President Bush keeping his promise on way to Africa- - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-17-2002, 11:28 PM   #16
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 05:53 AM
Myself as well would say it is shameful for the USA to have these numbers. My country is just as bad. SHAMEFUL!

Yes you were right Sting the US does give the most, but only .1% of their GNP. Did anyone else notice how the top 14 were all countries from Europe. Maybe Europe does aprciate what others have done for them and are showing it by helping others?

I repeat for many countries this is very SHAMEFUL!!
__________________

__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 12-17-2002, 11:37 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:53 PM
Hi Bias,

Hey thanks for the web link with the numbers. That is a very interesting web site although some area's are clearly biased and unobjective. So why do you characterize USA development aid spending as "shameful" in light of the other things the USA does for the rest of the world in terms of defense and international trade. US forces are deployed around the world and ensure peace and security in Asia, the Persian Gulf Region and of course Europe and are ready to respond to problems in other places as well at a level and speed no where near matched by any other country on Earth even taking into acount the size of the country. US consumers buy nearly 2 Trillion dollars in goods and services every year from the global community. In addition, while the US government may only spend about 11 Billion dollars on development aid per year, the value of charitable giving from private US citizens to help development overseas is 34 Billion dollars per year! US citizens have a much lower tax burden than many other countries. But still what country out there can match the private donations of US citizens to foreign development aid?

I do think the USA should increase aid to the .7 level although I'm not sure if that would be politically possible in the USA. I'd think reaching the average that the other 22 countries spend at which is .38 of GDP is more realisitic but even that would be difficult to achieve. Still I do not see giving 11 Billion dollars in develoment aid to be "Shameful" in light of the other things the USA does for the world community and has done for the world community in the past. Guess who rebuilt Europe and Japan after World War II? No single country in history has ever taken on a task that large.

But if the level of development aid is "shameful" why has no one mentioned Italy or Canada's levels of aid as "Shameful"? What level of spending on development aid would you consider NOT to be "shameful"?
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-18-2002, 04:25 AM   #18
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 05:53 AM
Sting, I said two times n my last post that Canada's foriegn aid was shameful. It is very much shameful but because Canada and Italy is shameful does not make your countrries aid any less shameful. Canada just blew 2 billion on a gun registry that went nowhere. My country is certainnily at fault!!

But Sting just because the USA built Europe back to what it is today does not excuse this. EVERY country should be giving .7 persent. MINIMUM!!!

You keep bring up this 2 trillion dollar figure. We got it. !!

But you know as well as i that this 2 trillion would not be happening if it didnt cause your country to gain money. Every bit of money givin to trade is given back to the US. Canada exports 71% of all GDP. Does that make Canada any less acountable then anyone else. It seems to me that you are hiding behind your milatary spending. Which is huge. But is something that again benefits your country as well. It seems to me that you agree but are to afraid to admit that the USA is fully wrong. 0.1 percent of GDP is shameful. And 0.23 (Canada) is equally shameful. Any country that is not giving what is asked by the UN is shameful. Sting dont be afraid to admit your country is wrong. It doesnt make your arguements for your pro America stance any worse off.
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 12-18-2002, 01:33 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 07:53 AM
Canada gives 0.23%, compared to USA 0.11%. So that's more than double and it's still pathetic and embarrassing.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 12-18-2002, 09:17 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:53 PM
Bonoman,

Your post in response to high bias came right before my response did, so I had not seen your post until I finished writing and posting mine.

The fact that US consumers buy nearly 2 Trillion dollars worth of goods is not something that can be swept under the rug. Allowing US consumers to buy all these foreign goods is a huge benefit to the global economy, and yes the USA does benefit as well.

But the USA also benefits by providing humanitarian aid. Economic development of the third world is very beneficial to key US foreign policy interest.

Canada's exports benefit Canada directly, so I don't think you would use that as a factor in showing that Canada helps the world. Canada's imports are what it buys from the rest of the world and that is what directly benefits other countries.

The USA spends nearly 400 Billion dollars every year on essentially international security! Few countries come close to this level of spending even as a percentage of GDP. International Security is extremely important as it helps prevent anarchy and war and can protect regions and countries from the actions and moves of other countries. Without the international security and stability that the USA provides many regions of the world, discussions of and or actions to develop the third world would not be possible, because of the instability and war that would exist in several other countries and regions of the world.

