Subject:
|
Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:14:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1063 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?)
Yes.
>
> > > 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?
I expect the cost would have been high, but worth paying.
>
> > > 3)The USA has benefited substantially from WW2.
> >
> > Bingo.
>
> How so? You're going to have a hard time proving that last one.
Others have already. But if it matters to you, feel free to disprove it.
>
> > > > 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.
I think it is every bit as relevant as WW1. The USA continues to make bad
decisions – just look at the ME!
> 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.
You are avoiding the point. You should think about what I [and others] are
saying rather than dismissing my views as "anti-American". Some of those who
agree with me on this love the USA every bit as much as you do. I'm not
"anti-American", I'm pro-justice. Understand the difference.
>
> 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.
I see no contradiction in what David is saying.
>
> >
> > > > 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.
I'm insisting no such thing.
> Me I prefer
> other ways of helping people than government aid. They're all more
> effective. But I reject the notion of obligation.
As you are entitled to.
>
> > > The wealth of western nations is
> > > built on exploitation of the developing world and the destruction
> > > of the global
> > > environmemt.
>
> Prove that assertion.
Others have. But if it matters to you, feel free to disprove it.
>
> > 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,
"suppose" - do you disagree?
> how will government to government assistance achieve them?
Governments are able to strategically commit to long-term spending programmes
which means that assisted governments can action longer-term and sustainable
development programmes - rather than short term projects.
BTW: Do you want the USA to stop funding Israel totally?
>
> > > "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.
The problem with personal donations are two-fold:
1) In the long-term, they are not reliable.
2) We tend to donate to "cute" charities - eg Joe Public will give his $1 to
help cure [say] "puppy-dog-cancer" rather than help rehabilitate former child
molesters. Sad, but true.
Scott A
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
