Thanks man, one person likes me 100 foreigners hate me because I tell it as it is. Think it just upsets them that I still like this country. Let the flaming begin.....
Poll
Should the US stop helping countries that don't like them?
| Should the US stop funding to those countries? | 66% | 66% - 71 | 33% | 33% - 35 | ||
| Are you American? | 61% | 61% - 65 | 38% | 38% - 41 | ||
| Total: 106 | ||||||
Of course, if you help them, they might STOP hating you.
Funny place, Earth.
Funny place, Earth.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I love this country, couldn't imagine living anywhere else. Except maybe Japan, but they are like our bitches, so its the same... LOL. They are really close though, Japan is a great country.Renegade2k9 wrote:
Thanks man, one person likes me 100 foreigners hate me because I tell it as it is. Think it just upsets them that I still like this country. Let the flaming begin.....
And of course, if we stop helping them, they might DIE OFF.Spark wrote:
Of course, if you help them, they might STOP hating you.
Funny place, Earth.
Funny place, outside the USA.
I couldn't live anywhere else, I really don't think anywhere else compares to this country. Japan is to weird for me though.Mr.Pieeater wrote:
I love this country, couldn't imagine living anywhere else. Except maybe Japan, but they are like our bitches, so its the same... LOL. They are really close though, Japan is a great country.Renegade2k9 wrote:
Thanks man, one person likes me 100 foreigners hate me because I tell it as it is. Think it just upsets them that I still like this country. Let the flaming begin.....
True.Mr.Pieeater wrote:
And of course, if we stop helping them, they might DIE OFF.Spark wrote:
Of course, if you help them, they might STOP hating you.
Funny place, Earth.
Funny place, outside the USA.
Although, in that case, halting aid would amount to a crime against humanity (you're knowingly killing off millions of people)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Can't save em' all... And besides, I don't think that would be punishable considering aid is a charity. A crime against humanity is murdering the people, not letting them starve because they can't feed themselves.Spark wrote:
True.Mr.Pieeater wrote:
And of course, if we stop helping them, they might DIE OFF.Spark wrote:
Of course, if you help them, they might STOP hating you.
Funny place, Earth.
Funny place, outside the USA.
Although, in that case, halting aid would amount to a crime against humanity (you're knowingly killing off millions of people)
wow....just wow. If I had any respect for you before, it has no gone out the window. Pure ignorance on your part, no compassion. I pitty you.Mr.Pieeater wrote:
Can't save em' all... And besides, I don't think that would be punishable considering aid is a charity. A crime against humanity is murdering the people, not letting them starve because they can't feed themselves.Spark wrote:
True.Mr.Pieeater wrote:
And of course, if we stop helping them, they might DIE OFF.
Funny place, outside the USA.
Although, in that case, halting aid would amount to a crime against humanity (you're knowingly killing off millions of people)
Strangely enough, if the British Empire had followed your advice in the late 18th century, there would be no USA today. They sure tried, but they couldn't pull it off. I am sure you can do better...Mr Pieeater wrote:
I say lets those idiots riot and then starve. Who needs them, people who riot deserve to die. "Help, help, I'm being repressed!" Screw that. Riot = stupid people...
And what's that crap about Europe stabbing the US in the back ? When and how exactly did we do that ?
A couple of points: It is not in the interests of the US to allow folks to go down...we, like other capitalist societies, need markets. So, I disagree that we should never help anyone. It's called investment. You put something in, and later hope to get something out.Spark wrote:
True.Mr.Pieeater wrote:
And of course, if we stop helping them, they might DIE OFF.Spark wrote:
Of course, if you help them, they might STOP hating you.
Funny place, Earth.
Funny place, outside the USA.
Although, in that case, halting aid would amount to a crime against humanity (you're knowingly killing off millions of people)
Second point: Failing to help someone is not the same as actively harming them. Cutting off aid to a country that desperately required it would not be a crime against humanity. This is not about compassion, it is about responsibility. One may feel compelled to help a starving person, that does not make one responsible for that person. If one were responsible for a starving person (say the person starving were one's own child) then the crime of negligence is committed when one failes to feed that person. But, failing to be compassionate to a person for whom one is not responsible, is not a crime.
Last edited by whittsend (2006-03-20 08:10:11)
hmm...let's say someone needs help desperately. If they don't get that help, they are facing certain death. You have the means to help but choose not to. Wouldn't that be considered unethical, wrong and ( under certain circumstances ) even a crime ?
I am certain there is legislation in a lot of countries along those lines, I know there is in germany.
Often, failing to act is the same as pulling the trigger yourself.
Which, by the way is the same argument the US is using for engaging in military operations around the world, promoting freedom and democracy.
There is no international law stating the US has the responsibility to do it. Still, they feel that way.
As you say, it is all about responsibility....
I am certain there is legislation in a lot of countries along those lines, I know there is in germany.
Often, failing to act is the same as pulling the trigger yourself.
Which, by the way is the same argument the US is using for engaging in military operations around the world, promoting freedom and democracy.
There is no international law stating the US has the responsibility to do it. Still, they feel that way.
As you say, it is all about responsibility....
Well, tell me, there are people in that situation every day, and I suspect it is within your means to help some of them. Do you? I will not hesitate to say that I don't help as many as I could. I have liquid assetts I intend to keep for my own use because I enjoy a certain standard of living; no matter how many people in the world are starving. Harsh? Perhaps. True? Certainly. And probably true of most people who can spend $50 on a PC game. That is not to say that I never help anyone....I most certainly do through charitable contributions. But that is my CHOICE, not my responsibility.B.Schuss wrote:
hmm...let's say someone needs help desperately. If they don't get that help, they are facing certain death. You have the means to help but choose not to. Wouldn't that be considered unethical, wrong and ( under certain circumstances ) even a crime ?
I am certain there is legislation in a lot of countries along those lines, I know there is in germany.
Often, failing to act is the same as pulling the trigger yourself.
Which, by the way is the same argument the US is using for engaging in military operations around the world, promoting freedom and democracy.
There is no international law stating the US has the responsibility to do it. Still, they feel that way.
As you say, it is all about responsibility....
Why is it not a crime if we don't help, even if we can? Because simply, even if they die, we are not responsible for those people; they are responsible for their own situation. You may say it is wrong, but to say it is unethical is to say that we should encourage people to rely upon others. To make it a crime is patently outrageous. Consider: I no longer need to work. I need only go out and beg for food; and it is a crime if someone who can, declines to feed me.
You may retort that most people will not act in this manner (I certainly wouldn't), but you cannot deny that some WOULD.
In any case, to say that "failing to act is the same as pulling the trigger" is logical nonsense. That is pretty obvious; You don't really need me to spell it out using formal logic do you?
Edit: As far as US policy goes, without putting myself in the position of defending a policy I have no intention of defending: Foreign policy is RARELY about charity. There is almost always an ulterior motive. In the case of Iraq the stated ulterior motive was national security. Even if a policy seems altruistic, it is probably more about public relations than about actually helping foreign nationals. The case that a STATE is responsible for helping nationals outside it's border is even MORE difficult to make than that for an individual. Why? Because the money involved belongs to the citizens of that state, and the decision to give it away, or use it in a way that does not immediately benefit those citizens should be left to the citizens themselves.
Last edited by whittsend (2006-03-20 10:40:58)
well, I am not necessarily talking about financial help here. Just imagine an accident on the road or somebody being attacked, a woman being raped, you name it. Simply somebody else needing help. You would most likely agree with me that it is our responsibility to help within our capabilities and there is legislation on state level demanding exactly that.
"failing to act is the same as pulling the trigger" was intended as a metaphor. I know it's logical nonsense.
