Subject:
|
Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Nov 2002 18:48:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
996 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > 1)The USA was forced into the war - it had to have its "ass kicked" first.
Don't forget Lend Lease (did we ever get any of the lends back?)
> > 2)The USA did not act alone, and could not have done.
True but irrelevant. What matters is who would have won if we hadn't
entered, and if you conclude the Allies would have (not a foregone
conclusion by any means), at what cost?
> > 3)The USA has benefited substantially from WW2.
>
> Bingo.
How so? You're going to have a hard time proving that last one.
> > > Or more straightforwardly, would the world be a better place if N Korea had
> > > taken over S Korea 50 years ago, or 20, or 10, or 5?
> >
> > Would it be a better place if the USA had not supported Iraq, Israel, Pinochet
> > etc etc?
>
>
> Ouch! Truth.
True that those weren't the greatest decisions, but irrelevant. On balance
we're good guys who have repeatedly saved the world. You'll never get Scott
to admit it though, he's anti-american and not very good at admitting he's
wrong about things.
from: http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18165
"The US does not always do the right thing internationally.
The US has, more often than not, been a force for good in the world."
You agreed then. Nothing has changed in the last 5 days.
>
> > > If your answer is no,
> > > then the sums expended need to be included. Ditto for all the other places
> > > we've protected from neighboring aggressors.
> > >
> > > But the base assertion that the US isn't giving enough is based on the
> > > unstated assumption that the US should be giving anything at all in the
> > > first place. Those claiming the US isn't giving enough would need to justify
> > > that assertion first. And they haven't. They're just letting it go unstated
> > > because if you accept it and argue that we're giving enough, you've already
> > > agreed that we should be giving *some*.
> >
> >
> > Personally, I feel obliged to help those in need. Personally,
> > I feel proud that the UK is taking international aid seriously.
Great, just stop insisting that everyone else has to share your desire to
give money to tinpot dictators so they can get private jets. Me I prefer
other ways of helping people than government aid. They're all more
effective. But I reject the notion of obligation.
> > The wealth of western nations is
> > built on exploitation of the developing world and the destruction
> > of the global
> > environmemt.
Prove that assertion.
> Slam! Down goes Fraser!
>
> > If USA does not want to give 0.39% [eu average] of that wealth
> > back, then I think that is a real shame. I think these goals are worth working
> > for in 2015:
> >
> > 50% reduction in people living on $1 per day
> > Primary school for all children
> > 67% reduction in child deaths
> > 75% cut in maternal deaths
> > Halve the number of people without clean water
Suppose they are, how will government to government assistance achieve them?
> > "Private charity is an act of privilege, it can never be a viable alternative
> > to State obligations" Dr James Obrinski [Medicins sans Frontier]
Guess I'm going to have to cut those guys off my list of donees.
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid
|
| (...) No, but we got Dr. Who, Monty Python, Absolutely Fabulous, and The Young Ones. (...) The US benefitted in terms of the synthetic rubber industry, computer industry, aircraft manufacturing industry, and the certainly in terms of the advent of (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid
|
| (...) Not hard at all--science. More specifics--space program, aeronautics, other stuff--yes the world benefitted from these things but specifically, the US--letting in German scientists and turning a blind eye to some atrocities during the war they (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid
|
| (...) This statement should no have to be proved to such a keen observer of the world but since you asked. 1) I was reading about the island of Borneo the other day and the exploitation of the their rainforests to provide cheap lumber to Japan (a (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid
|
| (...) I'd argue the "true but irrelavant" charge. Ignore Europe, stomp Japan with all our resources (is anyone contesting we couldn't do it?) then deal with Germany. Japan only took so long because they were on the constant back-burner. It's a silly (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid
|
| (...) Yes. (...) I expect the cost would have been high, but worth paying. (...) Others have already. But if it matters to you, feel free to disprove it. (...) I think it is every bit as relevant as WW1. The USA continues to make bad decisions – (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) Bingo. (...) Ouch! Truth. (...) Slam! Down goes Fraser! (...) And finally the punch that Ali never threw--Wow, new appreciation for Scott. (...) Wow! Scott hit the nail directly on the (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
161 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
