Author Topic: UN official slams U.S. tsunami aid as 'stingy'... (Read 5398 times)

NUKE · « **Reply #165 on:** January 01, 2005, 01:49:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Yes on a per capita basis.

explain that a little for me. How would that work for military forces?

spitfiremkv · « **Reply #166 on:** January 01, 2005, 01:50:05 PM »

dimwits, argue all you want, but I think the UN guy is the real hero here.
By *****ing all the rich countries out, he got the amount of aid to increase more than tenfold,a nd realy fast!

~~Engeland, the world owes you a great debt and you probably saved countless lives!~~

NUKE · « **Reply #167 on:** January 01, 2005, 02:30:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
See, Spit gets it.

Do you know percentage calculus?

so India and China should field the largest forces by far then, right?

NUKE · « **Reply #168 on:** January 01, 2005, 03:05:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Well, it's not like they're not doing that right now anyways. However it is important that economic health also plays a factor, so that rich countries carries a greater part of the burden than poor countries. Even if the poor countries may have bigger populations.

maybe countries could contribute troops to UN efforts based on a percentage of the forces they currently field at home.

Then China and India should have the largest UN forces and could be of great help.

NUKE · « **Reply #169 on:** January 01, 2005, 03:23:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
That's almost what I meant. I think there should be a minimum size of military contribution based on population and economic health. How large an army each country has is irrelevant as long as they pledge at least the calculated minimum for UN service. This is incidentally how the UN originally was supposed to work.

I'd say base troop levels on poplulation alone, then use percentage of wealth for each nation as a means to fund them.

That would be most fair.

We would have a HUGE Indian and Chinese troop level and everything would be fair.

Vulcan · « **Reply #170 on:** January 01, 2005, 03:54:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
why would NZ need aid from anyone in a disaster? millions? I thought that they were a socialist paradise?

vulcan... what aid did NZ give the US during a disaster? Not saying they didn't but... Why would they? we certainly don't need 5 million during a disaster. seems kinda strange is all. What disasters have we ignored that have devestated your island? the great sheep moult of '67?

lazs

The 5 mill I was refering to was for the Tsunami, last financial aid I believe we gave to the US was for a big batch of hurricanes a few years back when florida was leveled.

More recently we sent fire fighters to help with those big blazes you had (two occasions).

No we haven't required any aid yet, but sitting on a giant faultline with a string of volcanoes up and down our islands you never know

lazs2 · « **Reply #171 on:** January 01, 2005, 04:30:54 PM »

why would we need monetary aid from NZ? firefighters? we have plenty of firefighters. Are you saying you sent firefighters on your dime? we didn't pay em? if so... thanks.

sclotzie just wants the U.S. to pay for any corrupt hairbrained scheme the UN cooks up. He has a hard time figuring out the basis for goughing the U.S. but he knows they should pay more than 40% of the worlds relief.

I don't believe that jan ahole got anyone to give any more or less than they would of... he is no hero just a popmpous UN busybody. My take is that if we give any relief that we should avoid letting the UN get it's sticky fingers anywhere near the money.

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #172 on:** January 01, 2005, 04:35:52 PM »

shouldn't the total amount of relief for all efforts thruought the year be more important than simply the high profile ones that get your country good publicity?

lazs

NUKE · « **Reply #173 on:** January 01, 2005, 04:40:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
I disagree. We would then have a situation where the poor people have to die for the UN while the rich people just pay for it.

well, then go back to the percentage of troops the nation fields at home. If they can afford to have troops at home, then take an equal percentage of each nations standing troop levels and put them to use for the UN.

Think of all the good that many Indian and Chinese troops could do for the UN.

The most fair thing to do would be basing it on an equal percentage of each countries population. That way, an equal percentage of each UN nation would be put in harms way during use of force, rather than having the US unfairly taking most of the finanicial AND military burden.

lazs2 · « **Reply #174 on:** January 01, 2005, 04:45:44 PM »

so shlotzie... you don't believe that the US funds the lions share of all worldwide relief? Is it our lieing media that made the UN steal all that oil for food money?

and... I don't want any troops under UN command especially not U.S. troops..

lazs

Crumpp · « **Reply #175 on:** January 01, 2005, 04:57:46 PM »

Quote

ODA is defined as financial assistance that is concessional in character , has the main objective to promote economic development and welfare of the less developed countries (LDCs), and contains a grant element of at least 25%. The entry does not cover other official flows (OOF) or private flows. Per capita figures expressed per 1 population.

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/eco_eco_aid_don_cap&int=50

Nice website but it does not show US official or private donations. In other words it is just great propaganda.

Now let's look at the actual VALUE of what the United States Government officially gives:

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp?so=d2003#oda

Only in ONE year has ONE country given more.

This does NOT include private US organizations.

Lets look at those, down at the bottom under "notes on private donations":

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs

Quote

Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas -- more than three times U.S. official foreign aid of $10 billion:

Notice these numbers are in BILLIONS of US dollars. The benefits of a capitalistic economy and low taxes.
Add these numbers to the unsolicited funds and official funds and the US does provide the majority of western worlds foreign aid.

Crumpp

patrone · « **Reply #176 on:** January 01, 2005, 05:10:30 PM »

So, Laz2, was it 30% giving 12%, or 10% giving 40% or 30% giving 120%?

Per capita it really does not look good though, I have to say.

Never the less, still you guys give ****loads in total amounts, no doubt.

And speaking about UN and military, I give 3 months (March) until Mr Bush will come crawling on his knees, begging the rest of the world to help solve out the mess he created in Iraq. he will admit that USA made a misstake in this case.

Crabofix
BOOOORK

Crumpp · « **Reply #177 on:** January 01, 2005, 05:15:42 PM »

Follow the link. There is a line and block chart.

Crumpp

patrone · « **Reply #178 on:** January 01, 2005, 05:25:18 PM »

well according to the figures.

EU countries give about 38 billions in aid.
While USA gives 16 billions.

Can that be 40%?
40% out of what the EU countries gives?

Crabofix
BOOOORk

straffo · « **Reply #179 on:** January 01, 2005, 05:32:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
well, then go back to the percentage of troops the nation fields at home. If they can afford to have troops at home, then take an equal percentage of each nations standing troop levels and put them to use for the UN.

Think of all the good that many Indian and Chinese troops could do for the UN.

The most fair thing to do would be basing it on an equal percentage of each countries population. That way, an equal percentage of each UN nation would be put in harms way during use of force, rather than having the US unfairly taking most of the finanicial AND military burden.

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