Aid Money - to get things into perspective

[Magness]

Reply to Silver Cheetah ...

quote:

---

MY ANSWER Claptrap. Not only claptrap, this is a postively dangerous attitude. This black/white, good/evil crap is totally simplistic, and does away with all need (in the opinions of those that tout it) for examining cause and effect.
Questioning of government aims and actions is fundamental if we are to continue to live in a democratic society that is moving towards (in theory anyway) securing a decent life for all global citizens. The US is the only remaining world power, for the time being anyway. What is does and how it does it is of HUGE concern to all global citizens.
So you want us all to sit here doing our Noddy imitation? Cheers, Big Ears, you can do the robot thing all you want - me, I've got a brain and I like using it.

---

S/C, actually, I am quite interested in the cause(s) and effect of this current situation. However, I have no interest in viewing them as an excuse for 9/11. (I'm not sayign that you are either, although I have heard some who sometimes come pretty darned close.)

The concept of good and evil is not crap. And I generally feel that attempting to turn the world into many shades of gray is often little more than an attempt to excuse one's own or someone else's evil actions by trying to blur the lines between good and evil.

Just curious, what's a "Noddy imitation"?

quote:

---

YES, I can question all I damn well like! I live in a democracy where free speech is allowed. (Didn't America used to be that way once upon a time?? (Don't question, either for us or against us... next thing we know, it'll be 'off with her head'!! Where have we heard all this before......... )

---

Actually, I never question anyone's "right" to say what they feel or question what they want. But conversely, "freedom of speech" (and I'm using this consceptually, not the US Consitution's strict definition) doesn't necessarily mean that a person has the right to speak out against a majority (or a minority) opinion without being challenged.
Perhaps a better way to say this is ... I'm not challenging your right to say what you think. I am challenging what you have said and (what I may be misinterpreting) an apparent feeling that you have the right to speak unchallenged.

Speak on!!! It's actually rather enjoyable to read reasonably well written and well thought out (even if I disagree vociferously).

quote:

---

MY ANSWER If you don't give a shit about the future of this planet and the legacy we're going to be leaving our children and grandchildren, there are plenty that are.
Socialist/anarchist troublemakers, eh? Well, duckie, I'm one of those 'troublemakers', as you've probably sussed by now. My fellow 'troublemakers' are nurses, doctors, IT professionals, writers, artists..... the list is a long one. Dippy hippies are definitely in the minority as far as activism goes these days ..... (BTW, I work in the finance sector, mostly for IT. My feet are firmly on the ground, mister.)

---

S/c, I care plenty about the future. I am an "IT professional". I am not exactly the raving lunatic rabid conservative that you may (or may not) think I am. It's not so much that I am a rabid conservative than I am a "hater" of communism/socialism/liberalism and political correctness. And my autonomic reflex action is that if a socialist or liberal proposes something, then I will oppose it. I don't define "caring" as agreeing with liberals.

quote:

---

Propaganda?
Give it a C
Give it a N
Give it an N
Three rousing cheers for CNN - transmitting 'the world according to America' (as it is fondly known this side of the pond... )

---

I got a real chuckle over this comment!!! CNN isn't 'the world according to America'!!! It's the world according to the US liberal intelligensia. Didn't you know that CNN stands for the Clinton News Network???

I'm a Fox News junkie. They're far more balanced. I know that some view them as a right wing network, but those people have been so brainwashed by decades of liberal news bias that anything even a smidge slightly to the right of CNN, ABC, NBC, or CBS appears to be a bunch of rabid fascists.


Ah well, that's enough for now.

[Ronn_Bman]

I think Mangass says things quite nicely! I prefer MSNBC though.

SC if you or Tracey decide to take those pictures, I'll be glad to be your test viewer!

[Neb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by tracey:

I think we should just have our bottoms photographed for stealthy's site. it would make a change and our mystique would be preserved [img]smile.gif[/img]

---

I think you should too!

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:
There's been a lot of screaming and yelling in this forum about how much America has contributed and continues to contribute to poorer countries (including Afghanistan) in terms of aid dollars. Decided to take a closer look, just for the hell of it......