There is no attempt to hide behind spending on the military. The attempt to narrowly define international aid as simply development aid is incorrect and un-objective. Military spending, free trade, and development aid are all important parts of international aid. I've tried to show you and others here the lack of military support that the USA recieves from countries like Canada. Canada needs to more than double its defense budget, perhaps triple it. The USA spends nearly 4% of its GDP on defense while a country like Canada spends only .9%. When it came to military action in Kosovo to prevent the slaughter of muslims by the Serb military, over 90% of the combat missions flown, were flown by the US military. If force is needed to disarm Iraq and bring it into compliance with 16 different UN resolutions passed under chapter 7 rules, the vast majority of the forces involved in combat will be US forces.

You cannot dismiss these facts and sweep them under the rug. While the USA needs to increase its development aid, it does far more than its share in safe guarding security in places all around the world and imports nearly 2 Trillion dollars of goods from other countries. These two factors more than make up or balance out the USA's lower level of development aid. Still the USA should increase development aid because it is in the USA's best interest to do so.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-19-2002, 05:00 AM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Bonoman,

Your post in response to high bias came right before my response did, so I had not seen your post until I finished writing and posting mine.

The fact that US consumers buy nearly 2 Trillion dollars worth of goods is not something that can be swept under the rug. Allowing US consumers to buy all these foreign goods is a huge benefit to the global economy, and yes the USA does benefit as well.
The USA spends nearly 400 Billion dollars every year on essentially international security! Few countries come close to this level of spending even as a percentage of GDP. International Security is extremely important as it helps prevent anarchy and war and can protect regions and countries from the actions and moves of other countries. Without the international security and stability that the USA provides many regions of the world, discussions of and or actions to develop the third world would not be possible, because of the instability and war that would exist in several other countries and regions of the world.

There is no attempt to hide behind spending on the military. The attempt to narrowly define international aid as simply development aid is incorrect and un-objective. Military spending, free trade, and development aid are all important parts of international aid. I've tried to show you and others here the lack of military support that the USA recieves from countries like Canada. Canada needs to more than double its defense budget, perhaps triple it. The USA spends nearly 4% of its GDP on defense while a country like Canada spends only .9%. When it came to military action in Kosovo to prevent the slaughter of muslims by the Serb military, over 90% of the combat missions flown, were flown by the US military. If force is needed to disarm Iraq and bring it into compliance with 16 different UN resolutions passed under chapter 7 rules, the vast majority of the forces involved in combat will be US forces.

Guess who has the biggest weaponsindustry,...and somehow i do not have the feeling that all those weapons made this world a better place.

Why turned this discusion about aid to the third world into a promotion for the weapontraders. They need tractors not tanks, they need waterpumps no M16, they need respect, not patronizing.

And yes , i am grateful for the help from America in the second world war but in feel very pissed of when somebody use this to gain support. My Grandparents had to endure hunger, desease and worked hard to build my country.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 12-19-2002, 07:23 AM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 05:53 AM

Rono
u forgot to say, "Read You"

dB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 12-19-2002, 08:49 AM   #23
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 07:53 AM
To bring this back to Dubyah - I think he's all talk about Africa as stated in this article in the News

"But U.S. funding is uncertain; according an editorial Monday in The New York Times, Bush vetoed the appropriation containing this years first payment, and Senate Republicans killed a bill agreed on unanimously that would have provided $4 billion over two years to fight global AIDS. "

If our military budget is 369 billion or so , 3 biilion should be taken out if it and used for Africa.

And yes the US percentage of aid is shameful and should be increased and while we are at it maybe we can pay our UN dues. That we haven't is disgraceful.

I'm curious if STING2 has ever disagreed with anything the Republican's, or our government under them, or the military has done.

By the way WTF is with this Star Wars defense bullshit again. I thought that was a dead horse under Reagan?
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 12-19-2002, 09:56 AM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 07:53 AM
Just a few random thoughts. Why is military spending being brought in as a part of humanitarian aid? I am going to venture the guess that the rest of the world is highly unlikely to consider US military intervention as altruistic and peace-loving. If anything, it is seen as meddling and directed towards maintaining and protecting our business interests, not a desire to maintain impartial justice. Just to use one example that is close to me personally, in Indonesia the Suharto regime was given the go-ahead to take over by force the island of Timor by Kissinger with the implicit understanding that the US would look the other way. Indonesia was a desirable ally in the SE Asian front of the Cold War. So rather than enforce "peace" the US was willing to sacrifice innocent lives to maintain national interests. And that is just one example. Too bad for the people of East Timor that they weren't situated over a field of oil. Perhaps it should also be noted that during Suharto's governing, millions of people were killed, millions of Indonesian citizens, and the US never batted an eye or made a move to depose this dictator. Why the double standard?

