America, The Good Neighbor

[Sui]

Someone sent me this in email, and I apologize in advance if this has already been posted here, but I thought it was worth posting: TRIBUTE TO THE UNITED STATES This, from a Canadian newspaper, is worth sharing. America: The Good Neighbor. Widespread but only partial news coverage was given recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator. What follows is the full text of his trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record: "This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States. When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it. When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped. The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans. I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - not once, but several times and safely home again. You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here. When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke. I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake. Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those." Stand proud, America!

[kudyba]

This speech is true in that it was said BUT IN 1973!!! See [url=http://www.snopes2.com/quotes/sinclair.htm]THIS[/url] .

[Lee Flier]

Yes, and unfortunately our foreign policy has gone through drastic changes since 1973. Or really since the 60's, but by 1973 many people were still largely unaware of our rapidly changing attitude, and many Americans still are unaware. I hope that recent events will spur America to rethink some of its policies and once again become a good neighbor. --Lee

[ABECK]

[quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier: [b] I hope that recent events will spur America to rethink some of its policies and once again become a good neighbor. --Lee [/b][/quote] If my neigbor beat my children to death with a baseball bat I wouldn't sit on my hand and say "Oh gee, I probably deserved that. I guess I should rethink my past behavior."

[Lee Flier]

[quote]Originally posted by ABECK: [b] If my neigbor beat my children to death with a baseball bat I wouldn't sit on my hand and say "Oh gee, I probably deserved that. I guess I should rethink my past behavior."[/b][/quote] Neither would I. Where would you infer something like that? --Lee

[ABECK]

[quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier: [b] Neither would I. Where would you infer something like that? --Lee [/b][/quote] Well, you mentioned "recent events". I was making an analogy to these recent events in the good neighbor sense. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you not imply that because of these recent events, we shold rethink our policies and try to become a good neigbor? Thus our previous behavior is the cause of these events? Your suggesting that we change or behavior leads me to believe that you find some kind of justification for the actions taken against us. I could have misinterpreted what you were saying - If so, sorry. I just can't find any - ANY - justification for these attacks on innocent lives.

[Sui]

Bottom line is, dated or not, this document still holds true to a large degree, we haven't stopped helping regions in time of natural disasters, and we give foreigners everything when they enter this country. And we haven't stopped bailing out governments that can't maintain thier own countries. Nobody has so much as lifted a finger to help us, whether it be 1960, 1973 or 9/11/2001. I'm simply tired of hearing this horseshit that America's policies are the reason the WTC is gone and 6000-odd people are dead. We practically GIVE EVERYTHING away to the world, and the world does nothing but shit all over us for our trouble.

[Tim Walters]

[quote]If my neigbor beat my children to death with a baseball bat I wouldn't sit on my hand and say "Oh gee, I probably deserved that. I guess I should rethink my past behavior."[/quote] You also wouldn't be that impressed if, when you confronted your neighbor about his deeds, he started rambling about the time he fixed your car back in '93. That's what a lot of "patriotic" replies to criticism of America's Middle East policy seem like to me. If that policy is defensible, defend it. Bringing up good things America has done in completely different parts of the world is irrelevant. No one (I hope) is saying that American foreign policy "caused" this despicable attack. That responsibility is reserved for the terrorists. But like it or not, the U.S. has a track record of supporting dictatorships, bombing civilians, and even fostering terrorism. We've done lots of good things as well, but that, to me at least, is not the issue. I don't understand the need to always be deciding whether we're "good guys" or "bad guys". Let's judge each policy on its merits. I love my country, and don't want to see it engaging in acts I regard as shameful, any more than I would want my brother to. I can respect other people disagreeing with me about the need for such acts, but I can't respect the idea that criticizing U.S. foreign policy is somehow unpatriotic. [quote]We practically GIVE EVERYTHING away to the world, and the world does nothing but shit all over us for our trouble.[/quote] We have *by far* the lowest per-capita foreign aid budget among industrial democracies, and most of that goes to prop up Israel. Again, if you want to make a case for that, go ahead, but pretending that we're generous when we're actually stingy simply doesn't accomplish anything. This message has been edited by Tim Walters on 09-20-2001 at 08:38 PM

[Sui]

