They dare to call us "stingy"?

on Dec 28, 2004

typical crap from the un ....... not a word about the whole E.U. giving 4 million..... just that what ever the us does aint enuff.. never has been enuff, never will be, the ungratefull punks..

2

Dr Guy

on Dec 28, 2004

Actually, MM, they called the EU stingy as well! But I do agree! They cant skim any money off of this crisis, so that makes the givers stingy!

Hey Egeland! Talk to kofu! He has your effing money!

3

Starstuff

on Dec 28, 2004

whole E.U. giving 4 million.....

The american people will donate that much or more out of the private sector on top of what the gov. spends.

Some of these areas are Muslim . Why aren't their bros. giving of their oil riches.
No it's the christens that come to the rescue!

Where is your ALHA now!!

4

LadyCleve

on Dec 29, 2004

that's about what I was thinking when I heard it this afternoon. screw em!

5

whoman69

on Dec 29, 2004

No conservative media bias out there. Guess what, this whole thread is based on a conservative media lie. The speaker did not use the United States and stingy in the same sentence. His exact quote, "If, actually, the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of the gross national income, I think that is stingy, really," he said. "I don't think that is very generous."

On Tuesday, Egeland said that his remarks had been misinterpreted, that he was not referring to any particular country, and that the initial American contribution was "one of the most generous pledges so far." Link

"I have been misinterpreted when I yesterday said that my belief that rich countries in general can be more generous. This has nothing to do with any particular country or the response to this emergency. We're in early days and the response has so far been overwhelmingly positive," he added. Link

6

whoman69

on Dec 29, 2004

This is a quote from CNN, link below. Oh, and BTW you can hardly call CNN conservative.

CNN didn't run a headline that the US was being stingy. Oh, and read the quote again or have your mommy read it to you again. He does not mention the US as being stingy. I will post the quote again, "If, actually, the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of the gross national income, I think that is stingy, really," he said. "I don't think that is very generous." Any mention of the US in that statement?

Engeland didn't withdraw his comment. He stated that he had been taken out of context and misquoted. Specifically you are also responsible for fueling that fire. This is what he said on Tuesday due to criticism of his comments. "I have been misinterpreted when I yesterday said that my belief that rich countries in general can be more generous. This has nothing to do with any particular country or the response to this emergency. We're in early days and the response has so far been overwhelmingly positive," he added.Link

Don't follow the link, and don't read the article. As always post without the fact, propoganda is much better. Never change Baghdad drmiler.

7

drmiler

on Dec 29, 2004

Reply #5 By: whoman69 - 12/29/2004 3:57:00 PM
No conservative media bias out there. Guess what, this whole thread is based on a conservative media lie. The speaker did not use the United States and stingy in the same sentence. His exact quote, "If, actually, the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of the gross national income, I think that is stingy, really," he said. "I don't think that is very generous."

This is a quote from CNN, link below. Oh, and BTW you can hardly call CNN conservative.

In a news conference at U.N. headquarters in New York, Egeland called for a major international response -- and went so far as to call the U.S. government and others "stingy" on foreign aid in general.

"If, actually, the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of the gross national income, I think that is stingy, really," he said. "I don't think that is very generous."

The U.S. government expects to spend $15 million in its initial response to the disaster, the State Department said Monday. The United States' overall foreign aid commitment is around 0.2 percent of its gross national product.

Link

And here's something from the San Francisco Chronicle which is also NOT conservative.

