Everyone here should remember his saying this in some of his speeches.But now I would like for you to be the judge.
Subject: U.N. Voting
How they vote in the U.N. Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the U.S.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 &5% 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 ther 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% of the time against the United States and receives $ 192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
Pakistan votes 75% against the United States and receives $ 6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
India votes 81% against the United States and receives $143,699,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
The list goes on and on. Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skrimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes.Pass this along. Everyone needs to know this.One might even mention it to one's congressman, who knows it anyway.Isn't this a disgrace ? No wonder the world has no respect for us.
Starboard from TEXAS says Good point, Jack. The UN is Kerry's ONLY Iraq policy!
Going back to the U.N.? For what?
Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- In 1952, a presidential candidate running against an administration that had gotten the U.S. into a debilitating and inconclusive war abroad pledged: ``I will go to Korea.'' He won. A half century later, a presidential candidate running against an administration that has gotten the U.S. into a debilitating and (thus far) inconclusive war abroad, pledges: ``I will go to the U.N.''
Electrifying, is it not? And Democrats are wondering why their man is trailing a rather wounded George Bush not just overall, but on Iraq -- and precisely at a time when Iraq is going so badly.
``If I'm president,'' Kerry said, ``I will not only personally go to the U.N., I will go to other capitals.'' For Kerry, showing up at Kofi Annan's doorstep and sweeping through Allied capitals is no rhetorical flourish, no strategic sideshow. It is the essence of his Iraq plan: ``Within weeks of being inaugurated, I will return to the U.N. and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the world.''
This is an Iraq policy? Never has a more serious question received a more feckless answer. Going back to the U.N.: What does that mean? It cannot mean the General Assembly, which decides nothing. It must mean going back to the Security Council.
There are five permanent members. We are one. The British are already with us. So that leaves China, indifferent at best to our Middle East adventure, though generally hostile, and Russia, which has opposed the war from the very beginning. Moscow was so wedded to Saddam that it was doing everything it could to prevent an impartial Paul Volcker commission from investigating the corrupt oil-for-food program that enriched Saddam and, through kickbacks, hundreds of others in dozens of countries, including Russia.
That leaves ... France. What does Kerry think France will do for us? Perhaps he sees himself and Teresa descending on Paris like Jack and Jackie in Camelot days. Does he really believe that if he grovels before Jacques Chirac in well-accented French, he will persuade France to join us in a war that it has opposed from the beginning, that is now going badly, and that has moved Iraq out of the French sphere of influence and into the American?
The idea is so absurd that when Tim Russert interviewed Kerry and quoted Democratic foreign policy adviser Ivo Daalder as saying that handing political and military responsibility to the U.N. and other countries is not realistic, Kerry simply dodged the question. There was nothing to say.
Which might help inside-the-Beltway Washington find its way out of its conundrum over the latest polls. No one can understand how, with the president being pummeled daily on the front pages by Richard Clarke, the Sept. 11 hearings, the Woodward book, and the eruption of Iraq into open warfare again, Bush nonetheless has gained over Kerry on the issue of national security.
The answer is simple: Americans are a serious people, war is a serious business, and what John Kerry is offering is simply not serious. Americans may be unsure whether Bush has a plan for success in Iraq. But they sure as hell know that going to U.N. headquarters, visiting foreign capitals and promising lots of jaw-jaw is no plan at all.
I give Kerry credit for not taking the easy antiwar path. He agrees that abandoning Iraq would be catastrophic for the United States and for the war on terror. Kerry did flirt with Howard Dean in the primaries, but has consistently opposed ``cut and run.''
True, it would be politically suicidal to zigzag yet again on the war. After having voted No on the Gulf War, Yes on the Iraq war, No on the $87 billion for reconstruction, and today advocating a firm Yes on finishing the job, to now reverse himself once again and advocate pulling out would be a politically fatal flip-flop.
But his tortuous path to his current position has left him politically bereft on Iraq. Ralph Nader has now made himself the antiwar candidate by calling for a pullout in six months. With that, his candidacy found a rationale beyond mere vanity, and may indeed draw some serious Democratic support. Many liberals and left-wingers will find it hard to support a Democratic candidate who, like Hubert Humphrey in 1968, advocates staying the course on a war they hate.