[quote]Originally posted by Tim Walters: [b] We have *by far* the lowest per-capita foreign aid budget among industrial democracies, and most of that goes to prop up Israel. Again, if you want to make a case for that, go ahead, but pretending that we're generous when we're actually stingy simply doesn't accomplish anything. [/b][/quote] What facts are you basing that on? What you feel the government has or hasn't given you? Give some facts to back up your statements at least, geez. Look at all the gold cards we pass out to immigrants for basically just showing up here. Look at all the benefit concerts for helping people in other parts of the world who are in trouble. Again look at all the assistance we send to regions that have had a catastrophic disaster. There are plenty of ways we shell out to distant lands and the people escaping them. What has anyone done to help us out in this current crisis outside of saying they feel bad for us? NOTHING. More importantly, whether you think we're generous or not, this doesn't consititute radicals killing people. You can't equate the US being "generous" or "stingy" as an act of aggression against someone else. This is just the latest method someone has come up with of shitting on the United States. We don't go around destroying heavily populated commerce centers when we get jealous of somebody - they hate our greatness, so they feel they must try to impede and/or destroy it in any way they can instead of striving to achive thier own greatness.

[Tim Walters]

[quote]What facts are you basing that on?[/quote] From [url=http://arneson.cornell.edu/IntAg402/Notes/AidAgent/AidPerspective.htm:]http://arneson.cornell.edu/IntAg402/Notes/AidAgent/AidPerspective.htm[/url] Foreign aid as a percentage of GNP (1995): Norway 1.05 Denmark 1.03 Sweden 0.96 Netherlands 0.70 France 0.64 Canada 0.43 Germany 0.34 United Kingdom 0.31 Japan 0.29 Italy 0.27 United States 0.15 [quote]More importantly, whether you think we're generous or not, this doesn't consititute radicals killing people.[/quote] Nobody said it did. Nobody could possibly believe that. Why do you keep beating this straw man? [quote]We don't go around destroying heavily populated commerce centers when we get jealous of somebody[/quote] True. We don't do it out of jealousy. We have a mixture of reasons for bombing, some laudable (stopping human rights violations), some not (greed for oil). Even the worst of our reasons is probably better than bin Laden's reasons (although I don't think jealousy is one of these). But I'm still not sure our reasons are good enough, and I certainly don't expect the people we bomb to be grateful. This message has been edited by Tim Walters on 09-21-2001 at 12:56 PM

[Sui]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tim Walters: Foreign aid as a percentage of GNP (1995): Norway 1.05 Denmark 1.03 Sweden 0.96 Netherlands 0.70 France 0.64 Canada 0.43 Germany 0.34 United Kingdom 0.31 Japan 0.29 Italy 0.27 United States 0.15 [QUOTE] Sorry, I don't buy this. The combined GNP of the top four countries listed here don't even come close to America's GNP. Maybe Japan and Germany's volume is comparable, MAYBE. Percentages of alotted foreign aid doesn't reflect overall volume of a country's GNP, these figures you have are very misleading. QUOTE> Why do you keep beating this straw man? Because it pisses me off. It should piss off all Americans. It should piss off the entire world for that matter. I can't justify thier actions, maybe you can, but I can't. It also pisses me off because more people are going to get killed because of this whole mess. And over what? Fucking organized religion. Religion is supposed to be an instrument of hope, not an instrument of death. QUOTE> Even the worst of our reasons is probably better than bin Laden's reasons (although I don't think jealousy is one of these). But I'm still not sure our reasons are good enough Well bin Laden's reason was based on mainly on religion. Religion is always used as a great excuse to kill people [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Blowing up a modern marvel, though - that's just plain jealousy, no matter how you slice it. Iraq invaded Kuwait for greedy purposes, and they were threatening to do the same thing to Saudi Arabia. That was a pretty good reason to bomb Iraq if you ask me. Yeah yeah, I know, it was all about the oil, right? Well it was about stopping an unprovoked attack first and formost. Protecting the oil agreements we already had with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia can't be consitituted as greed IMHO. We don't take the oil from these people - we buy it from them. QUOTE> I certainly don't expect the people we bomb to be grateful. And you think I do? Of course they wouldn't be grateful....

[Mats Olsson.]