U.S. ASSISTANCE: Amid criticism, aid boosted by $20 million John F. Harris, Robin Wright, Washington Post Wednesday, December 29, 2004 Washington -- The Bush administration more than doubled its financial commitment Tuesday to provide relief to nations suffering from the Indian Ocean tsunami, amid complaints that the vacationing President Bush has been insensitive to a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions. As the death toll continued to soar, the U.S. Agency for International Development added $20 million to an earlier pledge of $15 million to provide relief, and the Pentagon dispatched an aircraft carrier and other military assets to the region. Secretary of State Colin Powell, in morning television appearances, chafed at a top U.N. aid official's comment Monday that wealthy countries were being stingy with aid. "The United States is not stingy," Powell said on CNN. Although U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland withdrew his earlier comment Tuesday, domestic criticism of Bush continued to rise. Skeptics said the initial aid sums -- as well as Bush's decision at first to remain cloistered on his Texas ranch for the Christmas holiday rather than speak in person about the tragedy -- showed scant appreciation for the magnitude of suffering and for the rescue and rebuilding work facing such nations as Sri Lanka, India, Thailand and Indonesia. After a day of repeated inquiries from reporters about his public absence, Bush late Tuesday afternoon announced plans to hold a National Security Council meeting by teleconference to discuss several issues, including the tsunami, followed by a short public statement. Bush's deepened public involvement puts him more in line with other world figures. In Germany, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder cut short his vacation and returned to work in Berlin because of the Indian Ocean crisis, which began with a gigantic underwater earthquake. In Britain, the predominant U.S. voice speaking about the disaster was not Bush but former President Bill Clinton, who in an interview with the BBC said the suffering was like something in a "horror movie" and urged a coordinated international response. Some foreign policy specialists said Bush's conduct communicated a lack of urgency about an event that will loom as large in the collective memories of several countries as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks do in the United States. "When that many human beings die -- at the hands of terrorists or nature -- you've got to show that this matters to you, that you care," said Leslie Gelb, emeritus president of the Council on Foreign Relations. There was an international outpouring of support after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and even some administration officials familiar with relief efforts said they were surprised that Bush had not appeared personally to comment on the tsunami tragedy. "It's kind of freaky," a senior career official said. U.S. officials denied that the overnight aid increase was a response to the U.N. complaint Monday that some countries were stingy with aid. Usually only about 10 percent of the final aid tally is given in the initial response to a natural disaster, with the bulk of aid provided after an assessment of long-term needs, according to the State Department. Gelb said what appears to be a grudging increase in effort sent the wrong message, at a time when dollar totals matter less than a clear statement about U.S. intentions. Noting that the disaster occurred at a time when large numbers of people in many nations -- especially Muslim ones such as Indonesia -- object to U.S. policies in Iraq, he said Bush was missing an opportunity to demonstrate American benevolence. Besides USAID assistance, the Pentagon dispatched the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln from Hong Kong to the region, and three Navy P-3 Orion surveillance planes and six Air Force C-130 cargo planes with humanitarian goods are being sent to Thailand. A regional support center will be established at a military base in Utapao, Thailand, as a staging area for relief flights and for emergency and medical personnel providing assistance throughout the region, the Pentagon announced Tuesday. U.S. Pacific Command will deploy personnel mainly from the III Marine Expeditionary Force to set up the command, control and communication structure. The United Nations' Egeland complained Monday that each of the richest nations gave less than 1 percent of its gross national product for foreign assistance, and many gave 0.1 percent. "It is beyond me why we are so stingy, really," he told reporters. Among the world's two dozen wealthiest countries, the United States often is among the lowest in donors per capita for official development assistance worldwide, even though the totals are larger. According to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, of 30 wealthy nations, the United States gives the least -- at 0.14 percent of its gross national product, compared with Norway, which gives the most at 0.92 percent.

You don't withdraw a statement if you've only been misquoted or misunderstood.

8

terpfan1980

on Dec 29, 2004

Reply #7 By: Citizen whoman69 - 12/29/2004 5:00:59 PM
This is a quote from CNN, link below. Oh, and BTW you can hardly call CNN conservative.

CNN didn't run a headline that the US was being stingy. Oh, and read the quote again or have your mommy read it to you again. He does not mention the US as being stingy. I will post the quote again, "If, actually, the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of the gross national income, I think that is stingy, really," he said. "I don't think that is very generous." Any mention of the US in that statement?

Alright Whoman, I'm gonna call you on this stupidity.

He did clearly call the U.S. out in that statement, as it was clearly aimed at countries where the "foreign assistance" was less than the GDP that he was targetting. We may not have directly been named, but it would take some very rosy colored glasses -- or perhaps a blindfold as dark as you might be wearing -- to see it wasn't aimed at the U.S.

If I say all individuals that post messages that demand links to information on the web are loony liberals, have I called you out? I didn't name you directly, but you clearly have stated that you want links to quotes. Would you not respond with venom and flames in such a case?

Pot, meet kettle.

Raise the blinds and learn, or ... crawl back under your rock and wait 4 more years.

9

terpfan1980

on Dec 29, 2004

And just to shut-up the moron amongst us, here:

From CNN: Stingy Americans? U.N. official's comment hits nerve

From CNN: U.N.: Tsunami damage 'unprecedented'
which, btw, contains this juicy little nugget (as compared to the mind of a certain individual that seems to contain nothing but a perfect training area for astronauts)

In a news conference at U.N. headquarters in New York, Egeland called for a major international response -- and went so far as to call the U.S. government and others "stingy" on foreign aid in general.

