How good is America doing in their foreign affairs?

[RabidInuFanboy]

[QUOTE=maladjusted][i]I agree with absolutely Morpheus. You see, the difference between America and the rest of the world is that we know what is right and we do what we know is right. The problem is, most countries don't want to do what's right, it's human nature. Why do we drink? because it feels good, we don't want to think about kidney failure or anything, we just live for the moment. Just a little comparison to the world.[/i]

[color=darkslateblue] Yes, because it is a known fact that Jesus came down upon the US and blessed us and only us to know what is right and what is wrong, and the knowledge that beer can destroy your kidneys.[/color][/QUOTE]

I was simply saying that it is not human nature to do what is right. We try our best to do what is right for the world because we have the power to, unlike otehr countries.

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='RabidInuFanboy']I was simply saying that it is not human nature to do what is right. We try our best to do what is right for the world because we have the power to, unlike otehr countries.[/quote]

[color=green]That's a very dark view of human nature. I'd like to think that the vast majority of people try and do the right thing.

As for trying to do what if best for the world...

...I find that to be a very pompous, imperialistic attitude.[/color]

[Morpheus]

Well, let's see. 20 people, give or take, were killed by the hurricanes in Florida. 155,000 people, give or take, were killed by the tsunami + aftershocks. Hmm. I wonder which calls for more attention?

Your right, the disaster in Asia deserves more attention, but when did it become our sole problem to deal with? We are sending 1/3 of the money we sent to Florida there. That money will never benefit America. The 1 Billion for Florida did. The world is now giving around a billion, and it's not going to benefit us one bit. Florida was more important to us because it is a part of us. 1 billion is 1/1,000 of our total national budget for the whole year.



\What ever happened to the quote 'It's the thought that counts'? Not to mention, Sri Lanka was most definitely not the only country hit by the tsunamis. Here's a [url]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v610/allurepink/tsunamimap.jpg]map[/ur] in case.

It was an example. Most of the other countries are poor, too.


I don't think that should call for hurling boxes out of a helicopter like the people have some sort of terrible contagious disease. Sure, there's a ton of people in need, and I'm not expecting them to prance door-to-door with provisions, but it doesn't exactly go to show the best amount of sympathy to feed them like dolphins.

So now we must deliver the boxes by land instead of air? We get the boxes where we need to faster. It could take an hour to drop 50 boxes by air, or deliver 5 by truck. Who cares how they get there, as long as they do?


Since when is America that 'saviour'? Then shouldn't America be deprived of its 300 or-so weapons as well? If that's the case, then I'll say all's fair.

Since when did America threaten to attack someone out of hostility?

[Juu]

[quote name='RabidInuFanboy']I was simply saying that it is not human nature to do what is right. We try our best to do what is right for the world because we have the power to, unlike otehr countries.[/quote]

[size=1]Since when does inside which borders you live in effect where a vast majority stands and acts on moral issues as 'big' as what's right and wrong? [/size]

[quote name='Morpheus']Your right, the disaster in Asia deserves more attention, but when did it become our sole problem to deal with? We are sending 1/3 of the money we sent to Florida there. That money will never benefit America. The 1 Billion for Florida did. The world is now giving around a billion, and it's not going to benefit us one bit. Florida was more important to us because it is a part of us. 1 billion is 1/1,000 of our total national budget for the whole year. [/quote]

[size=1]Whoa, so because it doesn't [b]benefit[/b] us, 155,000+ [b]human beings[/b], something I'd expect has more importance than a nationality, it shouldn't be taken into consideration as much as something that happened to people who happen to reside on the same patch of land? I think you need to look at this from another point of view. Imagine if this happened in America. I bet my life that we wouldn't expect the other countries to sit there and let us starve because their own affairs are 'more important' to them.

We're talking about people dying because of a natural disaster. Not a war. A war is based on politics, politicians, close-mindedness, military, and unfortunately, civillians. A natural disaster HAPPENS, yet people are dead. This wasn't between the countries hit and a nation, it was between human beings and the force of nature. Human beings need to help human beings. You can't put this on a 'list' with matters that involve a nations benefit. It hit regardless of nationality, and Americans died there too, as well as from other nations.[/size]


[quote]It was an example. Most of the other countries are poor, too.[/quote]

[size=1]I'll just refer to my edit: Also, I assume that means that the next time America is in desperate need of international help, countries like Sri Lanka should send the amount one good house costs there?
[/size]


[quote]So now we must deliver the boxes by land instead of air? We get the boxes where we need to faster. It could take an hour to drop 50 boxes by air, or deliver 5 by truck. Who cares how they get there, as long as they do?[/quote]

[size=1].......Riiiiiiiiiiight. That's like saying only the strong and able should survive because of this. We can let the elderly who are homeless and hungry starve and die, right? By the only footage of American support news channels were showing, they just threw the boxes off helicopters and men ran below to catch boxes and run off with them. Maybe I missed something more formal, then.[/size]

[quote]Since when did America threaten to attack someone out of hostility?[/QUOTE]

[size=1]I'll just pretend the war on Iraq never happened.[/size]

[Drix D'Zanth]

I?ll make this short, my vicodin is wearing off. The United States is going to be giving in excess to 1 billion in funds through our gov?t alone. Independent businesses are going to raise even more (i.e. Exxon raised 10 million and Pfizer around 250 million)? the US is giving, and will give more aid than all other nations [b]combined[/b]. What?s the UN doing? Kofi?s just asking for more money and Finland is calling us stingy.