[quote]Originally posted by Sui: [b][QUOTE]Sorry, I don't buy this. The combined GNP of the top four countries listed here don't even come close to America's GNP.[/b][/quote] Now that doesn't matter very much. GNP's are compared "per capita". Fact is that smaller countries also often have more expenses per capita for things such as defence, education and social service. In the United Nations they have long since advised wealthy countries to give 1 % of GNP as aid for poorer countries. And I also think it is very sad that Bush is asking UN for help, still USA owes a lot of memebership fees since many years back - and the UN needs that money. Of course Bush shall make all the diplomatic agreements necessary through the UN unless he wants a major global crisis to happen, but those dues must be taken care of from now on. There is just no excuses for not paying. /Mats

[Sui]

[quote]Originally posted by mats.olsson@rockfile.se: [b] Now that doesn't matter very much. GNP's are compared "per capita". Fact is that smaller countries also often have more expenses per capita for things such as defence, education and social service. In the United Nations they have long since advised wealthy countries to give 1 % of GNP as aid for poorer countries. /Mats[/b][/quote] Sure it matters. Per capita doesn't mean a whole lot when you're talking about actual budgets either. My whole point is these "averages" really don't reflect the actual numbers - it is too generalized - every country donates in different ways, both thru government and otherwise. You have to go on real volume. We still go out of our way everytime someone gets into trouble to help them out though. Don't say we don't. This surely goes a long way towards making up for these supposed differences in our foreign aid, look at all the private organizations that dole out aid to third world countries - we get bombarded by the infomercials every day with messages from those kinds of organizations. Ever heard of UNICEF? Plenty of Americans are donating to that organization. That's just one example - per capita fails to take into account what all of the private entities are doing to help other countries.

[Tim Walters]

Sui, The idea that generosity is not measured relative to means is absurd. By that standard, my giving $100 to the Red Cross would be less generous than Bill Gates' giving $101. It's worth noting that even in actual dollars, Japan's generosity outweighs ours by a comfortable margin, and Germany and France are quite close (again, I'm using 1995 figures--which are favorable to the U.S., since our foreign aid budget has been dropping steadily for the last few years). I have no idea why you think private citizens in the U.S. are more generous than those in other countries. Any figures? And if you're so pissed off about people trying to justify the terrorist attacks, why not cite some examples? I haven't seen any, and I certainly haven't done any. (Hint: proferring the opinion that the Arab world may be pissed off about our constant meddling in their affairs, rather than taking the comforting line that they're all just a bunch of player hatin' wackos, is not justifying the attacks. It's facing reality. If we misjudge their motivation, we're not going to be able to fight them very well.) Call me a curmudgeon, but I don't think patting ourselves on the back until we break our spine is going to do us much good. We need to move against bin Laden and his cronies with appropriate force (stick) and figure out which grievances against us are legitimate and start fixing them (carrot). We seem to have the stick covered, but I haven't seen much action on the carrot, and I think we're going to need both to fight terrorism. This message has been edited by Tim Walters on 09-25-2001 at 04:02 PM

[Sui]

[quote]Originally posted by Tim Walters: The idea that generosity is not measured relative to means is absurd. By that standard, my giving $100 to the Red Cross would be less generous than Bill Gates' giving $101. It's worth noting that even in actual dollars, Japan's generosity outweighs ours by a comfortable margin, and Germany and France are quite close (again, I'm using 1995 figures--which are favorable to the U.S., since our foreign aid budget has been dropping steadily for the last few years). [/quote] It's useless for me to argue with someone about budgets who thinks we should just give everything away for nothing. Why should we? They don't give us anything for free. That's the last thing I'm saying about it, let's just agree to disagree. [quote]I have no idea why you think private citizens in the U.S. are more generous than those in other countries. Any figures?[/quote] I never made any claim that private citizens or our government gives more than everyone else. I merely stated we have a heavy volume, which we do, and we do give away a lot, AND we don't give away the least. I NEVER said we give away the most. And nobody gives us anything, even in times of emergency. If you got the wrong impression, then there's the clarification. Your apparent justification of us being the "bad guy" because you don't think we give away enough and that being the reason we were attacked is what puzzles me. I don't see it exactly the same way. Bin Laden hates us, but hell we never bombed his homeland (the Iraqi's did though and he loves them). [quote]And if you're so pissed off about people trying to justify the terrorist attacks, why not cite some examples? I haven't seen any, and I certainly haven't done any. (Hint: proferring the opinion that the Arab world may be pissed off about our constant meddling in their affairs, rather than taking the comforting line that they're all just a bunch of player hatin' wackos, is not justifying the attacks. It's facing reality. If we misjudge their motivation, we're not going to be able to fight them very well.)[/quote] I wouldn't go that far to say that they're just flat out wackeroos and that's why they bombed us, so don't imply it, ok? We view it (meddling) as help to stablize the region, they claim we're meddling with thier affairs and insulting thier holy land when in reality they're just pissed because we're stopping them from blowing each other to hell. We're not trying to convert them. They're mad becuase we won't let them attack Isreal, (and each other) and LUCKY that we've prevented Isreal from dropping a few nukes on them. Don't ever think Isreal hasn't contemplated the thought, especially in 1991. And what do we get for trying to help them resolve thier differences? 7000 people dead. Doesn't that piss you off? They kill each other all the time, for religious reasons (which I've already mentioned) and it's no different from what the europeans did to each other way back when. Yeah ok, the europeans were left alone to kill each other but at the time they didn't have weapons that could destroy the whole region either. What would you prefer - them eventually laying waste of the whole region with chemical bombs and nukes, or see us help them resolve thier differences? That's what's gonna happen if we do nothing about it, my friend. I don't personally think our government really ever wanted to be heavily involved with them, except for the fact they're liable to destroy themselves, and possibly the rest of the world with them. [quote] Call me a curmudgeon, but I don't think patting ourselves on the back until we break our spine is going to do us much good. We need to move against bin Laden and his cronies with appropriate force (stick) and figure out which grievances against us are legitimate and start fixing them (carrot). We seem to have the stick covered, but I haven't seen much action on the carrot, and I think we're going to need both to fight terrorism.[/quote] Well at least we agree on something. I don't wanna see more people killed but I know it's a necessary evil. What concerns me is how we seem to be too worried about not offending anyone. Well, I'm afraid that's impossible now, it's hard enough during peacetime, but we've already declared war on them, it's a little late to be sensitive about everything. We just need to make educated decisions and get it done.

