<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:


The statistics come from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It's an organisation that helps and advises governments all over the world on coping with the challenges that are arising as a result of globalisation. They are not just pulled out of the air - I have seem similar statistics quoted in a number of different contexts over the past couple of weeks - in fact, it was a newspaper article that got me interested. Until then, I'd taken the chest beating as gospel.


Just a small point - could you explain what you meant by the following? The syntax confused me somewhat.... And to those who seem to think that just because a country/people benefit from donations or aid, it's somehow not good anymore... uh hello! '

Once I understand it, I might be able to reply to your point. Thanks.<hr></blockquote>


No worries, it wasn't directed to you. [img]smile.gif[/img] But my point is simple, just because someone or a country GIVE or AID someone or another country and it is in their best interests to do so, it does NOT make the aid/gift bad in my view. Sure you can say the giver wasn't purely unselfish or altruisitic.. but the fact of the aid or help still exists... so I'm a bit tired of hearing how bad Americans are because we 'only helped' this place or that to aid our own cause. We conceded that point ages ago. [img]smile.gif[/img]

CB

I think what a lot of people object to Cloudy is that a country will give aid when it is in its best interests to do so, and then claim that it is the greatest thing diplomatically since sliced bread (like the US and UK have a habit of doing).

But then when another humanitarian disaster comes up it will be ignored by the same countries that before had preached their generosity. We don't like the intention or the double standard, but fot that country the aid is often very welcome.

Sorry I got you and SC into this... Didn't mean it!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Naked Wild Man:



You are joking, right?

Pathetic is what it is.

If America's generosity lived up to the self image of americans, America would of course be by far the biggest donator of wealth in the world, as by far the richest country. But, it isn't even the biggest total donor, much less outstripping all others by far.

And comparitive generosity can only be judged in relation to what the donor can afford to give. The cold, hard facts say that far from being the generous donor nation many americans claim, when compared to other developed western nations it is among the most miserly and stingiest.<hr></blockquote>

No, I'm not joking. Number 2 is better than number 10. What I do find humorous is other nations passing judgement on US.

You're the richest you should "this". You have the most powerful military so you should "this". Do what we want because "this". Quit saying you're the best, but you need to do these things because you are the best. These are things I find pathetic.

One look at statistics and you think you can determine what American can afford to give? I think not.

Some of the cold hard facts are that lots of the nations on that list don't have to spend a large percentage of their GNP on defense. They only need a token military. They don't have to be able to head into a multi-billion dollar military "adventure" at the drop of the hat. That frees up alot of cash for those nations.

Disposable income is an important term in this equation. If I make more money than my neighbor, but he has obligated less of his income, it's entirely possible he has more disposable income.

Also, I wonder what the GNP breaks down to per capita for the nations in question?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:

But then when another humanitarian disaster comes up it will be ignored by the same countries that before had preached their generosity. We don't like the intention or the double standard, but fot that country the aid is often very welcome.

Sorry I got you and SC into this... Didn't mean it!<hr></blockquote>

Barry the point made was that the US for the past many years has supplied Afghanistan the most humanitarian aid. Maybe not the most aid to all the poor nations of the world, but prior to September 11th in Afghanistan it was the US.

It's not a double standard to state what is true, but what has happened since this was said is that well maybe there, but look here, here, and here. People looking for things to be imperfect will find them. What is a double standard is to only recognize the bad, while ignoring the good.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:

No, I'm not joking. Number 2 is better than number 10. What I do find humorous is other nations passing judgement on US.
<hr></blockquote>

Ehm..... Ronn, are you saying that the US has never passed judgement on other countries? "Don't judge others or you might get judged yourself." Dammit, can't remember where that quote came from....

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Neb:


Ehm..... Ronn, are you saying that the US has never passed judgement on other countries? "Don't judge others or you might get judged yourself." Dammit, can't remember where that quote came from....<hr></blockquote>

From the Bible (This is not a religious discussion, but an answer to Nebs question about where the quote came from):

"Judge not, that ye be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then
shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

Matthew: 7:1-5

That quote can go both ways!

