Americas place in the world
-
That table looks skewed. I looked at both of the sites you mentioned, but neither one gave background into the figures or a proper definition of "aid". What really stands out is Japan. If Japan is giving away 15 billion dollars, where is it going? I've never heard of any great humanitarian efforts put forth by Japan. I wonder if Japan is counting low interest loans to developing nations as "aid". These statitistics remind me of transnational unemployment figures. Japan is in a terrible slump, but the official unemployment rate is only around 6%.
Stuart van Weele wrote: I wonder if Japan is counting low interest loans to developing nations as "aid". heh. given Japan's current banking conditions, a loan with any interest at all is a money making situation for the bank. -c
Smaller Animals Software, Inc. You're the icing - on the cake - on the table - at my wake. Modest Mouse
-
Purple Warhead / outlaw programmer wrote: Three percent of our GDP is much higher (in terms of dollar amount) than any other country's. And your precious EU is not a single country, but is rather a group of countries, so how is THAT an equal comparison? Can I dispel you illusions with statistics to be found at the following URL http://www.hbcollege.com/business\_stats/kohler/resources/stats/ch07\_1.html . Purple Warhead / outlaw programmer wrote: And what part of europe suddenly doesn't think we should have pulled their collective asses out from under Hitler's boot? If it wasn't for the U.S., the world would be eating sourkraut for dinner every night, and washing it down with a healthy helping of sake. It always comes back to the fucking second world war with you? It was lonnngggg time ago, get over it, the rest the bloody world has, its past tense, even Russia who is the final anaylsis probabily won the damn things all by herself, and suffered 30 million casualties got over it. So you want a cookie for winning the war, well at this stage you have had the whole box. Purple Warhead / outlaw programmer wrote: I don't know where you're from Ray, but I think you need to re-evaluate just how indebted the world is (as a whole) to the industrial, military, and philathropic strength. The world I deal in is more simple, you think the world is indepted to you, the world owes you something, well it doesn't, other nations have been doing far more, for far longer to fill empty bellies and never complained. Regards Ray "Je Suis Mort De Rire"
Ray Kinsella wrote: It always comes back to the f***ing second world war with you? It was lonnngggg time ago, get over it, the rest the bloody world has, its past tense, even Russia who is the final anaylsis probabily won the damn things all by herself, and suffered 30 million casualties got over it. So you want a cookie for winning the war, well at this stage you have had the whole box Without the U.S. propping the Soviets up militarily the German's would have crushed them like a tin can. Of course, the fact that the Soviets were every bit and grain as bad as the Nazi's, and that after defeating the Nazi's, we had to contain them for 40 years, and did so without it leading to a major world war, is all water under the bridge, I suppose. The entire history of the 20th century is about the U.S. saving Europe from its own incredible political imbicility. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
-
First, here is The PROPHET, by Kahlil Gibran online. However fear not copyrighters and naysayers, I will buy the book as well. On to the topic then. With the steel war debate raging on below I began to think of the position America is in and the responsibilities of that position. Firstly, America is a success and I respect it for achieving what it has achieved. Culturally I do not credit America with much, but economically and structurally they are too be respected. America has helped my country a lot, and without having to ever send troops over even once. I also believe that is has helped a lot other countries in many ways. However none of us have much respect for what America has done and in fact we can be pretty pathetic in our attitude towards America. A case in point is the many African countries groveling and beging for money from America on one side while moaning and calling America names for interfering on the other side. That is a really sad state of affairs and all us developing nations need to shut up and give America what it is due. However, all that been said and done just how do Americans feel about their involvement with other countries? Do they through sending aid feel they have a right to step in with troops later on when/if things go bad? Do they feel that giving aid is all they should do and they should stop interfering/helping out other countries? Do Americans feel that if they stopped giving aid, stopped helping other countries that they should still retain some form of right to "interfere" in those other countries? I guess my real question is this: How do actual Americans feel about what they do for the rest of the world, and how do actual Americans feel about how the rest of the world treats them back? If I was an American, I think I would be pretty damned pissed off with virtually every other country. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Sonork ID: 100.9903 Stormfront
hey Paul, check out www.LewRockwell.com sometime. You might like the guy from Zimbabwe who writes for them - he appears about every 2 weeks or so.
