Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Habu on February 03, 2003, 12:59:21 PM
-
Lets look closely at recent events in Germany.
Gerhard Schroeder won re-election last fall in a very close election by repudiating the American position on Iraq. It made him enormously popular at home, appealing to the inherent distaste the Germany population has for war, regardless of whether it is for a just reason or not.
The German economy is now on the verge of a double-dip recession, and his party the Social Democrats are expected to lose crucial upcoming state elections in Lower Saxony and Hesse.
Not surprisingly then Schroeder has decided to rachet up his anti war/anti US rhetoric by announcing to a European conference in a speech "I have told, in particular, our French friends, but others as well, and I am going a step further in what I say here and now, .... Do not reckon with Germany approving a resolution authorizing war. Do not reckon with that."
He is trying to deflect attention away from this domestic problems and increase his party's popularity. It worked last year and he expects it to work again. Unfortunately it will be at the expense of good US German relations. The damage and fallout with the US from his quest for short term political gain may come back to haunt him for a long time.
-
OK, germans use hostility to US as distraction from their domestic problems.
According to them - and plenty of americans - US uses hostility to Iraq as a distraction from our domestic problems too.
miko
-
Hey was he in the Hitler Youth?
I thought I heard that somewhere?
Just curious if it was true.
-
No, Schoeder was born in 1944, he was definitly too young to join in the Hitler Youth. :D
-
His stand on America is fine. He is welcome to it. As long as he remembers that his own economy, good or bad, is because Americans cared enough to help rebuild their country.
As for me, I don't feel a need to buy ANY German products and likely won't for some time. Yes I do own a small ticket German product now but won't replace it. It's paid for so anything I have now won't go to support this idiot.
Final note. Just guess who he would come to for aid if there was some natural disaster in his country. No doubt he would squeak about American aid then too.
-
Why do some Americans seem fascinated by how much aid they give around the world? As a proportion of GDP, they are 22nd in the world. That's nothing to boast about.
60 years ago the US committed itself to a great deed - the Marshall plan. But it was in American interests to have a strong barrier against the USSR, and I'm sure there has been a fair amount of money made in trade in the mean time.
I also doubt that the originators of the plan would have like Americans 60 years later to laud it over the receivers, should they disagree with American foreign policy. Either it was altruistic and designed to forge a strong democratic, independent nation state and partner or it was a cynical ploy to make sure American interests were always looked after on the continent. I like to believe the former.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
OK, germans use hostility to US as distraction from their domestic problems.
According to them - and plenty of americans - US uses hostility to Iraq as a distraction from our domestic problems too.
miko
I will believe that when you show me what election GWB is currently trying to win...............
The Republicans control politics in the US right now. They do not have to appease anyone. They are doing what they feel is right for the country and the world.
-
look at the level of trade both france and germany has with iraq
that will answer your questions concerning their hesitation about going to war ...............
-
Why do some Americans seem fascinated by how much aid they give around the world? As a proportion of GDP, they are 22nd in the world. That's nothing to boast about.
Well, I tell you what. Since most of the countries we gave all that money to (Marshal Plan) are now economic powerhouses (thanks to us), why don't we just add up the total plus standard interest rate, an you pay it back? In real cash please, none of that euro-monopoly money.
Any man who had half an ounce of self respect would be eager to pack back any one who loaned him money when he was down on his luck as soon as he was flush again.
Of course there is the other kind of man. The one who secretly resents the lender because it only reminds them of their own weakness and bad mouths them any chance they get. They try their best to forget they were ever given the money and get all irritated when someone mentions it.
Wab
-
There's nothing in your post that isn't answered by the last two paragraphs of my last reply. I suggest you read them again, if you read them at all.
To suggest that the Marshall plan be used as leverage against the sovereignty of national policy is ridiculous.
"We saved your tulips and you shall not disagree, you shall kneel!"
-
^^^ Q.E.D.
-
^^^ Q.E.D.
-
To suggest that the Marshall plan be used as leverage against the sovereignty of national policy is ridiculous.
Couldn't care less about your sovereignty, just pay back the money.
But you're the type of little man I was speaking of.
You're all full of excuses on why you shouldn't have to pay back the money, secretly resent the people who helped you out because it only underscores your own weakness, and get quite annoyed any time the subject is even brought up.
Q.E.D.
