Subject:
|
Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:20:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1012 times
|
| |
|
|
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.
> 2)The USA did not act alone, and could not have done.
> 3)The USA has benefited substantially from WW2.
Bingo.
>
> >
> > 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.
> > 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. The wealth of western nations is
> built on exploitation of the developing world and the destruction of the global
> environmemt.
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
>
> "Private charity is an act of privilege, it can never be a viable alternative
> to State obligations" Dr James Obrinski [Medicins sans Frontier]
>
>
> > In my view the world isn't *entitled* to any aid whatever, and shouldn't GET
> > any, beyond what private parties within US feel like giving for their own
> > reasons.
>
> You are entitled to that view.
And finally the punch that Ali never threw--Wow, new appreciation for Scott.
>
> Scott A
Wow! Scott hit the nail directly on the head amny times! Nicely done.
Xenophobia comes with the highest payment--ignoring that if one of us
suffers, in the end we *all* suffer.
Dave K.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid
|
| (...) Don't forget Lend Lease (did we ever get any of the lends back?) (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid
|
| (...) I'm not ignoring anything. GDP is the standard way of measuring it - under Agenda 21, the Official Development Assistance (ODA) aid target of 0.7% of GDP was set. Even when measured per head of population, the USA is still hitting below its (...) (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
|
|
|
|
