So the USA spends more on infra strutcture than it donates yet still it gives more than any other nation and it is not good enough!

HAhahahahahahah!

Fuckin begging retards are so amusing.

edit: shoulda known someone would jump on the 150

And we the USA still give more than any other nation! :thumbsup

Retard! :1orglaugh

Like I suspected... no quote, no argument, no brains. :1orglaugh

You are one stupid motherfucker Alien.

The great thing is, now everyone knows how much of a moron you really are. :thumbsup

Wouldn't have been the same in pre-Bush ... he fucked it all up for all of you 300 million loosers ...

The US said fuck you to the U.N. . Well Bush did ... pay back.

But in the real world, you guys will get a lot of help. I hope my country give a lot of money to help rebuild ... it's nothing personal agains't people, everybody only hate your fucking fucktard redneck administration.

I already showed the USA gives more than any other nation, just not per capita fucknoid.

How many different ways do you need it explained to you?

Probably alot more which just ends in futility anyways. Its hard to explaine the facts to lower forms of life.

I am saying Fuck the United Nations. That is correct.
United Nations is corrupt at the core. Only reason UN would not approve Iraq was because they didnt have an angle to benefit from.

Only the United Nations would hide behind slanted Per Capita statistics to downplay the USA's generousity to the world.

Wait...

They did have an angle after desert storm, which resulted in the UN's pilfering the Food for Oil program with France!

Hahah Crooks!

you are

stupid

Awe poor Anti American...

Did I get to you?

Dont believe it? The Great United Nations Folks took advantage of America's Generousity and stupid move that kept Saddam in Power after Desert Storm.


Some critics have accused the United Nations of squandering millions ? and even billions ? of dollars in its mismanagement of the program. Yet Volcker's team found that Sevan appeared to have received kickbacks of just $147,184 from December 1998 to January 2002.

Volcker said Sevan had not responded to the IIC's efforts to contact him to get possible alternative explanations for that money.

Sevan, a 40-year veteran of the world body, announced his resignation Sunday in a scathing letter that lambasted Annan, the U.N. Security Council (search), the United Nations' critics, and the IIC.

"As I predicted, a high-profile investigative body invested with absolute power would feel compelled to target someone and that someone turned out to be me," Sevan wrote in the letter. "The charges are false, and you, who have known me for all these years, should know that they are false."

The resignation is largely symbolic because the U.N. was paying Sevan just $1 a year to keep him on payroll so he would cooperate with the committee. But it removes his diplomatic immunity and could leave him open to prosecution; Sevan, a Cypriot citizen believed to be in Nicosia, is also being investigated by the Manhattan District Attorney's office.

But also by resigning, Sevan may have retained U.N. benefits such as a relocation grant that permits the organization to pay for his move back home to Cyprus.

On Thursday, Sevan's lawyer Eric Lewis said the committee would find in its upcoming report that Sevan got kickbacks for steering contracts under Oil-for-Food to a small trading company called African Middle East Petroleum Co. Ltd. Inc. Lewis said it would also accuse Sevan of failing to cooperate with the investigation.

The report largely confirmed that, but went further. It described how Sevan and his wife repeatedly had overdrawn their bank accounts before Sevan first sought to steer oil allocations to AMEP.

It also found that two men helped Sevan: Fred Nadler, an AMEP director and brother-in-law of former U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali; and Fakhry Abdelnour, the president of AMEP.

Volcker's team recommended that the United Nations assist in their possible prosecution as well.

Lewis also said the United Nations was looking for a scapegoat and Sevan was it.

"I fully understand the pressure that you are under and that there are those who are trying to destroy your reputation as well as my own, but sacrificing me for political expediency will never appease our critics or help you or the organization," Sevan wrote in his resignation letter to Annan. "The only thing that will is to speak the truth and stand up to the political pressures from the adversaries of the United Nations."

In a February report, the IIC concluded that Sevan solicited oil allocations on behalf of the company, known as AMEP, between 1998 and 2001. It accused Sevan of a "grave conflict of interest."

That report questioned $160,000 in cash that Sevan said he received from his aunt in his native Cyprus between 1999 and 2003. The report called the money "unexplained wealth" and noted that the aunt, who has passed away, was a retired government photographer living on a modest pension.

Investigators: Yakovlev Took Money

Investigators found that Yakovlev secretly tried to bribe a company called Societe Generale de Surveillance S.A. (SGS), which was seeking an oil inspection contract under Oil-for-Food.

