General discussion

Locked

Countries in the UN against the U.S.

By Old Guy ·
Someone sent the following information to me in an email. I went to Google to try to verify the information. According to Snopes.com, http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/unvote.asp , their results were even worse (An excerpt from their page is below).

Now, I know that the U.S. tried Isolationism before and found out it didn?t work very well, for us, or for the rest of the world. And, I don?t think it would work now. However, I?m beginning to wonder, since there are so many countries that hate us and are so against us, if we should quit sending all this money to them and start using it here. I think it could very well help fix our own house to where it should be. Even if we just cut all of it in half. That way the other nations are still getting money from us but just not as much. Also, we would have a whole lot more money here to fix things. Of course, I know if we did that these other countries would start in even more loudly than they are now about how the ?U.S. should do more for us because they are so rich and we are so poor.? Well, they hate us already so what would it matter if they did start yelling louder?

Now, do I think we could or should do this? I don?t know but it sure is getting more tempting? What do you guys think?


(The email sent to me)
How they vote in the United Nations:

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

U S Foreign Aid to those that hate us:

Egypt, 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, and receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

India votes 81% against the United States, and receives $143,699,000 annually.

Well, you get the idea .......

Perhaps it's time to get out of the U.N. and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are skimping and sacrificing to pay the taxes they receive as aid, and to buy their oil.
Disgusting isn't it?

___________________________________

"The results of this tally were even worse (from a U.S. perspective) than the message quoted above indicates, with the countries named voting contrary to the U.S. position on U.N. resolutions an aggregate 88% of the time. (Even though India is neither Arab nor particularly Islamic, we included it in our chart because the widely-circulated e-mailed list did.)
Country Times Voted With U.S. Times Voted Against U.S. % of Votes Against U.S.
Kuwait 10 61 86%
Qatar 9 64 88%
Morocco 8 62 89%
United Arab Emirates 8 61 88%
Jordan 9 64 88%
Tunisia 8 63 89%
Saudi Arabia 7 62 90%
Yemen 9 64 88%
Algeria 9 63 88%
Oman 9 63 88%
Sudan 10 60 86%
Pakistan 9 59 87%
Libya 8 63 89%
Egypt 10 63 86%
Lebanon 7 62 90%
India 14 52 79%
Syria 7 59 89%
Mauritania 7 63 90%" http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/unvote.asp

(Note: I'm not sure how to format the table in here like it was from Snopes but you can click on the link above and read their whole page.)

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

178 total posts (Page 3 of 18)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Well done, jd!

by maxwell edison In reply to The question

Put that in the Friday yuk!

Collapse -

I don't think these figures mean/indicate anything at all

by jardinier In reply to Countries in the UN again ...

unless they are linked to the issues which were voted upon.

For example: A country may have voted against the US any number of times over a particular issue. So that country may have voted against the US 80 per cent of the time, but always over one issue or closely related issues.

In other words I think the statistics are meaningless in the form in which they have been presented.

Collapse -

you mean like

by Jaqui In reply to I don't think these figur ...

the war on terrorism votes? when only england voted with the us?

the rest of the world said get screwed, we will not support this act of terrorism.

Collapse -

Jaqui, are you

by Old Guy In reply to you mean like

suggesting that the U.S. is the terrorist now although we are the ones who were attacked first?

Collapse -

the UN

by Jaqui In reply to Jaqui, are you

voted against sending troops into Iraq, so by sending them in, the US is the agressor Nation.

England was the only country that agreed with the US on that.

remember the whole "Freedom Fries" issue? caused by France stating that it would be a terroist act to invade to get usama bin-laden.

Collapse -

Does that mean

by Old Guy In reply to the UN

that we are not allowed to retaliate for the destruction they caused in human lives here? To me that sounds like it's ok for any country to come over here and kick us in the butt but we're not allowed to do anything about it--just keep sending them the money. Would that make the rest of the world happy with the U.S.?

Collapse -

look at it this way

by Jaqui In reply to Does that mean

x billions to build the freedom tower and clean up the mess.

y trillions for the military expenses

as opposed to having the regional government pay policing costs to turn him over to you for trial.

does having all americans suffer under debt for 200 years make sence over having the foreign government pay for getting those responsible?

does killing innocent bystandars and giving their relatives cause to BECOME terrorists against the US as opposed to having them respect the means used make sence?

the "war on terroism" is a means to increase the total number of terrorists, for every bystander killed, you create 12 terrorists.

Collapse -

If I understand your message correctly

by Old Guy In reply to look at it this way

I think you said to let the regional governments pay for policing costs. If you mean let the local governments in those countries take care of turning over the terriosts then it's quite obvious they don't have the means, knowledge, or desire to do so without being pushed.

I think you are correct in the fact that this probably is increasing the number of terrorists. Unfortunately, I don't think we could nuke all muslim countries and completely wipe out anyone who even desires to be a terrorist at one time without really having problems. For a lot of people a typical kneejerk reaction would be just that--nuke 'em all. I don't think that is a viable option. However, to say that we are now the "terrorists" because we want to stop that from happening again is just totally incorrect. It seems that these actual terrorist just wants to hurt America in any way they can. How do you stop them?

Collapse -

OG

by Cactus Pete In reply to look at it this way

If you nuked all Islamic countries, would you get all the terrorists?

If you nuked all Muslims, would there be any countries not affected?

If you nuked all Islamic countries, would that be a rational and equal reaction?

If you nuked all the Islamic countries, would you prove the terrorists right?

The action in Afghanistan wasn't (isn't) finished, but I'm sorry to say that I feel resources that should be there are now diverted elsewhere.

The answer, I think, should have been to stay focused and remove the proven terrorists completely. At the moment, I think we've abondoned the known for the unknown.

Back to Community Forum
178 total posts (Page 3 of 18)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums