UN appeals for billions in aid in face of ‘worst humanitarian crisis since WWII’

[webfact]

UN appeals for billions in aid in face of ‘worst humanitarian crisis since WWII’

 

 

UNITED NATIONS: -- The United Nations has launched a record appeal for aid in what it has labelled the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II.

 

It says almost 93 million people have been hit by conflicts and natural disasters.

 

Stephen O’Brien, UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, told the press:

“This appeal, appeal 2017, comprising strategic and coordinated response-plans covering 33 countries, is calling for $22.2 billion — the highest amount we have ever requested. This is a reflection of a state of humanitarian need in the world not witnessed since the Second World War.”

 

More than 80 percent of the needs are said to be due to man-made conflicts. Many of them are drawn out and affect entire regions, increasing the demand for aid from year to year.

 

According to the UN, over half of the money being requested will be used to assist people affected by crises in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and South Sudan.

 

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2016-12-06

 

[ezzra]

The UN have been rising billions of donations for years now, and nothing seems to have changed for the better, there're still hundreds of millions of desuetude people in the world the problem is that the UN itself has become a joke and irrelevant while their people lives in fancy opulent offices and hoses and drawing mega salaries... And every time I fly from BKK to OZ the crew is going around collecting small change "for the children " with no accountability as to where the money goes to....

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, ezzra said:

The UN have been rising billions of donations for years now, and nothing seems to have changed for the better, there're still hundreds of millions of desuetude people in the world the problem is that the UN itself has become a joke and irrelevant while their people lives in fancy opulent offices and hoses and drawing mega salaries... And every time I fly from BKK to OZ the crew is going around collecting small change " for the children " with no accountability as to where the money goes to....

BS like this doesn't help:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/05/middleeast/aleppo-syria-un-vote/index.html

 

Quote

 

Russia and China on Monday vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in the Syrian city of Aleppo to allow desperately needed aid into the war-ravaged zone.

 

The United States and Russia verbally dueled before the vote, which called for a seven-day truce. Venezuela also rejected the resolution.

 

 

Hard to stop the humanitarian crisis while civilians are being bombed.

[rodney earl]

The UN is a white elephant. All it does is distribute more money to the over proliferation of politicians and would be politicians. Maybe, just maybe if they stopped paying soo much money to people who do not deserve it something may and I say may get done.

[soalbundy]

2 hours ago, ezzra said:

The UN have been rising billions of donations for years now, and nothing seems to have changed for the better, there're still hundreds of millions of desuetude people in the world the problem is that the UN itself has become a joke and irrelevant while their people lives in fancy opulent offices and hoses and drawing mega salaries... And every time I fly from BKK to OZ the crew is going around collecting small change

" for the children " with no accountability as to where the money goes to....

their children

[soalbundy]

Man made conflicts need at least two warring factions, citizens of that country. Perhaps they ought to consider how it was done in the bronze age, war stopped at harvest time.

[Dustdevil]

2 hours ago, ezzra said:

The UN have been rising billions of donations for years now, and nothing seems to have changed for the better, there're  still hundreds of millions of desuetude people in the world the problem is that the UN itself has become a joke and irrelevant while their people lives in fancy opulent offices and hoses and drawing mega salaries... And every time I fly from BKK to OZ the crew is going around collecting small change

" for the children " with no accountability as to where the money goes to....

And the "Peace Keeping" troops are worse than useless...UN rapists in the Congo, Dutch troops standing around with their thumbs being twiddled somewhere watching massacres proceed in Bosnia, etc.

[RuamRudy]

22 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

Man made conflicts need at least two warring factions, citizens of that country. Perhaps they ought to consider how it was done in the bronze age, war stopped at harvest time.

 

I like your thinking - maybe also we can ressurect the tradition of leaders of warring countries actually leading their men into battle, rather than staying afar, sending the poor off to die for someone else's gain.

[Scott]

2 hours ago, ezzra said:

The UN have been rising billions of donations for years now, and nothing seems to have changed for the better, there're still hundreds of millions of desuetude people in the world the problem is that the UN itself has become a joke and irrelevant while their people lives in fancy opulent offices and hoses and drawing mega salaries... And every time I fly from BKK to OZ the crew is going around collecting small change "for the children " with no accountability as to where the money goes to....

The UN raises money from donor countries, not from private charities.   The money that you give to the airlines does not go to the UN.  

 

Humanitarian crisis occur on a continuous basis and are not caused only by war.   Drought, famine, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, disease and other factors also contribute to the break down of systems normally in place to help people in a given locale.  

 

Whether a person agrees with the UN or not, the option of not providing humanitarian aid is that there will be hundreds of thousands of people heading toward places with food and shelter.   I think the best known route is to Europe.  

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I like your thinking - maybe also we can ressurect the tradition of leaders of warring countries actually leading their men into battle, rather than staying afar, sending the poor off to die for someone else's gain.

As I said on another post, how about making the head of the warring factions having to spend a week in Aleppo.  I'd guarantee the bombing would stop.  Immediately! LOL

[soalbundy]

6 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I like your thinking - maybe also we can ressurect the tradition of leaders of warring countries actually leading their men into battle, rather than staying afar, sending the poor off to die for someone else's gain.

Since soldiers are young and inexperienced they don't need much sending. Albert Einstein once said you don't need brains to be a soldier, just a strong backbone for marching. If every country was populated by 50 year old's you couldn't have a war, they aren't that stupid.

[Scott]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

As I said on another post, how about making the head of the warring factions having to spend a week in Aleppo.  I'd guarantee the bombing would stop.  Immediately! LOL

An interesting idea, but I think it would just change who is bombing and where they are bombing.

 

[soalbundy]

5 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

As I said on another post, how about making the head of the warring factions having to spend a week in Aleppo.  I'd guarantee the bombing would stop.  Immediately! LOL

yes but only for that week. Apparently many citizens throughout the world think its worthwhile to have a war for political reasons, freedom, the love of ones country, and all the rest of the hollow reasons given, until that is one see's ones own dead children amidst the rubble, all of a sudden it isn't worthwhile....too late, you cant put the toothpaste back in the tube.

[wanderluster]

if you stop the wars then who are the americans going to sell their weapons to?  america no.1 export is weapons, if that was to dry up, the american economy tanks, then the world economy follows.  grim fact but I believe true.

[Scott]

7 minutes ago, wanderluster said:

if you stop the wars then who are the americans going to sell their weapons to?  america no.1 export is weapons, if that was to dry up, the american economy tanks, then the world economy follows.  grim fact but I believe true.

Not so.   Not even close.   Here's a list of the top exports:

 

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/usa/

 

 

[craigt3365]

33 minutes ago, wanderluster said:

if you stop the wars then who are the americans going to sell their weapons to?  america no.1 export is weapons, if that was to dry up, the american economy tanks, then the world economy follows.  grim fact but I believe true.

US arms sales are going down while Russia and Europe's are rising:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/05/news/economy/arms-sales-russia-u-s-/index.html

 

Quote

Russian arms sales grew 6.2% in 2015, after skyrocketing over 48% in 2014 and 20% in 2013. Russia is investing heavily in upgrades to its military capabilities. President Vladimir Putin plans to spend more than 20 trillion rubles ($700 billion) bringing equipment up to date by 2025.

 

[craigt3365]

27 minutes ago, Scott said:

Not so.   Not even close.   Here's a list of the top exports:

 

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/usa/

 

 

Interesting that the top export is refined petroleum and the top import is crude petroleum!

[Jblood]

Countries like US would do much help by putting pressure on the Rebels (terrorists) to stop fighting the senseless and futile war in Aleppo which they lost at least a month ago. Instead they are encouraging the senseless slaughter which only drives up the dead count but doesn't change the outcome of the war by providing diplomatic support for the terrorists thus being fully responsible for the mounting civilians casualties and while at the same time trolling and pretending at the UN meetings like they have some sympathetic feelings for the Civilians, which as we all know is a pile of nonsense... :)

[craigt3365]

12 minutes ago, Jblood said:

Countries like US would do much help by putting pressure on the Rebels (terrorists) to stop fighting the senseless and futile war in Aleppo which they lost at least a month ago. Instead they are encouraging the senseless slaughter which only drives up the dead count but doesn't change the outcome of the war by providing diplomatic support for the terrorists thus being fully responsible for the mounting civilians casualties and while at the same time trolling and pretending at the UN meetings like they have some sympathetic feelings for the Civilians, which as we all know is a pile of nonsense... :)

You are aware of who's doing the most killing?  It's not the rebels.  And also not Syria. You give the US too much credit.  They are definitely not in control of the rebels. LOL

 

You also saw that China and Russia vetoed the UNSC resolution for a ceasefire?  Seems like trolling to me.  What is this, the 5th UNSC resolution they've vetoed? Place the blame properly.

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-has-killed-more-civilians-than-isis-kg7wfsw8w

Quote

Russia has killed more civilians than Isis

 

[simple1]

3 hours ago, Scott said:

Whether a person agrees with the UN or not, the option of not providing humanitarian aid is that there will be hundreds of thousands of people heading toward places with food and shelter.   I think the best known route is to Europe.  

 

Indeed. It has often been claimed the under funding by donor countries for UN efforts was a contributing factor which led to the massive flow of genuine asylum seekers (about 40%+ of the total people movement) into the EU. I recall a report that in Lebanon, for example, the UNHCR budget was down to one pound a day per person.

[elgordo38]

Has the US brought their UN dues up to date as of now. 

