Subject:
|
Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Nov 2002 19:38:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1129 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
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
may have committed...
The consumer market today would not be what it is if it wasn't for
WW2--television, microwaves, right down to the silicone chip. Sure we all
benefit (those in consumerist nations) but who has benefitted the *most*?
>
> > > > 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.
I am not anti-american, but then again, I'm not pro-american--we're all
people here, with our deficiencies and problems.
>
> 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.
and I still do. The US has, more often than not, been a force for good. As
a point, in my little note about Rememberance day, I think I mentioned that
it always trys to do the right thing. But I also agree with Scotts point
that sometimes the US gets in it's own little world and doesn't realize
that, due to its stature and 'largeness' in the world, that when it swings
its 'arm of might around', it doesn't realize what it's hitting.
Anyway--that from an outside observer.
>
> >
> > > > 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.
It isn't the tin-pot dictators that I have the issue with--is the lack of
obligation you are inferring-that you don't think, collectively as a
country, that you have to help those in the world. My appreciation of
Scotts point is that the US has a part of causing some of the needs of
people around the world in order to satiate the US consumeristic need. In
other words, if the US, as a whole, didn't buy Nikey shoes that are made
'off shore' in sweat shops, that these people making 10 cents a day in these
sweat shops wouldn't be forced to make your shoes for the pittance that
they're getting.
I'm not saying that this is the scenario for *everything*, but it does
happen so you can get your cheap shoes in your malls. The consequences of
US consumerism is far-reaching.
What of the environment? I mean you're going to drill in a preserve in
Alaska. Why? Pure D consumerism-the 'need' is there, "Do what you have to
in the world as long as my SUV can get me to the fitness gym and the mall so
I can buy my workout clothes and shoes and look good."
I'm just saying... Maybe not you, and not your friends, but this is how
*America* is seen.
> > > The wealth of western nations is
> > > built on exploitation of the developing world and the destruction
> > > of the global
> > > environmemt.
>
> Prove that assertion.
Prove? Ozone depletion, LA smog, toxic waste dumps--you want to dip a cup
in one of the great lakes and take a swig? Proof? Walk around.
>
> > 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?
Now there's the rub--we're actually going to have to *do* some research, do
some cost analysis and figure out where best to send the money to help our
fellow person on this planet. Instead of giving money to crack-pot
dictators, get the money to the people. It won't be easy, but we can start
in our own back yard--if a major corporation is making their product off
shore and paying their workers a pittance and selling to us the consumer,
we, as consumers, can boycott, but more important, the gov't can
sanction/tarrif/make it hurt the pocketbook of these corporations.
Anyway, just a few things.
> > > "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.
Dave K.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid
|
| (...) Well considering the decision to drill in Alaska hasn't been made yet, and has failed every time so far that Congress has tried to pass it, I think you're jumping the gun on this one. I'd say that the U.S. is at worst split down the middle (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid
|
| (...) Not to get off-topic (well, this is the off-topic forum), but I am curious, what would the people making 10 cents a day make as income if U.S.ians didn't buy Nike shoes? Would they make nothing a day? Are there jobs in their countries that pay (...) (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
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
