Dr.Worthless Posted September 28, 2004 Report Posted September 28, 2004 Sorry that we're not donating up to your expectations Bacchus. Three months after President Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s February departure, the Bush administration boosted its 2004 aid package for the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere from $60 million to $160 million. That amounts to about $20 for each of the Caribbean island nation’s 8 million residents.This being the 2004 budget. Sorry that 160 million isnt enough. Some other aid on the US 2004 foreign aid budget? USAID Child Survival $1,835 million (The total is divided into 7 program categories shown here, which for some unexplained reason do not add up to the total. ): USAID Development !@#$%^&*istance $1,385 million (Basic Education $235 million specified). This is the second part of USAID !@#$%^&*istance, including education, democracy and governance and economic growth (which includes microenterprise development and agriculture, which are especially important for poor people). International Disaster and Famine !@#$%^&*istance $255.5 million ($20 million available for famine prevention). This is the financing provided to USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster !@#$%^&*istance.The $20 million is the beginning of an important new initiative to reduce famine. The United States has provided billions of dollars in food !@#$%^&*istance to countries such as Ethiopia to combat famine over the last 30 years or so. However, much less has been provided in development !@#$%^&*istance to prevent famine. The $20 million is the beginning of a U.S. effort to address the structural causes of famine. Millennium Challenge Corporation $1 billion ($650 million from Foreign Operations Appropriations, $350 million from elsewhere. This is one of four major development initiatives by the Bush administration, including, in order of magnitude: 1) !@#$%^&*istance to Iraq, 2) !@#$%^&*istance to Afghanistan, 3) the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and 4) the overall AIDS initiative. The Millennium Challenge Corporation is just in the process of being set up. It is designed to reward governments of countries that demonstrate effective political policies (e.g., low levels of corruption) and economic policies. Debt Restructuring $95 million (Tropical Forest Conservation Act $20 million; $75 million for first of two contributions to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Trust Fund). Migration and Refugee !@#$%^&*istance $21 million (most funds available in State Department Appropriation bill). Independent Agencies $345 million Inter-American Foundation $16.3 million African Development Foundation $18.7 million Peace Corps $310 million International Affairs Technical !@#$%^&*istance--Department of the Treasury $19 million Global Environment Facility $139 million Contribution to the (World Bank) International Development !@#$%^&*ociation $913 million Contribution to the Asian Development Fund $144 million Contributions to the Africa Development Fund and Bank $150 million Contribution to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development International Organizations and Programs $321 million (UNICEF $120 million, UNDP $120 million, UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, $5 million) International fund for Agricultural Development $15 million !@#$%^&*ISTANCE TO EASTERN EUROPE AND THE FORMER SOVIET UNION !@#$%^&*istance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States $445 million !@#$%^&*istance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union $587 million !@#$%^&*ISTANCE FOR ANTI-DRUG ACTIVITIES International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement $242 million Andean Counterdrug Initiative $731 million USAID OPERATING EXPENSES USAID Operating Expenses $604 million USAID administers many of the above activities, including USAID Child Survival !@#$%^&*istance, USAID Development !@#$%^&*istance, !@#$%^&*istance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States and the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union, and the Andean Counter-drug Initiative. It administers some of the Economic Support Fund. It is thus difficult to assign this funding to a particular analytic category such as development !@#$%^&*istance. Capital Investment Fund $82 million ECONOMIC AND MILITARY !@#$%^&*ISTANCE TO ALLIES AND STRATEGIC AREAS Economic Support Fund $2,132 million (The largest recipients by country are: Egypt $575 million; Israel $480 million; Jordan $250 million; West Bank/Gaza $75 million) International Military Education and Training (IMET) $92 million Foreign Military Financing Program $4,394 million. (The largest recipients are Israel, $2,160 million, Egypt $1,300 million and Jordan, $206 million.) Non-Proliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs $353 million Source Sorry that our 16 Billion dollars in foreign aid just doesn't cut it bacchus. From American Taxpayer thats struggling to afford his 6k a year college tuition bill, My deepest applogies.
Aileron Posted September 28, 2004 Report Posted September 28, 2004 Bacchus, Al Queda slaughtered kids in Russia, and their motives are unclear. If I had an opinion worth killing innocent children, I'd make -*BAD WORD*- sure everyone was crystal clear as to what it was. They strike practically randomly for no reason that is obvious enough to be understood. If terrorists were pissed off at our decisions, they would attack our decision makers. They don't - they attack our PEOPLE. There is no degree of righteousness in that. Besides, why would they give a -*BAD WORD*- about Haiti? If they care about peace and an end to poverty so much, why aren't they corraberating with the UN? If they care about the poor, how come when they made millions off the stock market on Sept 10th, that they pocketed that money rather than share it with their people? You are blinded for your hatred of the US to the point that you cannot see who terrorists really are and what they represent.