[QUOTE=Juuthena][size=1]Since when does inside which borders you live in effect where a vast majority stands and acts on moral issues as 'big' as what's right and wrong? [/size]
[size=1]Whoa, so because it doesn't [b]benefit[/b] us, 155,000+ [b]human beings[/b], something I'd expect has more importance than a nationality, it shouldn't be taken into consideration as much as something that happened to people who happen to reside on the same patch of land? I think you need to look at this from another point of view. Imagine if this happened in America. I bet my life that we wouldn't expect the other countries to sit there and let us starve because their own affairs are 'more important' to them. [/QUOTE]

No, but the money should be taken into consideration, Juu. The US was a huge relief in Somalia before and after the Black Hawk Down incident. Want to know the primary form of currency in Somalia? The US one hundred dollar bill. We flooded the country with money, creating a currency vaccum and threatening any sort of trade to continue because we felt that giving them large relief grants would solve their problems.

Newsflash: Giving 1 billion or 10 billion dollars isn?t going to repair the hard hit areas any faster. It?s not going to buy the destroyed land back, and it?s not going to fix the buildings any sooner. If anything we should limit the amount of money until we find it NECESSARY. What the country needs most of all is rescue efforts, manpower, and reconstruction by manpower. The US is doing that, sending marines and carriers to provide fresh water using their nuclear reactors.

[QUOTE=Juuthena] [size=1]
We're talking about people dying because of a natural disaster. Not a war. A war is based on politics, politicians, close-mindedness, military, and unfortunately, civillians. A natural disaster HAPPENS, yet people are dead. This wasn't between the countries hit and a nation, it was between human beings and the force of nature. Human beings need to help human beings. You can't put this on a 'list' with matters that involve a nations benefit. It hit regardless of nationality, and Americans died there too, as well as from other nations.[/size] [/QUOTE]

Americans are helping just as much as any nation, and we are doing it selflessly. We?re spending our money to save a population that was ill prepared for this disaster, yes. While I have no problem with our nation?s sending aid, I?ll be dammed if our help is criticized. Stingy?

As for the original question on hand; I am happy with the U.S.?s more sovereign orientated foreign policy. I am pro-Israel, and pro-war on terror. Now, I think Iraq could have been fought better, but I?m pretty happy with the results. We aren?t fighting Iraqi?s , we are fighting militant Islamic terrorists now from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. I don?t see North Korea as a threat because they won?t attack the U.S. or South Korea. Why? China won?t let them, because China is struggling to become a world power similar to the U.S. and won?t risk a world war (inevitable in a Korean conflict) over Kim Jong Il?s defiance. I think the EU is an attempt for Europe to keep up with the U.S. and I think the UN should be torn down and we should build a beautiful Barnes and Nobles over it?s wreckage.

[Morpheus]

[QUOTE=Juuthena][size=1]Since when does inside which borders you live in effect where a vast majority stands and acts on moral issues as 'big' as what's right and wrong? [/size]



[size=1]Whoa, so because it doesn't [b]benefit[/b] us, 155,000+ [b]human beings[/b], something I'd expect has more importance than a nationality, it shouldn't be taken into consideration as much as something that happened to people who happen to reside on the same patch of land? I think you need to look at this from another point of view. Imagine if this happened in America. I bet my life that we wouldn't expect the other countries to sit there and let us starve because their own affairs are 'more important' to them.

We're talking about people dying because of a natural disaster. Not a war. A war is based on politics, politicians, close-mindedness, military, and unfortunately, civillians. A natural disaster HAPPENS, yet people are dead. This wasn't between the countries hit and a nation, it was between human beings and the force of nature. Human beings need to help human beings. You can't put this on a 'list' with matters that involve a nations benefit. It hit regardless of nationality, and Americans died there too, as well as from other nations.[/size]




[size=1]I'll just refer to my edit: Also, I assume that means that the next time America is in desperate need of international help, countries like Sri Lanka should send the amount one good house costs there?
[/size]




[size=1].......Riiiiiiiiiiight. That's like saying only the strong and able should survive because of this. We can let the elderly who are homeless and hungry starve and die, right? By the only footage of American support news channels were showing, they just threw the boxes off helicopters and men ran below to catch boxes and run off with them. Maybe I missed something more formal, then.[/size]



[size=1]I'll just pretend the war on Iraq never happened.[/size][/QUOTE]


It's not about nationality. If you and someone you barely know are shot in the arm, you adress your own wound first and provide as much care as you can for it first.

Saddam has been hostile to us for 30 years and invaded Kuwait. We had a reason to invade.

Survivors caught the boxes and rushed to feed their families...but that's not good enough, is it? Do you actually think News channels can get everything on tape?