And I am pretty sure, being the intelligent person you obviously are, you knew very well how that sentence was meant.
As far as US foreign policy goes, I used it as an example to support my point on responsibilities and how different people / nations define theirs, regardless of legal matters.
The US has a history of defining their responsibilities on an international level....well...loosely, if you will.
International considerations don't bother them much.
I agree that there is no legal responsibility for any nation to help foreign nationals outside their own borders.
Still, those who can do it if they see it fit ( if it benefits their own security situation, for example ) will do so on a regular basis. The US is the prime example for that.
As you say, national security is the major argument for almost anything they have done since 09/11.
Wether the nation of Iraq posed a threat to the integrity of the national security of the US, remains open for discussion. I doubt it, others will disagree.
But we seem to agree here
"failing to act is the same as pulling the trigger" was intended as a metaphor. I know it's logical nonsense.
And I am pretty sure, being the intelligent person you obviously are, you knew very well how that sentence was meant.
As far as US foreign policy goes, I used it as an example to support my point on responsibilities and how different people / nations define theirs, regardless of legal matters.
The US has a history of defining their responsibilities on an international level....well...loosely, if you will.
International considerations don't bother them much.
I agree that there is no legal responsibility for any nation to help foreign nationals outside their own borders.
Still, those who can do it if they see it fit ( if it benefits their own security situation, for example ) will do so on a regular basis. The US is the prime example for that.
As you say, national security is the major argument for almost anything they have done since 09/11.
Wether the nation of Iraq posed a threat to the integrity of the national security of the US, remains open for discussion. I doubt it, others will disagree.
But we seem to agree here
LOL, yea right. Throw money and support at them then have it come back and bit you in the ass years later when they protest and bitch about actions that take place far away from them.Spark wrote:
Of course, if you help them, they might STOP hating you.
Funny place, Earth.
And what's that crap about Europe stabbing the US in the back ? When and how exactly did we do that?
Where have you been in a cave with your eyes closed and fingers in your ears for the past three or so years? Europe has been bitching nonstop about our actions in the world, personally I don't understand why you even care? Last time I checked Europe wasn't even in the same region as the Middle East. Some believe that Germany and France had secret deals with Iraq and I am thinking this is why Europe is so angry with our actions because when we invaded Iraq we killed any deals that those countries had with Iraq. I was looking through wikipedia and found this attached to a article called "Anti-Americanism" and it states:
"Overall, the most common theme of many critics is that anti-Americanism is usually irrational in tone, and they thus distinguish it from simple criticism over policy. They argue that many manfestations of anti-American protest are thus based on sheer anger, jealously, bitterness, spite, or cruelty. Gestures such as flag burning, for example, might be disregarded as hysterical or "crazed". "
Seems ignorance is universal no matter where you go including Europe.
Where have you been in a cave with your eyes closed and fingers in your ears for the past three or so years? Europe has been bitching nonstop about our actions in the world, personally I don't understand why you even care? Last time I checked Europe wasn't even in the same region as the Middle East. Some believe that Germany and France had secret deals with Iraq and I am thinking this is why Europe is so angry with our actions because when we invaded Iraq we killed any deals that those countries had with Iraq. I was looking through wikipedia and found this attached to a article called "Anti-Americanism" and it states:
"Overall, the most common theme of many critics is that anti-Americanism is usually irrational in tone, and they thus distinguish it from simple criticism over policy. They argue that many manfestations of anti-American protest are thus based on sheer anger, jealously, bitterness, spite, or cruelty. Gestures such as flag burning, for example, might be disregarded as hysterical or "crazed". "
Seems ignorance is universal no matter where you go including Europe.
