BF2S Forums World War III Announced

mikkel wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Actually, per GNP, the United States ranks very, very low on foreign aid spendings. Much lower than your "share".

So we have 80 trillion and give 15 billion and some other nation has 1 million and gives 10 grand and that makes the Starving people feel better?
Forget this "Per GNP" krap. How much money does your Country actually give compared to say, The USA?
Besides We should put our citizens first and no one " including you "has the right to tell us otherwise. We cant we demand services rendered for our own money if we decide to?

"Forget this "Per GNP" krap."? Are you sure you know how the real world works? In the real world, generosity is measured not in raw numbers, but in the impact it has on the country donating the money. What makes the starving people feel better is money for aid. If you're giving a miniscule amount of the money available to you compared to what other countries give, you've quite obviously not given "more than your share". What you hold back hurts twice as much as what you give benefits.

My tiny country of about 5 million people gave $2,1bn in foreign aid assistance in 2005. That's 0,81% of our GNP. The US gave $27,5bn in foreign aid assistance in 2005. That's 0,22% of the US GNP.

So yes, I do indeed think that people have the right to tell you otherwise.

Well you don't and no one here wants to listen, OK  What makes a bigger Difference to the starving people  2 bn or 27.5 bn ?

mikkel wrote:

Are you sure you know how the real world works? In the real world, generosity is measured not in raw numbers, but in the impact it has on the country donating the money. What makes the starving people feel better is money for aid.

Are you sure YOU know how the Real World Works ??

What makes starving people feel better is FOOD/NUTRITION and MEDICAL ASSISTANCE and  the SAFETY our Armed Forces provides after it arrives.

You can define your own ways of measuring your kindness and telling the world about your generosity, That seems to be the Real goal you have.
We will just feed them.
Your Country Gives 1/10 but Cares so much more! What is this Tiny country called by the way?

mikkel wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Because the rest of the world does. It's called humanity.

I feel we have done and given more than our share in money material and Lives.

No one seems to apreciate it.

Lets take care of things at home and Flat out Bribe or Pay for our allies.

At least we will know where we Really stand with them if We have a Written Contract.

Actually, per GNP, the United States ranks very, very low on foreign aid spendings. Much lower than your "share".

still more than the rest of world is spending on their neighbors "oh yeah lets give everybody ELSE a car, while we americans walk to work"  that seems to me the kinda attitude you believe we, as a soveriegn nation owe to the rest of the world.

I don't think comparing each nations "foreign aid penis" is getting us anywhere.

I think we should look at the global perspective and make sure we have a strategy for what exactly we want to achieve with what we do, and that includes foreign aid, military actions, economic sanctions, the whole deal.
The only place where this should rightfully be discussed is the UN. There is no way around it.

The more we strengthen the UN, the more effective it will be.
I am absolutely certain that Iran will be the next test of will of the western nations. I do hope we will have the strength, courage and patience to stick together this time.

I believe the situation in Iran will either make or break the UN for the next few decades to come once its settled one way or the other

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-05-11 14:09:49)

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

I feel we have done and given more than our share in money material and Lives.

No one seems to apreciate it.

Lets take care of things at home and Flat out Bribe or Pay for our allies.

At least we will know where we Really stand with them if We have a Written Contract.

Actually, per GNP, the United States ranks very, very low on foreign aid spendings. Much lower than your "share".

still more than the rest of world is spending on their neighbors "oh yeah lets give everybody ELSE a car, while we americans walk to work"  that seems to me the kinda attitude you believe we, as a soveriegn nation owe to the rest of the world.

Now now, GunSlinger, if you had actually bothered reading my post instead of blindly defending yourself from the view that you're better than everyone else, you would have seen that the only thing I'm commenting on here is how the US failed to reach UN goals on foreign aid. Goals that the US approved of. No, the kind of attitude I believe you owe to the world is to follow up on the obligations you yourselves agreed to. It really is as simple as that.

Horseman 77 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

So we have 80 trillion and give 15 billion and some other nation has 1 million and gives 10 grand and that makes the Starving people feel better?
Forget this "Per GNP" krap. How much money does your Country actually give compared to say, The USA?
Besides We should put our citizens first and no one " including you "has the right to tell us otherwise. We cant we demand services rendered for our own money if we decide to?

"Forget this "Per GNP" krap."? Are you sure you know how the real world works? In the real world, generosity is measured not in raw numbers, but in the impact it has on the country donating the money. What makes the starving people feel better is money for aid. If you're giving a miniscule amount of the money available to you compared to what other countries give, you've quite obviously not given "more than your share". What you hold back hurts twice as much as what you give benefits.

My tiny country of about 5 million people gave $2,1bn in foreign aid assistance in 2005. That's 0,81% of our GNP. The US gave $27,5bn in foreign aid assistance in 2005. That's 0,22% of the US GNP.

So yes, I do indeed think that people have the right to tell you otherwise.

Well you don't and no one here wants to listen, OK  What makes a bigger Difference to the starving people  2 bn or 27.5 bn ?

As a citizen of a country under precisely the same obligations, I most certainly have the right, and the only one who doesn't appear to want to listen is the person whose entire argument falls to the ground because of it. Guess who.

What makes the biggest difference to starving people are the $68bn that they're missing out on because the US doesn't live up to its obligations.

Horseman 77 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Are you sure you know how the real world works? In the real world, generosity is measured not in raw numbers, but in the impact it has on the country donating the money. What makes the starving people feel better is money for aid.