We are sort of...not letting the victims starve. You know those boxes you talked about, the ones that say "food", it really is food. It won't benefit us one bit, yet we send aid. That shows our generousity.

Our yearly aid budget is 4 billion. We can't just make money out of thin air.

It doesn't matter how many died or who died. We sent a ton of aid, but florida is more important to us. On a worldwide scale Asia's disaster is, but to America, America is more important.

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]I'd just like to point out that the throwing of the boxes occurred in this one town where no Indonesian Police had arived yet. If they hadn't acted how they did, I imagine the helicopter would have been swarmed. In another town, where the Police had arrived, there was a well ordered queue, and the boxes were handed out. Just a point to think about.[/size]

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f]No offence, but I think some of you Americans are being a little bit egotistical about your country. If your country has wealth, then it is your [I]duty[/I] to help other countries in need. I even think Canada could have given more, even while it is not as rich and powerful as the U.S. However, note that Canada gave more than the U.S, which is what I think makes people question the U.S. The U.S however, isn't the only one people should be pointing fingers at and calling stingy. Spain had the nerve to give a loan, which is to be paid back with [I] interest[/I]. [I]That's[/I] what I call stingy.

I'm not sure about the countries hit by the tsunami, but some countries in this world are poor simply because of the sanctions imposed on them by other countries, especially the U.S. Though these sanctions are sometimes neccesary in times of war, they needn't be placed on a country when the war is over. When Iraq gave up in the gulf war, the U.S imposed sanctions on the country. Did Saddam suffer? No, he continued living a life of luxury, while the general Iraqi population suffered and thousands (or even millions) died from disease and malnutrition. I think the U.S should definitely take responsiblity for the desicions it makes.

[quote name='Morpheus']It's a little bit different. We were the ONLY ones going to pay for Florida. When was the last time we got aid from another country?[/quote]Since when did the U.S need foreign assistance? I think if a country owns over half of the world's whealth, it should be able to manage itself.

Another thing, not meaning to drag another Israel debate in here, but the U.S gives Israel around 16 million dollars a day. If America can do that for one foreign country, which by the way is not in need of so much assistance, then it really ought to focus on other countries which are more in much need of that money. The U.S has given 35 million so far in light of the tsunami crisis, which is just a bit over what it gives to Israel in a two day period.

Finally, I'd like to point out that no country is really in the place to point fingers at others telling them they should donate more money. Then again, you shouldn't brag about how much your country helps others. It's not right to remind people of the favours you do for them. You help other countries because it is the right thing to do, and it is an [I]obligation[/I]. Yes, it is an obligation for [I]everyone[/I] to help those in need, regardless of how far they are from you. If you are capable of helping, then help.[/COLOR]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]No offence, but I think some of you Americans are being a little bit egotistical about your country. If your country has wealth, then it is your [I]duty[/I'] to help other countries in need. [/COLOR][/quote]
That?s ********. A country?s only duty is to her own citizens (pardon the reflexive pronoun) not to protect the citizens of other nations. What the U.S. gives is out of GENEROSITY and should be received as generosity. Just as what the aid from any other nation should be understood as. When is it our responsibility to make the lives of every other nation as good as ours? That?s those people, and their nation?s responsibilities. I know that sounds cruel, but many nations are DOING that, and bettering themselves. Look at India, they take decent care of themselves, they haven?t asked for aid yet.

[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]
I even think Canada could have given more, even while it is not as rich and powerful as the U.S. However, note that Canada gave more than the U.S, which is what I think makes people question the U.S. The U.S however, isn't the only one people should be pointing fingers at and calling stingy. Spain had the nerve to give a loan, which is to be paid back with [I] interest[/I]. [I]That's[/I] what I call stingy.
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Canada did not, nor will be giving more than the U.S. no other country on earth will ever compare to the amount of aid the U.S. will eventually be giving. What?s wrong with a loan? Since when was Spain, who doesn?t have the soundest economy in the world, need to throw money at the country? Like I said, the amount of money sent is virtually meaningless until we can actually SPEND that money on manpower and reconstruction.

[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]
I'm not sure about the countries hit by the tsunami, but some countries in this world are poor simply because of the sanctions imposed on them by other countries, especially the U.S. Though these sanctions are sometimes neccesary in times of war, they needn't be placed on a country when the war is over. When Iraq gave up in the gulf war, the U.S imposed sanctions on the country. Did Saddam suffer? No, he continued living a life of luxury, while the general Iraqi population suffered and thousands (or even millions) died from disease and malnutrition. I think the U.S should definitely take responsiblity for the desicions it makes. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

The UN sanctions? You are blaming the death of Iraqis living under Saddam because of UN sanctions? Please, go read something, go learn about what the sanctions dealt with; how they didn?t change the way of life for the Iraqi citizen, or how the entire suffering of the nation was really Saddam?s fault (which it was). Please, go educate yourself before posting again.

[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]
Since when did the U.S need foreign assistance? I think if a country owns over half of the world's whealth, it should be able to manage itself.
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
The Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the 1920?s, the stock market crash (would?ve been nice if countries gave us a few hundred million to slow the recession), 9/11, the war in Afganistan, Iraq (not a unilateral operation). There?s a few examples.
[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]
Another thing, not meaning to drag another Israel debate in here, but the U.S gives Israel around 16 million dollars a day. If America can do that for one foreign country, which by the way is not in need of so much assistance, then it really ought to focus on other countries which are more in much need of that money. The U.S has given 35 million so far in light of the tsunami crisis, which is just a bit over what it gives to Israel in a two day period. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

I?d like to see a source to that number, Cabichou? maybe Google?s not cutting it today. The U.S. has given aid to Israel and will continue to do so. It is possible that the aid we have given them has assisted in Israel?s ability to survive despite the hostile actions of all of her neighbors. Not only that, the continued fighting against Islamic terrorists will and must continue.

[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]
Finally, I'd like to point out that no country is really in the place to point fingers at others telling them they should donate more money. Then again, you shouldn't brag about how much your country helps others. It's not right to remind people of the favours you do for them. You help other countries because it is the right thing to do, and it is an [I]obligation[/I]. Yes, it is an obligation for [I]everyone[/I] to help those in need, regardless of how far they are from you. If you are capable of helping, then help.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

I love how the first sentence of this paragraph contradicts nearly your entire post. The U.S. isn?t arrogant in giving money away, nor stingy. I?m just sick of the nation where it cannot win in any situation; if it doesn?t give what the rest of the world considers enough we?re ?stingy? if we give too much we?re ?arrogant? and if we kept to ourselves, well I can see us being called any number of things from that (tyrannical, uncaring, etc).

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Chabichou']Another thing, not meaning to drag another Israel debate in here, but the U.S gives Israel around 16 million dollars a day. [/quote]
I'd go a little farther and call that Impossible. The US spends 4 Billion on foreign aid per year. 16 million times 365 is...5.84 Billion. Uhhhh...no.

[quote name='Chabichou]Then again, you shouldn't brag about how much your country helps others. It's not right to remind people of the favours you do for them. You help other countries because it is the right thing to do, and it is an [I]obligation[/I]. Yes, it is an obligation for [I]everyone[/I'] to help those in need, regardless of how far they are from you. If you are capable of helping, then help.[/quote]
When did we start bragging? I hate how foreigners view foreign aid. It always says, "Spain offered _____, France offered _______, The US ONLY offered _____." It's like our aid doesn't matter unless it's some crazy amount. WE ARE NOT MADE OF MONEY. WE DO NOT HAVE MAGICAL BAGS OF CASH. We are currently in recession, and we need our money. We are fighting a war. We have sent choppers, money, food, blankets, and other things, but it's never enough. We will always look at our problems first. You don't see the victims complaining. When they see food and blankets falling from the sky, all they see is a miracle. Why is it we get criticism from nations with smaller donations than ours?

[eleanor]

[i]Why is it we get criticism from nations with smaller donations than ours?[/i]

[color=darkslateblue]Ok, holy crap. It's because America is the most poweful nation in the world, and about 50 times bigger than the countries mentioned above.

Yes, $350 million is nice, but we spend about $350 million each week in Iraq. Could we do no better? I suppose not, since we're just the poorest dang country in the world. Even in freaking recession we're still the most poweful nation in the world. I can see why some of you are angry at people like me saying the US is being miserly, but I'm sorry, I just think we could've given much more. And please take this to heart, I'm not one of those people who hate America for everything it does. If it gave more money I wouldn't parade around saying 'America is arrogant'. I love this country, but sometimes it has its faults. [/color]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=maladjusted]
Yes, $350 million is nice, but we spend about $350 million each week in Iraq. Could we do no better? I suppose not, since we're just the poorest dang country in the world. Even in freaking recession we're still the most poweful nation in the world. I can see why some of you are angry at people like me saying the US is being miserly, but I'm sorry, I just think we could've given much more. And please take this to heart, I'm not one of those people who hate America for everything it does. If it gave more money I wouldn't parade around saying 'America is arrogant'. I love this country, but sometimes it has its faults. [/color][/QUOTE]

What would giving more have done? You think it would have gotten more people over there? Built their homes, stopped the tsunami? The amount of money we are spending should be SUFFICIENT, becuase giving billions to a country who's economy is dirt poor is NOT GOING TO SOLVE ANY PROBLEMS. What the effort in the disaster areas need are manpower, that's what the US is sending, man-power and releif aid. We're paying more than enough for it, all the money we send now is just flooding a nation with cash that IT CANNOT USE.

[RabidInuFanboy]

[QUOTE=maladjusted][i]Why is it we get criticism from nations with smaller donations than ours?[/i]

[color=darkslateblue]Ok, holy crap. It's because America is the most poweful nation in the world, and about 50 times bigger than the countries mentioned above.