First of all, the US is not the biggest donor, - Japan is, by a long way.

Secondly, as far as percentage of GDP is concerned, the US comes LAST out of the 22 richest industrialised nations, that is despite being the richest nation on earth, by a very long way.

It contributes just 0.10% of its GDP. Britain is also pretty crap, with 0.23%. Both figures are well below the average, sadly.

Denmark comes top, with 1.01%, closely followed by Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, and Luxembourg.

---

I don't think anyone said America provided the most aid to all the poorer nations of the world, but I'm glad to know we're number two overall! The point made was about aid to Afghanistan prior to September 11th.

U.S. Humanitarian Aid to the Afghan People

The United States has been the single largest donor of humanitarian aid for Afghans for the past several years. In 2000, the United States contributed a total of $113 million in humanitarian aid to Afghans, both inside Afghanistan and in refugee camps in neighboring countries. In 2001, the aid level has already exceeded $184, accounting for some 300,000 tons of American food sent to Afghanistan this year.

On October 4, President Bush announced a new contribution of $320 million in humanitarian assistance to Afghans. This assistance includes food, medicine, blankets and shelter.

This assistance is not given to the Taliban or any other faction, but is distributed through the United Nations, and non-government organizations (NGOs). The assistance is distributed in Taliban-controlled and opposition-controlled areas of the country, wherever the need is greatest.

I will still argue the point that what we do is worthy of mentioning in our defense anytime that our generousity is brought into question because while people complain we don't do enough, we do more than most. The opinion, "you're not doing enough because..." is just another complaint about what's wrong with America. If it was the biggest dollar amount and the biggest percentage, people would still say "you should do more because..."

The fact that we doubled our aid contribution to Afghanistan after September 11th and during an armed conflict with the unrecognized government of that country should say alot to people, but for some reason it doesn't say enough?!!? It's not just a "political move" to those who are fed, only to those who can't be pleased.

SC, I hope this doesn't ruin my chance of seeing the pictures you and Tracey talked about I may be vulnerable to certain kinds of propoganda

[Magness]

quote:

---

I think Mangass says things quite nicely! I prefer MSNBC though.

---

Thanks for the support, Ronn_Bman. I was beginning to feel like the lone conservative in the middle of an anti-WTO riot .... I mean ... demonstration.

MSNBC has been pretty good since 9/11. I switch back and forth primarily between FoxNews and MSNBC.

[Silver Cheetah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magness:
[QB]
S/C, actually, I am quite interested in the cause(s) and effect of this current situation. However, I have no interest in viewing them as an excuse for 9/11. (I'm not sayign that you are either, although I have heard some who sometimes come pretty darned close.)
The concept of good and evil is not crap. And I generally feel that attempting to turn the world into many shades of gray is often little more than an attempt to excuse one's own or someone else's evil actions by trying to blur the lines between good and evil.
Just curious, what's a "Noddy imitation"?[QB]

---

When I say good/evil crap – I’m referring to a tendency that I’ve seen far too much of lately, (both on the forum and off it) to categorise actions/people as ‘evil’, and draw a line under that definition which may not be questioned. Full stop, end of story, end of discussion. No questions, no looking at cause and effect...

As I have said many many many times on this forum, people do not come out of their mother’s womb with ‘evil’ written in big letters on their foreheads. If a person or group of people resort to a course of action that is foul and disgusting in the extreme, it is worth while examining the background to that course of action. (And no, I am not excusing the perpetrators by saying that. Just saying that we might learn from what has happened, with a view to doing better in the future.)

That is not to say that I do not believe that actions have consequences. Of course they do. However, a little more understanding on the part of the West, and America in particular, as to just WHY the anti-Western feeling in various parts of the world – I am not just referring to the Middle East here..... would be no bad thing. Dismissing people and events as ‘evil’ is simplistic and discourages and stifles exploration and discussion around the issues raised by the events of September 11th. I’m not going to go into a full blown discussion yet again on the events of 9/11, if you don’t mind, because I’ve said everything I have to say on the subject at least 20 times, and really don’t want to go into it all again. Read some of the earlier threads in this forum, should you be at all interested in my opinion/views on these matters.....