-
Roger Wright wrote: We dump an awful lot of aid here and there, and for the most part, it buys us little. Perhaps, next time you'll think twice before dumping "lot of aid" to Bin Laden, as US did in 80's? IMHO the sad thing about other people's attitude towards US is not that they don't appreciate American aids (I don't believe in free lunch either), but that they ignore amount of industrial and techological achievements America gave to the World. Vagif Abilov COM+/ATL/MFC Developer Oslo, Norway
-
It's my understanding that Bin Laden hated the US in the 1980s, and didn't accept US aid. He certainly has inherited enough money that he would've never needed US money, anyway.
AFAIK it's more tricky. Here's somewhat simplified version. When USSR invaded Afghanistan, USA invested a fortune in Bin Laden's troops (I read about hundreds of millions USD). But in 1991 when Saddam invaded Kuwait, the relationship broke since Bin Ladden was not selected as part of aliance forces. It's about this time he turned against his former sponsors. But I'll never believe they didn't know what kind of monster he was. The moral of the story: don't give guns to maniacs, whoever side they take. Vagif Abilov COM+/ATL/MFC Developer Oslo, Norway
-
Ray Kinsella wrote: It always comes back to the f***ing second world war with you? It was lonnngggg time ago, get over it, the rest the bloody world has, its past tense, even Russia who is the final anaylsis probabily won the damn things all by herself, and suffered 30 million casualties got over it. So you want a cookie for winning the war, well at this stage you have had the whole box. Really?! Tell the millions of surviving veterans world-wide that WWII is old news and needs to be forgotten. Tell the millions of people alive today who never met their fathers because they died in WWII to "get over it". That war ended 57 years ago. A very, VERY short time ago in the scope of world history. As for Russia having won it by herself? I don't think so! Russia's 30 million casualties. A huge portion can be attributed to Stalin himself. Is that the kind of super-power you would wish on the world? Ray Kinsella wrote: The world I deal in is more simple, you think the world is indepted to you, the world owes you something, well it doesn't, other nations have been doing far more, for far longer to fill empty bellies and never complained. Americans aren't looking for anything other than a little respect now and then. That and not being blamed for every problem in the world. You know, every once in a while, things aren't our fault.
Mike Mullikin "Programming is like sex. One mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life." - Michael Sinz
Mike Mullikin wrote: As for Russia having won it by herself? I don't think so! Russia's 30 million casualties. A huge portion can be attributed to Stalin himself. Is that the kind of super-power you would wish on the world? When USA joined the battles in Europe, it was obvious that Russia was winning on their side. It was after Stalingrad. Vagif Abilov COM+/ATL/MFC Developer Oslo, Norway
-
I think we should stop providing aid to countries that don't appear to appreciate our efforts or that can't maintain some form of stable governing body that establishes an acceptable poilicy towards equality and general human rights. No single country in the world has the philanthropic attitude towards others like the American people. More money leaves this country through charities than anywhere else on earth, yet we do NOT ask for aid ourselves from beyond our own borders. Foriegners feed off of our generally good and trusting nature, and then kick sand in our faces when it's convenient. I say screw 'em. "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
Frankly, I think your claims of aid are somehow arrogant to the rest of the world. There are 170 countries in the world and you aid dozen hotspots. These are mostly related to your interests, such as: keeping nuclear weapons out of reach of hostile countries, keeping the price of oil down to protect your economy's growth, etc. This is not wrong. In fact, the law of invisible hand of Adam Smith plays a major role in this. America entered Afghanistan to protect its country from further terrorist attacks. But as a (hmm...) "collateral benefit" Afghan women are more free today that they were half a year ago. They might even get the right to vote. America entered Iraq because it feared that the 70ties and the OPEC would repeat in form of Saddam Hussein shaping the world oil price. But as a side effect, Kuwait was liberated. As soon as you start explaining only the "collateral benefits" and forgetting about your own role you are repulsive to the rest of the world. Your arrival to those countries was bilateral. The relationship to those countries is based on healthy foundation of bilateral benefits. So there is absolutely no need to feel superior in this relationship. Seriously, if you ever compared all the aid in the world you'd realize that its not one promile of your military budget. Please do so and report here, I might be wrong. The true America's role in the world are its philosophical and related science achivements. The free economy and laissez faire capitalism has enabled your country to attract all the top world scientists that saw a better chance for their future because America worships and rewards individual achievement more then any country in the world. The laws that allowed people to establish a company for as little as 500 USD, in the garage, the stock exchange that poured risky capital into two junkie'lookin technies, such as Wozniak and Jobs. That's the true power of America and you should really stick to that. Tomaz