Wab
-
^^^ Q.E.D. Another example.
An another one for the ignore list.
Wab
-
than money.
(http://www.globalissues.org/images/NetODA2001.jpg)
Nonetheless there is another aspect to consider.
As an aside, it should be emphasized that the above figures are comparing government spending. Such spending has been agreed at international level and is spread over a number of priorities. Individual/private donations may be targeted in many ways.
However, even though the charts above do show U.S. aid to be poor (in percentage terms) compared to the rest, the generosity of the people of America is far more impressive than their government.
As discussed further below, the government spending has tied agendas that has often been detrimental to the recipient. Private aid/donation in contrast has been through charity on individual people and organizations though this of course can be weighted to certain interests and areas.
Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas -- more than three times U.S. official foreign aid of $10 billion:
International giving by U.S. foundations totals $1.5 billion per year
Charitable giving by U.S. businesses now comes to at least $2.8 billion annually
American NGOs gave over $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
Religious overseas ministries contribute $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.
$1.3 billion by U.S. colleges are given in scholarships to foreign students
Personal remittances from the U.S. to developing countries came to $18 billion in 2000
Source: Dr. Carol Aderman, Aid and Comfort, Tech Central Station, 21 August 2002. (Aderman admits that there are no complete figures for international private giving. Hence these numbers may be taken in caution, but even with caution, these are high numbers.)
Ok, in the poker idiom, I'll review my governments $ total aid, see your raise, bump the foreign aid pot 3X for private giving and call.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I see your Marshal Plan, and raise you a Statue of Liberty. Who owes who really depends on how far back in history you care to look. Today's America is not the same as it was 60 years ago, just as today's Germany is not the same.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you father or grandfather (depends on your age) for what he and his generation did for us Europeans. You? ... You have done nothing for me.
The little matter of the cold war comes to mind.
You hit the nail on the head Wabbit.
-
No one in here is seriously suggesting that Germany should back the US policy on Iraq because of the Marshall Plan?
Are they?
Please say they aren't.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
And exactly what should we be grateful for with regard to the Cold War AKIron?
How about that you're not now a member of the Soviet Union?
-
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you father or grandfather (depends on your age) for what he and his generation did for us Europeans. You? ... You have done nothing for me.
Damned right Gscholz - my sentiments exactly.
Percentages more realistically relfect the Aid effort, Toad. Donation as a percentage of GNI is far more telling. Of course, the US gives more in monetary terms - it has a huge poopulation and a huge amount of money in its coffers from taxation.
Even assuming your figures about 'unofficial' donations are 100% correct, and factoring them into the equation for the %GNI calculations, the US is still way behind the top 5 in the GNI league.
No one in here is seriously suggesting that Germany should back the US policy on Iraq because of the Marshall Plan?
Are they?
Please say they aren't.
That's exactly what they are saying, Bounder. Here and in other threads.
It would seem everything has a price.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes, interesting numbers Toad. Seems like little Norway with 4.5 million people pays more than 13% of what the USA with 285 million people pay. And btw. we don't expect to get our money back ... with or without interest. We don't consider this a loan, but AID.
And exactly what should we be grateful for with regard to the Cold War AKIron?
Yes and I am sure Norway contributes just as much as the US does to world security in the form of the defense spending and deployment of international troops.
It is all well and good to say Norway is a hero and the US is a goat, but I don't buy it. Norway does not have to go in and disarm North Korea if they decide to launch a few nukes. Norway did not have to fund the cold war that stopped the USSR from taking over Europe. Norway did not make up most of the force that went in and stopped the Bosnian war. (A European war) Nobody complains when the US picks up the tab.
Include the cost of keeping the world safe in the figures and I think you would find the US outspends everyone many times over.
And in the US there are countless private charities and NGO's that do much of the work that Norway's government aid would do.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
It would seem everything has a price.
Foolish to think otherwise.
-
"Hey was he in the Hitler Youth?
I thought I heard that somewhere?
Just curious if it was true."
Even if he was, it wouldnt mean anything. Pretty much *any* organized youth activity (sports, etc) got pulled in under Hitler Jugend. It's not like they had a choice.
Daff
-
Pick your stats to take pride in; if a GNP percentage of "aid" makes you feel good, go for it.