Noddy is a character in an Enid Blyton book (children’s author in England, very popular in the 60s and 70s) as is Big Ears. My reference here was to people who just nod their heads and go along with the status quo rather than questioning.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magness:
[QB]Actually, I never question anyone's "right" to say what they feel or question what they want. But conversely, "freedom of speech" (and I'm using this consceptually, not the US Consitution's strict definition) doesn't necessarily mean that a person has the right to speak out against a majority (or a minority) opinion without being challenged.
Perhaps a better way to say this is ... I'm not challenging your right to say what you think. I am challenging what you have said and (what I may be misinterpreting) an apparent feeling that you have the right to speak unchallenged.
Speak on!!! It's actually rather enjoyable to read reasonably well written and well thought out (even if I disagree vociferously).
Fair enough. I’m a writer, amongst other things, - hence the relatively well written posts [QB]

---

I have been speaking out on this forum since I joined, and have been jumped on more times than I can count. In fact, I have ‘left’ the war forum three times so far, in high dudgeon. (I use the word ‘left’ in its loosest possible sense [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] Believe me, I am not someone who feels she has ‘the right to speak unchallenged’. [img]tongue.gif[/img] I get challenged here nearly every time I open my mouth on any serious topic. And I’m absolutely fine and dandy with that, believe me! Firstly, debate helps me to clarify my views, secondly, it is a useful insight into how the other 4/5ths think/live, and thirdly, it’s fun. I like a free and frank exchange of views, especially if my interlocuter has any kind of a sense of humour!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magness:
[QB]S/c, I care plenty about the future. I am an "IT professional". I am not exactly the raving lunatic rabid conservative that you may (or may not) think I am. It's not so much that I am a rabid conservative than I am a "hater" of communism/socialism/liberalism and political correctness. And my autonomic reflex action is that if a socialist or liberal proposes something, then I will oppose it. I don't define "caring" as agreeing with liberals."[QB]

---

Hmm. I never said anything about a ‘raving lunatic rabid conservative’, so think that might be more your own personal paranoia than any opinion of mine [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] but if the cap fits...... tee hee.... sorry couldn’t resist....... Tiny piece of advice from Cheetah, - do not put gun to own head...... it is liable to go off and leave the back of your head very messy ... [img]graemlins/bonghit.gif[/img]

Out of interest, what is your definition of a liberal? What is your definition of a socialist? What’s your beef with both? Do you have any concept of why environmental activists do what they do? Do you think being arrested (and putting your working career on the line ) for standing up to ensure that we and our children have a future is just NOTHING? I sometimes think it is a mistake to identify certain actions with a certain ‘type’ of person. Would it not be better to look at the issues clearly, rather than through a haze of prejudices? (Easier said than done, I know. Points of view are necessarily subjective! Or is that one of them there fuzzy liberal concepts......

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magness:
[QB]I got a real chuckle over this comment!!! CNN isn't 'the world according to America'!!! It's the world according to the US liberal intelligensia. Didn't you know that CNN stands for the Clinton News Network???

I'm a Fox News junkie. They're far more balanced. I know that some view them as a right wing network, but those people have been so brainwashed by decades of liberal news bias that anything even a smidge slightly to the right of CNN, ABC, NBC, or CBS appears to be a bunch of rabid fascists. "[QB]

---

CNN – when I’ve watched it in the past, has looked pretty insular from where I’ve been sat – (ps. to my mind, Clinton is liberal in the same way as Tony Blair is left wing. Ahem.) You mean it’s liberal by American standards. By many European standards, it is not particularly, I can assure you.

When you say Fox News are ‘far more balanced’, I assume you mean ‘in your opinion’. If they have a right wing bias, and you do too, then of course you’ll find them more acceptable. Goes without saying.
I love the Guardian newspaper in England. Why? Because I can read news reports and editorial without foaming at the mouth due to the fact that reporting bias/views expressed are informed by a world view similar to my own, more often than not... hence relatively acceptable, in the main.