Yes, $350 million is nice, but we spend about $350 million each week in Iraq. Could we do no better? I suppose not, since we're just the poorest dang country in the world. Even in freaking recession we're still the most poweful nation in the world. I can see why some of you are angry at people like me saying the US is being miserly, but I'm sorry, I just think we could've given much more. And please take this to heart, I'm not one of those people who hate America for everything it does. If it gave more money I wouldn't parade around saying 'America is arrogant'. I love this country, but sometimes it has its faults. [/color][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Arial Narrow]You know what, I'm tired of seeing you post. I'm probably going to upset all the people who are against me in this thread by saying this, but here goes:

It's liberals like you who make me ashamed to be an American

Now you can go and cry about me not being politically correct, I don't give a **** because I'm tired of hearing your talk about giving more. We don't need to give any more than what we think is sufficient. It's like what a user before me said, we give out of generosity, not because we want to say "Look at us, we rule because we're so powerful and have a lot of money!"

I would like to also go on the record and say I have nothing against liberals or democrats in general, just people like Maladjusted who seems to feel that nothing America does is ever good enough.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[eleanor]

[color=darkslateblue] Now that you raise that point, I do feel some regret saying what I did. Most of this spouted from my hate of the president.

Which is mostly what I'm angry at.

[this was directed to Drix.][/color]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]Two things I'd just like to point out, but I can't be bothered quoting.

Someone said that the US had only donated $35 million: Well, thats the old figure. It is now $350 million.

Someone else said that nobody would be giving more money than the US. Japan donated $500 million towards the efort.[/size]

[Sol-Blade]

[SIZE=-3]Aye, forget the debate of "Could there be more?", what exactly did YOU do to help them? Sure, that was uncalled for but seriously, be happy for the fact that at least the victims are getting aid and treatment. That's all anyone could ask for. Plus, don't forget the fact that while the governments of the world donate money, so are people all around the world. Why do you insist on looking at the donations individually? Isn't this more about the entire sum all together? As long as everyone chips in, no matter the quanity, at least we know that something is being done.[/SIZE]

[Morpheus]

Just because we have a lot of money doesn't mean it all should go to charity. Yet again, we are at war. It costs money, too. And right now it is top priority. Seriously, $350 million isn't enough? I, personally, think someone like Bill Gates(46.6 billion), Warren Buffet(42.9), and Alice and Helen Walton(20 each) should step up and help. They already have more money than they can deal with.

[Ravenstorture]

[QUOTE=maladjusted][color=darkslateblue] Most of this spouted from my hate of the president. Which is mostly what I'm angry at.
[/color][/QUOTE]
[font=timesnewroman][color=darkgreen]
Now now, Mal. Let's not hate the President, good ol' George, he obviously hasn't got a bloody clue what's going on, poor guy. Getting a bad rap from everyone simply because he is the one who gets up there and (attempts) to read the speech in front of him. Now, you have to realise that he was a perfect president for the political party's purpose - ignorant, completely blind in fact, and so very [i]malleable[/i]. It's not poor George's fault - he gets his pay packet and he gets to play with guns so he's happy - it's the guys behind him you have to look out for. Wolfowitz, Perl, Cheney, Rice, Powell... you know, the GANG. The ones who KNOW what they're doing, and get out there, and DO IT.... through the president, of course. And the President is probably a good guy at heart, if he'd ever been overseas, or ever been to war, maybe he'd get the full effect of what's going on. Not his fault though. That is the Republican Way. It's the American way, then too - while the republicans are in charge, that is. Drive that powerful economy at full throttle, balancing on the backs of the mass of poor and uneducated people who are the MOST patriotic, the MOST hard working. Essentially a communist nation this far gone would be the same thing - millions of poor Americans working hard for a rich few. And everyone knows war is great for the economy... so let's blow up everything that moves under the front of keeping this FANTASTIC NATION SAFE. Bloody hell, guys, you're safe enough.

Just give me a minute to get my breath back.

And so, in conclusion, I don't believe the American government is at all interested in foreign affairs - just money, power, and keeping it. For those who have read 1984, by another George, you will have probably realised that we are already caught in an "unwinnable war" (if that is a word). "War against terrorism" - it's not only unable to be won, it's a #'ing paradox! There is nothing to be afraid of, except retaliation against your own country's brutality and lack of compassion towards the rest of the world.

And perhaps we should have donated money BEFORE the tsunami, to raise the standard of living, so that there wouldn't be as many people there in the first place? It hit one of the most densely populated areas on the planet - perhaps not as many people would have died if that wasn't the case. And that IS something us toffynosed countries can help.

[/color][/font]

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Ravenstorture']And so, in conclusion, I don't believe the American government is at all interested in foreign affairs - just money, power, and keeping it. [/quote]
So why did we invade Iraq and Afghanistan, or liberate South Korea, Kuwait, France, Belgium, Lexumburg, China, The Phillipines, etc., or lend 4 BILLION DOLLARS to foreign aid per year? We seem a tad interested.

[quote name='Ravenstorture']For those who have read 1984, by another George, you will have probably realised that we are already caught in an "unwinnable war" (if that is a word). "War against terrorism" - it's not only unable to be won, it's a #'ing paradox! [/quote]
We aren't trying to "win". If you have diabetes, you are not going to get rid of it, but you still fight. It's a hard fight(My friend "shadow" can't eat anything with even a trace of glucose. I seriously don't know her name, either) but you fight.