I'm very comfortable with the contributions the US has made towards progress for the human race and peace in the world through various means and methodologies in the 20th Century.
-
Your attitude is pretty typical GScholz of those with a debt they are unwilling to recognize. Lucky for you many of us are willing to overlook your ungratefulness and make the sacrifice anyways.
-
Originally posted by AKWabbit
Well, I tell you what. Since most of the countries we gave all that money to (Marshal Plan) are now economic powerhouses (thanks to us), why don't we just add up the total plus standard interest rate, an you pay it back? In real cash please, none of that euro-monopoly money.
Any man who had half an ounce of self respect would be eager to pack back any one who loaned him money when he was down on his luck as soon as he was flush again.
Of course there is the other kind of man. The one who secretly resents the lender because it only reminds them of their own weakness and bad mouths them any chance they get. They try their best to forget they were ever given the money and get all irritated when someone mentions it.
Wab
(clap clap clap clap)
Good boy now SIT !
-
I don't doubt it Toad, the US has made a great contribution. But if you had a billion people and the tax revenue that goes with it, and still gave the same amount, surely you see measuring by % of GDP is much more realistic? It's like measuring how much each person is giving.
AkIron - did you fight in WW2? Or contribute to the Marshall Plan? What exactly do I owe you?
-
I think measuring what is/has been given would have to go beyond a mere dollar value reflected as a percentage of GNP.
That is merely one aspect, one way of measuring the contribution(s) that a particular nation has made towards human progress/global security/world peace/etc. Do these totals include all governmental aid? Cash, food, building projects, technical expertise? I don't actually know what the numbers represent. Do you?
As I said, in taken in toto and considering a multitude of other contributory aspects, I am VERY comfortable with the contributions made by the citizens of the US either individually or governmentally in the 20th Century.
But if some choose to make a percentage of GNP contributed as "aid" the sole recognizable factor of national worth or compassion or whatever it is supposed to represent... that's fine by me. Everyone has to have something to hang their hat on, to take pride in.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
AkIron - did you fight in WW2? Or contribute to the Marshall Plan? What exactly do I owe you?
I'm too young to have fought in WWII, though I have/had two uncles that did and my grandfather came to your rescue in WWI.
I did however spend 20 years in the military, 7 of it in foreign countries, far from my father, mother, brothers and sisters, 2 of it from my wife and kids.
Do you owe me anything? I didn't do it for you or GScholz. I did it because it made me feel good about being a part of the strength of an idealistic nation that has, among other things, the goal of a democratic world.
Do I even want your gratitude? Not really. Recognition that my country isn't an evil empire out to subjugate the world? That I do want.
-
GScholz, my dear friend. Communism came to several countries in a quite military manner. And the Iron curtain through germany was quite ineffective against invasion, its main role being to keep people INSIDE.
None the less, the Americans did nothing to help the Fins keep the Russians away, did they? If anyone, then first the Brits, then the Germans. So, there you have it for WW2 at least, - USA did not save the north.
However there is another matter about central Europe. If there had been no invasion of Normandy, where would the Iron curtain have fallen? Without the US, there would have been no D-day.
So, USA deserves quite some credit to their contribution to the free world, - perhaps not as much as they tend to think though.
Mind you, that the US sat by while Germany rolled over the mainland of Europe, bombed the crap out of the British, sank ships all over the globe, etc. etc, - not did the US enter before they were attacked themselves. It was actually Germany who declared war on the USA!!!!!
But countries either passed through or conquered by the US forces were not forced into submission, but treated very fairly. I doubt there has been any force in world's history so gentle to the countries under it's feet than the Anglo-American forces in WW2.
Lets not forget that as well
Anyway, Habu....are you German? doubt so. You see, Schroder's co-op party are the German GREEN party, and those hold the minister of foreign affairs for instant. They are total pacifists, and this is also their first time in office. Lots of hair and fur in those politics, yeacchhh
:D
-
Originally posted by Toad
Pick your stats to take pride in; if a GNP percentage of "aid" makes you feel good, go for it.
Hm. Well, since people insist on looking at % GDP as the "true" measure of a country's contribution to a cause, I thought I'd look up the % GDP spent by the United States on the military.
According to this (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2034.html) site, the United States isn't even in the top 30 countries in the world in military spending as a percentage of GDP, though it is by far the first in overall money spent.