Last edited by Renegade2k9 (2006-03-20 12:50:55)
I would agree that it would be the moral thing to do, but I don't agree that it would be one's responsibility. I would probably assist in those cases, but one cannot deny that there can be risk involved in assisting: Financial, legal (if one is not intellectually equipped to help - I'm no doctor, and don't want to be sued when I break someone's spine while rescuing them from a burning auto), personal (i.e. danger), and possibly even health risks. I do not believe it is right for the state to criminalize the absence of action. In general, I believe that a lack of action is preferable to uninformed or hasty action. In any case, for the government to impose a criminal penalty when the possibility of risk is present, would be just wrong.B.Schuss wrote:
well, I am not necessarily talking about financial help here. Just imagine an accident on the road or somebody being attacked, a woman being raped, you name it. Simply somebody else needing help. You would most likely agree with me that it is our responsibility to help within our capabilities and there is legislation on state level demanding exactly that.
Fair enough...but my issue is that I think it is almost as false in reality as it is in formal logic.B.Schuss wrote:
"failing to act is the same as pulling the trigger" was intended as a metaphor. I know it's logical nonsense.
And I am pretty sure, being the intelligent person you obviously are, you knew very well how that sentence was meant.
Yes, on the subject of foreign policy, I think we don't diverge too much.B.Schuss wrote:
But we seem to agree here
Last edited by whittsend (2006-03-20 12:54:43)
"US aid, which acquired an increasingly military flavour during the Regan years, is now concentrated on a relatively small number of countries of special political importance."
"Introduction to International Politics" by Heater & Berridge 1992, p80
Do you really think US foreign aid is about helping suffering people?
"Introduction to International Politics" by Heater & Berridge 1992, p80
Do you really think US foreign aid is about helping suffering people?
Ok, let's get to it. You call criticizing US foreign policy "stabbing in the back" ? So, mainland Europe ( with the exception of PM Blair ) didn't approve of the war in Iraq and all of a sudden, we are the bad guys ?Renegade2k9 wrote:
And what's that crap about Europe stabbing the US in the back ? When and how exactly did we do that?
Where have you been in a cave with your eyes closed and fingers in your ears for the past three or so years? Europe has been bitching nonstop about our actions in the world, personally I don't understand why you even care? Last time I checked Europe wasn't even in the same region as the Middle East. Some believe that Germany and France had secret deals with Iraq and I am thinking this is why Europe is so angry with our actions because when we invaded Iraq we killed any deals that those countries had with Iraq. I was looking through wikipedia and found this attached to a article called "Anti-Americanism" and it states:
"Overall, the most common theme of many critics is that anti-Americanism is usually irrational in tone, and they thus distinguish it from simple criticism over policy. They argue that many manfestations of anti-American protest are thus based on sheer anger, jealously, bitterness, spite, or cruelty. Gestures such as flag burning, for example, might be disregarded as hysterical or "crazed". "
Seems ignorance is universal no matter where you go including Europe.
Who is the ignorant one now ?
Our constitution forbids our armed forces to conduct military operations outside of germany, with the sole exception of NATO or UN mandates ( and even those were difficult to push through in parliament ). There was no UN mandate for a military operation in Iraq at the time, so why would you have expected us to go in there ? just because you said so ? Other nations may have chosen differently, but then again, those did not start 2 world wars in the 20th century...
Last time I checked, the US wasn't in the middle east either. So why would you care what's going on there ?
The US helped put Saddam in Power, when it seemed to fit their foreign policy at the time. So you had the responsibility to deal with him when he turned into a brutal dictator. You did that. Kudos to you. At least you clean up after yourselves.
I have never burned an american flag. And until you prove to me that anything my country has done was done out of "anger, jealously, bitterness, spite, or cruelty" towards the US, I shall take your comments as a manifestation of your own ignorance. Your ability to copy and paste from Wikipedia doesn't impress me one bit.
My country is doing what it can in the War on Terror, including supporting the US forces in Afghanistan. It may come as a surprise to you, but german soldiers have died on these missions.
I certainly will not allow you to diminish their efforts just because it fits your political agenda.
I am very conservative, more so than Bush, and I say bring all the troops home and withdrawl from the UN. Starting by bringing home troops in Europe first, then the Middle East and Korea.
I think that America could withstand the world depression that would soon follow due to the destablization around the globe. The only downside to this that I could see is the Nukes that would be most likely be used on Israil, South Korea, India, Saudia Arabia, Japan and Europe.
I am sure there is some 14 year old European on this forum that knows more than me and will inform me of the Peace and Global harmony that would insue if the US withdrew its forces from around the globe. For it is truely the French that keep China out of Taiwan, N. Korea out of S. Korea, China out of Japan, Syria out of Israil, Iran out of Iraq, Iraq out of Kawait and Saudia Arabia, Pakistan out of India, and the Middle East/China out of Europe. None of these countries would ever dream of using nukes either I'm sure.
I think that America could withstand the world depression that would soon follow due to the destablization around the globe. The only downside to this that I could see is the Nukes that would be most likely be used on Israil, South Korea, India, Saudia Arabia, Japan and Europe.
I am sure there is some 14 year old European on this forum that knows more than me and will inform me of the Peace and Global harmony that would insue if the US withdrew its forces from around the globe. For it is truely the French that keep China out of Taiwan, N. Korea out of S. Korea, China out of Japan, Syria out of Israil, Iran out of Iraq, Iraq out of Kawait and Saudia Arabia, Pakistan out of India, and the Middle East/China out of Europe. None of these countries would ever dream of using nukes either I'm sure.
Whatever I can give a flying f**k what you think about me or my country. If your country or Europe didn't want to be involved just say no. Instead your country and the rest of Europe went on a non stoping campaign of bitching for the past three years. So please STFU no one here is impressed with your cry baby tactics.B.Schuss wrote:
Ok, let's get to it. You call criticizing US foreign policy "stabbing in the back" ? So, mainland Europe ( with the exception of PM Blair ) didn't approve of the war in Iraq and all of a sudden, we are the bad guys ?Renegade2k9 wrote:
And what's that crap about Europe stabbing the US in the back ? When and how exactly did we do that?
Where have you been in a cave with your eyes closed and fingers in your ears for the past three or so years? Europe has been bitching nonstop about our actions in the world, personally I don't understand why you even care? Last time I checked Europe wasn't even in the same region as the Middle East. Some believe that Germany and France had secret deals with Iraq and I am thinking this is why Europe is so angry with our actions because when we invaded Iraq we killed any deals that those countries had with Iraq. I was looking through wikipedia and found this attached to a article called "Anti-Americanism" and it states:
"Overall, the most common theme of many critics is that anti-Americanism is usually irrational in tone, and they thus distinguish it from simple criticism over policy. They argue that many manfestations of anti-American protest are thus based on sheer anger, jealously, bitterness, spite, or cruelty. Gestures such as flag burning, for example, might be disregarded as hysterical or "crazed". "
Seems ignorance is universal no matter where you go including Europe.
Who is the ignorant one now ?
Our constitution forbids our armed forces to conduct military operations outside of germany, with the sole exception of NATO or UN mandates ( and even those were difficult to push through in parliament ). There was no UN mandate for a military operation in Iraq at the time, so why would you have expected us to go in there ? just because you said so ? Other nations may have chosen differently, but then again, those did not start 2 world wars in the 20th century...
Last time I checked, the US wasn't in the middle east either. So why would you care what's going on there ?
The US helped put Saddam in Power, when it seemed to fit their foreign policy at the time. So you had the responsibility to deal with him when he turned into a brutal dictator. You did that. Kudos to you. At least you clean up after yourselves.
I have never burned an american flag. And until you prove to me that anything my country has done was done out of "anger, jealously, bitterness, spite, or cruelty" towards the US, I shall take your comments as a manifestation of your own ignorance. Your ability to copy and paste from Wikipedia doesn't impress me one bit.