[QUOTE=Ravenstorture]
And perhaps we should have donated money BEFORE the tsunami, to raise the standard of living, so that there wouldn't be as many people there in the first place? It hit one of the most densely populated areas on the planet - perhaps not as many people would have died if that wasn't the case. And that IS something us toffynosed countries can help. [/QUOTE]
Hmmm...If we increase the standard of living, does that make them want to leave? If we make their lives better, they want to stay, so I don't see what you mean.

[Roxie Faye]

[color=#9933ff]I'd like to point out that ever since the end of World War Two, America has, by way of retard documents (i.e., the one signed by Truman which got us served at Korea and Vietnam), nosed its way into other countries affairs which has totally screwed us over big time. Pretty much before then we were either trying to stabilize our government, having a good time at home, or being depressed (1930s). How is it in the last fifty years, we have managed to give our country a total make-over and have the world turn against us?!?! That's a rhetorical question, by the way, since I already answered it.

I don't know what idiotic president (no, it didn't start with Bush) decided that we need to be the worlds humanitarian aid, but the title really doesn't suit us.

What a country takes care of, first and foremost, [b]is its own people[/b]. A lot of you don't seem to grasp this fact. I even said, the point of foreign policy is to [b]benefit from it[/b]. I know, it's a total shock (in all seriousness, for me, it was), but it is not our obligation to play mother for every other country out there. Like I said, we could have been ruthless and cold hearted and not given a cent to the Tsunami Crisis. How is wasting away our money for this particular venture going to help America? It's not - it's not even in our interest, and we do it anyway, and you all seem to think that it's still not good enough.

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']The U.S. isn?t arrogant in giving money away, nor stingy. I?m just sick of the nation where it cannot win in any situation; if it doesn?t give what the rest of the world considers enough we?re ?stingy? if we give too much we?re ?arrogant? and if we kept to ourselves, well I can see us being called any number of things from that (tyrannical, uncaring, etc).[/quote]
'Nuff said.[/color]

[Ravenstorture]

[quote name='Morpheus']Hmmm...If we increase the standard of living, does that make them want to leave? If we make their lives better, they want to stay, so I don't see what you mean.[/quote]


[font=timesnewroman][color=darkgreen]Increasing the standard of living for an area is the only way to reduce the population level - increased standard of living means more education, more money, meaning they do not have as much inclination or reason to have many children. Excess children are born through ignorance, (lack of education) and through need of free labour. [/color][/font]

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Ravenstorture][font=timesnewroman][color=darkgreen]Increasing the standard of living for an area is the only way to reduce the population level - increased standard of living means more education, more money, meaning they do not have as much inclination or reason to have many children. Excess children are born through ignorance, (lack of education) and through need of free labour. [/color'][/font][/quote]
China made a law, and it seemed to work. Are you saying that we make it so that when this happens again there won't be as many lives to be lost? That, my friend, is ignorance. For one, that plan won't work, as the need for labor will increase. And why not just hand out condoms? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

[Juu]

[QUOTE=Ravenstorture][font=timesnewroman][color=darkgreen]
Now now, Mal. Let's not hate the President, good ol' George, he obviously hasn't got a bloody clue what's going on, poor guy. Getting a bad rap from everyone simply because he is the one who gets up there and (attempts) to read the speech in front of him. Now, you have to realise that he was a perfect president for the political party's purpose - ignorant, completely blind in fact, and so very [i]malleable[/i]. It's not poor George's fault - he gets his pay packet and he gets to play with guns so he's happy - it's the guys behind him you have to look out for. Wolfowitz, Perl, Cheney, Rice, Powell... you know, the GANG. The ones who KNOW what they're doing, and get out there, and DO IT.... through the president, of course. And the President is probably a good guy at heart, if he'd ever been overseas, or ever been to war, maybe he'd get the full effect of what's going on. Not his fault though. That is the Republican Way. It's the American way, then too - while the republicans are in charge, that is. Drive that powerful economy at full throttle, balancing on the backs of the mass of poor and uneducated people who are the MOST patriotic, the MOST hard working. Essentially a communist nation this far gone would be the same thing - millions of poor Americans working hard for a rich few. And everyone knows war is great for the economy... so let's blow up everything that moves under the front of keeping this FANTASTIC NATION SAFE. Bloody hell, guys, you're safe enough.

Just give me a minute to get my breath back.

And so, in conclusion, I don't believe the American government is at all interested in foreign affairs - just money, power, and keeping it. For those who have read 1984, by another George, you will have probably realised that we are already caught in an "unwinnable war" (if that is a word). "War against terrorism" - it's not only unable to be won, it's a #'ing paradox! There is nothing to be afraid of, except retaliation against your own country's brutality and lack of compassion towards the rest of the world.

And perhaps we should have donated money BEFORE the tsunami, to raise the standard of living, so that there wouldn't be as many people there in the first place? It hit one of the most densely populated areas on the planet - perhaps not as many people would have died if that wasn't the case. And that IS something us toffynosed countries can help.