I guess this means the United States isn't such a military powerhouse after all if you look at % GDP.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
GScholz it was a bit to personal aginst Wabbit. That isnt good.
But its pissing me of like hell and driving me nuts.
-
"exactly what should we be grateful for with regard to the Cold War AKIron?"
"World communism was supposed to come from the people in the form of revolutions, like on Cuba. Not by invasion."
"Yeah, thanks a lot AKIron. Thanks for scaring the toejam out of my parent and grandparents with the threat of nuclear holocaust."
You are being an ungreatful little salamander Gscholz , and yes take that seriously.
Now the Euro's are actually complaining that the USA defended them from the massive Soviet stalinist armies for 50 years while they happily rebuilt their comfortable socialist euro-intellectual social and economic structures after WW2 - a war they only managed to survive as a free people because hey USA saved them... And now you say theese things...
salamanders. Ungreatful little piece of toejam salamanders.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Anyway, Habu....are you German? doubt so. You see, Schroder's co-op party are the German GREEN party, and those hold the minister of foreign affairs for instant. They are total pacifists, and this is also their first time in office. Lots of hair and fur in those politics, yeacchhh
:D
These minister for foreign affairs, his name is Joschka Fischer, is 1 of the best polititions we have. And u know why? Because he knows the real life and is no puppet of some 1. The only sad thing about him is that he is a member of the green party so i cant get me to vote for him or his party.
-
Originally posted by Habu
And in the US there are countless private charities and NGO's that do much of the work that Norway's government aid would do.
You make a fine argument. When you're confronted with Norway giving relatively more foreign aid you just add all the private organisations from the US which are giving a hand. Of course you'll conveniently oversee the fact that there are such organisations in Norway and any other country as well, but ah well, these don't matter, as long as your country comes out on top in the end.... :rolleyes:
-
We were never a soviet satelite nation. Tito told Stalin to diddly off in 1948. In fact much of our military equipment was of western origin well into the 1960s - for example F86D and F80 fighters and even tanks. We never joined Warsaw Pact, or NATO. Yougosalavia was one of the leaders of neutral countries in the world. We had just as close ties to the wast as to the east.
Hungary was not invaded?? Checkoslovakia was not invaded? Give me a break - or do you think they were just peace keepers?
BTW it doesnt really matter one bit what "people" want in a communist governemt - you remember all that lack of democracy and human rights and stuff..
Your statements are incredibly uninformed and you should reconsider your resentment of the USA defending europe from the Soviets for 50 years while you guys happily rebuilt your ruined economies and freedoms with US aid money, behind a US defense shield, after a war you only survived as free people because of the USA getting involved.
Dont be ungreatful...
-
Originally posted by Thud
You make a fine argument. When you're confronted with Norway giving relatively more foreign aid you just add all the private organisations from the US which are giving a hand. Of course you'll conveniently oversee the fact that there are such organisations in Norway and any other country as well, but ah well, these don't matter, as long as your country comes out on top in the end.... :rolleyes:
I am not an American. I do not live in America. I just see so much nonsense written about America right now I felt the desire to make these posts. I really do not think that most people have any idea what is going on with the UN and the US and Iraq.
Regarding my post. Yes It is true that the contributions from the US private organizations and NGO's will be much higher than those from Norway both in total dollar terms and in terms of % of GDP. The reason is that Norway is a very heavily taxed socialist country and people in those countries tend to think "My government takes care of my social causes for me".
In the US people are more generous personally and do not expect the government to eliminate hunger in Africa so will support one of the many church or national charities that work in that area.
How much did you donate to charity last income tax statement. I bet I gave more and I am not even that generous a donor.
-
Originally posted by fffreeze220
These minister for foreign affairs, his name is Joschka Fischer, is 1 of the best polititions we have. And u know why? Because he knows the real life and is no puppet of some 1. The only sad thing about him is that he is a member of the green party so i cant get me to vote for him or his party.
The guy is a Freakin Idiot, but Schily takes the cake.
-
U really think only because we dont agree with u we are a peace of toejam?
Do I think only cause u want the germans to support u, all US citizens are fascists?
Only cause we have different oppinions on one subject u guys are blaming germans?
Is this what is called friendship?
Stop whining about the germans and french.
This really makes me sick and shows me the enormous maturity and brainpower u have :rolleyes:
-
I 2nd that Duedel.