When watching news, I ask myself – is it critical? Does it question? Does it present the views of ‘the other side’ (there usually is one...) Does it look at cause and effect – ie. social and historical causes and events (where relevant?). These questions are probably more pertinent than asking if something is liberal or rightwing, as these are terms which mean very different things to different people.

[Silver Cheetah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
I think Mangass says things quite nicely! I prefer MSNBC though.

SC if you or Tracey decide to take those pictures, I'll be glad to be your test viewer!

---

Mangass? Aha, an honest to goodness Freudian slip. :Cheetah strolls off, dead pleased with self, and lashing tail.... :

(BTW, only problem with pix is the fur on my rump rather gets in the way, and anyway changes the whole aesthetic.... Must confer with sib.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:


Mangass? Aha, an honest to goodness Freudian slip. :Cheetah strolls off, dead pleased with self, and lashing tail.... :

(BTW, only problem with pix is the fur on my rump rather gets in the way, and anyway changes the whole aesthetic.... Must confer with sib.

---

LOL. Sorry Magness!

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:

When you say Fox News are ‘far more balanced’, I assume you mean ‘in your opinion’. If they have a right wing bias, and you do too, then of course you’ll find them more acceptable. Goes without saying.
I love the Guardian newspaper in England. Why? Because I can read news reports and editorial without foaming at the mouth due to the fact that reporting bias/views expressed are informed by a world view similar to my own, more often than not... hence relatively acceptable, in the main.

---

Keep in mind an "informed world view similar to yours" isn't any less biased. You think it's right and more of a "world view" for the same reasons. Is it a truly informed world view, or do you believe it a world view because you think yours are world views, and it reflects your thoughts? Everyone's opinions color their perception.

[Silver Cheetah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


I don't think anyone said America provided the most aid to all the poorer nations of the world, but I'm glad to know we're number two overall! The point made was about aid to Afghanistan prior to September 11th.

U.S. Humanitarian Aid to the Afghan People

The United States has been the single largest donor of humanitarian aid for Afghans for the past several years. In 2000, the United States contributed a total of $113 million in humanitarian aid to Afghans, both inside Afghanistan and in refugee camps in neighboring countries. In 2001, the aid level has already exceeded $184, accounting for some 300,000 tons of American food sent to Afghanistan this year.



I will still argue the point that what we do is worthy of mentioning in our defense anytime that our generousity is brought into question because while people complain we don't do enough, we do more than most. The opinion, "you're not doing enough because..." is just another complaint about what's wrong with America. If it was the biggest dollar amount and the biggest percentage, people would still say "you should do more because..."

---

In response to your first statement, well, yes they did actually. I'd need to go back and do a search, - can't remember names and packdrill at this juncture.

The reason I posted this thread was precisely because I've read far too much Tarzan like chest beating about how great America is, and how it sends the most aid of all countries in the world.

A. That isn't true, and b. it's pathetic when viewed as percentage of GDP. America is RICH, dammit, with much of those riches earned on the backs of sweated labour in the third world. Give some back - damn right. Britain is also pretty miserly when you look at how wealthy Britain is overall. The same goes with regard to how our riches were earned, - well, there's the whole colonial issue to take into consideration here, and the effect that colonisation had on colonised countries.

(The issue of how effective aid is is a whole discussion in itself. In some crisis situations, it is a must. In other situations, other alternatives are arguably more useful. Again, a big topic, and one which perhaps deserves a thread of its own...)

At the risk of being a wet blanket, I might argue that the aid given was by way of being a concience salver, following the godawful mess that was left in Afghanistan after the US decided to stick its nose in and help turf out the Soviets.

Quote from MSNBC piece....

...'there are times when the United States should have resisted the temptation to act. Arming a multi-national coalition of Islamic extremists in Afghanistan during the 1980s - well after the destruction of the Marine barracks in Beirut or the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 - was one of those times'...

So, whilst it's great that America gave this aid, personally, I think it is the least they can do. As far as I know, the US just pulled out of Afghanistan, leaving fundamentalists in power and a god awful mess. A helping hand is kind of what you'd expect from the richest nation on earth, which also happens to be a democracy that believes in freedom for its people, even if that freedom does often come at other people's expense......