[/color][/font][/QUOTE]

[size=1]Hi. I <3 you. :whoops:[/size]

[quote name='Morpheus']China made a law, and it seemed to work. Are you saying that we make it so that when this happens again there won't be as many lives to be lost? That, my friend, is ignorance. For one, that plan won't work, as the need for labor will increase. And why not just hand out condoms? Wouldn't that solve the problem?[/quote]

[size=1]Well, um. Tens of millions of Chinese men will find themselves single in the year 2020 because of that new law. Ah, the sweet smell of success.

Anyway, on the issue on benefit and 'playing mother' to other countries. The reason why America is put under high standards is because it's supposedly the most powerful and wealthy nation in the world. And yet, its first reaction was to pay less than 1/3 of what private organizations in England alone were able to raise? And anyone hear of a country named Quatar? It's a country smaller than Connecticut located in the Middle East, and yet they sent five million more than Bush first proposed to send.

And, those who are truly noble would feel an obligation to help those in need if they are capable of doing so. But that's just my humble opinion.

Oh, and now it's 350 million. Well, that's good news. I'm glad, then. Especially since they're now adding military assistance as well. It's just what we proposed to send at first that was a complete disgrace. But how could we not raise it up to 350 million after all that criticism we recieved from worldwide after that first press conference? Not to mention when Bush spent another two days on holiday after hearing about the event, and only held a press conference after former president Bill Clinton did, stating that Americans need to help.

However, you should note that much of the money the US uses in other foreign affairs is 'donated' to the UN. HMM. I wonder why. Surely, it couldn't be for [i]power[/i].

And also, as much as I'm guilty in critising what the US is doing as insignificant, it bothers me much more when people think everything we do is enough. It feels to me as if the expectation level must be at a F, and just an F or a D will be enough to satisfy, when it is perfectly capable of making a B or an A. To me, a 'true patriot' isn't someone who will stand by and watch their country roll downhill saying "oh well, we tried" without saying "we need to take action and get out of this mess".

Lastly, as for what 'I' did, I got together with the student council at our school, decided our school needs to do something to help the disaster, and we spent today's lunch period and early in the morning tomorrow to finish stamping/stapling/folding/etc 2000 letters by hand (eight of us) to families of students to donate money - all of which will be sent overseas. And of course, I'll be donating.[/size]

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Drix D'Zanth']That?s ********. A country?s only duty is to her own citizens (pardon the reflexive pronoun) not to protect the citizens of other nations. What the U.S. gives is out of GENEROSITY and should be received as generosity. Just as what the aid from any other nation should be understood as. When is it our responsibility to make the lives of every other nation as good as ours? That?s those people, and their nation?s responsibilities. I know that sounds cruel, but many nations are DOING that, and bettering themselves. Look at India, they take decent care of themselves, they haven?t asked for aid yet. [/quote]I'm not saying that it's our responsibility to make the lives of other nations as good as ours, because most people living in western countries obviously have more than they need to simply live a decent life. Do we need a T.V? No. Do we need a computer? No. But we have all those things and take them for granted.

I do agree that people should work hard to to try to make their own lives better. For instance, if a guy is living off welfare, and refuses to find a job, then it shouldn't be the country's duty to help him. However, some people in the world, no matter how hard they try, they cannot make their lives better. They physically work harder than us and even suffer, and continue to live in poverty. That's when I think we should step in and help.

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Since when was Spain, who doesn?t have the soundest economy in the world, need to throw money at the country? Like I said, the amount of money sent is virtually meaningless until we can actually SPEND that money on manpower and reconstruction.[/quote]I just see interest as evil, but that's just my opinion. They definitely did give a generous amount, and it is understandable that they might need the money back. But I don't think it's right to use people's suffering as a way to make money.

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']The UN sanctions? You are blaming the death of Iraqis living under Saddam because of UN sanctions? Please, go read something, go learn about what the sanctions dealt with; how they didn?t change the way of life for the Iraqi citizen, or how the entire suffering of the nation was really Saddam?s fault (which it was). Please, go educate yourself before posting again.[/quote]I'm pretty [I]educated[/I] thank you very much. I wasn't saying that Saddam wasn't responsible for making his people suffer. I don't support him and I'm glad he is out of power. That's what I think is the only good thing that came out of the America's invasion of Iraq. Anyway, all I am saying is that the sanctions simply furthered the suffering of the Iraqi people. Saddam did not make people starve as much as he killed those who opposed him. Sanctions destroy the economy of a country. You're isolated, you can't but or sell anything. How could Iraq get the money neccesary for healthcare, if they can't even sell their oil? Maybe [I]you[/I] should educate yourself on the harm sanctions can really do.

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']The Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the 1920?s, the stock market crash (would?ve been nice if countries gave us a few hundred million to slow the recession), 9/11, the war in Afganistan, Iraq (not a unilateral operation). There?s a few examples.[/quote]The first few example you gave were before the U.N was even formed. Weren't all countries back then selfish and hostile to each other? As for 9/11, their was lots of aid sent to the victims, form communities and orginizations. America didn't need money to rebuild the buildings destroyed.

