Jan Egeland, UN Emergency Relief Coordinator - You need to resign Jano. You abuse your position in the UN as well as peoples suffering to promote your anti-American hatred. How dare you assert that the USA is stingy? This country and its people have always come to the aid of those that suffer and do so generously. Unlike the UN which has a history of taking their sweet time and after many caviar and champagne meetings may or may not react to a need. How many millions have suffered and died in countries like Rwanda and Somalia with little or no action from you? On top of such arrogance you Jano, went even farther to say "there would be more (money for aid) available if taxes were raised." High taxes for bureaucracy might be the norm where you are from (Norway) but we like the concept of less governmental interference. Also, no way should we or any other countries channel any aid through the UN. Besides, people and companies in the USA don't need to be forced to help - we do so freely.
Perhaps your UN history of screwing things up and raping the countries of the money they have previously paid into the UN is what prompted President Bush to form an international coalition to respond to the tsunami disaster. Imaging that - aid directed to those that need it without you Jano - the unnecessary middleman.
PS: I'd really like to see American flags on all boxes and package being given away, not UN labels - it's time people knew where their real friends are.
13 comments:
Actually my dear maddie dog, the US is not blameless in the inaction in Rwanda...
From the mouth of Gen. Romeo Dallaire (the UN commander in Rwanda in '94) who has been hailed worldwide as a hero for speaking out about the failures of the UN and world community...
In his own words from a BBC interview in Sept 2000:
Q: Would you agree that the Rwanda operation reflects very badly on the UN as a whole?
A: I have been taking the position from the start that the United Nations is nothing but the front man in this failure.
The true culprits are the sovereign states that influence the Security Council, that influence other nations into participating or not.
And I would say there are a number of countries who absolutely did not want to get embroiled in any possible complex mission, and brought their weight to prevent others who were ready to go, as, for example, a number of African nations.And who do you think on the Security Council has the power to influence other nations (considering France was already on the ground with Peacekeepers)?
Yes, Annan should have expressed more outrage and stood up to the US and the SC (incl. Britan, China & Russia) on the world stage, but he is not the ultimate arbitrar of use of force... the Security Council is, on which the US reigns supreme.
Yes, Annan might need to be removed from power, but the reflection looking back at the US in the mirror is none too rosy either.
Perspective is everything.
Don't know about you but that mans face looks too small for his head!
did you actually do any research before making that completely ignorant and unbacked post?
the US has always been one of the last to act on human rights issues. (see Darfur. Do you even know where Darfur is? have you even heard of it? probably not, because the US isn't doing shit and you didn't do your homework).
$35 mil is nothing in aid.
Bush also promised several million to Africa to help fight the AIDs epidemic. Has Africa received the promised money? NO.
Do you honestly believe that the US had nothing to do with Rwanda? You don't think that while the tutsis were being slaughtered, the US had NOTHING to do with it?
Do your homework.
You are proof why people should be forced to take an IQ test before being allowed to post on the internet and to vote.
uh, Bush has refused to pay US's dues to the UN.
Bush has violated more UN decrees than any other nation (and we're on the security council!)
Bush has effectively dismantled the UN because he doens't want to abide by the humanitarian laws (see the UDHR) when he invaded Iraq.
Bush created another committee not because the UN wasn't doing its job, but because Bush wasn't playing well with others. He's a bully and when he couldn't bully other nations, he became a quitter and started his own bully club.
America's response has been stingy. There's no shame in telling Bush to ramp it up some. Canada's contributing more right now. America's contribution should be close to 10 times that.
I'd like to see all those that think the USA has been stingy to state what amount they personally have contributed. (That should shut the whiners up!)
AMEN! I totally agree with you! People think we need to do more and more and more, when we already do a lot for a lot of countries. I don't see all of these other countries rushing to our aid everytime a tornado blows through and wipes out a city. That's the US's job.
Heather
http://mommislife.blogspot.com
People abroad just miss the point that the US prefers to give its aid personally. By that I mean individuals giving, by clicking that button or making a phone call. We choose not to have our government do it for us. It's a different mindset (a capitalist mindset) that those in more socialist leaning economies miss.
Excellent point!
$350 million is not stingy. Plus all the aid coming from average citizens Americans are doing way more than there fair share. Good to see some of the other countries stepping up and doing there part. Japan is pledging 500 Million and England around 100 million. In the past the US shouldered most of the burden now with the help of others the aid is flowing in. Now the problem is getting the aid to the people. The US is providing ships and aircraft for the aid to reach the people .
Jan Egeland is in charge of raising relief aid for the UN. He was referring to the target percentage that aid should be at, 7/10 of 1% of the nation's GNP. The comment was said when the initial aid was $15 million.
You can argue the comment which was said Tuesday, was made too early.
Great photo. Pea brained comments deserve a small head.
LOL
Thank you Norma!
Post a Comment