[Mats Olsson.]

FYI: USA has started to pay UN, a substatial amount is still overdue. $582 million payed in backlog UN fees on the 25th of septebmer, still $244 million is due. You can read more about it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010925/aponline020805_000.htm ------------------- My comment: most of us knows how totally annoying it is when a client owes us money and refuses to pay. Over here in Europe it has been quite common knowledge that USA has for years refused to pay their UN dues, and it has not been very popular. According to news articles in the past (=in the last 3 years), UN chairman Koffi Annan has been quite open about the fact that at times the UN has had difficulties in paying bills because of lacking funds. It is very good that this overdue is at least somewhat taken cared of now. /Mats

[BP3]

Tim stated [b]"We have *by far* the lowest per-capita foreign aid budget among industrial democracies, and most of that goes to prop up Israel."[/b] His basis for that quote was based on a single year, 1995. The GNP stats for 1995 may indeed be accurate, but one should look at long term (from WWII forward) and gather all those stats befor assuming that the US hasn't kept up with other countries. The expense of WWII was massive, and the Marshall Plan and other rebuilding efforts enabled many countries to regain strength and build healthy economies. Add all of these expenses together, then compare other counties' contributions. Tim, please report on that when you care to. This message has been edited by TinderArts on 09-26-2001 at 12:39 PM

[Sui]

[quote]Originally posted by mats.olsson@rockfile.se: FYI: USA has started to pay UN, a substatial amount is still overdue. $582 million payed in backlog UN fees on the 25th of septebmer, still $244 million is due.[/quote] I have to point out the location of the UN. America. We built it. We host it. We probably pay a lot of money to maintain the building nevermind catering, office equipment and everything else you can think of. [quote]UN chairman Koffi Annan has been quite open about the fact that at times the UN has had difficulties in paying bills because of lacking funds.[/quote] And who do you suspect is covering for the red ink. Probably the United States. Maybe our government feels we sink too much money into keeping the UN up and running day in and day out to pay the dues (before you flame me I am just venturing a GUESS here). I don't see how we possibly couldn't be involved in the financial affiars of the UN building given its location.

[Tim Walters]

