US donates $34 million to UN plan to help Syria

Started by walkstall, November 10, 2012, 09:36:53 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

walkstall

b o at work.    :thumbdown:


GENEVA — A U.N. plan to provide $836 million in emergency aid to Syrians battered by their nation's civil war ran into funding problems Friday despite an additional U.S. donation of $34 million.


more @
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-world-europe/20121109/Syria.Aid/

A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

Sci Fi Fan

Wait...how is this a bad thing?   :huh:

Does international cooperation escape your mind?  Is America supposed to feign omnipotence?

republicans2

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 06:49:08 AM
Wait...how is this a bad thing?   :huh:

Does international cooperation escape your mind?  Is America supposed to feign omnipotence?

So we borrow money to give to others?  Others that more than likely despise us?  When we are digging out from beneath our own tragedies and people complaining about their standard of living?  How much money was sent to us after Sandy from other nations?

Sci Fi Fan

Quote from: republicans2 on November 11, 2012, 07:01:25 AM
So we borrow money to give to others?  Others that more than likely despise us?  When we are digging out from beneath our own tragedies and people complaining about their standard of living?  How much money was sent to us after Sandy from other nations?

Whine all you want about the current economic condition; you're still better off than >99.99% of the world.  This is the equivalent of a rich person complaining why nobody gives him charity.

kramarat

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 06:49:08 AM
Wait...how is this a bad thing?   :huh:

Does international cooperation escape your mind?  Is America supposed to feign omnipotence?

Somehow, our money has a way of finding it's way to the bad guys. The UN is also a corrupt, criminal organization.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44171605/ns/politics/t/taliban-criminals-get-million-us-taxes/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-20100094/u-s-money-is-talibans-no-2-revenue-source/

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/obama-funds-terrorists/

Until we get some transparency and answers from the Obama administration, we need to put a lock on any funding that is going to the Middle East. They have not been honest with us. No more cash until they are..........if then.

Sci Fi Fan

#5
But...Reagan sold money weapons to terrorists!   :unsure: :love:

kramarat

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 07:10:59 AM
But...Reagan sold money to terrorists!   :unsure: :love:

You're dodging again.

Reagan sold money to terrorists? How much did he get for it?

If he got them to buy money for more than it was worth, it would be a good deal, and the terrorists would have less money than they started with. :biggrin:

Yawn

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 06:49:08 AM
Wait...how is this a bad thing?   :huh:

Does international cooperation escape your mind?  Is America supposed to feign omnipotence?

The Syrian "freedom fighters" are terrorists, hostile to the few remaining Christians and Jews.  They are a part of Obama's plan to establish a Caliphate in the Middle East.  Look how well it wen for Egypt and Libya.  Muslims in the Middle East don't understand "democracy" any more than Democrats in the USA.  For them "democracy" is a way to acquire power over their enemies through Sharia Law.

No Arab nation should be subsidized by the USA.

Sci Fi Fan

#8
Quote from: kramarat on November 11, 2012, 07:22:15 AM
You're dodging again.

I don't see how your random links prove anything, since they don't control against the efficiency of purely American aid and shipments.  Or did you think that intercontinental transfers of resources were supposed to be 100% efficient?

Quote
Reagan sold money to terrorists? How much did he get for it?

If he got them to buy money for more than it was worth, it would be a good deal, and the terrorists would have less money than they started with. :biggrin:

Wow, nice job missing the point. 

republicans2

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 07:04:15 AM
Whine all you want about the current economic condition; you're still better off than >99.99% of the world.  This is the equivalent of a rich person complaining why nobody gives him charity.

You didn't bother to answer.  If we are rich, why so much debt?  Are you really rich if you have to borrow from others to exist? 

kramarat

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 07:34:22 AM
Dutch barrier forts


I don't see how your random links prove anything, since they don't control against the efficiency of purely American aid and shipments.  Or did you think that intercontinental transfers of resources were supposed to be 100% efficient?

Wow, nice job missing the point.

We're not talking about efficiency, dummy. We're talking about US money going to directly to terrorist groups. Even the left wing media sees it. That's why I linked to them.

Sci Fi Fan

Quote from: kramarat on November 11, 2012, 07:39:20 AM
We're not talking about efficiency, dummy. We're talking about US money going to directly to terrorist groups. Even the left wing media sees it. That's why I linked to them.

You have an odd definition of "directly".

Quote

But until a special task force assembled by Gen. David Petraeus began its investigation last year, the coalition had little visibility into the connections many Afghan companies and their vast network of subcontractors had with insurgents and criminals — groups military officials call "malign actors."

In a murky process known as "reverse money laundering," payments from the U.S. pass through companies hired by the military for transportation, construction, power projects, fuel and other services to businesses and individuals with ties to the insurgency or criminal networks, according to interviews and task force documents obtained by the AP.

"Funds begin as clean monies," according to one document, then "either through direct payments or through the flow of funds in the subcontractor network, the monies become tainted."

I see no indication that the United Nations is directly funding the taliban.  You'd realize this if you were able to read your own sources.

kramarat

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 07:42:01 AM
You have an odd definition of "directly".

Does it matter? If our money is going to fund terrorists, it's time to stop sending money. Is that confusing for you? :rolleyes:

Sci Fi Fan

Quote from: kramarat on November 11, 2012, 07:44:54 AM
Does it matter? If our money is going to fund terrorists, it's time to stop sending money. Is that confusing for you? :rolleyes:

So by this logic, if any proportion of money sent to charities is lost or wasted, charity is altogether useless.   :rolleyes:

kramarat

QuoteI see no indication that the United Nations is directly funding the taliban.  You'd realize this if you were able to read your own sources.

I never said that. I said that the UN is a corrupt and criminal organization, which they are.

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/united-nations-corruption-and-the-need-for-reform/

We also need to stop funding the UN..............which is a completely different issue from funding terrorists.