-
Paul Watson wrote: However, all that been said and done just how do Americans feel about their involvement with other countries? Do they through sending aid feel they have a right to step in with troops later on when/if things go bad? frankly, we (typical average Americans) don't hear much about the billions and billions of dollars we give to the rest of the world - it's not on the news and it doesn't make the front page of the newspapers. when i do hear about it, i'm amazed that some sandy butthole would dare burn our flag while at the same time eating our food and taking our medicines. -c
Smaller Animals Software, Inc. You're the icing - on the cake - on the table - at my wake. Modest Mouse
> frankly, we (typical average Americans) don't hear much about > the billions and billions of dollars we give to the rest of the Because it's not really there. It is a myth. What you personally do wrong here is you compare all the world to "the rest of the world" and define the rest of the world as sandy buttholes that darn burn your flag. The fact is that all of the world to which you never poured a penny (...not in this half of the century) stood at your side when you decided to kick Osama Bin Laden. And that sandy buttholes live dozen countries out of 170 on this planet. Tomaz
-
Stuart van Weele wrote: proper definition of "aid". Grants and no/low interest loans given to 2nd/3rd world countries. Stuart van Weele wrote: I've never heard of any great humanitarian efforts put forth by Japan. Post second world war japan has had a history of generousity, particularily in Afirca and the Far East, whereas European aid is usually more directed to Africa, Eastern Europe and South American. American Aid tends to go to Africa and South America. Regards Ray "Je Suis Mort De Rire"
The numbers still seem skewed. Japan has sent a fair amount of technical aid to China and other countries in SEA, but 15 billion a year is hard to believe. That table looks like a case of comparing apples to oranges. It's also from a website prompting more aid to developing countries, so the authors have plenty of reason to fudge things, making the USA look worse than it is. There is another way to look at the numbers. The total spent by these countries is about 42 billion per year. Has this money bought any lasting change? In most cases, we might as well have dumped the aid supplies into the sea. It results that count, not the cost.
-
Paul Watson wrote: . Culturally I do not credit America with much Now, I have to take exception to that. Apparently when the rest of the world thinks of American culture they think of McDonalds and Hollywood. As an American I think of things like "constitutional rights" liberty and rugged individualism. *That* is the culture of America. And frankly, I think the world has benfited from it tremendously. The very freedom of speech exercised in this lounge is an example of American culture. Paul Watson wrote: If I was an American, I think I would be pretty damned pissed off with virtually every other country. I think we mostly shrug it all off. I think we have a responsibility to do what we can to help out around the world, and ingratitude does not concern me a bit. I generally just assume that countries that act that way do not know how to raise polite children. Not my problem. As far as interfering with other countries, I don't think it is a matter of choice. If it were, the vast bulk of Americans would opt to just stay at home and let beligerant countries alone. Our founders warned us about 'foriegn adventures'. The problem is that we are typically the only ones able to do anything about problems as they arise around the world. Could you imagine waiting for the Europeans to arrive at a concensus to take action? "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
I couldn't agree with you more. I think the great achievements of nations are not coincidences, but a result of their actions in the past and present. Simply put, the future does not exist. We create it. Liberty and individualism have been proven superior to collectivism by history. Current balance of power reflects this fact. The good things: GDP, landing man on the moon, inventing microcomputer and other achievements would not be possible without laissez faire capitalism, the stock exchange, low taxes and active role in world's trade (which implies political and sometimes military involvement). It's all related. It's all part of culture as a whole. The best way to judge countries' culture is to judge it trough pride, liberty and prosperity of its individuals. If the world has come so far that "supposedly culturaly inferior country, degraded in minds of some people to McDonald's, Chewing gum and Hollywood" can rule the world, then it does not deserve any better. This simply demonstrates how shallow these stereotypes really are. Regards, Tomaz
-
> frankly, we (typical average Americans) don't hear much about > the billions and billions of dollars we give to the rest of the Because it's not really there. It is a myth. What you personally do wrong here is you compare all the world to "the rest of the world" and define the rest of the world as sandy buttholes that darn burn your flag. The fact is that all of the world to which you never poured a penny (...not in this half of the century) stood at your side when you decided to kick Osama Bin Laden. And that sandy buttholes live dozen countries out of 170 on this planet. Tomaz
sorry buddy, the US gave 9.5 BILLION dollars last year in economic development aid. get your own facts straight. -c
Smaller Animals Software, Inc. You're the icing - on the cake - on the table - at my wake. Modest Mouse
-
Three percent of our GDP is much higher (in terms of dollar amount) than any other country's. And your precious EU is not a single country, but is rather a group of countries, so how is THAT an equal comparison? And what part of europe suddenly doesn't think we should have pulled their collective asses out from under Hitler's boot? If it wasn't for the U.S., the world would be eating sourkraut for dinner every night, and washing it down with a healthy helping of sake. Okay, so we've saved the world a couple of times, liberated Afghanistan (twice), out-lasted the communist threat in Europe, provided BILLIONS in un-repaid aid, and we're the fuckin bad guys? I don't know where you're from Ray, but I think you need to re-evaluate just how indebted the world is (as a whole) to the industrial, military, and philathropic strength. "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
Purple Warhead / outlaw programmer wrote: If it wasn't for the U.S., the world would be eating sourkraut for dinner every night, and washing it down with a healthy helping of sake. And to think the US at first couldn't be bothered to intervene in "yet another European war"
-
sorry buddy, the US gave 9.5 BILLION dollars last year in economic development aid. get your own facts straight. -c
Smaller Animals Software, Inc. You're the icing - on the cake - on the table - at my wake. Modest Mouse
Well, Bush is requesting $396.1 billion for the military in fiscal year 2003. That is 3%, I was wrong saying that it is a promile. However, 9.5 billion dollars to Russia, Afghanistan, Kosovo means 0.0 cents to EU... So once again, don't talk that you're putting your money to "the rest of the world" because you're humiliating us all that don't get a darn penny from you with it. I am not anti american, but I do find this behaviour utterly repulsive. Like...who cares where do you put your money into...we do it too, but we don't humiliate the US by naming you "the rest of the world where we put our billions to". Tomaz
-
Paul Watson wrote: . Culturally I do not credit America with much Now, I have to take exception to that. Apparently when the rest of the world thinks of American culture they think of McDonalds and Hollywood. As an American I think of things like "constitutional rights" liberty and rugged individualism. *That* is the culture of America. And frankly, I think the world has benfited from it tremendously. The very freedom of speech exercised in this lounge is an example of American culture. Paul Watson wrote: If I was an American, I think I would be pretty damned pissed off with virtually every other country. I think we mostly shrug it all off. I think we have a responsibility to do what we can to help out around the world, and ingratitude does not concern me a bit. I generally just assume that countries that act that way do not know how to raise polite children. Not my problem. As far as interfering with other countries, I don't think it is a matter of choice. If it were, the vast bulk of Americans would opt to just stay at home and let beligerant countries alone. Our founders warned us about 'foriegn adventures'. The problem is that we are typically the only ones able to do anything about problems as they arise around the world. Could you imagine waiting for the Europeans to arrive at a concensus to take action? "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
Stan Shannon wrote: Now, I have to take exception to that. Apparently when the rest of the world thinks of American culture they think of McDonalds and Hollywood. As an American I think of things like "constitutional rights" liberty and rugged individualism. *That* is the culture of America. And frankly, I think the world has benfited from it tremendously. The very freedom of speech exercised in this lounge is an example of American culture. All true but the most visible "culture" is mass market crap. Image is everything and the image that America projects is mostly rampant consumerism. That said the US have a fair share of artists, philosophers, authors who form a valuable part of world culture. A pity they are not promoted as well as Friends & McDonalds. Stan Shannon wrote: As far as interfering with other countries, I don't think it is a matter of choice. If it were, the vast bulk of Americans would opt to just stay at home and let beligerant countries alone. Our founders warned us about 'foriegn adventures'. The problem is that we are typically the only ones able to do anything about problems as they arise around the world. And the US would like to keep it that way, isn't it ? Which American would want another superpower to compete with ? But regarding the meddling in other countries the US have had their fair share of dirty deeds as well. The CIA has quite a track record in removing unsuitable regimes (all in the name of stopping the commies) and no matter how generous the US is the people will always will remember that (perhaps even better than all the benefit they get from the US). The US can pour billions in Kosovo (benefitting muslims) and all people will remember is their unrelenting support for Israel while that country happily oppresses the Palestinians (a picture of a dead child remains far longer than a little boy going to a school funded by the US). PS : Echelon & Carnivore don't really promote a nice picture of the US either.
-
AFAIK it's more tricky. Here's somewhat simplified version. When USSR invaded Afghanistan, USA invested a fortune in Bin Laden's troops (I read about hundreds of millions USD). But in 1991 when Saddam invaded Kuwait, the relationship broke since Bin Ladden was not selected as part of aliance forces. It's about this time he turned against his former sponsors. But I'll never believe they didn't know what kind of monster he was. The moral of the story: don't give guns to maniacs, whoever side they take. Vagif Abilov COM+/ATL/MFC Developer Oslo, Norway
I believe Bin Laden really started to hate the US because Saudi Arabia invited US troops there. (Not because he wasn't part of the coalition.) Bin Laden hated the idea of the infidel troops in the "holy land" of Saudi Arabia (the homeland of Mohammed and Mecca). But Bin Laden says he hated the West already in the 1980s. It's just that his appetite for hate wasn't fully realized until the Gulf War. But, yes, the US did give arms to fanatical Islamic fighters - many of the same ones who ( around 1995 ) formed into the Taleban. (I'm not sure how accurate it is to say that they were Bin Laden's troops.) On the other hand, Mossad, the Northern Alliance leader who fought against the Taleban until he was assassinated in September, was also armed by the US against Russia.
-
Frankly, I think your claims of aid are somehow arrogant to the rest of the world. There are 170 countries in the world and you aid dozen hotspots. These are mostly related to your interests, such as: keeping nuclear weapons out of reach of hostile countries, keeping the price of oil down to protect your economy's growth, etc. This is not wrong. In fact, the law of invisible hand of Adam Smith plays a major role in this. America entered Afghanistan to protect its country from further terrorist attacks. But as a (hmm...) "collateral benefit" Afghan women are more free today that they were half a year ago. They might even get the right to vote. America entered Iraq because it feared that the 70ties and the OPEC would repeat in form of Saddam Hussein shaping the world oil price. But as a side effect, Kuwait was liberated. As soon as you start explaining only the "collateral benefits" and forgetting about your own role you are repulsive to the rest of the world. Your arrival to those countries was bilateral. The relationship to those countries is based on healthy foundation of bilateral benefits. So there is absolutely no need to feel superior in this relationship. Seriously, if you ever compared all the aid in the world you'd realize that its not one promile of your military budget. Please do so and report here, I might be wrong. The true America's role in the world are its philosophical and related science achivements. The free economy and laissez faire capitalism has enabled your country to attract all the top world scientists that saw a better chance for their future because America worships and rewards individual achievement more then any country in the world. The laws that allowed people to establish a company for as little as 500 USD, in the garage, the stock exchange that poured risky capital into two junkie'lookin technies, such as Wozniak and Jobs. That's the true power of America and you should really stick to that. Tomaz
Well said Tomaz! Vagif Abilov COM+/ATL/MFC Developer Oslo, Norway
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Now, I have to take exception to that. Apparently when the rest of the world thinks of American culture they think of McDonalds and Hollywood. As an American I think of things like "constitutional rights" liberty and rugged individualism. *That* is the culture of America. And frankly, I think the world has benfited from it tremendously. The very freedom of speech exercised in this lounge is an example of American culture. All true but the most visible "culture" is mass market crap. Image is everything and the image that America projects is mostly rampant consumerism. That said the US have a fair share of artists, philosophers, authors who form a valuable part of world culture. A pity they are not promoted as well as Friends & McDonalds. Stan Shannon wrote: As far as interfering with other countries, I don't think it is a matter of choice. If it were, the vast bulk of Americans would opt to just stay at home and let beligerant countries alone. Our founders warned us about 'foriegn adventures'. The problem is that we are typically the only ones able to do anything about problems as they arise around the world. And the US would like to keep it that way, isn't it ? Which American would want another superpower to compete with ? But regarding the meddling in other countries the US have had their fair share of dirty deeds as well. The CIA has quite a track record in removing unsuitable regimes (all in the name of stopping the commies) and no matter how generous the US is the people will always will remember that (perhaps even better than all the benefit they get from the US). The US can pour billions in Kosovo (benefitting muslims) and all people will remember is their unrelenting support for Israel while that country happily oppresses the Palestinians (a picture of a dead child remains far longer than a little boy going to a school funded by the US). PS : Echelon & Carnivore don't really promote a nice picture of the US either.
William De Prêtre wrote: All true but the most visible "culture" is mass market crap. Image is everything and the image that America projects is mostly rampant consumerism. Just a couple of quick points. I would argue that rampant consumerism is a by-product of American culture not the culture itself. Secondly, although I am no fan of rampant consumerism, it does not represent one of the great evils of world history. If you do not wish to participant in it, than don't. No one is holding a gun to your head. William De Prêtre wrote: And the US would like to keep it that way, isn't it ? Which American would want another superpower to compete with ? . I think most Americans were more comfortable with our pre-WWII role than with our post WWII role. I think we would have been more than happy to let the powers of Europe continue to run things if they had not shown themsleves to be so completely incompetent at doing so. William De Prêtre wrote: But regarding the meddling in other countries the US have had their fair share of dirty deeds as well. The CIA has quite a track record in removing unsuitable regimes (all in the name of stopping the commies) and no matter how generous the US is the people will always will remember that (perhaps even better than all the benefit they get from the US). The US can pour billions in Kosovo (benefitting muslims) and all people will remember is their unrelenting support for Israel while that country happily oppresses the Palestinians (a picture of a dead child remains far longer than a little boy going to a school funded by the US). PS : Echelon & Carnivore don't really promote a nice picture of the US either. a) The "commies" needed to be stopped - they represented an evil as profound as anything that came out of Nazi Germany. We stopped them very effectively and for the first time in human history two great powers confronted each other and did not go to war thanks primarily to American wisdom and foresight (not to say we have not made gross mistakes along the way.) b) Israel is a perfect example of our predicument. Mindless terrorist murder Israelies, the Israelies respond, and we get blamed for it because we are committed to their defense. A situation created originally by a U.N. controlled primarily by European Intellectuals (an oxymoron, BTW). "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
-
Well, Bush is requesting $396.1 billion for the military in fiscal year 2003. That is 3%, I was wrong saying that it is a promile. However, 9.5 billion dollars to Russia, Afghanistan, Kosovo means 0.0 cents to EU... So once again, don't talk that you're putting your money to "the rest of the world" because you're humiliating us all that don't get a darn penny from you with it. I am not anti american, but I do find this behaviour utterly repulsive. Like...who cares where do you put your money into...we do it too, but we don't humiliate the US by naming you "the rest of the world where we put our billions to". Tomaz
tstih wrote: Well, Bush is requesting $396.1 billion for the military in fiscal year 2003. so? what's your point? don't worry about how we spend our money, ok? -c
Smaller Animals Software, Inc. You're the icing - on the cake - on the table - at my wake. Modest Mouse
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: As for Russia having won it by herself? I don't think so! Russia's 30 million casualties. A huge portion can be attributed to Stalin himself. Is that the kind of super-power you would wish on the world? When USA joined the battles in Europe, it was obvious that Russia was winning on their side. It was after Stalingrad. Vagif Abilov COM+/ATL/MFC Developer Oslo, Norway
Vagif Abilov wrote: When USA joined the battles in Europe, it was obvious that Russia was winning on their side. It was after Stalingrad. Yeah, but if Britain falls and Germany can then concentrate on only one front...
Mike Mullikin "Programming is like sex. One mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life." - Michael Sinz
-
There was talk after Sep 11 about Americans re-evaluating their way of aiding nations, and in fact, the way they provide aid in general. America is hugely generous but I was reading about many organisations and individuals going through a period of introspection where they were realising that giving cash doesn't necessarily mean giving aid. From an organisations point of view handing over large amounts of cash or food to another country may not actually be what they need - instead they may just need help getting people educated, or engineers to help drill wells etc. From an individuals point of view donating cash to charity in order to make your society a better place isn't the same as volunteering, or simply making the effort to help out a random stranger, or taking the time to meet and understand your neighbours. A lot of this was prompted by the US starting to question the effects of it's involvment in the Middle East, which seemed a great step forward. I've not heard anything more about this so it would definitely be interesting to see the question from both sides: How does America feel about the rest of the world and how are America's understanding about the rest of the world changing? cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: they were realising that giving cash doesn't necessarily mean giving aid While I do agree, and I know you are not saying this, but the disrespectful position of countries towards America for the aid it does give is not excused by the fact that the aid is money, not doctors or engineers or educators. Also it is a bit of a strange position willing volunteers are in. A lot of African countries clamour for aid and when America or Europe suggest sending over doctors, engineers etc. the African countries either demand money instead (which everyone knows is not working) or tell the volunteers to take a hike. Why? Because most of the volunteers are white and as so many African leaders have said "we don't need no white man to help us anymore!" A friend of mine runs a non-profit clinic out in the townships here. Everyday he goes out and helps pregnant mothers, sick children etc. Virtually everyday he has to have a police escort to his clinic because the very people he is helping are trying to stone his car and destroy his clinic, because he is white and they fear that he has some "master plan" underneath his free help to enslave them all again. So what can the international community do? Send over only black doctors and engineers? That is a pretty sick way of having to look at it IMO. Anyway, my most desperate hope is that we African countries start helping ourselves instead of relying on the rest of the world. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Sonork ID: 100.9903 Stormfront