They said Yakovlev passed secret bidding information along to a friend in France, Yves Pintore, who then approached SGS to check if it would "work with" him and "influential people in the U.N. in New York."

Volcker's team found no evidence that the company agreed to the bribe. However, it noted that Pintore essentially agreed to its characterization of his involvement.

The committee found "persuasive evidence" that Yakovlev took some $950,000 from other U.N. contractors outside Oil-for-Food.

It said it had found that some $1.3 million had been wired to a bank account in Antigua, West Indies in the name of Moxyco Ltd. Of that, more than $950,000 had been traced to those companies so far.

Yakovlev was the U.N. officer in charge of awarding both Saybolt (search) and Cotecna (search) big contracts for Iraq, and the Volcker committee relied on his claims that in both cases, but particularly that of Saybolt, he had fought against the violation of U.N. rules.

But Yakovlev, a Russian native, abruptly resigned from the United Nations in late June, after a FOX News investigation revealed that he was involved in an apparent conflict of interest with a regular U.N. supplier, IHC Services Inc., which had hired Yakovlev?s son Dmitry between 2000 and 2003, according to Dmitry?s own resume.

The Oil-for-Food program, launched in December 1996 to help ordinary Iraqis cope with U.N. sanctions imposed after Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, quickly became a lifeline for 90 percent of the country's population of 26 million.

Under the program, Saddam's regime could sell oil, provided the proceeds went to buy humanitarian goods or pay war reparations. Saddam's government decided on the goods it wanted, who should provide them and who could buy Iraqi oil. But the U.N. Security Council committee overseeing sanctions monitored the contracts.

Saddam allegedly sought to curry favor by giving former government officials, activists, journalists and U.N. officials vouchers for Iraqi oil that could then be resold at a profit.

Congress Wants Answers

U.S. critics, particularly Republicans in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, have frequently cited Oil-for-Food as emblematic of perceived U.N. bungling and outright corruption. Some have called for Annan to resign. The program has become the subject of several congressional investigations, as well as probes by a federal grand jury and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The chairman of one of the committees investigating the program said Monday that "given the unprecedented breadth and complexity of the scandal, it is not surprising that other important issues remain unresolved."

Rep. Henry Hyde, who heads the House International Relations Committee, said questions that still need to be answered and addressed are how Cotecna ? the company which Annan's son, Kojo, worked for ? obtained a multi-year inspection contract with the U.N.; the role of Boutros-Ghali and his family in the establishment and initial management of the Oil-for-Food program; and the reliability of testimony provided to the commission by Yakovlev, who previously implicated other U.N. officials in alleged corruption.

"I am grateful for the work undertaken by the Volcker committee in exposing corruption," said Hyde, R-Ill. "I look forward to the committee's additional disclosures on the full breadth of U.N. complicity in the corruption of the Oil-for-Food program."

Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake, vice-chairman of the House International Relations Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, said that more congressional action is needed in order for the United Nations to regain credibility.

"There's really nothing revealing about this latest report ? everybody knows that the Oil-for-Food program was rife with graft and corruption," Flake said. "What's missing is institutional reform on the part of the U.N. to ensure that something like this never happens again."

Flake once again advocated the need to tie U.S. funding to U.N. reform. The House recently passed the UN Reform Act of 2005, which does just that. The Bush administration has already voiced opposition to the measure.

The United Nations has fired one staffer over findings made by Volcker's team. Joseph Stephanides (search) was dismissed over accusations that he wrongly informed British government officials about the the competitive bidding process for a company to inspect humanitarian goods. Stephanides strongly denies the charges and is appealing.

Owned troll :1orglaugh

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

AlienQ owned again! :1orglaugh

"This figure helps you compare values among groups of different size."

I cannot believe how fucking retarded you are. Nobody is denying that the US gives the most at the end of the day. But giving the most does not mean you are the most generous. Seeing as you haven't been able to grasp SilverTab's analogy, i'll make it a little easier for you.

Note, the donation numbers are being made up off the top of my head. Let's not get pedantic about this.

There are two guys. One named America, and one named Denmark. Hey, they had really mean parents. Anyways, America earns $295 million per year and Denmark earns $5 million per year. America donates $5 million to charity, and Denmark donates $1 million.

Who has given the most? America, obviously. He has given 5 times as much.

Who is the most generous? In this case, my opinion is that Denmark is the most generous. Why? He has given more of his worth. He has taken a bigger hit for charity. He has put himself out more. He can't possibly compete with America's donation, because his annual income simply won't allow it, but he's making a far greater effort to help those in need, and that is what makes him more generous.