-
Toad - who's talking about using statistics to measure compassion or national intent? Not I. Or is this another red herring? When discussing aid contributions, sometimes its useful to look at the statistics concerning aid contributions. It's a simple as that. Of course there are circumstances that alter the context of those figures - but the US, oft-made claim that it makes most contribution is not the full story.
AKIron - your uncles didn't save me, the same way my grandparents didn't save Straffo or any other modern French guy. To suggest I should tow some party line because 80 years before my birth your distant relatives did something for my distant relatives beggars belief. I guess you must believe in the 'Sins of the Fathers' principle too?
Something resonates deeply from your arguments:
"Black and White" and "With us or against us"
I'm sorry, but it simply is a little more complicated than that.
For the record, I don't think the US is trying to subjugate the world in some evil empire. But I guess because I currently disagree with US policy over Iraq I have to fit that pigeonhole, right?
-
We were not a soviet satelite, we were not a soviet republic, we were not allied to the soviets, we were not in warsaw pact, we took money and aid from everyone west and east to make the communist economy work. We were as much a soviet satelite as were were a US satelite - in as much we bought stuff from them as it suited our needs. We bought planes from usa and russia, AAA guns sweden. So no we were not soviet satelites - you are wrong.
Hungary and czeckoslovakia were not soviet republics, they never were. Neither was east germany - they invaded and imposed an unwanted communist regime by installing puppet rulers and preventing free elections and freedom. When the czecks and hungarians acted to gain more freedom the soviet armies invaded to impose strict communism again. No doubt about it - communism was always brought about by invasions there.
Afghanistan is a bit more complicated but basically they invaded because a series of soviet puppets, Taraki and later Amin failed to do exactly as moscow wanted so the soviet army invaeded and installed Karmal. Again communism imposed by brutal invasion.
Thx for helping the bosnians and the turks.
-
Well Dowding, while you might have defeated Germany and/or the USSR without help from the US in WWII and thereafter I have my doubts. Where would you personally be without that help that my uncles (one still alive) willing provided?
Agreed, the world is not a black and white place. Remember that the next time some European country decides that it knows better how to govern the rest of you guys and the US decides to mind it's own business as would seem to make you happy.
-
"As the world's third-largest oil exporter, Norway can afford to put money into peacemaking and to remain engaged in drawn-out negotiations."
And you really believe that the USSR didn't have a covetous eye on you? GScholz, if your attitude is typical of your countrymen then I'm just sorry we wasted so much time and effort.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Toad - who's talking about using statistics to measure compassion or national intent?.... When discussing aid contributions, sometimes its useful to look at the statistics concerning aid contributions. It's a simple as that. Of course there are circumstances that alter the context of those figures - but the US, oft-made claim that it makes most contribution is not the full story.
Well, what exactly is the point of this stream of "dick-measurement" posts?
-
"The fact that you let the Soviets use your airspace to wage war in Afghanistan shows this quite clearly."
Hmmm??? Do you know where afghanistan is, or yugoslavia for that matter? :) Just saying that statement makes no sense geographically...
-
Maybe. :)
-
Well, what exactly is the point of this stream of "dick-measurement" posts?
I might ask the same thing the next time there's a general whine that the US is giving away so much money, but isn't getting any support for it.
Well Dowding, while you might have defeated Germany and/or the USSR without help from the US in WWII and thereafter I have my doubts. Where would you personally be without that help that my uncles (one still alive) willing provided
Let's cut to the chase. In your opinion, does the debt I owe to men for their actions 60 years ago, mean that I can't disagree with US foreign policy devised by their descendants, even though I wasn't born until 33 years after the end of WW2? Does that not strike you as completely ridiculous?
You dodged the other questions in my post.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
"The fact that you let the Soviets use your airspace to wage war in Afghanistan shows this quite clearly."
Hmmm??? Do you know where afghanistan is, or yugoslavia for that matter? :) Just saying that statement makes no sense geographically...
Hey Grunherz u can send Bumsfield err Rumsfeld a copy of this map and show him where europe is.
-
Originally posted by fffreeze220
Hey Grunherz u can send Bumsfield err Rumsfeld a copy of this map and show him where europe is.
