BF2S Forums Isn't it outrageous?

N.A.T.O wrote:

CITYHUNT3R wrote:

N.A.T.O wrote:

??????

The website specified that all those children die worldwide. Meaning in the United States as well.

I seriously doubt that We are resiving aid from that charity here in the USA.

No-one said that you were.

sergeriver wrote:

When you see the money wasted in weapons and given to countries like Israel (it's only an example) to support more war and death, don't you think that is immoral doing so when millions of children are dying every year because of hunger and poverty?

When I see money wasted on trees planted on islands in the middle of the road, people having babies just to get more government cash, and palaces built for city councils...

Spending is a big problem in this government, on every single level; not just the executive branch.

stryyker wrote:

I answer your question with another: What does Argentina do for Humanitarian Aid across the globe?

sergeriver wrote:

stryyker wrote:

i know, it was a question to prove a point.

In most every country in the world, Humanitarian Aide is very low on the "to-do" list.

But, you didn't answer the original and first question, you only bashed me because you thought it was a straight attack on US, and it's not, I think every rich country and I include Argentina, we have a lot of food here believe me, should help the world's poor countries.

I don't regard that as a personal bash. In fact, it is a decent point.

And at the same time people want the US to leave everyone alone, they all have their hands outstretched for our taxpayers' cash. It's like some bum sitting on the corner with a sign that reads "ned monny 4 fud. stay of my sidwalk." Can't have it both ways. Either tell the US to go back to 'isolationism,' or encourage its 'imperialism.'

But to answer the question about Argentina itself, it isn't completely guilty.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-09-30 16:37:52)

sergeriver wrote:

Would you prefer the government to spend your money in helping your own people or spending it in wars and support for other countries?

I want my tax dollars to go to all 3 actually.  Money for us, money for our soldiers to do their job to keep us and our allies safe, and money to help other countries that we are able to assist.  I don't think it has to be an either/or situation here.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2006-09-30 16:35:06)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

When you see the money wasted in weapons and given to countries like Israel (it's only an example) to support more war and death, don't you think that is immoral doing so when millions of children are dying every year because of hunger and poverty?

When I see money wasted on trees planted on islands in the middle of the road, people having babies just to get more government cash, and palaces built for city councils...

Spending is a big problem in this government, on every single level; not just the executive branch.

stryyker wrote:

I answer your question with another: What does Argentina do for Humanitarian Aid across the globe?

sergeriver wrote:

stryyker wrote:

i know, it was a question to prove a point.

In most every country in the world, Humanitarian Aide is very low on the "to-do" list.

But, you didn't answer the original and first question, you only bashed me because you thought it was a straight attack on US, and it's not, I think every rich country and I include Argentina, we have a lot of food here believe me, should help the world's poor countries.

I don't regard that as a personal bash. In fact, it is a decent point.

And at the same time people want the US to leave everyone alone, they all have their hands outstretched for our taxpayers' cash. It's like some bum sitting on the corner with a sign that reads "ned monny 4 fud. stay of my sidwalk." Can't have it both ways. Either tell the US to go back to 'isolationism,' or encourage its 'imperialism.'

But to answer the question about Argentina itself, it isn't completely guilty.

That help is shit, Argentina is a rich country and has a lot more to give, as US and the EU countries as well.  How much did the Iraq war cost, how many died because of that war and how many children would be still alive if the money would have been used to help these children?

sergeriver wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Would you prefer the government to spend your money in helping your own people or spending it in wars and support for other countries?

I want my tax dollars to go to all 3 actually.  Money for us, money for our soldiers to do their job to keep us and our allies safe, and money to help other countries that we are able to assist.  I don't think it has to be an either/or situation here.

Yes it has because there is no money for all those issues.  How can US have a huge deficit, 28 million children living in low incomes families and still wasting money in Iraq?

How can there be mass death in Africa and some people live in palaces over there?

Last edited by usmarine2005 (2006-09-30 16:52:26)

sergeriver wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Would you prefer the government to spend your money in helping your own people or spending it in wars and support for other countries?

I want my tax dollars to go to all 3 actually.  Money for us, money for our soldiers to do their job to keep us and our allies safe, and money to help other countries that we are able to assist.  I don't think it has to be an either/or situation here.

Yes it has because there is no money for all those issues.  How can US have a huge deficit, 28 million children living in low incomes families and still wasting money in Iraq?

Deficit? Politicians doing their usual things.  28 million low income families?  How do you define low income?  Under what yearly salary?  We have a lot of low income families because parents won't get off their butts and better themselves.

sergeriver wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

That help is shit, Argentina is a rich country and has a lot more to give, as US and the EU countries as well.  How much did the Iraq war cost, how many died because of that war and how many children would be still alive if the money would have been used to help these children?

Exactly. Which is one of the reasons I'm a bit irritated that the US receives the brunt of the blame in these regards.

But I'm not blaming only US, I blame all the rich countries, specially those who throw money away in wars.

I know you aren't specifically, but alot of people do.

sergeriver wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Would you prefer the government to spend your money in helping your own people or spending it in wars and support for other countries?

I want my tax dollars to go to all 3 actually.  Money for us, money for our soldiers to do their job to keep us and our allies safe, and money to help other countries that we are able to assist.  I don't think it has to be an either/or situation here.

Yes it has because there is no money for all those issues.  How can US have a huge deficit, 28 million children living in low incomes families and still wasting money in Iraq?

US government spending runs deep. Its trademark "shock-and-awe" campaign extends to the interior, with ginormous sculpted-glass city police departments and bronze faceless-human-automoton statues (that look like communist remnants from beyond the Iron Curtain) in front of giant brown art globes, in the middle of high-maintenance gardens. Turn lanes are dug out from the center of the roads and replaced with islands filled with trees poorly-chosen, due to their notorious habit of spreading roots wide, not deep (and thus ruining pavement over time). Government officials struggle to spend all of their alotted funds for the year so their budget doesn't get cut the next...where does all this end?

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-09-30 17:02:56)

N.A.T.O wrote:

CITYHUNT3R wrote:

N.A.T.O wrote:

I seriously doubt that We are resiving aid from that charity here in the USA.

No-one said that you were.

Please excuse did not read you post right.

I said that those children die worldwide. They don't have to have received aid from that charity to have died.

usmarine2005 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

I blame all the rich countries, specially those who throw money away in wars.

Was the US throwing money away when we gave supplies to the British during the early days of WWII?

Oh, sorry is there a WW now?  Forgive me I didn't see Fox today.

usmarine2005 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Was the US throwing money away when we gave supplies to the British during the early days of WWII?

Oh, sorry is there a WW now?  Forgive me I didn't see Fox today.

Oh fucking forget it, I am done talking to you.

Whatever.

CITYHUNT3R wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

I blame all the rich countries, specially those who throw money away in wars.

Was the US throwing money away when we gave supplies to the British during the early days of WWII?

They actually sold oil to Germany as well. So yes, they were throwing money away.

Explain that some more please.

usmarine2005 wrote:

CITYHUNT3R wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Was the US throwing money away when we gave supplies to the British during the early days of WWII?

They actually sold oil to Germany as well. So yes, they were throwing money away.

Explain that some more please.

I can't find a source at all, but I know I heard it somewhere. Either way, I'll take that statement back. My bad.