You are confusing sacrifice with genorousity. They are not the same. America was more generous in your example. Denmark sacrificed more.

What? A United Nations Anti American Sentiment BLOG?

Fucken looser.

Only a loser is incapable of spelling 'loser', you dumb shit. :1orglaugh

You obviously didn't even read the info in the link... is it because you can't read? You sure as hell can't fucking spell. Respond to the article deadshit... or crawl back into your hole.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons you are too stupid to grasp simple mathematical concepts:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu_mat_lit

Go back to school, retard.

Yes or no, does the USA give more money?

Not per capita, bottom line, what country has given the most money?

We're not arguing who gives the most. We're arguing which nation is the most generous giver of foreign economic aid.

And it isn't the USA.

Only by your inconsequential definition of generosity that doesn't matter to anyone else involved in either the giving or receiving.

Per capita you've spewed more ignorance in this thread than anyone else so far.

So let me get this straight, you think that the fairest way to compare the generosity of two countries - one with a population of 300 million and another with a population of say 6 million - is by comparing total foreign aid dollars given?

You're a fucking retard. No doubt about it.

No wonder you're reduced to selling your sig for a living. :1orglaugh

We owe nothing to nobody. STFU haters.

No, I think there is no fair way to compare it. You've selected one method of analyzing something that displays the results you want. If it didn't display the results you wanted, you'd find another way to rationalize it that would show the result you want. Given your sig, it's obvious that you're unable to have an impartial conversation about this, and you are also too stupid to realize something like that until it's pointed out to you.

No, it shows the amount given PER PERSON... which is the ONLY way to accurately compare the generosity of two countries with completely disparate populations.

This shit is basic statistics... truly astonishing.

Here fucktard, I have another example that might get through your simplteton skull. Some middle eastern country that has fell ass first into trillions of oil dollars makes a donation. No one in the country works very hard for a living and everyone is very wealthy. They have the highest standard of living on the planet far surpassing that of Denmark or the US.

Per capita they give more than Denmark. In total they give less than the US (because they have a small population). Does this make them more generous than either?

Amateur FLix I already tried to show these retards that with my "3 rich people" on an island example.
Which as simple.

Put 3 Billionairs on an Island have them give 200 Million total and they would be the most generous nation in the world!

Of course it didnt sink in.

huh?

if per capita they give more than denmark, they are more generous...if per capita they give more than the US...they are more generous... what's the point?

It all depends on your definition of "generous"

The USA made a more generous donation...

Denmark though, is more generous...compare a Danish to an American...the Danish gives 10x more...the danish is more generous!....

As a country...yes, the USA gives more....

Woa I am impressed.

What I was saying finally sank in.

Now you're making up countries to try and prove a point? Sheesh...

I'll entertain your little hypothetical even though it has virtually nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Are they more generous? Well you would have to be a little more specific about your invented country's GDP per capita. Then you could compare foreign aid donations as a proportion of GDP.

Here are countries rated by economic aid as a proportion of GDP: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_eco_aid_don_gdp

The USA still ranks very low on the scale. It's funny, your little hypothetical has actually worked against you, because the USA's GDP per capita is higher than virtually all the other countries that rate higher for foreign aid giving on a per capita basis.

Nice way to shoot yourself in the foot. :1orglaugh

Now, if those other countries had the same or more population as the US don't you think that they would give the same or more than the US has? Think about it..
More citizens = more money = bigger donations
Less citizens = less money = smaller donations

simple fucking logic

So, some have said that the financial aid comes from taxes and other countries appear more generous cuz they have higher taxes and therefore can give more money. Seeing as the taxes of other countries is not to much higher then the US don't you think their donations would be substantially lower then they actually are? This thread was never about who is better but you went all out thinking you're superior.

For the one that said withouth the US we'd have nothing.. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL How fucking stupid can one person be? That is the biggest case of arrogance I have ever seen. Funny how the US gets the majority of their natural resources from Canada.. Oh, but we'd be nothing without you? I don't give a rats ass who's better then who.. If you'r so damn insecure that you have to go around thinking you're the best thing in the world just to make people like you then I'm sorry to say, but you are goddamned pathetic.

Do you wanna know why one country helps another? Because they feel bad? BULLSHIT! Like someone mentioned, it's all about being recognized, making yourself look good so the more you give the more powerfull you feel. You get all pissed when people say that the US is not the most generous. why? are you ashamed? who gives a shit what people say or think.. your idiotic president sure doesn't.. Actually, he can't even think for himself and the Canadian prime minister is just a bush wannabe.