Quite frankly, to expect the rest of the world to look on US military intervention purely as a form of "humanitarian" aid when both the motives and the methods have so often proven to be anything but even-handed is naive. The cynicism is well-founded, and even if not always proven to be correct serves as a legitimate and necessary restraint on the most powerful nation in the world abusing its position.

The idea that the rest of the world should be grateful for the great consumption power of America is another topic in and of itself, but perhaps later I will have time to comment on "free" trade and the imbalances within the international monetary and trading system. Needless to say, I would argue that our immense appetite for cheap goods and willingness to use double standards in tariffs has only contributed to the worsening of third world economies.
__________________
sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 12-19-2002, 10:24 AM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 05:53 AM

Bethany-
You always write brilliant well thought posts.
We dont always agree but your ideas are always articulated well.

That said I guess the thinking of the "ends justifying the means" is prolly the cold reality here.
The older I get, the more Im becomning uncomfortable w/this mindset.

Merry Christmas-

Dave


ps-
isnt GW sexy?
thank u
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 12-19-2002, 01:27 PM   #26
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
Bethany-
You always write brilliant well thought posts.
We dont always agree but your ideas are always articulated well.
dare I ask on what part you do not agree?
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 12-19-2002, 02:43 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 05:53 AM

no..
Merry Christmas too u as well Salomehead
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 12-19-2002, 06:20 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:53 PM
Rono,

Well until the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was the Soviet Union that had the largest weapons industry. But today it is the USA and having a large and strong military helps to deter war in many different area's on the planet. The USA had a very small weapons industry and international presense during the first 50 years of the 20th century. The partial result of that was the two most destructive wars in the history of the planet. Low military spending and isolationism are not ways to prevent global crises or conflict.

Certainly the third world needs strong level of development aid, but if the global community were to collapse into anarchy and war, aid to the poorest countries would never happen. Security is extremely important and the USA has taken on most of the burden in providing this to many area's of the world.

Its not just the Second World War or the Marshal Plan, its defending Western Europe for 40 years from the Warsaw Pact and providing nearly all the military force that stopped the fighting in Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1999, just to name a few things. How many people in Kosovo in March 1999 were hoping for tractors and waterpumps? They wanted SECURITY! Security that the European countries failed to provide them! It was the USA that got NATO to launch the war that stopped the Serb slaughter and abuse of Muslims in Kosovo. 90% of the combat missions flown against the Serbs were done by USA aircraft.

You refuse to see the value of international security and the level of work the USA does to provide this on a daily basis. You cannot sweep international security under the rug as not being important. Without global stability and security, sustainable development would never be possible in the third world.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-19-2002, 06:36 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:53 PM
Scarletwine,

It is disgraceful that 90% of the air sortie missions flown by NATO to stop Serb slaughtering Muslims in Kosovo in 1999 were flown by the USA. Where the hell is the support from the 18 other countries that make up NATO? Several NATO nations contributions to defense and global security are disgraceful.

I agree the USA needs to increase its level of development aid and pay its UN dues, but it is not shameful in light of the other things the USA does for the international community.

For your information, I have disagreed with a lot of Republican policy on such domestic issues like gun control and occasionaly on taxes to name a few. Just ask Achtung Bubba.

I have disagreed with several things the military has done or not done on much more technical issues that have not surfaced in this forum.

SDI or ballistic missile defense has never been a dead horse at least not at the battlefield or theater level. Our soldiers in the field need defensive systems against ballistic missiles. A National missile defense against ICBMs is another story. It is a far more difficult task, but could stop a launch of a nuclear weapon from a rogue nation in the future by intention or by accident. Would you like me to tell you what a 1 megaton airburst 1,000 feet over Los Angeles would do to the city and surrounding area?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-19-2002, 07:10 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 05:53 AM

Sting-
Face it we will always be considered bastards here.
Well not always, but most the time

It is kinda cool though to be a voice of reason in a sea of chaos..

God Save The Queen.

thank u-
shut up

DB9
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com