"If, actually, the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of the gross national income, I think that is stingy, really," he said. "I don't think that is very generous."

The U.S. government expects to spend $15 million in its initial response to the disaster, the State Department said Monday. The United States' overall foreign aid commitment is around 0.2 percent of its gross national product.

Want to start crawling for an apology?!?!

Go back to hero worshiping the Euros and the rest of the clowns that make up the highly dysfunctional UN. It'll change the world for sure.

10

drmiler

on Dec 29, 2004

Reply #7 By: whoman69 - 12/29/2004 5:00:59 PM
This is a quote from CNN, link below. Oh, and BTW you can hardly call CNN conservative.

CNN didn't run a headline that the US was being stingy. Oh, and read the quote again or have your mommy read it to you again. He does not mention the US as being stingy. I will post the quote again, "If, actually, the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of the gross national income, I think that is stingy, really," he said. "I don't think that is very generous." Any mention of the US in that statement?

Engeland didn't withdraw his comment. He stated that he had been taken out of context and misquoted. Specifically you are also responsible for fueling that fire. This is what he said on Tuesday due to criticism of his comments. "I have been misinterpreted when I yesterday said that my belief that rich countries in general can be more generous. This has nothing to do with any particular country or the response to this emergency. We're in early days and the response has so far been overwhelmingly positive," he added.Link

Don't follow the link, and don't read the article. As always post without the fact, propoganda is much better. Never change Baghdad drmiler.

You are a jerk! You say something and when I show different you basically say I'm full of it. Now you say the SF chronicle is printing lies. Well not in so many words. But you do say that what they printed is wrong.

11

whoman69

on Dec 29, 2004

The person misquoted directly said that he was not talking about the US. He is aware that US interests come more in the form of government money and that our aid workers and charities make up about 40% of the world's total. But those looking for "Anti-American" or "America-hater" found the US to be the prime target of his statements. When the story came out it did not contain his quotes and all the media outlets ran with it because news is entertainment. CNN is very guilty of this. CNN does not have a left wing media bias. They report sensational non-truth stories from both sides of the fence. This is what you get when news goes for ratings instead of facts.

12

GrooveDygger

on Dec 29, 2004

It's obvious that the 'stingy' comment was regarding the general level of foreign aid among developed countries. It is equally obvious that the rabid right wingers have seized upon this comment (quaint notions like 'truth' and 'context' be damned) like a bunch of drama queens; it gives them something to howl about.. My theory is that all American rightwingers have synchronized their ovulation and erupt in an estogen laced fury over some perceived slight like clockwork every few weeks. So bitchy, and yet so fun to watch!

13

whoman69

on Dec 29, 2004

ExCUSE ME! I'll reitterate once more for those slow on the uptake. CNN and SF Cornicle are NOT right wing biased news sources! If you know nothing else, know that *both* of these sources are leftist biased if anything. So knock off saying this is a rightwing rehtoric, because it ain't. Do a Google search on this and you'll find a sh*t-pile of news centers are saying the *same* thing! Now you going to stand there with a straight face and tell me they're ALL right-wing sources?

They're all entertainment sources. Saying that this guy was talking specifically about the US is shocking and entertaining. Talking about other countries while factual and newsworthy in itself, is not entertainment. You want to talk about a liberal media bias, its been replaced by an entertainment media bias, doesn't matter left or right.

14

drmiler

on Dec 29, 2004

Reply #12 By: GrooveDygger - 12/29/2004 7:28:03 PM
It's obvious that the 'stingy' comment was regarding the general level of foreign aid among developed countries. It is equally obvious that the rabid right wingers have seized upon this comment (quaint notions like 'truth' and 'context' be damned) like a bunch of drama queens; it gives them something to howl about.. My theory is that all American rightwingers have synchronized their ovulation and erupt in an estogen laced fury over some perceived slight like clockwork every few weeks. So bitchy, and yet so fun to watch!

ExCUSE ME! I'll reitterate once more for those slow on the uptake. CNN and SF Cornicle are NOT right wing biased news sources! If you know nothing else, know that *both* of these sources are leftist biased if anything. So knock off saying this is a rightwing rehtoric, because it ain't. Do a Google search on this and you'll find a sh*t-pile of news centers are saying the *same* thing! Now you going to stand there with a straight face and tell me they're ALL right-wing sources?

15

Texas Wahine

on Dec 29, 2004

You actually wrote something.