The attitude of passing judgement on America is prevalent in these forums, and it's always the answer to anything posted. This forum has become less about the War on Terrorism, and more about what's wrong with America and how America is the problem with the world today.

It's not other nations passing judgement on America or America passing judgement on other nations in here. It's non-American individuals endlessly complaining about America. When Yorick made his "anti-British" post people were offended, should American's feel any less?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Originally posted by Barry the Sprout

I think what a lot of people object to Cloudy is that a country will give aid when it is in its best interests to do so, and then claim that it is the greatest thing diplomatically since sliced bread (like the US and UK have a habit of doing).

But then when another humanitarian disaster comes up it will be ignored by the same countries that before had preached their generosity. We don't like the intention or the double standard, but fot that country the aid is often very welcome. <hr></blockquote>

What I (and probably a lot of other people) object to is this naive belief that countries act in ways other than in their self-interest (at least as they perceive it).

It is NOT a double standard to help one country and not help another, if one's own country determines that their self-interest lies with one but not the other. Of course, one major caveat to this statement is in the proper determination of one's self-interest. There is no guarantee that the decision you make today will be turn out to the correct one tomorrow.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:

Several months ago, I was arrested for taking part in a peaceful protest against Exxon Mobile.

...

Currently, I'm focusing on energy - as the British government is currently deciding whether to focus on revving up nuclear to meet our energy needs moving forwards, or to go with something a bit less stupidly lethal and long term polluting.
<hr></blockquote>

So ... I see that you are opposed to oil and nuclear. I'm assuming that you are also opposed to coal as well, given its polluting nature.

Question ... what currently existing and in use form of energy do you support? While I definitely support research alternative energy generation (although probably different reasons than you), we have to live in the real world. Until those new generation methods exist, we have to use those methods that do exist.

On the topic of energy generation, I get very tired, very fast of protesters that always seem to be against every existing method of power generation. Opposing everything that exists gives the appearance (whether intended or not) of wanting to turn the clock back two or three hundred years.

Rather than protest against the "bad power", why not get involved in the research for developing "good power"? If the "good power" is good enough, it will defeat the "bad power" in the marketplace, both of ideas and of economics.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:

That quote can go both ways!

The attitude of passing judgement on America is prevalent in these forums, and it's always the answer to anything posted. This forum has become less about the War on Terrorism, and more about what's wrong with America and how America is the problem with the world today.

It's not other nations passing judgement on America or America passing judgement on other nations in here. It's non-American individuals endlessly complaining about America. When Yorick made his "anti-British" post people were offended, should American's feel any less?<hr></blockquote>

Thanks for telling me where the quote was from, I suspected the Bible but didn't know for sure.

Hey, I'm not saying that WE are completely innocent, but from your post it sounded a bit like you were saying: "We have never judged anyone, why are you all judging us?"

I've got to agree with some of the others in that the US pays quite a lot less than many other countries compared to it's GNP.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
I think what a lot of people object to Cloudy is that a country will give aid when it is in its best interests to do so, and then claim that it is the greatest thing diplomatically since sliced bread (like the US and UK have a habit of doing).

But then when another humanitarian disaster comes up it will be ignored by the same countries that before had preached their generosity. We don't like the intention or the double standard, but fot that country the aid is often very welcome.

Sorry I got you and SC into this... Didn't mean it!<hr></blockquote>

What bothers me, is that the US (the only place I'm sure of, so I wil use it in my discussion) has loads of goodhearted PRIVATE CITIZENS and Charitable or Religious organizations that DO help year round and in all sorts of disasters. So critizing the whole dang country for not helping in one place or other on an official level is hypocritical too. In my experience, people can be very generous without getting any benefit other than the knowledge that they have helped another person. Maybe I'm just lucky, I don't know. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Cloudy