My country is doing what it can in the War on Terror, including supporting the US forces in Afghanistan. It may come as a surprise to you, but german soldiers have died on these missions.
I certainly will not allow you to diminish their efforts just because it fits your political agenda.
Please tell me what we are getting out of being in Iraq? Nothing as far as I can see, the little oil (the only possible thing they have that we want) that is being tapped from that country isn't comming here. So what else is there? All we did was remove a dictator, I think it was at the wrong time though. Should of been done during the first gulf war.
Anyway about the comment I copied and pasted was based on a critism of Anti-Americanism, just to show why Anti-Americanism is so widespread. I said this more than a few times what we do is in our best interest not Europe or even the rest of the world. In the past I am sure Europe has done similar things in its interest and only its interest. Finally analyzing a person in a negative way especially one you never met in person is a fairly ignorant trait, so please don't go and label people you know nothing about.
You know what that is a great idea, F**k the rest of the world. Let's bring home all our troops and money and go back to isolationism. We use all that excess money to become self-reliant, pout more money into the exploration of space, research new forms of power, and improve our country to its best possible state. Then we watch and laugh while the rest of the world tears itself apart. Then when the Europeans and the rest of the world comes begging for our help and money we spit in their face and tell them to f**k off. Then the terriost won't want to bother us anymore and finally the Europeans would shut up.Major_Spittle wrote:
I am very conservative, more so than Bush, and I say bring all the troops home and withdrawl from the UN. Starting by bringing home troops in Europe first, then the Middle East and Korea.
I think that America could withstand the world depression that would soon follow due to the destablization around the globe. The only downside to this that I could see is the Nukes that would be most likely be used on Israil, South Korea, India, Saudia Arabia, Japan and Europe.
I am sure there is some 14 year old European on this forum that knows more than me and will inform me of the Peace and Global harmony that would insue if the US withdrew its forces from around the globe. For it is truely the French that keep China out of Taiwan, N. Korea out of S. Korea, China out of Japan, Syria out of Israil, Iran out of Iraq, Iraq out of Kawait and Saudia Arabia, Pakistan out of India, and the Middle East/China out of Europe. None of these countries would ever dream of using nukes either I'm sure.
The rest of the world would do just nicely without your involvement. It's you that would suffer in the long run, as most of your resources are 2nd grade compared to other parts of the world, plus the fact your over 8 trillion dollars in debt.Renegade2k9 wrote:
You know what that is a great idea, F**k the rest of the world. Let's bring home all our troops and money and go back to isolationism. We use all that excess money to become self-reliant, pout more money into the exploration of space, research new forms of power, and improve our country to its best possible state. Then we watch and laugh while the rest of the world tears itself apart. Then when the Europeans and the rest of the world comes begging for our help and money we spit in their face and tell them to f**k off. Then the terriost won't want to bother us anymore and finally the Europeans would shut up.Major_Spittle wrote:
I am very conservative, more so than Bush, and I say bring all the troops home and withdrawl from the UN. Starting by bringing home troops in Europe first, then the Middle East and Korea.
I think that America could withstand the world depression that would soon follow due to the destablization around the globe. The only downside to this that I could see is the Nukes that would be most likely be used on Israil, South Korea, India, Saudia Arabia, Japan and Europe.
I am sure there is some 14 year old European on this forum that knows more than me and will inform me of the Peace and Global harmony that would insue if the US withdrew its forces from around the globe. For it is truely the French that keep China out of Taiwan, N. Korea out of S. Korea, China out of Japan, Syria out of Israil, Iran out of Iraq, Iraq out of Kawait and Saudia Arabia, Pakistan out of India, and the Middle East/China out of Europe. None of these countries would ever dream of using nukes either I'm sure.
How old are you ?? You sound like you've been breastfed propaganda for too long. So what if Europe protests and bitches about you invading Iraq? Do you think they should just let you do what you want, when you feel like it. Your holier than thou crap you post is just a small percentage on why most of the world hates americans.
