I just want to point out how idiotic this statement is. As a % of GDP, US foreign aid is extremely low. Even in absolute terms, it's lower than Japan's. As a % of GDP, it's not even near the top. No, you simply lack the subtlety to grasp their arguments. They're not presenting affirmative arguments for justification, but rather a critique of American self-righteousness. Powerful countries tend to be more nationalistic/idealistic. Small countries tend to be realists. Nations tend to glorify their national persona to the greatest extent commensurate with a viable foreign policy. For scholars, this is frustrating, since such views are not based in reason, but egotism.
<B>Uh, yeah they were celebrating our military victories against a military foe. I don't remember many people saying 'yeah I'm so glad those civilians got killed. They deserved it.'</B> Well, I do remember people doing that. Not necessarily being glad that the civilians were killed, but they thought all Iraqi's deserved it. Do you not remember people calling for us to nuke Baghdad? Do you think these people had any concern for civilians? <B>Maybe you should be speaking up to those people YOU hear saying it</B> Why? Why do I care what people who I don't know think, when it has no effect on anyone? People have the right to believe what they want, and a stranger is not going to change their mind. <B>instead of stereotyping the general American populace.</B> Umm, YOU'RE the one stereotyping here. Let's see what I wrote: ME: <I>I remember lots of people celebrating </I> YOU: <I>Americans don't EVER celebrate innocent deaths</I> Which one is the stereotype? <B>In fact I think if you took this BBS as a sample you'd see how quickly those idiots get drowned out by the who recognize that civilian deaths may HAPPEN, but they aren't something to be REJOICED about.</B> What's your point? Where did we learn that the majority of Chinese are celebrating American deaths? Why are you assuming that it's not a small minority there too? Didn't we go through this already with the media coverage of the "Palestinian celebrations" that turned out to be a tiny, tiny minority, and the "Pakistani celebrations" that also turned out to be a tiny, tiny minority?
<B>The only thing you pointed out haven is how communist you sound.</B> Great response. Easy when you ignore facts, eh? If I make $10,000 dollars and donate $20, and you make $200 but donate $10, who is more generous?
Ignoring the facts? Have you heard of a country receiving aid from the US turning it away? You commies sound like the pot calling the kettle black. Sorry, but you are just going to have to live with the fact that the US is a great democracy in spite of its flaws.
<B>You commies sound like the pot calling the kettle black. Sorry, but you are just going to have to live with the fact that the US is a great democracy in spite of its flaws.</B> Do you even read any of the posts you reply to, or do you like to just blabber away? Find me one post that shows anyone here is a communist.
Oh, I see. I guess I'm no big city intellectual like you Haven. American self-righteousness? I never said anything like 'all American actions are good,' or even that they are all well intentioned. What I did say is that its hard to understand someone 'rejoicing' at the WTC attack, or saying that those people DESERVED it. Whether there are Americans who say 'lets bomb civilians' or not is irrelevant to that contention. Making non-combatants your sole target is not something I think is legitimate. Saying 'well they deserved it' is not legitimate, whether you're American, Chinese, Palestinian, or Iraqi. That doesn't have anything to do with American self-righteousness. Its true whether you're talking about a Palestinian family rocketed by Israelis or the WTC attack. Small countries tend to be realists? Like Serbia? Or Croatia? Like Germany post WWI? Like Japan pre WWII? Like Iraq? Or Cuba? Or North Korea? All nations tend to glorify their national persona regardless of the viability of projecting their foreign policy. That doesn't mean countries or people's on the receiving end of their actions should respond by blowing up non- combatants.
Well, as I've said, I'm not denying there were people saying nuke Baghdad. I'm saying I think they were a minority. And I would say they were just as illegit as people who say the people in the WTC deserved to burn to death. I'm sorry you feel that way. I wonder why you waste so much of your time in these posts? If you were on a bus and you heard the man next to you tell a black man to go to the back of the bus, would you stay silent? I wouldn't. WHY? Because if humans are to evolve and learn to live with each other people can't stick their heads in the sand and hope these problems will go away. If people have a right to believe what they want, do they have the right to rape, to have sex with their kids, to commit human sacrifice? No, they don't. Why? Because other people stand up and say 'hey, you can't do that.' And that starts with someone standing up and saying 'hey, that's repulsive.' Well, again you can research and find somewhere that people have said just about everything at one time or another. I didn't see anyone 'EVER celebrating innocent people being killed.' I don't think that's a stereotype. They may both be generalizations based on our different experiences. If you'd read the whole thread you see multiple posts in which I say its not the majority of Chinese saying this, but the Chinese GOVERNMENT. And my point is only that saying (a) 'I remember hearing people say bomb Iraq in my office,' does not make these videos more understandable or justified; and (b) celebrating the deaths of civilians is not justified because people think we're self-righteous.