[quote]Your apparent justification of us being the "bad guy" because you don't think we give away enough and that being the reason we were attacked is what puzzles me.[/quote] I'm trying to remain civil, but when you make insulting statements like this, it's difficult. For the 151st time: THE TERRORIST ATTACKS WERE NOT JUSTIFIED, BY AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY OR ANYTHING ELSE. I AM NOT DEFENDING THE TERRORISTS. I'M AS PISSED OFF ABOUT THE ATTACKS AS YOU ARE. I hope that's clear enough. I disagreed with one statement you made: [quote]We practically GIVE EVERYTHING away to the world, and the world does nothing but shit all over us for our trouble.[/quote] That's all. [quote]We built it. We host it. We probably pay a lot of money to maintain the building nevermind catering, office equipment and everything else you can think of.[/quote] Nonsense. The UN pays for these things with its budget, like any other organization. [quote]His basis for that quote was based on a single year, 1995.[/quote] Not true; it was just the first web site I found to satiate Sui's demand for substantiation (a demand I wish he would make of himself). The numbers are representative of U.S. policy, with minor swings, at least back to the Carter era. [quote]The GNP stats for 1995 may indeed be accurate, but one should look at long term (from WWII forward) and gather all those stats befor assuming that the US hasn't kept up with other countries.[/quote] If you like, I'll say we were generous then, and we're not now. My question would then be: why did we abandon principles that had such moral and practical value? If I were trying to decide whether the U.S. were a "good guy" or a "bad guy" in some objective sense, I would certainly consider the Marshall Plan. If, instead, we're trying to consider what legitimate grievances the Arab world (and the Third World) may have against us -- not to justify terrorism, obviously, but to work toward a just and practical foreign policy -- the Marshall Plan simply doesn't enter into it, except that it's a great example of how to do it right, and one we've been steadily ignoring ever since. Make no mistake, the Marshall Plan was both morally right *and* very much in our self-interest. I think it's worth remembering that our relationships with the Arab world were quite cordial before we started, um, "helping them resolve their differences". We've done some things that deserve that label without the scare quotes, but we've also propped up dictatorial governments and killed a hell of a lot of people. I'm not that interested in fighting old battles; I'm more interested in making the point that doing the right thing is worthwhile both for its own sake and as practical policy, something that I think needs stressing at this time. This message has been edited by Tim Walters on 09-26-2001 at 01:45 PM

[Mats Olsson.]

WARNING: long post, please read it entirely before replying! SUI, please, get your act together before posting such nonsense! On the web it is really easy to find all the information you need. I do not mind an open-minded discussion, but only if the participants have at least some FACTS to build their argumentation upon. Just to prove that you are way off track in your previous posts I tried to find some official info, I found this at the UN site: ----------------------------- Excerpts from "Statement of UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy to Harvard International Development Conference on "sharing responsibilities: public, private & civil society Cambridge, Massachutes 16 April 1999" Quote: "In a global economy worth nearly $30 trillion, a billion and a half people - a quarter of the human race - are living in conditions of almost unimaginable suffering and want. Six hundred and fifty million of them are children - a figure more than twice the population of the United States. Never in history have we seen such numbers. And never in history have we seen overall aid to the world's neediest countries fall to such shameful levels as they have in recent years." End quote It continues: Quote: "The {UN-} founders had two things on their minds at the end of the Second World War. One was to prevent a third world war. The other was to avoid another global economic depression and to ensure universal economic and social well-being. That vision was based on a set of universal values: freedom, justice and the peaceful resolution of disputes; social progress and better standards of living; equality, tolerance and dignity." End quote. Quote: "The pledges made by governments at these conferences were reaffirmations of their fundamental commitment to provide an agreed-upon minimum level of development assistance to poor countries. The centrepiece was the 1969 pledge by the industrialised countries to earmark at least 0.7 per cent of their Gross National Product (GNP) for Official Development Assistance (ODA). Yet at a time when even modest increases in aid to the world's poorest countries could save the lives of millions of children and women, Official Development Assistance is in a state of virtual free-fall. The collective ODA of the 29-nation donor group known as the OECD - which includes the United States - has fallen to a record low of 0.22 per cent of GNP - less than one-third of the 0.7 per cent target. And since 1992, the G-7 nations' contribution to the general ODA fund has plummeted about $15 billion - a reduction of almost 30 per cent in real terms. Ladies and gentlemen, let us call this situation by its proper name: it is a scandal. The developed world, which is benefiting so vastly from globalisation, cannot be allowed to be deficient in its obligations to the developing world - which are not merely compassionate and generous but also a recognition that only by building an adequate human and developmental infrastructure in the developing world can you have a world economy that is one day stable and vibrant." End quote. And the speech ends like this: Quote: "For practical, legal, and moral reasons, governments must be held to their commitments. No one should pretend that simply getting more money from the private sector will compensate for the failures of the public sector. The phenomenon of globalisation has opened the possibility of untold riches. But it has also shown its power to trigger the progressive impoverishment of large societies, such as Indonesia, where tens of thousands of families have fallen into abject poverty in the last two years. There is a belief among many people that globalisation is an ineluctable process, as irresistible and beyond human control as the tides. In fact, it is the product of deliberate, day-to-day policy choices. And that is why, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let governments off the hook. Thank you" End quote. See the whole article (and many others) at: http://www.un.org/partners/business/sgstate.htm ------------------------- /Mats This message has been edited by mats.olsson@rockfile.se on 09-26-2001 at 01:54 PM

[BP3]