[Jblood]

34 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

You are aware of who's doing the most killing?  It's not the rebels.  And also not Syria. You give the US too much credit.  They are definitely not in control of the rebels. LOL

 

You also saw that China and Russia vetoed the UNSC resolution for a ceasefire?  Seems like trolling to me.  What is this, the 5th UNSC resolution they've vetoed? Place the blame properly.

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-has-killed-more-civilians-than-isis-kg7wfsw8w

 

Since Lavrov has to meet with Kerri to negotiate the Rebel withdrawal from Aleppo then not only US has total control over them but Kerri must be their commander in chief... LOL. Again why deliberately prolong the senseless slaughter in a war which was decided a month or 2 ago. Seems US is only interested in mounting casualties on both sides, because that's all it does.

[simple1]

2 minutes ago, Jblood said:

Since Lavrov has to meet with Kerri to negotiate the Rebel withdrawal from Aleppo then not only US has total control over them but Kerri must be their commander in chief... LOL. Again why deliberately prolong the senseless slaughter in a war which was decided a month or 2 ago. Seems US is only interested in mounting casualties on both sides, because that's all it does.

 

Do even know who are the many groups fighting in Aleppo and their tribal / political / Imam allegiances. Provided below is a link that is likely out of date as alliances are constantly shifting, but let us know which ones are actively being controlled by the US, with creditable references.

 

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=us+supported+rebels+fighting+aleppo&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=_WRGWLCoN8Xu8wfg2qmIDg#q=battle+of+aleppo+combatants

[Jblood]

10 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Do even know who are the many groups fighting in Aleppo and their tribal / political / Imam allegiances. Provided below is a link that is likely out of date as alliances are constantly shifting, but let us know which ones are actively being controlled by the US, with creditable references.

 

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=us+supported+rebels+fighting+aleppo&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=_WRGWLCoN8Xu8wfg2qmIDg#q=battle+of+aleppo+combatants

 

Since Kerry is conducting the negotiations you should direct that question to him. I would assume most of them US controls, otherwise what's the point of the negotiation?

[simple1]

12 minutes ago, Jblood said:

Since Kerry is conducting the negotiations you should direct that question to him. I would assume most of them US controls, otherwise what's the point of the negotiation?

 

Although it's off topic, think you will find US is negotiating with Russia, not the myriad factions, to facilitate safe passage for 'rebel' withdrawal to facilitate humanitarian support for civilians, though unlikely to succeed with a lasting solution.  In Syria currently US is primary focused on supporting Kurdish fighting groups and some other minorities to retake Raqqa.

Edited December 6, 2016 by simple1

[Jblood]

13 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Although it's off topic, think you will find US is negotiating with Russia, not the myriad factions, to facilitate safe passage for 'rebel' withdrawal to facilitate humanitarian support for civilians, though unlikely to succeed with a lasting solution.  In Syria currently US is primary focused on supporting Kurdish fighting groups and some other minorities to retake Raqqa.

 

 

This makes no sense at all. They are negotiating the exit route, once they are done with it who's going to send the map of the route to the Rebels and make sure they put ceasefire in place?... I would assume it's not mr. Lavrov who speaks to them on regular basis.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

BS like this doesn't help:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/05/middleeast/aleppo-syria-un-vote/index.html

 

 

Hard to stop the humanitarian crisis while civilians are being bombed.

 

Would be interesting to compare the contributions made by these two fine nations as per the topic's heading.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I like your thinking - maybe also we can ressurect the tradition of leaders of warring countries actually leading their men into battle, rather than staying afar, sending the poor off to die for someone else's gain.

 

Can dispense with the leading bit - just let respective leaders slug it out between themselves.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Jblood said:

Countries like US would do much help by putting pressure on the Rebels (terrorists) to stop fighting the senseless and futile war in Aleppo which they lost at least a month ago. Instead they are encouraging the senseless slaughter which only drives up the dead count but doesn't change the outcome of the war by providing diplomatic support for the terrorists thus being fully responsible for the mounting civilians casualties and while at the same time trolling and pretending at the UN meetings like they have some sympathetic feelings for the Civilians, which as we all know is a pile of nonsense... :)

 

Civilian death toll in Syria is unrelated to Syrian/Russian military operations, says poster.

 

And to cap in your own words:

 

Quote

a pile of nonsense

 

[Morch]

31 minutes ago, Jblood said:

 

 

This makes no sense at all. They are negotiating the exit route, once they are done with it who's going to send the map of the route to the Rebels and make sure they put ceasefire in place?... I would assume it's not mr. Lavrov who speaks to them on regular basis.

 

Makes no sense if one sees it all through Russian propaganda goggles. The US got leverage with some factions, not all. Nothing by way to total control. If a ceasefire and safe evacuation routes are agreed upon there are quite a few ways of conveying the message to the local populace - it's only difficult to grasp if one really tries not to.