President Bush keeping his promise on way to Africa- - Page 4 - 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 12-26-2002, 08:17 PM   #61
BostonAnne's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 2,052
Local Time: 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Sherry Darling

TY, Angel!

Yeah, definitely sounds like we wanna greet this guy with some letters! I'll write one and post it!

Thanks again!

Sherry, you make it so easy for us to get our voices counted! I'll be looking for it! Thanks!

BostonAnne is offline  
Old 01-02-2003, 07:58 AM   #62
Rock n' Roll Doggie
hiphop's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 09:09 PM
Originally posted by STING2
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"?

Data shows my country is on place 16, which is shameful as well. All european data are shameful. I would set the border of shameful vs. not shameful on ten percent of GDP. High number, agreed, but if we all would stand together it would be possible, for sure. Just think about how much money we spend for things we donīt really need. I donīt care about defense spending at all because the U.S. does zero to secure my interests.

10 bil/ year is ridiculous compared to what Bill Gates earns per year (even if I think he does lots of private donoring, so this is not about him, itīs about the U.S. budget which is not balanced well enough to secure long term U.S. interests.

STING2, sorry to say so, but you sound like parrot with your 2 trillion $ of goods. Hello! U.S. gets lots of products for that, no? Does anyone force you to buy those goods? No. Maybe for you thats a "big deal", but I donīt see any reason why I have to fall on my knees and say "Thank you, thank you, that you buy soooo much - and throw so much food away while millions die of hunger".

hiphop is offline  
Old 01-02-2003, 08:52 AM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
hiphop's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 09:09 PM
Originally posted by STING2
But the USA also benefits by providing humanitarian aid. Economic development of the third world is very beneficial to key US foreign policy interest.

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.

These two factors more than make up or balance out the USA's lower level of development aid.
I agree with 1); Economic development of the third world is very beneficial to key US foreign policy interest. But its often not beneficial to the interests of the third world country. Sometimes it is (f.e. less unemployment bc third world location of U.S. Corporation - see the foreign direct investment discussion), sometimes it isnīt, because to profit long term third world has to have its own companies, its own economists (who should be allowed to go the way they want, and donīt have to fall on their knees for the IMF, the IMF in which the U.S.A. has the ONLY, EXCLUSIVE veto power, in all the world), its own development concepts, its own research and development, its own banks, its own control.

2) The U.S. has provoked more wars than prevented. Without U.S. military training, paid by the Pentagon in 70 states scattered all over the globe, this world would be a much safer place. We all know that very often countries are against the U.S. mixing into their affairs because U.S. wants to secure its "interests". Nobody else is interested! You are fooling yourself (if not lying). If you are another opinion, please list 35 countries (the half of the number of where the U.S. currently does military training) where U.S. (and only U.S., not U.N., thats us alltogether, right) keeps peace, provides international security and stability.

3) Those two factors donīt make up or balance out nothing. If youīd like to see things balanced out, we (Europe and U.s.) have to pay back what we have stolen (colonies, natives et al), and still steal (hidden under unfair terms of trade).
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-02-2003, 09:00 AM   #64
Rock n' Roll Doggie
hiphop's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 09:09 PM
Originally posted by diamond
ps - isnt GW sexy?
If you say so...
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-02-2003, 03:33 PM   #65
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:09 PM

The USA does not do "0" to secure your interest. We spend nearly 400 Billion dollars a year on defense which helps keep secure the large growing economic area's of the planet and prevents the major outbreaks of war that we saw in the first half of the 20th century (WW I and WW II) from happening. The Whole planet benefits from that.

So you think the USA should spend 10% of its GDP on humanitarian aid. Realize that the US government only collects 20% of GDP in taxes! The Government only has 20% of GDP to spend on anything! You are there for asking the US Government to spend 50% of its money on humanitarian aid to foreign countries! Sorry but that is technically impossible unless you want the USA to fall apart.

Hello, Its US consumers that keep the global economy propped up with 2 Trillion dollars in spending. Any business on the planet will have as their #1 customer or the country they want as their #1 customer, being the USA. USA business's are not thrilled by the fact that US consumers buy 2 Trillion dollars of goods and services overseas. Its their competition, it may cut into US businesses but US consumers benefit from the competition as due foreign businesses that get the opportunity to make more money than they could anywhere else on the planet.

1. The Third World is developing but it takes time, decades or more to solve the level of poverty that exist. But there have already been many success stories in South Korea, Tawain, Singapore and other area's that used to be third world countries. The US benefits when these countries and other countries have their own companies and banks, because that means the people have money to spend, which is good for US exports. Economic development benefits everyone in the long run.

2. Without the military training paid by the Pentagon throughtout the past 50 years, the planet would be living under Communism! Or if not Communism in total anarchy. The US does not provoke wars unless of course one has already started or is about to start one soon or in the future in some way. Everything the USA has done in this arena has been to attempt to ensure stability and the opportunity for economic development and democracy in the long run in the future.

The USA has always worked multilaterally with its Allies so I can't give a specific country where there are no other troops at all. But sometimes there is litterally only 5 or 6 people from another country. But look at Afghanistan, over 90% of the soldiers that were involved are USA soldiers. Look at the war over Kosovo, over 90% of the bombing missions flown were done by US aircraft. Any military action that takes place in Iraq will have the USA providing 90% of the resources for such an operation. Who provides the largest number of naval assets int he Pacific ocean? The USA does. I could go into far more detail than this.

"Nobody Else is interested"?!?! Talk about fooling yourself. A lot of people are interested in the security and the stability US military forces provide. Even Vietnam is inviting the USA to establish a military base there. Look at South Korea today! He provided most of the troops to defend that country during the Korean War. Look at Europe after the Marshall Plan and WW II and the defense the USA provided Europe during the Cold War from the Warsaw Pact.

Even if US forces are not present in a particular country, their presense in the region provides security to that country. Here are just a few of the countries off the top of my head that the USA has forces stationed.

United Kingdom
South Korea
Diego Garcia
Saudi Arabia
Western Sahara

Just to name a few. In addition, the US Navy patrols every major water way and every ocean on the planet in large numbers. Each fleet has a large contingent of US Marines to go ashore into any country if there is a problem in a particular country and they are ordered to go in.

Look at the level of US funding for international security compared to its allies. Again, the USA provides the Lions share.

STING2 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 02:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ÂĐ