Are you sure YOU know how the Real World Works ??

What makes starving people feel better is FOOD/NUTRITION and MEDICAL ASSISTANCE and  the SAFETY our Armed Forces provides after it arrives.

You can define your own ways of measuring your kindness and telling the world about your generosity, That seems to be the Real goal you have.
We will just feed them.
Your Country Gives 1/10 but Cares so much more! What is this Tiny country called by the way?

My tiny country is called Denmark, and it's more along the lines of my country giving five times as much.

I believe that the only one trying to shape the concept of generosity is you. I'm quoting the UN, and the very country you're trying to defend in saying that the percentage of GNP is what matters in terms of dedication and obligation, not the actual monetary figure, but if you believe that you in your great wisdom are able to transcend their puny apprehension of the subject, then I salute you, Horseman 77, for you are indeed one of the greatest minds of our time.

Last edited by mikkel (2006-05-11 16:37:54)

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

ok now it sounds like your saying "sure lets buy everyone else a mercedes,  ill just drive my geo metro'  The United States is the biggest monetary contributor to the UN and your complaining that they havent given enough,  Im sorry man, but I just dont see the United States owing much to anybody.  The world should be content with the contribution we give instead of asking for more and more.  Why?  why should the US be obliged to give more, and i say GIVE, aid to anybody.

You really aren't reading my posts at all, are you? Can the arrogance for a second, and if you can, lower yourself from that superior American level to the level of a simple mortal human, and read my posts through again. I'm not the one saying that the US has these obligations. The US says that the US has these obligations. It's 0,7% to people who need it. 0,7% that the US agreed upon. 0,7%. Not the 80% you make it sound like. The US isn't giving more than anyone. These contributions are measured in GNP. This is what the UN says, and this is what the US says. Let's just stick to what they think, instead of changing it for the benefit of your argument. The US is officially giving less than most other developed nations. Honestly, hold back on the self-pity there for a second, and be realistic. These are US goals, US obligations and US responsibilities that the US agreed to. If you're going to blame anyone, blame your own government, not the people reciting the committments they made.

Last edited by mikkel (2006-05-11 16:58:56)

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ahhhhhhhh so you are saying that the UN didn't look at the surrounding events before making this resolution. Well hey, it is your UN.

No, I'm saying there were events surrounding this resolution which need to be considered, rather than taking it out of context and using it as justification for a war.  Saddam had agreed to comply with UN requirements, so in that sense the resolution was successful.  Iraq claimed to have disarmed, and there were no weapons found, so maybe just maybe they really had.

lowing wrote:

It was ACCEPTED by the world that the INTEL about the WMD's was accurate!! It wasn't a Bush war monger conspiracy theory.

lowing wrote:

unorginalnuttah,
just admit that the UN whom you support, thought that there was WMD in Iraq. Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeee

To me that seems like two completely different statements. 

Let's talk about the first: It was accepted by the world that Iraq hadn't complied with weapons inspections, but I don't see where it says the UN accepts that he definitely has weapons of mass destruction... it says that if the remaining weapons (which came from where, originally?) have been disarmed that this needs to be independently verified.

The second: The UN thought that there might still be WMDs.

lowing wrote:

I think so, I don't recall a dictator ever being VOTED out of office

Ever recall one being voted in?

Well let me QUOTE the RESOLUTION se forth by the UN again. "Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security".

What is YOUR definition of..........IS ???

There is absolutely no contradiction in my posts. you are trying to create angles over an issue of which there are NONE. The UN "recognized" a threat from WMD's from Iraq, they said it.  The only arguement you have in this matter are the ones you have dreamed up.

Torin wrote:

And the level-headedness not to go to war before we absolutely need to.

I think the decade of terror attacks on US interests was waiting long enough to do something, other than talk about it.

mikkel wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

ok now it sounds like your saying "sure lets buy everyone else a mercedes,  ill just drive my geo metro'  The United States is the biggest monetary contributor to the UN and your complaining that they havent given enough,  Im sorry man, but I just dont see the United States owing much to anybody.  The world should be content with the contribution we give instead of asking for more and more.  Why?  why should the US be obliged to give more, and i say GIVE, aid to anybody.

You really aren't reading my posts at all, are you? Can the arrogance for a second, and if you can, lower yourself from that superior American level to the level of a simple mortal human, and read my posts through again. I'm not the one saying that the US has these obligations. The US says that the US has these obligations. It's 0,7% to people who need it. 0,7% that the US agreed upon. 0,7%. Not the 80% you make it sound like. The US isn't giving more than anyone. These contributions are measured in GNP. This is what the UN says, and this is what the US says. Let's just stick to what they think, instead of changing it for the benefit of your argument. The US is officially giving less than most other developed nations. Honestly, hold back on the self-pity there for a second, and be realistic. These are US goals, US obligations and US responsibilities that the US agreed to. If you're going to blame anyone, blame your own government, not the people reciting the committments they made.

Well I will pipe up.............As Americans, we are free, and maybe that means free to change our minds on what, where, how and to who we give our generosity to. Does that settle it?

Truth be told end is near.

"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic"  Joseph Stalin

Only man that participates in war is the man that believes in his goverment what if your goverment lies to you does that make you a fool in other's eyes ?

It appears killing terrorists just breeds more terrorists, occupying a terrorist country enlists other terrorist harboring countries..... can you say can of worms?