# UN at it again



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

anyone hear us getting criticized for being "stingy" on our aid package to the nations devestated by the tsunami by the un official.... WOW!!! i have had it with the un... the US provides over 40% of aid given to effected areas every year!!! :evil: :eyeroll: it'll be interesting to see what the un does next to piss me off... as for that tsunami, all i can say is wow, over 117,000 people dead.... they do need the aid and it looks like all the countries of the world are thankfully doing their part


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Well lets put it this way if you had 200 dollars and gave 10 to charity, and I had 2000 dollars and gave 20 to charity, who is more stingy?


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

i see it as we give 40% of the aid and continue to be the leader in relief efforts around the world. And Americans donate a lot of money to non-govt relief organizations. everyone has to find a reason to bash america.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Per capita Norway is at the top for giving, but we are right behind. When it comes to total giving rap is exactly right, of all the money given in aid by all the countries of the world the United States gives 40 percent. MT look up what France gave. I know, but I would rather you find out for yourself because I think you will be shocked. It was a pittance.

The problem goes even deeper with the UN. We give them 70 Million ( or whatever)for relief then they take it and go to the tsunami stricken nations and distribute food and aid to the needy. Great, but what do those people think. They think the UN is wonderful, but do they ever put two and two together and realize that most of that aid they are receiving came from the United States. I would guess they feel very little gratitude towards those who really help because the helping hand we give is camouflaged in UN activity.

The very aid we offer is detrimental to our public relations in the world because the UN is given much more credit than it deserves. I say drop the UN, and if these nations are in need then let our military come in and dispense food, water, medicine, clothing and whatever other aid they need. It's time they realize who it is in this world that truly cares about them.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"MT look up what France gave. I know, but I would rather you find out for yourself because I think you will be shocked. It was a pittance."

I thought we were supposed to be far superior to the frenchies, why is it so shocking that we surpass them?

"It's time they realize who it is in this world that truly cares about them."

Provided that they have oil to offer :roll:


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

MT, if you hate this country of ours so much, I have one suggestion, leave.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I was only holding France up for judgment because they are so arrogant and judgmental themselves. Same goes for Germany and all the other whinny little countries that have forgotten the sacrifices of the United States over the last century. At the same time I was giving credit where credit is due, by naming Norway.

I don't think the nations that are suffering now have any oil to offer, yet I am perfectly willing and even happy to help them. I am however disgusted with how much we give and give and it appears that no matter how much we give it isn't enough to keep some happy. I also think that we should give directly and not through the UN so that people know where it comes from.

I think the UN has become counter productive to world peace. If all the relief efforts are funneled through them how can people appreciate the United States, or any other nation for that mater, when they have no idea who has done what for them. Historically and currently we give more than any nation on earth yet are appreciated little. I don't personally need a pat on the back, but I want my country to be appreciated for its generosity that surpasses all others.

MT, why is it that when a liberal gives to the needy he is doing it out of compassion, and when a conservative does it he wants oil? Are you blinded by partisan hatred, or are you simply so impressed with yourself that no one else measures up? You should hurry and get a job while you still know everything. That way you can actually help instead of just talk. You remember the old cliché "put your money where your mouth is"?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

racer66 said:


> MT, if you hate this country of ours so much, I have one suggestion, leave.


It's America love it or leave it, or so says the confederate flag in the back of my truck

http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/baker/baker1.html

"MT, why is it that when a liberal gives to the needy he is doing it out of compassion, and when a conservative does it he wants oil. Are you blinded by partisan hatred, or are you simply so impressed with yourself that no one else measures up? You should hurry and get a job while you still know everything. That way you can actually help instead of just talk. You remember the old cliché "put your money where your mouth is"?"

You took that wrong, what I meant by that statement was that the US (under its current republican control) is willing to bend over to any nation willing to supply us with oil, if they don't then we take it from them. Two cases, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Though most of the hijackers were saudi the US made no attempts to root out the terror cells in Saudi arabia, hell we even flew their royal family home on 9/11. The other case, Iraq. We invaded under the pretense of knocking over a dictator (who happened to pose no threat) and now for a few years we use the oil funds to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq, and after those few years we siphon off our share.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

OK, MT, your partially right there. I think the republicans and the democrats are willing to bend over for some nations if they give us oil.

First of all I think every country in the Mid East has some terrorists within their boarders. It's just common sense that this is so. I think we have some. I think we leave nations alone that are trying to do something about their terrorists and are not just letting them run amuck. I am sure that behind the scene we put pressure on Saudi Arabia also, but they have given us no reason or excuse to go further. If we took action against them it would reflect poorly to the rest of the world. Much more poorly than Iraq.

As I said about Iraq, if they had WMD or not the defiance of the UN resolution justified our action because the UN was either dysfunctional or more than likely, as is evident now by the oil for food scandal, implicated.

I would hope that we are rewarded with oil from Iraq. Is their freedom worth nothing to them? If they, by oil, become a rich nation once again, would it not be fair that they supply us with oil for the sacrifices we have made for them? I don't want to take it away from them, and give nothing in return, but what is fair? Do you think ten years ago the Kurds would have been willing to trade oil for protection from Sadam. I think so. Our biggest mistake was not going all the way to Baghdad during the gulf war.

Politics aside MT for the drain on our economy, and the American blood shed in the desert for the freedom of Iraq do you think they owe us anything.? I don't think we went to war for oil, but we would be foolish to turn down energy support offered as help to our economy and nation in return. I sincerely hope that the people of Iraq will be much better off for all our efforts. I wish them the best.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> It's America love it or leave it, or so says the confederate flag in the back of *my* truck.


What?????????????


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> Militant_Tiger said:
> 
> 
> > It's America love it or leave it, or so says the confederate flag in the back of *my* truck.
> ...


I was trying to comment on just how much of a ******* statement that was, read the link below it for a little clarification.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I was sure of what you meant. I just reacted to the statement "confederate flag on *my*

I was sure of what you meant. I just reacted to the statement "confederate flag on *my* truck" not confederate flag on *your* truck. I was reasonably sure you were not a person to complain about blacks not being able to vote, then run around with a confederate flag on your truck. It didn't mesh, but then you never know if you don't ask.

I think racers comment was in response to the things you state that you think. If you do indeed think this nation would go to war, moreover kill innocent people, simply for oil then you must think badly of the United States. I would guess this is not your true feeling, but you do come off that way. Simply because people don't agree with you, or I for that matter, does not make them a red neck. The confederate flag comment could also mean you still have a bone to pick with southern folk. Since the civil war many things have changed. The south doesn't represent what it did in 1860 MT, and they are as fine a people as you and I.

Personally I think it is time to let prejudice of all kinds die. Even the confederate flag doesn't mean to me what it did in 1860. You see it on pickups north and south, on shirts, on Harleys. I don't think the people who display it even think about what it stood for at one time. I think they are young people with a rebellious attitude that every free loving person has a little of inside. If that were not true we would still be singing Hail to the Queen.


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

i see the us govt is now sending $350 million to Asia for relief efforts, that's just the govt.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"I think racers comment was in response to the things you state that you think. If you do indeed think this nation would go to war, moreover kill innocent people, simply for oil then you must think badly of the United States."

No, just the leadership.

As to my comments about the confederate flag. You have said before Plainsman that the new anti-war protesters are the same as those who spat on the returning vets from Vietnam. If that is so, then racer is the new blind patriot from said era shouting "America love it or leave it". I feel that the confederate flag is a symbol of ignorance and moreover it is the hallmark of the hick, I thus equated racer to it.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

"Well lets put it this way if you had 200 dollars and gave 10 to charity, and I had 2000 dollars and gave 20 to charity, who is more stingy?"

NEITHER OF YOU. you dont owe them anything. there is nothing stingy about keeping the money you earned. the simple fact that you gave them anything makes you GENEROUS. If they were the rich ones, and florida were hit by another round of hurricanes, would they donate anything to us? i doubt it.


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

well put mr. trooper


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"NEITHER OF YOU. you dont owe them anything. there is nothing stingy about keeping the money you earned. the simple fact that you gave them anything makes you GENEROUS. If they were the rich ones, and florida were hit by another round of hurricanes, would they donate anything to us? i doubt it."

Being the richest nation on the face of the Earth, and also apparently the police of the globe I feel that it is our duty to give all we can to nations in need.


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

we give ALOT of aid already. look at all our non-govt. organizations added to what our govt hands out. also look at our navy helping out in southeast asia. we are providing a ton of financial and personel aid and getting it to the people who need it by sending our ships and helicopters to help out. if we were as evil as everyone thinks, those ships would not be there and would be supposedly bombing children across the globe. Also, we have homeless people within our own borders we could be spending all this relief money on, but we are sending it across the globe... which is still a good thing...


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

rap said:


> we give ALOT of aid already. look at all our non-govt. organizations added to what our govt hands out. also look at our navy helping out in southeast asia. we are providing a ton of financial and personel aid and getting it to the people who need it by sending our ships and helicopters to help out. if we were as evil as everyone thinks, those ships would not be there and would be supposedly bombing children across the globe. Also, we have homeless people within our own borders we could be spending all this relief money on, but we are sending it across the globe... which is still a good thing...


Spending money on the homeless what a joke. You put way too much faith into the virtues of your leaders.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT

Your constant pessimism never ceases to awe me. I hope as you grow older you will find some way to reconcile your bitterness, because I sincerely believe that in the next 100 years America will never move far enough left to become your dream and my nightmare. MT have you ever stopped to give five or ten dollars to someone along the road with a sign that asked for food or work? I have, but then that is not your image of a conservative is it? Sometimes I think you are less than 16 years old because you are so unreasonable, and at other times I think you must be much older than 16 because a person can not have such a cynical view of the world without years of struggle. I wish you a happier New Year MT.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

"You put way too much faith into the virtues of your leaders."

--As do you.

arnt you the one who has been saying that this isnt a dictatorship, this is capitalism, BLAH BLAH BLAH. Guess what. this IS capitalism, and i can keep what i make. My gains are produced "by the sweat of my brow" and they are mine to use as i see fit. thats the way our system works. Also, you have protested our position as "global cop" in the past, so why are you using that as a reason for us to give away our hard earned money to those who couldnt care less about us?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> MT
> 
> Your constant pessimism never ceases to awe me. I hope as you grow older you will find some way to reconcile your bitterness, because I sincerely believe that in the next 100 years America will never move far enough left to become your dream and my nightmare. MT have you ever stopped to give five or ten dollars to someone along the road with a sign that asked for food or work? I have, but then that is not your image of a conservative is it? Sometimes I think you are less than 16 years old because you are so unreasonable, and at other times I think you must be much older than 16 because a person can not have such a cynical view of the world without years of struggle. I wish you a happier New Year MT.


Yeah I know I get a little unreasonable sometimes, but you have to remember it's not easy debating one on three, or five.

"arnt you the one who has been saying that this isnt a dictatorship, this is capitalism, BLAH BLAH BLAH. Guess what. this IS capitalism, and i can keep what i make. My gains are produced "by the sweat of my brow" and they are mine to use as i see fit. thats the way our system works. Also, you have protested our position as "global cop" in the past, so why are you using that as a reason for us to give away our hard earned money to those who couldnt care less about us?"

Capitalism has nothing to do with a lack of taxes. Hardly any if any money will be taken out of your taxes to pay for the aid of these affected countries. If we are going to be the global judge, if we are going to basically be a parent country to every other country on the globe then we should be required to aid them with all our might in times of need as well.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well, that's a good answer MT. A few months ago a fellow asked "if people push you towards a certain political belief do you resist by moving further the other direction"? I answered him honestly and said yes. I see your views as radical left and move right to compensate. It is my guess that you do the same thing when confronted, nothing wrong with being stubborn if your right. There in lies the problem MT, you and I both are absolutely sure we are right. To get anywhere we have to understand one another. If your attitude is not born of personal hardship then you must be reading or hearing things from people you trust. Same here.

When I was young I had ideals that I learned as a young adult were unachievable because not every person is reasonable. I found that those who advocated live and let live lived by those ideals only when to their advantage. That is when I begin to distrust the liberals. I seen them as people not true to their word. I have been disappointed by our elected officials that play the emotional game for votes. Here is an example. If a white person kills a minority it is called a hate crime and the punishment is increased. If a white person kills another white person do you think they hated them any less? They pass laws to appeal to the emotional, not the logical people, and for a certain segment of our society it works. We should all be looked at as equal, and the constitution is for all of us. It isn't applicable more to white or black, heterosexual or homosexual, male or female. When they pass a law to further protect one segment of society the rest of us feel left out, like we are not as valuable. I fear that this will cause a backlash of animosity towards those who they first intended to protect. Can people ever get it through their head that that we are indeed equal.

I can see that as we get further from the election we will be able to talk about these things more honestly. I will start by saying that I don't think the people from IBC are unpatriotic (like you said I am) but that they are people with their heart in the right place, but doing the wrong thing and further endangering lives on both sides. With our military there is only one way this war will end, and unity will end it sooner with less loss of life. Enough for now.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"That is when I begin to distrust the liberals. I seen them as people not true to their word. "

And I the republicans. Let us just take a look at the Bush's. 
"Read my lips, no new taxes!" - We got taxed
"I will not use our troops for nation building" -Using troops to nation build in Iraq

You see Plainsman the problem with the hate crime crap is that we are still segregated even today, and not just white from black. For instance your disproval of gay marriage. That is a segregation in our society, the sooner that we can knock all of our segregating laws down, the sooner we will all be equals and such hate crime laws will not be necissary.

"but doing the wrong thing and further endangering lives on both sides. With our military there is only one way this war will end, and unity will end it sooner with less loss of life. Enough for now."

I completely disagree. If we all support the president and government in times of war which we do not believe to be correct, they will take it as approval of their actions, and they will stay in the area longer.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Not approving of gay marriage is segregation? That analogy isn't correct. Not approving of behavior is different than not approving of people. Not approving of people is unacceptable prejudice. Not approving of behavior is done all the time, and within the framework of our constitution. Society must draw lines of acceptable or unacceptable behavior. That is what makes society work, without it we are still in the stone age.

You say that people should be free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I agree, but I also realize that behavior need not be destructive to individuals only to be unacceptable, but also that behavior destructive to our social structure should also not be tolerated.

Now I realize that tolerance is the mantra of the liberals, but it is these same liberals that support zero tolerance in our schools. So what they are really telling us is that we are to be tolerant of them, but they are free to be intolerant of others. The reality is we are all intolerant, and we must all decide where that line of intolerance should, in personal and societies best interest, be drawn.

As far as national building you will have to define what you think is nation building before I can respond.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

According to the site below nation building is 
"1. Be for the purpose of changing the regime or propping it up.

2. Deploy large numbers of U.S. ground troops.

3. Involve U.S. troops and civilians in the political administration of the country. "
http://www.crf-usa.org/election_central ... ilding.htm

Now if gays are considered a group who act behaviourly different then so are the muslims. After all they do fall under the caucasoid genus, and are thus the same race as us. Discriminating against gays is therefore the same as discriminating against muslims.

It is still beyond my understand how gay sodomy is less destructive than gay marriage. In reality you are stopping nothing by disallowing gay marriage, and it is discrimination.


----------



## the_rookie (Nov 22, 2004)

MT buddy marriage was ment for man and wife... but i have no problem with gay marriage but it should be strictly be only unioned and i have no problem as long as no gay people hit on me


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Well I guess Louis Black was right, anything is fine as long as it doesn't make midwesterners feel icky.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Now if gays are considered a group who act behaviourly different then so are the muslims. After all they do fall under the caucasoid genus, and are thus the same race as us. Discriminating against gays is therefore the same as discriminating against muslims.


MT that isn't even semi lucid logic.

Oh, oh, now we Midwesterners have been thrown in with "red-neck southerners". Oh, well, that leaves us in good company.

MT, if that is nation building I'm all for it.

I have just started reading Ann Coulter's How To Talk To A Liberal (if you must). MT you would be surprised how well she describes you in that book.

First of all she says "Historically, the best way to convert liberals is to have them move out of their parent's home, get a job, and start paying taxes".

Second she said "never complement a democrat , complements are always returned with insults". Example: "After Bush named the new Department of Justice building after Robert Kennedy, Kerry Kennedy Cuomo displayed the celebrated Kennedy graciousness by viciously attacking the Bush administration at the prededication ceremony".

Third she says when liberals face facts they respond with "Bush lied", or other meaningless drivel, like Bush lied, children died, whatever that means.

Her experiences with liberals match those of mine perfectly. I would guess others could relate to her book also.

MT, I sincerely believe that your buddies at IBC could care less how many people die as long as they get their way and can put Bush in a bad light. Like many said before the election, bad news for America is good news for liberals.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"Oh, oh, now we Midwesterners have been thrown in with "red-neck southerners". Oh, well, that leaves us in good company.

MT, if that is nation building I'm all for it. "

Which has nothing to do with nation building. Thanks for looking into the site I posted for you.

"Third she says when liberals face facts they respond with "Bush lied", or other meaningless drivel, like Bush lied, children died, whatever that means. "

That explains me well? How right I always give broad statements without evidence to back it up. This is of course a far worse problem than the republican truths of "If you don't love Bush you don't love America" and "Saddam was bad".

"MT, I sincerely believe that your buddies at IBC could care less how many people die as long as they get their way and can put Bush in a bad light. Like many said before the election, bad news for America is good news for liberals."

Do you not think that if Bush was not seen in a bad light in the first place because of his actions that there would be no grand left wing hatred for him?


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

Spending money on the homeless what a joke. You put way too much faith into the virtues of your leaders.[/quote said:


> i didn't say we would.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Oh man Lil' hopperweed, my only hope is that time will awaken you.


----------