Tim, would you check and see what the last ten years % of GNP figures are. Thanks. This message has been edited by TinderArts on 09-26-2001 at 03:38 PM

[NKF]

this so called 'America: The Good Neighbor.'article was sent through the net via different channels. It seems to be one of the disinformation things coming out of informational warefare. It's rarely that such primitive propaganda articles show up and gain such acceptance. The only goal is to feed nationalism. If people make themself a servant of such strategies it seems to be another side effect of freedom. Nirto Karsten Fischer

[Tim Walters]

I'm not sure how I got the job of Google-Search Boy, but here ya go: http://www.cbpp.org/4-25-00bud.htm "The share of U.S. resources devoted to development, humanitarian or economic aid for other countries has generally fallen since the mid-1960s. The overall decline has been substantial, reducing such spending to exceptionally low levels for the United States. The share of national resources the United States contributes in aid to the world's poorest nations is now far lower than the share that any other industrialized country contributes, and is at one of the lowest levels in the post-World War II era." Figure 1 (about a third of the way down) has the full data in graphic form for 1980-2005. Aside from a spike in 1985, it's downhill all the way. The appendix at the end has exact figures starting in 1962. It backs up Lee's point nicely: the big drop was in the Sixties. This message has been edited by Tim Walters on 09-26-2001 at 04:31 PM

[Mats Olsson.]

[quote]Originally posted by Tim Walters: [b]Figure 1 (about a third of the way down) has the full data in graphic form for 1980-2005.[/b][/quote] That graph is very sad reading. It clearly shows that the Bush administration plans to give even less foreign aid from now on... no wonder a lot of people get pissed! /Mats

[Tedster]

[quote]Originally posted by mats.olsson@rockfile.se: [b] That graph is very sad reading. It clearly shows that the Bush administration plans to give even less foreign aid from now on... no wonder a lot of people get pissed! /Mats [/b][/quote] Something somehow seems flawed in this logic...can anyone put their finger on it? I haven't studied the charts, so I may be wrong, but, the initial drop was in the 60s...could this be possibly due to a drop in post WWII aid as countries that were devastated by the war began to stand on their own? And there's something else that bothers me....hmmm... This message has been edited by Tedster on 09-27-2001 at 05:21 AM

[Sui]

[quote]I'm trying to remain civil, but when you make insulting statements like this, it's difficult. For the 151st time: THE TERRORIST ATTACKS WERE NOT JUSTIFIED, BY AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY OR ANYTHING ELSE. I AM NOT DEFENDING THE TERRORISTS. I'M AS PISSED OFF ABOUT THE ATTACKS AS YOU ARE.[/quote] Beleive me some of your statements in this thread towards me are equally insulting and I have shown plenty of restraint. Let's not go down this road, Tim. I am NOT trying to insult you, nor do I think you are defending the terrorists but it DOES concern me that you feel we've gotten "stingy" for no reason. I bet this is precisely the reason we have - that is to say our government has gotten sick of supporting other governments that aren't reciprocating it when we need the help. I am NOT SAYING we SHOULDN'T stop helping people who need the help either. [quote] Nonsense. The UN pays for these things with its budget, like any other organization.[/quote] They are coming up short in bills, according to Mats (and I'm not really surprised either). [quote]SUI, please, get your act together before posting such nonsense! On the web it is really easy to find all the information you need.[/quote] And it is a widely known fact people tend to distort what they read into facts of thier own as you have. Read on. [quote]I do not mind an open-minded discussion, but only if the participants have at least some FACTS to build their argumentation upon.[/quote] I don't either. But please read on. FACT: The UN was built in the United States. American laborers constructed it. How is this not a fact? FACT: As a result of the UN being in the United States, WE HOST IT. How can you say we don't? FACT: It takes up resources, obviously not all of them but an organization of that magnitude takes up a lot - catering, eletricity, real estate, housing, audio/video equipment, manpower, airtime, and a ton of other things. It's not just the building itself - it's all the accomodations for the UN officials and thier staff, plus the equipment and living expenses they need, and NYC bears the brunt of these consumed resources. Fine if the UN is paying for it (or some of it anyway) but they are still using OUR resources and manpower. To say otherwise is ludicrous. FACT: The UN is having problems with its bills yet they continue to operate. Someone's bailing them out and flipping the bill, otherwise it would dissolve, like ANY corporation. Look at what happened to Alesis. I bet that someone is the United States government, or other American or maybe some investors and banks. There HAS to be a reason we are not paying these dues, and that would be the most sensible reason why. I AM NOT saying this is the absolute reason, BUT, if foreign investors were keeping it going and America wasn't paying for any of the differences, then why wouldn't they pay thier UN dues. That makes no sense at all. I DON'T disagree with you about the purpose of the UN and why it was created, and never did. Your article blames the entire membership and its globalization policies for the economic imbalance taking place in various regions around the world. Yet you insist that it is solely the USA's fault that this is happening, because we don't pay our dues. I rather think you should stick to what the article says instead of singling America out. You came in and insisted that it was our fault this was going on within the UN because we didn't pay some piddly dues on time. That is utter nonsense!!! FACT - my initial points had NOTHING TO DO with what was going on with the UN, at first all I did was post an article I thought was worth reading in these troubled days. I had no intent to start talking about the humanitarian and industrial aid America gives to other countries, especially during times of disaster, and that nobody has ever helped us out. The responses forced me to do so, because I don't agree with a lot of the logic behind it. I have my act together, ok? Speaking of this, Canada's musicians are having a concert to benefit the victims of the WTC and Pentagon attacks. I salute them. And finally, to this comment: [quote]this so called 'America: The Good Neighbor.'article was sent through the net via different channels. It seems to be one of the disinformation things coming out of informational warefare. It's rarely that such primitive propaganda articles show up and gain such acceptance. The only goal is to feed nationalism. If people make themself a servant of such strategies it seems to be another side effectof freedom.[/quote] And after reading such an ASSININE comment, I'm sorry I even bothered with it now... It was passed around to lift up American morale. They are positive comments on the United States from an outsider, and that's all. My only purpose for posting it was it was something POSITIVE in a very negative time. There is nothing wrong with that. This message has been edited by Sui on 09-27-2001 at 06:00 AM