I think these foreign aid figures being thrown out are incredibly deceptive. The only nation in the world that gives more government aid than the US is Japan. The US gives nearly twice as much as the next closest donor. If we're going to talk about % of GNP then why don't we talk about tax rates. Countries like Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, and Sweeden which are all on top of that % list all have higher tax rates than that of the US I believe. I mean if we're going to talk about % of aid given by governments I think it's inaccurate to leave out the taxation issue since that's where the money comes from in the first place. If these figures were adjusted to include tax rates then I'd think we'd be right at the top of the list in terms of %. In addition, the US is responsible for things around the world not measured by these figures. All of the agencies we have set up directly to assist foreign governments and all of the world's military obligations that we have cost a hell of a lot of money. I don't see Danish or Sweedish ships in the China sea protecting Taiwan from getting blown off the map. There are no Norwegians standing on the 38th parallel making sure North Korea doesn't overrun South Korea. No Dutch troops in Saudi protecting the world's oil. The US has financial responsibilites around the world that the vast majority of these nations do not. Of course none of this takes into account aid/donations from private organizations which would seem a substantial thing considering all of the charities we have in the US.
Timing, Some of the folks in here won't be satisfied until we turn over the entire country to anyone else. After all, we don't deserve any of it. We are the Great Satan.
You're quite a hateful little man, aren't ya Rocketman? Tell you what...7Up yours you no-ass wipin, hepatitis carrying, rainbow-sticker on the Yugo you sleep in commie pig. Anytime, anyplace chump.
BlastOff, I have to correct you. I happen to know that RM95 doesn't sleep in a Yugo but rather in a van down by the <b>RIVER</b>. Juuuust kiddin, geez.
Though our friend Rocketman95 may *smell* intimidating (yes, the ass-wipin thing again), he does not intimidate me.
I don't that often at all. In fact the last time I mentioned it was when you were questioning some people for being upset over the "war on terrorism". Actually to be more specific about the stripping of civil rights in this war. Since this has great parallells to the war on drugs I brought it up then. So I have mentioned it twice in probably 9 months. At least, that's all I remember. I could be wrong though... Btw since our discussion about civil liberties the Just Dept severely weakened attorney-client privelege, then announced this change several days after the change went into effect. Does this bother you at all? Do you see why many people are concerned about a slippery slope? Here's CNN's link to the story EDIT - After checking it looks like I've mentioned the war on drugs 3 times in the last 7 months. Once in this thread, once when you suggested in another thread that only the guilty would suffer any inconvience, and then once when Jeff asked who was concerned about 9/11 having an effect on civil liberties. So, while this is a passionate issue for me, I don't think it has really come up all that often at all...
Sheesh, just when I was about to post an apology for misunderstanding your earlier post you become an incredible idiot! Calling haven a communist because he points that the US doesn't give as large a % of its GDP as other countries is incredible. Note that he doesn't judge the giving; haven didn't say the US is not generous and he didn't say we should give more or less. He just supplied some additional information. And this makes him a communist? Okay, technically you didn't call him a communist, just mentioned how "communist" he sounded. Again, please tell me how you draw this conclusion... And this what does this post mean? "Some of the folks in here won't be satisfied until we turn over the entire country to anyone else." Seriously, what's the point of this? Who are you targetting with this "some of the folks in here" because I have not seen anyone say the US is a) a bad place to live or b) suggest that any other place is better. Many people have stated that the US has made mistakes or has faults. But again nobody is pointing this out gleefully, they are tring to identify areas for improvement to makes this country better. What's the problem here?
But why should donation rates be adjusted for taxation? I agree that taxation amounts are useful to have as reference but the fact that country A taxes at 70% to give 20% of it's GDP while country B taxes at 30% to give 15% of it's GDP doesn't change the fact that country A gives a larger share of it's GDP. Hell, it actually makes it more meaningful in a way b/c it is the citizens that are presumably voting in those who raise the tax to 70%. It makes it clear that people in the countries you mentioned choose to be taxed at a higher rate than the US at least partly in order so that they can give a larger share of their GDP. Now before Blastoff accuses me of being a communist or HayesStreet calls me stupid let me point out that I do not think we should raise taxes in order to give more. Hell, I'm a libertarian. I don't think we should have taxes at all. But none of this changes the fact that these citizens choose (directly or indirectly) to give a larger share of their income to other countries as aid.