Kerry's political problem is that he supports Bush's Iraq objective and differs only on the means. Unfortunately for Kerry, ``I will go to Turtle Bay'' is not the stuff of legend. Unless he comes up with something better, Kerry may lose the war issue that was his for the taking.
Jeff Southern (68.217.3.227) from GEORGIA says At least Kerry has a policy....
Little George has yet to let the world in on his if it exists...
mac (Doyle McEwen) (67.123.79.12) from CALIFORNIA says You obviously
Can't see that the Bush policy is create a democracy in Iraq..And to stabilize the area..Now I do have to admit his exact way of accomplishing this is a little sketchy, but it is as much a plan as any Kerry has come up with..In reality both of their plans are suspect at best and ineffective at worst..
mac
40Bites (128.230.203.19) from TEXAS says you mean
"In reality both of their plans are suspect at best and ineffective at worst.."
you mean result in the unnecessary deaths of Americans at worst.
mac (Doyle McEwen) (67.123.79.12) from CALIFORNIA says No,
I was not refering to the deaths..Sad as they may be and as tragic as they are, they have happened and will continue to do so without some sort of plan to stabilize the area that is more effective than any I have heard so far..
mac
z-man (209.222.250.74) from NEW YORK says No offense mac
It reality there is about as much chance of a viable democracy in Iraq as there is of me winning the powerball tonight. This is not an assult on Bush, Kerry, whomever. It's just plain fact. The middle eastern "civilization" is thousands of years old. What was is and will be. Sorry to say the Iraq people don't want our type of democracy. Eventually it will end up being a theocracy with the 3 muslim sects disliking or hating each other as they have done for centuries. WE can establish a solid foothold at best, with a presence there forever, but that country will not now or maybe ever resemble anything that we construe to be a democracy. Look at Tunisia for example, many experts (conservative writers) say that country is still 10 to 20 yrs away from a true democracy despite all the efforts put forth in trying to build one. I don't see our efforts in Iraq wasted, but the rose colored glasses have to come off at some point. There will be many presidents come and gone before that place has or ever will have a true democracy.
mac (Doyle McEwen) (67.123.79.113) from CALIFORNIA says z-man
You have a lot of wisdom in your words..I agree for the most part and really don't see much changing at all..Not because the people don't want change, but because their beliefs don't allow much change at all..It is a wonder that is has remained pretty much the same as it was when first brought to the worlds attention..
mac
Scout from KANSAS says Yep z-man
you pretty much nailed it.
Jail to the Thief from MISSOURI says but but but
to quote a "conservative republican" from this board....
"those votes are meaningless", "they're just happy they get the chance to actually vote on something", "the UN is powerless"....
Changing our tune?
What Kerry's plan appears to be, is to REPAIR all of the damage that Bush's LACK of foreign policy has caused. I believe it's called "diplomacy". A word I'm quite sure W has never learned.
J3T
Jack Brannon (63.117.4.159) from WEST VIRGINIA says The UN votes are meaningless ?
I don't care who said what about the UN votes by certain countries being meaningless, this is just not true.Every country, though not required to pay as large amount of dues, has equal voting power.This is one of the reasons why so many people feel we should withdraw our membership. So many feel it unfair for a few countries to pay the majority of the total dues, the U.S. included, and not get more voting power.For an action of any kind , be it war, boycott,or whatever to be sanctioned by the UN, the votes have to be there.
As for our foreign policy, we have not had one since George Marshall, in his " Marshall Plan " that so many eggheads consider a work of genius, first started rebuilding every country after whipping them soundly. If you want to find out who started this mess, read the Marshall Plan in it's entirety.He was the one who started the foreign aid policy that has run increasingly rampant since.That, and the little " kickbacks " every Diplomat expects when he has managed to convince our congress that Timbukto needs aid. Remember Marcos and the fortune he managed to weasel the U.S. out of ? You can't make me believe the Philippine Diplomat didn't know this wasn't going on. When that much money is going into a country, and the people aren't getting any of it, then an idiot should be able to realize something is wrong. No ! We have gone from a foreign policy to strictly a foreign aid policy. And that is why we are loathed by so many.