[rold]

Sui said: >>There HAS to be a reason we are not paying these dues..<< I caught the tail end of a news radio report a few months ago that said the US refuses to pay their UN dues unless "their military is given immunity from the international courts." Has anyone figured out whether or not this is true? I heard it on a trusted source. What a freaky thought! >>You came in and insisted that it was our fault this was going on within the UN because we didn't pay some [b]piddly[/b] dues on time. That is utter nonsense!!!<< You're calling a sum of [b]almost a BILLION dollars[/b] "piddly" [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gif[/img] ? Shit man, what world are you from? You mind if I borrow ten bucks? [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] Sui, if you had said this a year ago I would have been forced to bitchslap you [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img]. According the UN website, as of this time last year, "the largest debtor, the United States, owes the UN $1.9 billion for past and current assessments, two-thirds of the total due." $1.9 Billion Dollars. That is $1 900 000 000 Dollars. Or, if you prefer to look at it in a different way, that's [b]19 MILLION [/b]ONE HUNDRED dollar bills, or [b]190 MILLION[/b] ten dollar bills. And this is money that's supposed to go to keeping insane forces from slaughtering people and feeding the mouths of the hungry. This is not only not even in the REMOTE vicinity of "piddly" IMO, this is downright FUCKING DISGUSTING! This message has been edited by rold on 09-27-2001 at 06:58 AM

[Jose Cobelas]

When I first saw that post, that has been extensively distributed throughout the net, I thought that it was tasteless. In a moment when ALL the civilized world was mourning American deaths, some moron decides to insult several allies with that old crap. I am also yet to see any posts with words of sympathy by Americans towards the 1,000+ foreign nationals thought to be among the victims. About who´s more generous, that kind of attitude always reminds me of the Queen in the Snow White tale (mirror, mirror...) Sigh... Best wishes to you all, JoseC.

[Neutron]

"The UN was built in the United States. American laborers constructed it. How is this not a fact?" How do you know American workers constructed it? Unless you have copies of all their birth certificates, you are merely speculating. My point is that the U.S. is a land of immigrants, like it or not. Five hundred years ago your great-great-great-etc grandfather wore a feather and painted his face and was probably killed by the same people who invaded this country and later called it the United States. The few real "americans" (to use the term loosely, since America is a continent comprised of several countries, not a single nation, as many people erroneouly think) have been reduced to being forced to live in reservations, which get smaller and smaller, depending on the government's need for land. So, you may want to think twice about where you come from and what is really yours.