As for cutting yourself off from everyone else. As soon as a smart enough faction decided to give you another 9-11 ( wont be long ) you'd cry to other countries for airspace rights....right to set up HQ on there borders....ect.
Being a super power doesnt make you a higher power.
The US has helped out a lot of countries, then those countries ended up hurting the US. Heart_Attack, you said we are narrow minded, but look what happened to us in WWII. We basically gave Japan our scrap metal. They created one of the world’s most powerful Navy out of it. Thousands of US Arm Forces lost their lives because we helped Japan. We are to narrow minded. We helped Russia in WWII. They turned their back on us when we attacked Japan. It lead to a 40 year cold war. We are to narrow minded. We orginally supported Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war, and aided Saddam to power. He would not let the UN inspect his chemical sites freely. Plus he started a war in 1991. Again, we are to narrow minded. The Taliban was backed by the US in the 80's because they were fighting the USSR. They then accepted the man who helped kill thousands of Americans on 9/11. We are to narrow minded. We give Pakistan aid, they will not allow us to search for bin Laden on their side of the Afghan border. Then again we are to narrow minded.
So Heart_Attack, how narrow minded are we are we really? Does Austria have stories like that? Do you guys give aid to nations that end up killing your people? If this happened to your country would you support the nations that want to see you dead? Would you give aid to your enemy, so that in the future they can kill you, your family, and your friends? Would you stop aid to a nation that hated you so much they would kill thousands of inocent Austrian citizen in a few hour if not minutes? Woud you allow support to a nation that may one day start a war that may kill your bothers, and sisters? Would you allow support to a nation that make Austria live in fear each day for forty years? How narrow minded would you be then?
Edit, the rest of my comments on this thread, had to get that first one out fast because it made me upset.
PS: I like the British and think that US, Britian and Israel could take on the whole world togther and win. Just when people say stupid things like this with out facts make me upset.
Spain: $1.249 trillion
Germany: $3.626 trillion
Italy: $1.682 trillion
France: $2.826 trillion
United Kingdom: $7.107 trillion
That is funny that everyone looks at the US debt. If nations would pay us back, like France (who we helped during their revolt agaist their king), when we help them the US would not be in so much debt. Also, if we did not give aid to those nations that do not like us, we could........wait for it....... pay off our debt.
Also, on the comment that the world could do better without us, I think not. We helped Europe in WWI and II. We are the glue that holds the UN together, that is why everything is US led, and supported. (That brings up another point, it you guys gave more to the UN, then we could use the money that we usally give some where else.) If what resources (I am assuming that you mean developments/inventions that help the world) is second grad compared to other parts of the world, then lets see what they could create if they did not use technology that was invited, tested, and/or improved in the US. Just for you to make you post the US had invited, and/or improved on these things: (just off the top of my head)
Internet invented in the US (with US money) (If we made other nations pay a fee for using TCP/IP we would not be in debt)
Computers invented in the US (ERMAC for USA defense)
transistor invented in the US (almost every electronic device you own has at least one, sold to Mr. Sony)
Electricity (we first learned how to safely control electric in large amounts in the US but Telsa was close)
Telephone US again.
TV (technology that is used in your monitor, unless it is a flat screen) Again the US
So lets take all of your countries resources and compare it to that. Natural resource we have a lot of them. Remember that Britian did not want to give up the US because of the resources along the very edge of the east coast. They did not even know about the west coast, of anything west of the Appalachian Mountains yet.
Source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fac … 9rank.html
So Heart_Attack, how narrow minded are we are we really? Does Austria have stories like that? Do you guys give aid to nations that end up killing your people? If this happened to your country would you support the nations that want to see you dead? Would you give aid to your enemy, so that in the future they can kill you, your family, and your friends? Would you stop aid to a nation that hated you so much they would kill thousands of inocent Austrian citizen in a few hour if not minutes? Woud you allow support to a nation that may one day start a war that may kill your bothers, and sisters? Would you allow support to a nation that make Austria live in fear each day for forty years? How narrow minded would you be then?