»Ducky Posted September 28, 2004 Report Posted September 28, 2004 If terrorists were pissed off at our decisions, they would attack our decision makers. They don't - they attack our PEOPLE. There is no degree of righteousness in that.Our people are our decision makers. K..sry, go ahead
Dr.Worthless Posted September 28, 2004 Report Posted September 28, 2004 Our people are our decision makers. In theory atleast..
Bacchus Posted September 28, 2004 Author Report Posted September 28, 2004 Worth, i stand corrected, point taken. Ail, i was shocked by the news...but i must confess that i wasn't aware that it was an Al-Qaeda ops. I know though that the tchetchens are very opressed by the russian military. I've read reports of "programmed" rapes, beatings, starvation, kidnapping, etc. Those barbarous acts aren't making any senses but i think that the terrorists were acting out of desperation. they needed this kind of "coup" to win media coverage, they're in need of attention...just like rabid dogs. Why did they need this coverage? i believe that this is an important question. I also believe that this is one question all americans should asked themselves.
Aileron Posted September 28, 2004 Report Posted September 28, 2004 I'll admit Al Queda probably didn't cause the event in Chechnya. They still have killed lots of innocent children though. The only thing I don't understand is why to they desire so much media attention, and don't use it to convey whatever message they have? They don't state what they are fighting for and why in a clear and understandable fashion. The only explanation is that their reason is so full of emotion that they cannot decribe themselves in words. I cannot even hold reservations about opposing any group that makes such mortal decisions based on pure emotion. I have felt emotions to do a lot of things, some of which are completely horrid. I know for myself that such emotions bear nothing of merit within themselves. Your desire to look for the good in these people is a good quality. If such qualities exsisted in other people throughout history, many people qould have been spared pain and many nations would not have been oppressed. However, this is not such a case. This is not some lack of cultural understanding. I don't know everything Islamic, but I do know that the killing of innocents is wrong in their culture as well. Either a) All Amercans including civilians are wrong enough to be worthy of death, Terrorists are wrong by their own beliefs, or c) their cause justifies the sacrifice of innocent blood. If (a) is true, we have no incentive to behave in a moral fashion, for we am already so evil that every American man, woman, child, and infant deserve, complete and torturous annihilation. If we are that evil, the US should screw morality and just nuke populations for fun. If we are already evil incarnate, what's another drop in the ocean? If (a) is true, morality does not apply, so we can ignore this possibility. © cannot be true. For a cause to justify the loss, it must actually be obtained. If their cause was getting the US out of the Middle East, they have freed negative two Muslim countries from Yankee Imperialism by Sept. 11th. Either they are extremely incompetent or they don't have such a justification. That leaves b, that terrorists are wrong even by their own beliefs. Thus, there really is no good in them at all, and the normal axiom does not apply.
Bacchus Posted September 28, 2004 Author Report Posted September 28, 2004 What i meant is that although i condone terrorist acts, i can't help but wonder why those are occuring and why USA interests are usually targeted more than others. Terrorists kills that's a fact. There's also those facts: 1) Canada is one of the biggest arms parts seller in the world.2) Canada exploits a lot of open air mines in south america, those are destroying life, wildlife and forests.3)Tibet is more then opressed by China but nothing gets done.4)Burkina Faso pres., Blaise Campaore, is a mjor arm dealer, he killed his friend former pres., he's rigging his elections and rewriting cons-*BAD WORD*-tutionnal rights at a whim. People are dying all over the place and he's still being invited by Canada, USA and ONU as a friend.5)Halliburton and [forgot company name] are using mercs to control and protect pipelines all over the world. Consequently, people gets deported and lose what little they have to survive...usually end up in ghettos.6)USA ambargos indirectly killed a lot of people...kids, mothers, fathers, older, etc.7) As a result of USA attack on Irak, more than 10k civil deaths have been reported. Osama is still runnning.9)Chechens are being systematically raped, killed, they have no rights, no future. They just might be fighting for one right now.10)could go on and on and on but there's always someone to answer :"so, what's your point?" Think about that for a mins: How would you react knowing that a nation is richer than rich and that one reason why its so ridiculously rich compared to you is because you're poor and miserable? in the face of no real future, only violence, disease, despair and pain...what would you do to try to secure a better life for your children? So terrorists are desperate, just like you they want retribution, they want you out...if it means that they die killing you so be it. If they had the means to battle you up front i'm pretty sure they would...but they can't so they are using another strategy, the only one available. Boom.
Zetirix Posted September 28, 2004 Report Posted September 28, 2004 Think about that for a mins: How would you react knowing that a nation is richer than rich and that one reason why its so ridiculously rich compared to you is because you're poor and miserable? in the face of no real future, only violence, disease, despair and pain...what would you do to try to secure a better life for your children?<{POST_SNAPBACK}> The US maybe rich compared to other countries, but we have quite a bit of poverty. I've been under the "poverty line" ever since I was born. But you don't see me going out and attacking others who may/may not have anything to do with it. I'm thinking of attacking the Amish people though, since they have alot of government benefits that I don't have... - Z P.S. "Canada is America's largest national park." - Unknown P.P.S.2003 Poverty ThresholdsMy last job I made just over $8,000 working full time. (40+ hours a week.)
Aileron Posted September 29, 2004 Report Posted September 29, 2004 Yeah, most Hollywood celebreties are riduculously richer than I am, but I don't care. I have ideed grown up around a lot of farmers and amish. They don't care about those who make more money than they do, they just care about how to make more money for themselves. I doubt the NORMAL people in third world countries are capable of envy, they probably just want a little more bling bling for themselves at the end of the day.
Bacchus Posted September 29, 2004 Author Report Posted September 29, 2004 err...when you'll miserable enough to have to cope with polyo and foul water you'll begin to care. in fact, you'll probably want to punch the big guy with his bigmac just to have the pickle.
MonteZuma Posted September 29, 2004 Report Posted September 29, 2004 Either a) All Amercans including civilians are wrong enough to be worthy of death, Terrorists are wrong by their own beliefs, or c) their cause justifies the sacrifice of innocent blood.Why does it have to be an either/or choice all the time with you? Perhaps Americans and terrorists both have some valid points? Just because both have valid points does not mean that their actions are justifiable. The invasion of Iraq was wrong, and so is terrorism.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 29, 2004 Report Posted September 29, 2004 err...when you'll miserable enough to have to cope with polyo and foul water you'll begin to care. in fact, you'll probably want to punch the big guy with his bigmac just to have the pickle. Yeah.. and he's completely justified in wanting to do that, because its obviously your fault Aileron that you were born in America... Give me a break. America cant win in your eyes bacchus, plain and simple. Its sad.
MonteZuma Posted September 29, 2004 Report Posted September 29, 2004 I doubt the NORMAL people in third world countries are capable of envy, they probably just want a little more bling bling for themselves at the end of the day.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>WTF? I don't understand how you can justify a statement like that? Anyway, Bacchus already said what needed to be said.
Aileron Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 My point exactly Bacchus. Suppose one's only supply of water was infested with disease. Which would you care about more: 1) Blowing up people lucky enough to have clean water2) Putting disease in someone else's supply of clean water3) Getting your own supply of clean water The obvious choice is 3, because 1 or 2 doesn't even help your situation. People who a truly poor do not hate the rich at all, they spend their time trying to do something usefull and to get out of poverty. Most sane ones would try to be our "friends" to become benfeciaries of our wealth, much like a poor hot girl marrying an old rich guy. Left wingers usually go wrong in that you guys equate hurting the rich to helping the poor... they are not usually the same thing. The poor wish to help themselves and be helped, but do not care about hurting the rich or having them hurt.
Bacchus Posted September 30, 2004 Author Report Posted September 30, 2004 obviously, you didn't travel farther than the next state. Most poor people resent the rich, you don't have to go to 3rd world to witness that. Furthermore, most people in poorer countries are just like you and me with the difference that they have nothing compared to us. So when an american (larger sense) or west european travels there he's (she) is usually perceived as an economical factor. Small, micro economy begin revolving around the tourist: guide, cook, security, driver, etc. Small jobs they do as a sideline. Most of them will charge you 10-15 times what they'd charge someone native and it will still be cheap labor. Some of those will understand that the reason why their country can't look up to them and secure better social condition is because some other country is meddling in domestic policies. Then they'll think, know, that their leaders are corrupted. Paid by bigger powers. Next the culture goes down the drain. Pressure from economic priorities become too strong and day to day life and habits begins to change and with it the social peace. Crime goes up, minority are excluded and form ghettos, the rift between the different classes expands, envy makes its way (and it's very understandable) and then hate appears with all its unwanted effects. This scenario is common, just look in some of your own streets. I agree with your number 3. But to each ressources its limits. Just like oil, water supplies are limited. A no-share find your own policy can't bring anything else but war and conflict.
»Ducky Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 1) Blowing up people lucky enough to have clean water2) Putting disease in someone else's supply of clean water3) Getting your own supply of clean water The obvious choice is 3, because 1 or 2 doesn't even help your situation.I don't think the examples are too well due to different understandings of different people. Some people believe blowing up people with clean water will help them get their own water supply.We can view that as the wrong route, but to tell someone that is hopeless.
Recommended Posts