RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


Zensee -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 4:53:20 PM)

No FirmHand, you got it wrong. I was not arguing a quantitative link between percentages and manipulation, that is an absurd over simplification on your part.

I was explaining why foreign aid is not charity. Since foreign aid is mostly self-serving it does not add to the moral cachet of the USA or any country. That said, the USA manipulates the world for its own benefit, far out of proportion to all it's aid money, public and private.

Dragging the thread from your distractive tangent and back to the thread topic... Crowing about the amount of foreign aid the USA dishes out does not excuse the USA from behaving recklessly in the pursuit of it's economic and security interests. It's not like buying papal indulgences. It doesn't matter how much you put in the collection plate, if you treat your friends like enemies and your enemies like animals, people will have problems trusting you.

The USA has lost standing in the world because it no longer leads. It no longer leads because it is leaderless.


Z.




FirmhandKY -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 4:56:43 PM)

ahhh, NG, if you are talking about this quote from the report I linked to:

"Americans prefer to give people to people assistance versus Europeans who give primarily government to government aid."


Then I think you are being either too thin-skinned, or intentionally combative.

"primarily" doesn't mean "exclusively".

FirmKY




minnetar -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 5:00:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Minnetar, I've just given one above.

You could argue that total aid & charity is a better measure than per head aid & charity.

If I give £10, and you and Firmhand give £7 each, then using the total measure you're more generous than me. I wouldn't agree with that sentiment.


NG i don't understand the math Sir.  We gave 14 pounds (sorry i don't know how to use the pound sign) and You only gave 10 so why wouldn't we be more generous?

minnetar




selfbnd411 -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 5:01:00 PM)

Private charity isn't a good measure because it's too hard to get your arms around.  What constitutes charity?  How do you value a shipment of used clothing sent to flood survivors?  Do you, as some conservatives have argued, add in the wages paid to illegals and foreign workers that is then remitted to their home country?  What if, say, the US has a good grasp on this because it's a tax advantage to report charity, but in Sweden the tax man doesn't care so it's not reported?  If a drug company gives a 10% discount on a pharmaceutical sent to Africa that has a profit margin of 90%, is that "charity?"






minnetar -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 5:05:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

No FirmHand, you got it wrong. I was not arguing a quantitative link between percentages and manipulation, that is an absurd over simplification on your part.

I was explaining why foreign aid is not charity. Since foreign aid is mostly self-serving it does not add to the moral cachet of the USA or any country. That said, the USA manipulates the world for its own benefit, far out of proportion to all it's aid money, public and private.

Dragging the thread from your distractive tangent and back to the thread topic... Crowing about the amount of foreign aid the USA dishes out does not excuse the USA from behaving recklessly in the pursuit of it's economic and security interests. It's not like buying papal indulgences. It doesn't matter how much you put in the collection plate, if you treat your friends like enemies and your enemies like animals, people will have problems trusting you.

The USA has lost standing in the world because it no longer leads. It no longer leads because it is leaderless.


Z.



i beg to correct that statement.  US no longer leads based on our conduct in the world and having the audacity to say that we believe what we know is best for anyone else.  That is how Bush portrays himself as well as the nation.

minnetar




NorthernGent -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 5:05:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

Dragging the thread from your distractive tangent and back to the thread topic... Crowing about the amount of foreign aid the USA dishes out does not excuse the USA from behaving recklessly in the pursuit of it's economic and security interests. It's not like buying papal indulgences. It doesn't matter how much you put in the collection plate, if you treat your friends like enemies and your enemies like animals, people will have problems trusting you.



I would add that much of the foreign aid given by the US is offset by debt servicing from poor nations. Also, a third of the US aid budget goes to Israel. Add to this the significant proportions used for anti-terrorism measures, anti-drugs measures and welfare to US construction compaines such as Haliburton, then there isn't a great deal left as aid for the poor.

Of course, this is not exclusive to the US, many Western countries are concerned with using aid as trade incentives (Britain included).




NorthernGent -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 5:06:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: minnetar

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Minnetar, I've just given one above.

You could argue that total aid & charity is a better measure than per head aid & charity.

If I give £10, and you and Firmhand give £7 each, then using the total measure you're more generous than me. I wouldn't agree with that sentiment.


NG i don't understand the math Sir.  We gave 14 pounds (sorry i don't know how to use the pound sign) and You only gave 10 so why wouldn't we be more generous?

minnetar



There's one of me and two of you? If that isn't relevant to you, then fine.




minnetar -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 5:08:12 PM)

NG it is about the total dollars not comparing one individual's donation to another Sir.  oops i guess in this case Pounds.

minnetar




NorthernGent -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 5:11:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

ahhh, NG, if you are talking about this quote from the report I linked to:


"Americans prefer to give people to people assistance versus Europeans who give primarily government to government aid."



Then I think you are being either too thin-skinned, or intentionally combative.

"primarily" doesn't mean "exclusively".

FirmKY


The point stands, which I'm sure you'll concede if you revisit my relevant post.

Others combative, Firmhand? Of course, that wouldn't apply to a meek, reserved poster like yourself with pacifist tendencies.




selfbnd411 -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 5:20:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Also, a third of the US aid budget goes to Israel.



Some of that is a payoff for the Camp David Accords.  We give Egypt a bribe as well.




popeye1250 -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 5:37:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: selfbnd411

Not true.  America is the second most miserly developed nation in the world in terms of foreign aid as a percentage of GDP.  We edge out Greece!

The three most generous developed nations in the world as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product are:
Greece (1.03%)
Luxembourg (0.89%)
Norway (0.89%)

The three least generous developed nations in the world are:
Italy (0.2%)
USA (0.17%)
Greece (0.16%)

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp


Selfbnd, what does that have to do with the price of Girl Scout cookies?
What difference does it make who's more "generous?"
It's simply not part of the job description of our government to be giving our money away to foreign countries.
I don't "need" my government doing that kind of thing "for" me.




WingedMercury -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 6:41:54 PM)

Perhaps a view from another part of the world of the USA might be of interest, but it is only a personal view, though supported by numerous opinion polls.
Australia has had a very close relationship with US since WWII. Britain was using our troops as cannon fodder in the Middle East, meanwhile Japan had attacked Pearl Harbour, taken Singapore, and were clearly on the way south. We sought, and eventually, got the aid we needed from Rooseveldt and Australia placed her troops under the control of Douglas Macarthur. The Battle of the Coral Sea, in which US and Australian navies fought side by side, was, though not decisive, an important battle.
People who were alive at the time developed an "undying" love and affection for the USA. Many Australian women left these shores to marry their American sweethearts - who were "over sexed, over paid, and over here".
Since then, the USA has generally been held in high regard in Australia. Our ANZUS treaty obliges us to enter into battle with the US (and the obligation works both ways) whenever the US is attacked. Australian troops have fought alongside US in Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq.
There was a lot of anti-US feeling developed over the Vietnam war, and red paint was thrown at LBJ when he toured here, representing the blood of people of all nations whose blood had been spilt. Our Conservative (for US, read Republican) Prime Minister, made the comment "All the way with LBJ", which made many of us feel ill. The great Australian Crawl, the swimstroke developed here which has become known as freestyle, all of a sudden had a new meaning. The term Brown Nosing had not reached my vocabulary at that stage.
The affection towards US returned and has been high over the last 30 years. I have travelled around North America a few times, and found the people generally gregarious and friendly. You do find the occasional "red neck", who makes you ashamed to be part of the Human Race, and unfortunately there are many of them in certain US states. You know who they are.
I have met many US people while travelling in other parts of the world, and mostly they are extrememly pleasant and friendly (most people are - very few are not). You hear the twang and then start talking to them. Mostly they come from the seaboard states; on my 2004 trip, I kept a count of US citizens in favour of Bush and it was 8 in favour of Bush and 43 against before I stopped counting. The "Ugly American" is not seen so much around the world. They are mostly on TV, mostly on Fox News.
Whilst our Prime Minister (a Conservative) is a good friend and close ally of Bush, his attitude to Bush is not at all well respected here. Opinion Polls show that Bush is a bigger threat to world peace than Osama bin Laden or anybody else. Bush is seen as an idiot by a sizable majority. Australian people were always opposed to going to war in Iraq, but the Prime Minister made the decision. We have not voted him out because we are enjoying an exports boom here, and China in particular is willing to pay top dollar for everything we can extract from the land. We put our hip pocket ahead of our conscience too.
The great lie over WMD reminded many of us of the great lie of LBJ's which escalated US's presence in Vietnam. Since then, of course, we have seen many lies coming from the White House (the Jessica Lynch(?) story and the Pat Tilman story as well are recent cases in point). You held an Australian in Guantanemo Bay for 5 years without trial, much in solitary confinement, calling him the "worst of the worst", and when push came to shove, you have sentenced him to 9months gaol (additional) and are sending him home. We don't believe your government. They have the morals of a sewer rat - self survival and who cares about anything else?
When we thing USA, we thing Bush. America has lost it's (sic) standing in the world, all right. It is seen as a belligerent, self-interested nation, which has lost its opportunity as a super power to lead the world to a more democratic and peaceful environment. Its contempt of Kyoto, the problems it has caused in the Middle East (which is another story where we cannot blame Bush), even issues like land mines and international criminal courts, put US in a poor light for those looking from the outside.
It is a pity, because it could have done so much. It has done so much. While we quibble with aspects of its democracy, while we denigrate it for all the damage its foreign policy has wreaked, it has in many ways been a shining beacon, though arrogant and brash. The technological advances, the generosity, the humaneness are all hallmarks of the US, but these are pushed into the background by Bush and the ridiculous image of hanging chads, where US, with all its democracy and technology, could not conduct an election properly.
Just briefly, the very common view of US is that they know nothing about the world outside US. The proportion of US citizens with a passport, and who have travelled outside the US borders, is fairly small, reflecting, perhaps, the US lack of interest in the rest of the world. Some have told me they don't need to travel, because US has everything they need. This is a very arrogant view, but arrogance and US seem to go together.
We in Australia laugh at you when you get Austria and Australia mixed up (perhaps we just feel insulted), and one young college couple I was talking to at the steps of the Capitol building, thought that Australia had a population of about 600million.
I think that is enough.
A lot of the solution is in your hands. Please do your best.




minnetar -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 6:46:54 PM)

i truly appreciate your words and totally understand them.  The US has done it to themselves.  Our stance has shown us as belligerent and all knowing and manufacturing things to justify our actions.

minnetar




popeye1250 -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 7:15:49 PM)

Mercury, good post.
I like Australians and Austrians too.They sent a lot of my people downunder as "prisoners" many years ago. (Irish)
To be fair it's not just Bush that has contempt for "Kyoto" it's almost all Americans that do, yours truly included.
It was voted down in the U.S. Senate by 99-0 I believe.
I don't like Bush at all but not getting us involved with Kyoto is one of the few *good things* he's done! And I have to grit my teeth to say that and give him any credit.
I just don't want my govt. getting involved with anything to do with the "U.N."
And all this out of control illegal alien stuff. Many people in the U.S. are fed-up with it and want it stopped like in Aus. from what I read on the internet.
And it sounds like America's detractors are unhappy because we are not doing what (they) think (we) should do.
If foreign countries think "something should be done about Darfur" I don't see anyone stopping them from doing something.
Well go in and "do something" foreign countries!
I kind of like being the "bad guy" myself!




minnetar -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 7:37:08 PM)

Popeye how can you feel good about our standing on Darfur?  The genocide is criminal.  We always feel a need to go into situations where we strong arm.  If this isn't the case, what is?  What is happening there is criminal and for noone to act on it is racist.

minnetar




Dtesmoac -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 7:37:10 PM)

Practical difference between giving to charity in the UK and in the US:
1) in the US the first thing you are provided with is a receipt so that you can make it tax deductable.In the UK it is not even a consideration unless you are providing a rotuine deed of covenant
2) the people receving charity are belittled and giving in kind by some in the US involoves rubbing peoples noses in it. e.g. going into the office and finding big bags stuck to the wall asking for food to be put in so that children in the USA can be given it. My response was that why are their starving children in the worlds richest country. My American colleagues were as outraged by my response as I was by the concept of sourcing food in such a hit and miss manner. How did they know I didn't have a vendetta agianst poor Americans and hadn't laced the grub with aresenic?
3) in JC Penny they had an offer of bring your clothing donation on (to be provided to charity)and get a dsicount off the incredably low cost clothing (manufactured in Chinese sweat shops)

The game of who gives most in overseas aid is impossible to work through. Most nations have preferential treatment of some countries over others, often aid is given for strategic not charitable reasons, etc, etc, etc

Strings attached aid, i.e. join my religeon  or starve, appears to be used by some nations / private organisations.....or die of aids of course. One friend from Southern Africa said they loved it when the missionries camde out (10 years  ago) as they thoguht they would have cars, air conditioning, and a full church from which to provide "charity" to the needy, when they saw the mud hut they p~*sed off to a 4 star hotel and tried to negotiate terms.........

The US economy relies upon international trade, currancy values and capital flow more than any other country...........your standing is vital to your properity..................





WingedMercury -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 8:16:09 PM)

popeye,
thanks for the comment on my post, but I don't agree with your other comments.

I think one of the legacies of US's foreign policy since WWII is that it has not supported the UN, with all its faults, and not helped to strengthen it and make it more relevant. Since 1990, it has had this opportunity in particular, but it has not taken it. US is happy provided it is "number 1", and it does not like working with a team unless it is team leader with power of veto over other opinions. It has not taken the opportunity to set good precedents. When its term of World's Only Superpower expires, who can blame its successors for adopting similar attitudes? The US has been seen as the great manipulator of the UN, and it is only recently the UN has been seen as less under the control of US, which is probably why US does not like the UN. They wreak havoc by assigning people like Jim Bolton to it. I suppose next it will be Wolfowicz (spelling) or Gonzales!

Remember that Israel would not have become a nation state under the present arrangements if the US had not bribed a sufficient number of countries to vote in favour of Israel. Moneys were paid, and promises to withdraw financial aid were also made. This is not the way the UN should function, yet US still tries to. You will see, if you read the history, that is was the US President who made the decision concerning Israel against the advice of his support departments. Millions are still suffering the consequences of a President who sought re-election.

I could carry on, but I don't want you to just say "this bloke's a drongo, just an American hater". I can criticise a friend without hate. I just have not been, and am still not, enamoured with US Foreign Policy since WWII in particular. We must remember the subject of this forum. A large part of the world seems to be in agreement with me.

I think only US, Australia, Marshall Islands etc have not signed the Kyoto protocol - I am not sure just where the Chinese lie. But America just will not cooperate, though several states, in particular CA, recognise the need to take action and cooperate. Our PM (Prime Minister), whom we often derogatorily call the "shrub" since he just a little Bush, does not want to do much about Climate Change because it will affect our economy. Yet, when the Peruvian cocaine industry is "encouraged" to reduce production, they say "no, we have done this all ouf life. It is our livelihood. It will affect our economy." It is sad to realise that we are so similar. No morality.

Kyoto was only the beginning. Membership is certainly symbolic. Non-membership, by the world's biggest polluter, is especially symbolic. Don't want to encourage UN or world wide cooperation? Arrogant? Isolationist? You decide.

I have to disagree with you on "control of aliens" (aliens is a term we use for people from outer space, so I find it hard to use the term here). I have been ashamed of my country for the way we treat refugees. I cannot comment on the problems in US though I know with poverty to the south, work in the north is a magnet. But I would rather die compassionate, than live without it.

Regards from Down Under ....




Real0ne -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 8:24:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

Africa is a big continent, why doesn't south Africa rush in and save the day, or the UN sweep in and restore order. Why would we do it. I mean if Mexico or Canada was collapsing into chaos, I could see rushing to their aid, because it's right next door and directly effects our security. But the Sudan? Rather than look at why isn't the US doing anything, why not ask, why countries with a lot more at stake aren't doing anything, and then look at the UN that is supposed to be their job.









i think being a super power they want us to think we are also world police.  The only possible reason is so we can justify sticking our noses up every elses butts.   Foriegn aid is always given with strings attached to bring some country into line with some "world agenda" as established by the cfr etc...




minnetar -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 8:32:08 PM)

lol jumping up and down - why does everyone want to ignore Darfur?  This is the situation in the UN and in the US.  How much genocide needs to happen for us to care or is it basically about racism and the country it is happening in?

minnetar




selfbnd411 -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 8:57:01 PM)

The African nations have the capacity to take care of Darfur on their own.  Africa showed us how they appreciate our help during the 1990s in Somalia.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125