As for your wars, we don't want to take part in them. Canada sent peacekeepers to afganistan, and other countries have sent troops to iraq. You don't need money. It was America's choice to engage in these wars, so they must take the responsibility to provide for them. No one on the other hand, brings tsunamis upon their countries.

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']I?d like to see a source to that number, Cabichou? maybe Google?s not cutting it today. The U.S. has given aid to Israel and will continue to do so. It is possible that the aid we have given them has assisted in Israel?s ability to survive despite the hostile actions of all of her neighbors. Not only that, the continued fighting against Islamic terrorists will and must continue.[/quote]

[QUOTE][I]For many years the American media said that "Israel receives $1.8 billion in military aid" or that "Israel receives $1.2 billion in economic aid." Both statements were true, but since they were never combined to give us the complete total of annual U.S. aid to Israel, they also were lies?true lies.

Recently Americans have begun to read and hear that "Israel receives $3 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid." That's true. But it's still a lie. The problem is that in fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000.[/I][/QUOTE]

Okay, so 16 million a day gives you that 5 and a half billion a year. It you don't believe that fine. But the U.S in it's Washington report says it gives 3 billion a year to Israel, fine. That equals to $8,219,178 a day.

Sources:

[url]http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#lies[/url]
[url]http://www.ifamericansknew.com/stats/usaid.html[/url]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']I love how the first sentence of this paragraph contradicts nearly your entire post. The U.S. isn?t arrogant in giving money away, nor stingy. I?m just sick of the nation where it cannot win in any situation; if it doesn?t give what the rest of the world considers enough we?re ?stingy? if we give too much we?re ?arrogant? and if we kept to ourselves, well I can see us being called any number of things from that (tyrannical, uncaring, etc).[/quote]Okay, I'd like to clear up the fact that I don't think the U.S needs to give more. I was simply stating the reasons why countries would call you stingy. I personally don't care how much America gives. It's not my country so meh. If I was living in one of the countries devestated by the tsunami, then I would be very grateful for any help I recieve. What I'm worried about is how much my own country can give and how much I can do to help. So pretty much I was saying what my opinion on the subjet would be If I was American, since this thread deals with American foreign affairs. And I agree with you on one thing; just sending money over to the country isn't going to do anything unless it is turned into results, such as reconstruction. But still, when we say we need to give more, it's more so that there is enough for reconstruction.

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi]Two things I'd just like to point out, but I can't be bothered quoting.

Someone said that the US had only donated $35 million: Well, thats the old figure. It is now $350 million.

Someone else said that nobody would be giving more money than the US. Japan donated $500 million towards the effort.[/QUOTE]Sorry, I honestly quoted from a reputable source, CTV news. The date was Dec. 30 so that's pretty recent. :confused:

The article had said that Canada was bumping up to 40 million rather than the 4 million it was going to give in the first place.

[url]http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1104355151375_99764351?s_name=&no_ads=[/url]

I guess America was gonna give 35 million and then it bumped it up like Canada did.

[/COLOR]

[Roxie Faye]

[quote name='Juuthena']Well, um. Tens of millions of Chinese men will find themselves single in the year 2020 because of that new law. Ah, the sweet smell of success.[/quote] Well nobody's actually named the law their talking about (Morpheus, I mean), so I'm assuming it's the One-child-for-every-family law. Restricting the population has very little to do with these single Chinese men. [b]Female infanticide[/b] does. That means when a woman finds out she's having a girl, she has the fetus aborted. Think about that for a minute. I can explain the whole situation, but it's a lot of typing and I'm really lazy at the moment. *_*;

[quote name='Juuthena']Anyway, on the issue on benefit and 'playing mother' to other countries. The reason why America is put under high standards is because it's supposedly the most powerful and wealthy nation in the world. And yet, its first reaction was to pay less than 1/3 of what private organizations in England alone were able to raise? And anyone hear of a country named Qatar? It's a country smaller than Connecticut located in the Middle East, and yet they sent five million more than Bush first proposed to send. [/quote] I don't remember hearing about this at all. But let's assume it's true. I also read in the newspaper on Dec. 28th, that Saudi Arabia, at the time we had propose $35 million, were donating $10 million. OIL. OIL OIL OIL. The same goes for Qatar - OIL. The countries in the middle east that have oil are rolling in dough - they can definitely give a lot away. They make so much in oil it's not even funny. Their economy is also on the rise, while ours is in a freaking recession, so they can still afford to send the money.


~


The thing I don't think some of you take into consideration was at the time of the quake, the inital death toll was around 7,000. Then it was 15,000, then 22,000, 50,000, 75,000, 100,000, 150,000 people and I think its still rising. We didn't decide to give this $15 million knowing 150,000 + people had died. At that time, it was only 7,000 people or so, and the property damaged hadn't even begun to be assessed. How can you expect America to just throw their annual revenue of, what was it - 5 billion, I think - to the countries of the disaster when nobody even knew the figures of devastation coming out of it? You know what? I bet if we did spend that much money on them it still wouldn't be enough for you people who think America needs to take care of everyone. I stand by what Drix says.