[Mats Olsson.]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sui: [b]FACT: As a result of the UN being in the United States, WE HOST IT. How can you say we don't?[/b] Nonsense, that is just not logical! By the very same logic one could say that the American embassy in Kabul is hosted by Afghanistan. This is how it works: The UN building in NY is a diplomatic zone just like any nations foreign embassy or consulate in any nation on this planet - it is really that simple! The UN is not something that is "hosted" anywhere, it is an operation run and owned by all of it's members, and all of UN's members are equal. [b]FACT: It takes up resources, obviously not all of them but an organization of that magnitude takes up a lot - catering, eletricity, real estate, housing, audio/video equipment, manpower, airtime, and a ton of other things. It's not just the building itself - it's all the accomodations for the UN officials and thier staff, plus the equipment and living expenses they need, and NYC bears the brunt of these consumed resources. Fine if the UN is paying for it (or some of it anyway) but they are still using OUR resources and manpower. To say otherwise is ludicrous.[/b] Good! You are actually saying that hundreds, if not thousands, of US enterprises are making a living every day just because the UN building is in NY city. Just like a lot of US construction workers & companies made money by building the UN building. I really can't see any reason why all of this should be a burden for the US! Sounds like a profit deal to me. What's your problem Sui? [b]FACT: The UN is having problems with its bills yet they continue to operate.[/b] What's your point? What alternative is there, close the store? [b]Someone's bailing them out and flipping the bill, otherwise it would dissolve, like ANY corporation. Look at what happened to Alesis. I bet that someone is the United States government, or other American or maybe some investors and banks.[/b] No, wrong logic again. If UN lacks money, they make cuts in their operations. That means that a lot of good stuff that needs to be done by UN gets postponed or canceled = less aid for those in need. That is a shame, nothing less. [b]There HAS to be a reason we are not paying these dues, and that would be the most sensible reason why. I AM NOT saying this is the absolute reason, BUT, if foreign investors were keeping it going and America wasn't paying for any of the differences, then why wouldn't they pay thier UN dues. That makes no sense at all.[/b] The US congress was very vocal about why they refused to pay UN fees. The reason is simple and shameful: extortion. The UN has many members, all equal, one uf them is USA. There are a large number of boards and committees in the UN and the idea is that they get represented by different nations at different times - just to guarantee that all nations recieve equal status. But The US administration got pissed because they did not get re-elected to one of those boards, so they tried to force the UN to change it's rules & policies by stop paying membership fees. And until monday this week the due amount was close to a Billion dollars ! - enough to do a whole lot of good deeds around the world. In the real world such behaviour is simply called blackmail. Thankfully, it looks like all US backlog fees finally are about to being payed (according to the UN secretary general, Ted Turner played a major role in the process!). Hopefully this whole problem will be taken care of for good now, it is better to do good than keep bickering. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sgsm7969.doc.htm [b]I DON'T disagree with you about the purpose of the UN and why it was created, and never did.[/b] And I never said you did. I just said that if you are a member of the club you also must pay your fees. USA withheld tons of fees and still expected of the UN to be treated as a full member. [b]Your article blames the entire membership and its globalization policies for the economic imbalance taking place in various regions around the world. Yet you insist that it is solely the USA's fault that this is happening, because we don't pay our dues. I rather think you should stick to what the article says instead of singling America out. You came in and insisted that it was our fault this was going on within the UN because we didn't pay some piddly dues on time. That is utter nonsense!!![/b] Piddly dues? On time ? Utter nonsense? And who are you if I may ask, Bill Gates? Except for the almost bankrupt Russian nation, probably no single nation has ever owed UN as much as a tenth of the US backlog dues. The interest rate alone on such amounts is more than the GNP of many poor countries, for God's sake! In my previous posts, I have never insisted that USA is the only culprit for global unjustice and I actually think that many nations are to blame - it is a global problem. I did not put the focus on USA in this thread, you did. And those dues date several years back, so please don't pretend that it was a slightly overdue "piddly" telephone bill! [b]I have my act together, ok?[/b] OK, If you say so, perhaps you have. But not in this matter IMO. To put it mildly, I find it utterly annoying when someone is mixing facts, myths and assumptions the way you do in such a serious matter. [b]Speaking of this, Canada's musicians are having a concert to benefit the victims of the WTC and Pentagon attacks. I salute them.[/b] Good news, this is really an important and symbolic gesture. This whole tragedy has shocked people all over the planet, it's affecting everybody and I'm sure that people everywhere is more than willing to help. And, as other posters hve mentioned, innocent people of many nationalities got injured or killed in the attacks and the following rescue. Here's some positive reading material: a recent article from the NY Post about the UN staff and how they try to help NY city after the disaster: http://www.nypost.com/seven/09252001/postopinion/letters/4788.htm Peace. /Mats This message has been edited by mats.olsson@rockfile.se on 09-27-2001 at 10:33 AM