Edit, the rest of my comments on this thread, had to get that first one out fast because it made me upset.
Is that the reason for the war in 1842? You all only supported us to make money during the 18th century. If we did not help in WWII Britian would be not be around today.B.Schuss wrote:
Strangely enough, if the British Empire had followed your advice in the late 18th century, there would be no USA today. They sure tried, but they couldn't pull it off. I am sure you can do better...
PS: I like the British and think that US, Britian and Israel could take on the whole world togther and win. Just when people say stupid things like this with out facts make me upset.
So that is why we give so much aid to South Africa to combat their Aids issue. A lot of aid is political, for every nation, but some is not. Shut up if you can not give all of the fact, but only half of them.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
"US aid, which acquired an increasingly military flavour during the Regan years, is now concentrated on a relatively small number of countries of special political importance."
"Introduction to International Politics" by Heater & Berridge 1992, p80
Do you really think US foreign aid is about helping suffering people?
I am guessing you live in Europe because of your comments, lets hope you don't live in France. Here is a list of the debt of the larger European countries in US dollars:headrippa wrote:
The rest of the world would do just nicely without your involvement. It's you that would suffer in the long run, as most of your resources are 2nd grade compared to other parts of the world, plus the fact your over 8 trillion dollars in debt.
Spain: $1.249 trillion
Germany: $3.626 trillion
Italy: $1.682 trillion
France: $2.826 trillion
United Kingdom: $7.107 trillion
That is funny that everyone looks at the US debt. If nations would pay us back, like France (who we helped during their revolt agaist their king), when we help them the US would not be in so much debt. Also, if we did not give aid to those nations that do not like us, we could........wait for it....... pay off our debt.
Also, on the comment that the world could do better without us, I think not. We helped Europe in WWI and II. We are the glue that holds the UN together, that is why everything is US led, and supported. (That brings up another point, it you guys gave more to the UN, then we could use the money that we usally give some where else.) If what resources (I am assuming that you mean developments/inventions that help the world) is second grad compared to other parts of the world, then lets see what they could create if they did not use technology that was invited, tested, and/or improved in the US. Just for you to make you post the US had invited, and/or improved on these things: (just off the top of my head)
Internet invented in the US (with US money) (If we made other nations pay a fee for using TCP/IP we would not be in debt)
Computers invented in the US (ERMAC for USA defense)
transistor invented in the US (almost every electronic device you own has at least one, sold to Mr. Sony)
Electricity (we first learned how to safely control electric in large amounts in the US but Telsa was close)
Telephone US again.
TV (technology that is used in your monitor, unless it is a flat screen) Again the US
So lets take all of your countries resources and compare it to that. Natural resource we have a lot of them. Remember that Britian did not want to give up the US because of the resources along the very edge of the east coast. They did not even know about the west coast, of anything west of the Appalachian Mountains yet.
Source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fac … 9rank.html
Last edited by dubbs (2006-03-20 22:44:20)
Can someone name ONE developed country that is NOT in debt?
Please?
Anybody?
Please?
Anybody?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
See my source, and it depends on what you mean by developed. Do you mean that have current international technology? or do you mean that have cities?Spark wrote:
Can someone name ONE developed country that is NOT in debt?
Please?
Anybody?
Liechtenstein seems to have 20,000 (59%) of its 33,717 population connected to the Internet, 19,900 telephones in use and 11,400 cell phones, plus 4 FM stations.
Last edited by dubbs (2006-03-20 22:51:31)
Well... every country which has a major effect in world politics is deep in debt.
There seems to be a correlation between foreign debt and power.
There seems to be a correlation between foreign debt and power.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman