Evil Americans

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Just a trivial aside, although India is majority Hindu, it is second behind Indonesia as the country with the largest population of Muslims.

Dowding? Want some foot powder for that mouth?

[Dowding]

Why? You called it an 'Arabic/Islamic' state. Not only is it majority Hindu, it's secular too.

And it's still not Arab.

From the CIA Factbook:

"Hindu 81.3%, Muslim 12%, Christian 2.3%, Sikh 1.9%"

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Dowding
Why? You called it an 'Arabic/Islamic' state. Not only is it majority Hindu, it's secular too.

And it's still not Arab.

From the CIA Factbook:

"Hindu 81.3%, Muslim 12%, Christian 2.3%, Sikh 1.9%"

oh, NOW you're quoting CIA fact books where you trash the CIA in other threads! This is outstanding material Dowding! LOL!

[AKIron]

Call me whatever you like except late for dinner.

[Jack55]

We spend a lot of money on middle east peace.

[miko2d]

Ripsnort: oh, NOW you're quoting CIA fact books where you trash the CIA in other threads! This is outstanding material Dowding! LOL!


 Oh, God, Rip! Do you realise how stupid that statement sounds? It's like a histerical woman who plugs her ears and starts shouting in order not to hear about her mistake.

 You would not believe him if he quoted sources you do not like (Al-Jaseera?) but you would also not listen to him if he uses the sources you trust and you probably would not believe him if he said he counted all indians personally...
 That's a nice trick to shut your mind to an argument.

 Also, what does dislike of an institution has to do with relying on it for basic facts that your school should have taught you in the first place?

 miko

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by GScholz
None (from me at least) as long as you at the same time stop claiming to pay for everything.

Not everything, just 22% for FY 2001

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Dowding
Why? You called it an 'Arabic/Islamic' state. Not only is it majority Hindu, it's secular too.

And it's still not Arab.

From the CIA Factbook:

"Hindu 81.3%, Muslim 12%, Christian 2.3%, Sikh 1.9%"

I guess when you can't discuss the meat of a post, you can rip apart the minor details.

[Dowding]

I don't think I have ever 'trashed' the CIA. Feel free to point out if that is not the case. I may not have agreed with every CIA action since its inception, but I'd hardly call that 'trashing'.

FWIW, I think that CIA factbook is one of the best sources of information on the net.

[Stringer]

That does it GScholz!

I now christen thee, Norweener!!  

[miko2d]

Ripsnort: India votes 81 percent against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually in U.S. foreign aid.

 India was having trouble with muslim extemists and fighting them for decades while US was arming the totalitarian muslm regimes and plying them with money and technology, creating and equipping the Al-Qaeda movement to serve its short-term goals, supporting muslim teocracies and monarchies all over the place.

 miko

[Frogm4n]

^^^^  oh snap

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Dowding
FWIW, I think that CIA factbook is one of the best sources of information on the net.

Check out the page from the CIA's Office of Disinformation...

No, no, now I remember, they disbanded that office...  at least that's what they said.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Martlet
I guess when you can't discuss the meat of a post, you can rip apart the minor details.

No meat in that post.. it is the worst kind of propoganda. Use a logical mind to follow what is said. No connection is ever made between the countries listed and the 9 billion in foriegn aid. silly stuff really.

I guess Rip is pointing out how bad we are at buying votes in the UN?  

Guess we need to spend more.... logically speaking. Unless we don't care how these countries vote. Then pull the "money". But if we don't care then the post has no point...... hey!

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Krusher
posting it as our myth is nice touch but not based in reality.

I was merely quoting the Fact sheet provided by the United States Mission to the United Nations verbatim. Got a problem with the wording, take it up with them (I think they're part of the State Department).

for the record name one US citizen who is in charge of any UN program. (not to be confused with un ambassadors) Nice representation we have for our money

For the record here's 2:
Carol Bellamy - Executive Director of UNICEF

James T Morris- Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP). The previous director Catherine Bertini (also from the US) served for 10 years, and is now the Under-Secretary-General for Management.

There's probably more - but you can look them up if it bothers you that much, cos the UN websites are far to labyrinthine for me, especially so soon after FB1.1 patch .
Do remember, though, before you rant too much:
1. There are 190 other countries in the UN (not 177 as Ripsnort's post would have us believe) as well as the US, which is a lot more countries than job vacancies for UN programme directors, so you do have to expect that there won't be lots of US citizens, or indeed lots of [insert any country name here] citizens for that matter.
2. Some appointments are nominal/administrative - with committees (on which many countries are represented) hold the real power.

The US also gets a veto and a permanent seat on the security council - which is lot more power than 97% of UN member countries - and a permanent seat on the Economic and Social Council, and so far a member on the International Court. The US director of the IMF has the largest number of votes of any director - 371,743 votes or 17.14% of all the votes. It goes on, but as I say the patch is here.