Go ahead and think your country is the greatest thing in the world. That's you're right, but to be as arrogant as many are in the US (No, not all americans lol.. lets say 20%) is pretty damn pathetic..

so what people here are trying to say is that per capita other countries would give as much, maybe moree IF they had a bigger population.. it's not a goddamned contest here and there are no fucking winners. Of course the US can give more money. Look how many citizens they have.. so that equals more money..

no one said that it wasn't good enough.. Show me one instance where someone said it wasn't good enough.. Christ, do you want a fucking reward cuz the US gave more? Who gives a shit. Bla bla bla appreciate us bla bla fucking bla.

no fucking shit.. You have a bigger population so have more available $ to do so.. Get it? jesus christ! arrogant fucking retard

No, it didn't work against me, you introduced yet another variable just as I predicted you would do. When your invented math failed you, you found another way to analyze something to give the results you want exactly as I said you would. :1orglaugh

By one chart produced earlier Luxembourg was the 'most generous'. By this new standard you've introduced Denmark is the 'most generous'. But you choose to ignore this contradiction because they both show the US as not being the 'most generous' which is all that you're interested in, not in the validity of your analysis.

You are either too fucking stupid to understand that you've lost a debate or too embarassed to admit it. Either way there's no point in arguing with you about it further.

Its not my fault that ya guys do not see or refuse to see the fact that the bottom line dollar amount makes the USA the most generous nation in the world with donations.

But now look...
Its still not good enough and there are people glad (For example The Foriegn fucken slime balls even on this board) New Orleans is devastated. They add insult to injury and still no foriegn aid.

These same slime balls are the same fuck heads that depend on American card holders to put fucken food on thier plate.

My point has been made.

Americans goto wake up and stop feeding foriegn ingrate assholes.

no one is refusing the fact that the US gave more.. you're refusing the fact that they gave more because they have A BIGGER POPULATION!

If they US had 10% of the population it does now, do you think they amount that the would give would be what it is right now? Fuck no..

This shit was never an insult to the US but YOU took it as one because you are arrogant and think the US is the greatest thing in the world. No one disputed the fact that they have helped.

see this is your problem...you act like you are the ONLY ones donating...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_eco_aid_don

even on YOUR list... japan gives more...and at least 4-5 countries arent far behind...

I guess Canada should wake up and stop giving the US water, electricity etc.. Blame your damn gov. for helping the "foreign ingrates". hell, you vote the morons in office so you're as much to blame as they are.

Why do you need to invent countries to try and prove that the US is the most generous nation when the per capita statistics are right there for you to examine?

I know why... because it's the only way you can continue arguing once you've already lost the argument. :1orglaugh

1997?

LOL...

Better find the 2003-2004-2005 Stats. :1orglaugh

Per Capita does not mean dick. :1orglaugh

Bottom dollar man...

God damn you are one dumb mother fucker.

More ownage for the idiot Americans in this thread:

So how do you fairly compare the foreign aid donations of a country with a population of 300 million and a country of 6 million?

Bottom fucking dollar?

Yeah, right you dumb shit. :1orglaugh

You've been owned so many times in this thread you would have to be a moron to keep showing your face in it.

No dumb ass. I put it in a hypothetical situation to make it simpler to understand. Try to comprehend this.

I told you that if one method of analysis failed you that you would use another to produce the result you want.

I then gave you a different method to analyze your data with.

You used it and it produced an entirely different result as to who is 'most generous'.

You are so focused on the USA not coming in at the #1 spot that you blindly accept the results of any method that shows that one result ignoring the rest.

Each of these methods produces different results for who is most generous yet you claim both are valid methods of calculating 'generosity'.

who gives a shit who's #1.. in the end it doesn't matter.

The results are largely the same because they are directly related.

One shows how much in foreign aid each country gives PER PERSON.

The other expresses that as a proportion of GDP.

Both of them are a far better indicator of which is the most generous nation than total dollars given, which is DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR LARGE POPULATION DIFFERENCES. You even eventually stated yourself that it was NOT an accurate way to determine which country is the most generous.

Now what don't you fucking understand? :1orglaugh

How on earth you can conceivably think you've made a point.

Joe Citizen at this point I am sure you are a small dicked man that likes to think of excuses for your inadequecy.

See...

Bigger is better.

You may boast that your cock is quality cock but it just will never compare to a real big cock.

Size does matter and like Inches a dollar is a measure and the USA's is the biggest.