Why should Donald Rumsfeld care where where europe is? I mean aside from the UK... :)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I might ask the same thing the next time there's a general whine that the US is giving away so much money, but isn't getting any support for it......
....You dodged the other questions in my post.
Gotta love the irony.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why should Donald Rumsfeld care where where europe is? I mean aside from the UK... :)
I am sure that post war, the US diplomatic map of Europe will have big holes (like the kind that are all over Africa) where France and Germany are.
:p
-
So France and Germany are modeling their USA foreign policy on that of various failed African regimes. I see, brilliant! :D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So France and Germany are modeling their USA foreign policy on that of various failed African regimes. I see, brilliant! :D
No. What I said is that Germany and France will get the same diplomatic attention and access to the President as those failed African regimes.
The US will be too busy being buddies with England Spain and the rest of Europe who supported them.
I am not just saying this. When GWB got elected he snubbed the Prime Minister of Canada big time and continued to right up to the Afganistan war. He made a point out of visiting Mexico before Canada and inviting the Mexican President to see him and spend lots of one on one time with him.
GWB was upset over comments the Canadian Prime Minister made during the election. And Canada shares the longest undefended border in the world with the US and Canada is the US's biggest tradeing partner. Even now relations are still not good and I bet they will not be until Canada gets a new leader.
I imagine Powel and Rumsfeld and the rest of the inner circle will have little time for people like the leaders of France and Germany.
-
I answered your question Toad. The point about aid overseas was made as a reply to the 'US is the biggest donator of aid in the world' argument. I don't believe that sentiment tells the whole story. I thought that was quite obvious.
Anyway, I ought to bow to the undisputed champion of the 'Switch and bait' tactic. I don't think I need to spell out what I'm referring to - or the fact that the whole thing was an epilogue to what was effectively a biggest tool in the box series of arguments.
So there's some more irony for you to chortle over. ;)
-
Originally posted by Maverick
His stand on America is fine. He is welcome to it. As long as he remembers that his own economy, good or bad, is because Americans cared enough to help rebuild their country....
Final note. Just guess who he would come to for aid if there was some natural disaster in his country. No doubt he would squeak about American aid then too.
Dowding, this post of Mav's is the FIRST mention of "aid" in this entire thread, and it is early on.
Your IMMEDIATE reply was:
Originally posted by DowdingWhy do some Americans seem fascinated by how much aid they give around the world? As a proportion of GDP, they are 22nd in the world. That's nothing to boast about.
60 years ago the US committed itself to a great deed - the Marshall plan. But it was in American interests to have a strong barrier against the USSR, and I'm sure there has been a fair amount of money made in trade in the mean time.
Either it was altruistic and designed to forge a strong democratic, independent nation state and partner or it was a cynical ploy to make sure American interests were always looked after on the continent. I like to believe the former.
[/b]
I believe it was YOU who started the "measurement" process, although Mav did mention aid but NOT as in
Dowding: 'US is the biggest donator of aid in the world'
YOU made that assumption.
And I don't blame you for choosing % of GNP as the yardstick because otherwise.... well, let's just say that between the US and Japan it takes th next 7 contributors to approximately equal the $ value of their contributions.
BTW, look at the % of GNP given by Japan as well; it's not significantly better than the US in the light of some of the other smaller Scandinavian countries as well. yet they give a huge $ amount also. Yet I don't see them being hammered for their insensitivity here.
There's 5, count 'em 5 coutries that apparently make their UN designated target. They're all Scandinavian contries. Good on 'em.
Yet as I said, this is ONE measure of a nation's contribution to progress for the human race and for world peace.
I also find your comment about altruism ...interesting... especially as it comes immediately after your subtle "they did it for trade" remark.
Particularly after just returning from England, I'm amazed at my personal reaction. Clearly, there are Englishmen and Europeans that I respect and in fact hold near and dear to my heart. My open hand of friendship will always be out to them and willing to lend a hand.
Then there's others.
-
My reply about aid, wasn't really in reply to Maverick - there's been many other references about it and I said nothing. Other instances of 'US is the biggest donator' argument as a reason why everyone should agree with the US administration's stance. I happened to talk about it in this thread - perhaps I should have done it elsewhere.
BTW, look at the % of GNP given by Japan as well; it's not significantly better than the US in the light of some of the other smaller Scandinavian countries as well. yet they give a huge $ amount also. Yet I don't see them being hammered for their insensitivity here.
