General discussion


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, , 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%"

(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 4 of 18)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I just want to reiterate

by Old Guy In reply to look at it this way

that I personally do not think that the answer would be to nuke anyone. That would not actually resolve the issue and would actually cause untold more issues.

I wish I had a perfect answer. However, due to all of these circumstances it certainly is take care of our own house first. That would mean cutting off a lot of aid. Maybe if President Bush and/or Congress sent a message to all the other governments, "you keep your terrorists away from the U.S. and then we will send you money." Otherwise, no money--take care of your own stuff. That could let us have more money and resources for better security on our own shores to maybe keep out the terrorists. Hmmm.

Collapse -

The problem is

by neilb@uk In reply to Does that mean

(and it'll probably wind Maxwell up) but it's not "country to come over here and kick us in the butt".

Al Qaeda - who are the at the root of all of this - are an "organisation" for which the main aim is to overthrow the Saudi Monarchy. Yes, Afghanistan may have sheltered some of them as the government there was radical islamists who probably had the same ideals. Anyway, you seriously taught them a lesson for doing that. Unfortunately, I fear that the lesson is going to be taught straight back over the next few yearsas you're doing a wonderful job for their recruitment drive. Good Morning, Vietnam. Reprise...

But to move on from there and use **1 as a justification for the invasion of Iraq is still too much for me to swallow. That one isn't going too well, either. Good Morning, Vietnam. Reprise...

Just as an afterthought. What do you propose the UK does to the area responsible for providing the terrorists who carried out the 7/7 suicide bombings in revenge for the Iraq invasion? We know exactly where that is : -

Personally, I'd nuke the place.

Collapse -

Culture question

by Cactus Pete In reply to The problem is

OK, I'm familiar with the M1 and roads of such designation from my travels, but What's with all the As? Autoways?

Collapse -

English road naming

by neilb@uk In reply to The problem is

The A-roads are the main trunk routes that existed pre-motorway. They work in a rough radial system out of London - A1 goes North up the East side, A2 East, A3 South West, A4 West, a5 North West around to the A6, North up the West side.

Within each "pie-slice" there are more roads with two-digit numbers and these are usually main routes also, either running parallel to the main route or in some cases running between them. i.e. between the A2 and the A3 there is, moving clockwise, A20, A21, A22 and so on. They carry on subdividing from there. We do not do grids! :)

Leeds has the A1 - main N/S route running to the East and has the A6 running up across the other side of the Pennines in the West so most of the roads are A6x or A6xx. The green routes are major routes and the red ones less so and this is not always reflected in the numbers.

We carry on until we've got to the end of three digits. Then we start on the B roads...

Motorways are named (roughly) after the most appropriate A-road although the M5 doesn't fit a damn thing.

There's a similar scheme for for Scotland starting with the A7.


Provided free of charge by NITS (tm) so visiting Yanks don't get (very) lost.

p.s. A lot of the roads were there before population shifts and have been widened - some have not. Others have been replaced by the motorways and have been left so you have absoulutely no idea what sort of road you'll find once you stray off the Motorways. Since the M1 motorway was opened, for instance, the A5 disappears for one long stretch running out of London, being replaced by the A5183. This can be really confusing seeing as the damn road has been in the same place since 62AD!

Just assume that our roads are five time busier than yours and much narrower and you'll be a little better prepared.

Collapse -

As always

by Cactus Pete In reply to The problem is
Collapse -

Get with the right war!!!!

by Oz_Media In reply to Does that mean

You are talkin gabout events leading up to teh Iraq invasion.

The war that WAS justified, had your president callign it a victory and removing the vast majority of troops and funding while others try to fight the continuing war on yor behalf. Iraq wasn't the terrorist organization that attacked you and neither was Saddam.

Don't get the two so easilt mixed up as millions of Americans do each day.

Collapse -

That is flawed

by jdclyde In reply to the UN

Having or not having UN support is NOT what defines an act of terrorism.

The UN is corrupt from the top down and has nothing valid to add to anything.

The frogs can go back to their own racist ways as they deal with their own 25% unemployment amoung third generation citizens that are still regarded as immigrants. By that standard, I would still be considered an immigrant instead of a US citizen. The **** with the french.

Collapse -

but jd,

by Jaqui In reply to That is flawed

england was the only country that voted with the us in the un on that particualr issue, even the us protectorates like singapore voted against the us.

the move into iraq was only supported by the us government and british governments, every other country gave the exact same response as france.

Collapse -

France in 20th Century.

by X-MarCap In reply to but jd,

<edited for PC reasons>

France rounded up their Jews before Germany did.They have a poor history of being right in the 20th Century.

Collapse -

neither the UN or Iraq attacked you

by Oz_Media In reply to Jaqui, are you
Back to Community Forum
178 total posts (Page 4 of 18)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums