How they vote in UN

[Wolfe]

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.


US Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
Egypt, for example, 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 receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

India votes 81% against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually. Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes.

And the list goes on and on. :-o

I have mentioned this to mine, you should mention it to your congressman, who knows it anyway... what a disgrace... no wonder the world has no respect for us. :ranting:

[KennyR]

You mean you want foreign aid to be bribery for political backscratching. Wow, and I thought it was supposed to be humanitarian.

[Karlos]

Cash for votes, eh?

[Glaucus]

Voted against the US? And what exactly does that mean Wolfe?!? Does that mean that they simply voted differently then the US did on any given matter, or does that mean there were votes concerning the direct well-being of the US and they voted in such a way that purposefully hurt the US one way or another? Without defining what voting against the US means, your entire list and arguments are totally meaningless.

- Mike

[Wolfe]

No, I don't want to give them a dime reguardless how they vote.

But it is funny how they vote against so much more, not even close to 50/50. I'm tired of the handouts to those who don't like us, period.

[Glaucus]

Wolfe wrote:
No, I don't want to give them a dime reguardless how they vote.

But it is funny how they vote against so much more, not even close to 50/50. I'm tired of the handouts to those who don't like us, period.You still don't know what you're talking about, do you?

- Mike

[Speelgoedmannetje]

"either you're with us, or you're against us"
do you Americans really have just one binary braincell?

[Wolfe]

I want the US to pull out of the UN, period.

The voting was something I found humorous while sniffing around thru UN documents. FOI act. :-D

We don't need to be supporting a debating society with tax payer dollars. We can pay down our debt with the money we use to keep the UN afloat and give to nations who don't like us.

Reclaim valuable realestate, and kick out all these people "with diplomatic imunity".

France, Germany & Russia were on the payroll of Sadam. They also voted on the resolutions against him. Fishy. Had those three stood behind there resolutions there would not have been an invasion of Iraq.

The Oil-For-Food program is going to be big. The countries above plus are going to be humiliated by the findings. They can try to hide there involvement from there end, but we have documents from Sadams end.

@Speelgoedmannetje

"either you're with us, or you're against us"

An Arnold One-Liner moment. :lol:

But it is our current position, and the UN and so-called allies stabbed us in the back. One more reason to drop the UN.

Also, the countries above aren't going to get the money that Iraq supposedly owes them - call it, a bad business investment. :lol:

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Maybe if you voted more for the Liberals, the UN'd be more pro-American. Conservative is just unreasonable and xenophobic.

[T_Bone]

KennyR wrote:
You mean you want foreign aid to be bribery for political backscratching. Wow, and I thought it was supposed to be humanitarian.

Humanitarianism is voluntary, this is money collected from citizens manditorilly by threat of law enforcement authorized to use deadly force.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

T_Bone wrote:

KennyR wrote:
You mean you want foreign aid to be bribery for political backscratching. Wow, and I thought it was supposed to be humanitarian.

Humanitarianism is voluntary, this is money collected from citizens manditorilly by threat of law enforcement authorized to use deadly force.
:roflmao:
and that calls itself a democracy!

[FluffyMcDeath]

Wolfe wrote:
Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:
...


This reminds me of the epicycles that supported theearth centered cosmos. Kepler was quite right to point out that the strange mental constructs used to protect the earths central position was worthless and that the evidence supported instead that the sun was the center and we went around as an ordinary planet.

The evidence brought forth here is better explained, not by positing that the world votes against the US, but that the US votes against the world. Throwing a few crumbs to the world does not make up for it.

[Glaucus]

The evidence brought forth here is better explained, not by positing that the world votes against the US, but that the US votes against the world. Throwing a few crumbs to the world does not make up for it. That's a more accurate explanation, not sure why I never thought of it in the first place! ;-)

- Mike

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Yes, I couldn't say it better than that.

ps. Fluffy, can't you get your old avatar again, I got a bit bored of that rabbit (or is there a special thing about that rabbit?)

[aardvark]

But it is our current position, and the UN and so-called allies stabbed us in the back. One more reason to drop the UN.

America doesn't need anyone to stab it in the back when it is so good at shooting itself in the foot. When a vote goes 115 to 3 against the U.S. just maybe it's not the rest of the world that is wrong. Anyways the U.S. is the U.N.'s biggest deadbeat. For years they didn't pay their dues. Wolfe is probably right that the U.N. should pull out of New York. All that money that the diplomatic missions spend could be better spent and appreciated in say Montreal, Oslo or Bombay.

[whabang]

Wolfe wrote:
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.


US Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
Egypt, for example, 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 receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

India votes 81% against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually. Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes.

And the list goes on and on. :-o

I have mentioned this to mine, you should mention it to your congressman, who knows it anyway... what a disgrace... no wonder the world has no respect for us. :ranting:
Do you have a source for this? A complete list perhaps? :-?

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

T_Bone wrote:

KennyR wrote:
You mean you want foreign aid to be bribery for political backscratching. Wow, and I thought it was supposed to be humanitarian.

Humanitarianism is voluntary, this is money collected from citizens manditorilly by threat of law enforcement authorized to use deadly force.
:roflmao:
and that calls itself a democracy!

Exactly my point. Redistrobution of wealth is Organised Crime. Humanitarianism is voluntary.

[T_Bone]

aardvark wrote:
When a vote goes 115 to 3 against the U.S. just maybe it's not the rest of the world that is wrong.

Or maybe it's just 115 wolves and 3 sheep voting who's for dinner.

[FluffyMcDeath]

T_Bone wrote:

Or maybe it's just 115 wolves and 3 sheep voting who's for dinner.

Hmm. Mad killer sheep with nukes.

[Bobsonsirjonny]

T_Bone wrote:

Exactly my point. Redistrobution of wealth is Organised Crime. Humanitarianism is voluntary.

I agree. But I think taxation should be done more fairly - I cant speak for the states as I dont know what the gap between rich and poor is like there. But over here some people on piss poor incomes can be taxed at a higher percentage than millionaires. My point they should tax everyone the same rate, or maybe slightly more depending on banding. People can literally be taxed out of house and home, while the millionaires of this world engineer it so that their money is protected. Thus you dont get "redistribution of wealth" but what you do get is a much fairer system so that everyone is on a level playing field, and can afford a sustainable, suitable standard of living. Scandinavian countries I feel have got it right.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

T_Bone wrote:
Exactly my point. Redistrobution of wealth is Organised Crime. Humanitarianism is voluntary.Depends on what you consider property.
[I think I chop one's head off for his bananas]

[Glaucus]

T_Bone wrote:

aardvark wrote:
When a vote goes 115 to 3 against the U.S. just maybe it's not the rest of the world that is wrong.

Or maybe it's just 115 wolves and 3 sheep voting who's for dinner.115 defencless lambs vs 3 hungry lions is a more accurate analogy I would think...

- Mike

[Glaucus]

whabang wrote:

Do you have a source for this? A complete list perhaps? :-?heh... I was gonna ask for that, but considering the poster, I doubt there is an official list or source to back this up.

- Mike

[Fade]

How did your country vote?

Well I can tell you how your country voted.

Every country except three, that voted on the resolution to condemn the Sudan government (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=514689) for their ethnic cleansing, voted not to condemn them.

Of the other three, two abstained, and one voted to condemn them.

Who had enough guts to condemn the Sudan? The US.

Who were the gutless wonders that wouldn't? YOUR COUNTRY!

[iamaboringperson]

115 defencless lambs vs 3 hungry lions is a more accurate analogy I would think...I think it's the other way around.

[whabang]

Glaucus wrote:

whabang wrote:

Do you have a source for this? A complete list perhaps? :-?heh... I was gonna ask for that, but considering the poster, I doubt there is an official list or source to back this up.

- Mike
Too bad! Would probably be a fun read! :-D
The figures don't sound that incredible...

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Fade wrote:
Who were the gutless wonders that wouldn't? YOUR COUNTRY!I know I know...

[Wilse]

@Wolfe:

Apart from the fact that this whole thread is absurd:

France, Germany & Russia were on the payroll of Sadam.

And Saddam was on the payroll the US government.

Had those three stood behind there resolutions there would not have been an invasion of Iraq.

You really have no clue at all - do you honestly think that PNAC would let a little thing like that get in the way of something they'd been planning for since 1997?
As soon as Bush was selected, Iraq was getting invaded - period. If you *still* can't see this, you're willfully blind.

But it is our current position, and the UN and so-called allies stabbed us in the back.

'us'? You mean the 'coalition of the willing'?
If you could actually see past your tragically misguided idea of
patriotism, you'd realise that, far from stabbing 'us' in the back,
they're doing 'us' a favour, by drawing attention to the creeping
fascist imperialism that mumbling-monkey-boy's regime is trying to ram
through, under the guise of T.W.A.T}.

And as for countries voting against you - how about the fact that every time Israel is guilty of an attrocity, the whole world votes on a UN resolution condemning it, only for it to be vetoed by the US, parroting the completely irrelevant fact that 'Israel has a right to defend herself'?

Despite this, Israel is still in breach of UN resolutions - loads of them.

How about no. 242, which your leader now seems to be tearing up?

:roll:

[T_Bone]

Wilse wrote:

As soon as Bush was selected, Iraq was getting invaded - period. If you *still* can't see this, you're willfully blind.


What if they had been in clear compliance of all UN resolutions?

[Wilse]

@T_Bone:

They would have found another excuse.
Anyway, think about it - if we really gave that much of a toss
about UN resolutions, Israel would have been invaded 30 years ago.

Just another layer of smoke.

Read the PNAC docs. There's enough in those alone to show what is
really going on.

There's *much* more evidence than that but it's a good place to
start..

[Wolfe]

whabang wrote:

Do you have a source for this? A complete list perhaps? :-?

UN (http://www.un.org/english/)

Go to the UN - seach voting records and start digging. Most are not in one place. I did most of this list last year just before xmas, to argue my point with my congressman about the UN being a waste of time and tax payer dollars. :-D

[T_Bone]

Wilse wrote:
@T_Bone:

They would have found another excuse.

Why would we need another one? Do you seriously think if Iraq had never invaded Kuwait, that Saddam wouldn't still be in power?

Anyways, doesn't anyone remember Saddam, during the leadup to the first war, vowing to the world that if we liberated Kuwait, that it would result in catastrophic destruction to the US and the mother of all wars? Of course we're going to insist a leader who says that live up to the explicit terms of surrender to the letter.

As far as Isreal is concerned, I don't remember them ever promising to destroy us. I'm sure had they done so, we'd be disarming them too.

[Wilse]

@T_Bone:

Why would we need another one?

(assuming you're serious and not just winding me up)
This was in response to your question about UN resolution compliance.
If you really think that's the only justification needed for invading a sovereign country, tell me this:

Why has Israel not been invaded?



BTW, did you read any of the PNAC stuff?

[Wolfe]

Wilse wrote:
@T_Bone:

Why would we need another one?

(assuming you're serious and not just winding me up)
This was in response to your question about UN resolution compliance.
If you really think that's the only justification needed for invading a sovereign country, tell me this:

Why has Israel not been invaded?

No one has had the balls to do it ? :-D