I don't think anyone has argued Japan's contribution (or any other country's) is exemplary - perhaps I've just missed it. Feel free to point me in that direction. I'm not sure what you mean by insensitivity.
Yet as I said, this is ONE measure of a nation's contribution to progress for the human race and for world peace.
I agree 100%. As is pointing out simple totals of money distributed. I believe % GNP is more illustrative of aid effort than a simple totaliser, but there are other key indicators.
I also find your comment about altruism ...interesting... especially as it comes immediately after your subtle "they did it for trade" remark.
I didn't say 'they did it for trade' and I certainly don't believe that. I pointed out what America obtained from the deal.
I then went on to present two opposing viewpoints on why the Marshall Plan was implemented, followed by a statement regarding which one I subscribe to. The idea that European countries should blindly support US foreign policy because of the Marshall Plan runs hand in hand with the idea that the US 'did it for trade', as you put it. Both are absolutely ridiculous concepts and I was trying to illustrate that. Like I said in the post (which you deliberately overlook), I believe the US extended that helping hand to avoid the mistakes made in 1919 and produce a strong democratic set of allies. Does that really mean those allies should show unconditional support over all issues at all times?
You seem to be grasping for something that really isn't there, Toad. But I'm glad you put me firmly in the 'others' camp. It shows just how personal you've let this become.
In the words of the great Liam Lynch:
"Whatever"
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Let's cut to the chase. In your opinion, does the debt I owe to men for their actions 60 years ago, mean that I can't disagree with US foreign policy devised by their descendants, even though I wasn't born until 33 years after the end of WW2? Does that not strike you as completely ridiculous?
You dodged the other questions in my post.
Dowding, I didn't dodge your post, don't know what you're referring to. Sometimes I give up on an argument when it finally gets through to me (yes, I've been called stubborn) that it's futile.
Anyhow, your free, I guess, to disagree with whatever you want. There is probably more division within the US over Iraq than there is outside the US (except perhaps the middle east).
Even long standing alliances and friendships can be fragile. As I mentioned before, America is not it's government but rather a nation of people just like in your country and everywhere else in the world. The US government reflects the will of it's people more than in many of the other countries in this world.
People remember the friends that help in time of need as well as the ones that don't. I will agree that help doesn't mean agreeing with someone when you think they are wrong or perhaps on a disaterous course. Most of the criticism I'm seeing is an attack on our motives and comes across as very anti-american. Such display of anti-american sentiment will be remembered, not by the US governement but by Americans.
-
The Canadian PM is a little French salamander and the whole Canadian government is worthless - why should we care about them? They spend three times more money registering and/or confiscating guns from law abiding citizens than they do on their military. Canada is worthless to the world, they have nice scenery and have good trade with the USA but they have no say and should have no say as a government in world affairs. For gods sake the little Canadian government toejams refused their few brave men being awarded medals for curagesus acts in saving some pinned down US troops during the 911 war. Utterly pathetic.
-
In general for toejams and giggles... :D But specifically I mean to be insulting towards Canada's awful government - so it would be appropriate to use such words.
-
Dowding..... nice tapdance. Just chose this thread to finally bring it up eh?
All of us chooses the values which we espouse here. Other people will interpret those as they see them and through their own biases.
I'm no different and neither are you.
It isn't "personal" with me but as Iron says, it's only natural to evaluate and remember.
-
Tap-dance? The accusation of a man out of options, generally.
Although I have been deceiving you and I feel I have to come clean. I was going to claim it was a social experiment you see, but that's been done before.
Being critical of an administration is not being hateful of the country that administration governs. The adminstration is transitory, and never outlasts the country. Moreover, the adminstration does not represent the views of all citizens, and therefore those not in unanimity of opinion with the government are also open to the accusation of hating their own country, by extension of argument. That is a slippery slope to fascism. I believe it is a complete fallacy.
-
Merely the observation of a man that has seen many tapdancers. Some better and some worse than you.
-
Originally posted by Habu
I am not an American. I do not live in America. I just see so much nonsense written about America right now I felt the desire to make these posts. I really do not think that most people have any idea what is going on with the UN and the US and Iraq.
