to our legal system/economy many of the worlds leading aid organizations were founded and are heaquartered in the United States as well.

Crumpp