Regarding my post. Yes It is true that the contributions from the US private organizations and NGO's will be much higher than those from Norway both in total dollar terms and in terms of % of GDP. The reason is that Norway is a very heavily taxed socialist country and people in those countries tend to think "My government takes care of my social causes for me".
In the US people are more generous personally and do not expect the government to eliminate hunger in Africa so will support one of the many church or national charities that work in that area.
How much did you donate to charity last income tax statement. I bet I gave more and I am not even that generous a donor.
I'm sure you believe firmly in the puddle of assumptions, guesses, personal opinions and subjective observations you just poured down on us. Some naive people who are not as completely familiar with the exact thinking and spending patterns of both Norwegians and US citizens as yourself might give you more credibility if you present a few hard facts instead...
-
Originally posted by Thud
I'm sure you believe firmly in the puddle of assumptions, guesses, personal opinions and subjective observations you just poured down on us. Some naive people who are not as completely familiar with the exact thinking and spending patterns of both Norwegians and US citizens as yourself might give you more credibility if you present a few hard facts instead...
Sorry Thud. I did not know I was writing another thesis. I will try to use footnotes from now on.
Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas -- more than three times U.S. official foreign aid of $10 billion:
International giving by U.S. foundations totals $1.5 billion per year
Charitable giving by U.S. businesses now comes to at least $2.8 billion annually
American NGOs gave over $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
Religious overseas ministries contribute $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.
$1.3 billion by U.S. colleges are given in scholarships to foreign students
Personal remittances from the U.S. to developing countries came to $18 billion in 2000
Source: Dr. Carol Aderman, Aid and Comfort, Tech Central Station, 21 August 2002. (Aderman admits that there are no complete figures for international private giving. Hence these numbers may be taken in caution, but even with caution, these are high numbers.)
-
I clearly don't see why you are arguing here ?
Norvege is admirable because of the effort
USA is admirable because of the quantity
So what the problem ?
Why should we expect USA to do the same effort ?
Because it will provide more money for those in the need ? perhaps ...
But if you look closely at the chart posted you will see a little country providing a little effort and a little quantity ...
Have you any idea of the real amount of money there is in Luxembourg ? (just a hint : it's a multiple of Fort Knox)
-
Thud said that my argument that when you consider US aid you have to consider the enormous amount of private aid that US citizens contribute was just unsubstantiated opinion, implying that it was not true.
Of course when you see the real figures the amount of aid from private sources is staggering.
The figure, according to that report, is over 3 times what the US government gives.
It also breaks down the private aid to show most is being used for humanitarian purposes.
Norway is a socialist state that is heavily taxed and there is no way per capita private aid from Norway is even close to the US level because people do not have the same amount of disposible income. I also know Norway very well having worked overseas in the oil business and I have many friends from there. The one thing they all tell me is that when you make lots of money it is time to leave Norway, because the government takes it all.
Therefore all this BS about how cheap the US is and how great Norway is false because it is based on the false assumption that only governments give aid (and not the private sectors of the economy).
Most government aid is anything but. If you want to judge aid by the humanitarian impact, then private aid gives a much greater bang for the dollar than government aid. But that is a totally different subject.
-
Originally posted by Toad
than money.
Typical for the libs, the result does not matter, only the effort does.
-
Originally posted by Habu
Thud said that my argument that when you consider US aid you have to consider the enormous amount of private aid that US citizens contribute was just unsubstantiated opinion, implying that it was not true.
From several other posts by which you enriched the boards here I already figured out that you never mastered the art of reading or listening properly before reacting to someone. I'll give it a try though, I litterally stated that if you count in the private aid from the US you should do the same with the private aid from Norway.
But of course with just a vague understanding of what I wrote you retorted brilliantly by stating that you definately gave more to charity than I did last fy... :rolleyes:
-
hmmm.....this is a boring one.
-
Originally posted by Thud
From several other posts by which you enriched the boards here I already figured out that you never mastered the art of reading or listening properly before reacting to someone. I'll give it a try though, I litterally stated that if you count in the private aid from the US you should do the same with the private aid from Norway.
But of course with just a vague understanding of what I wrote you retorted brilliantly by stating that you definately gave more to charity than I did last fy... :rolleyes:
And I said Norway is a socialist state and therefore.........
Ahhh forget it you do not seem to be able to grasp the simple fact that if you add the public aid and the governement aid the US gave it totals to more than ever other country on that graph combined.