posted on January 3, 2004 10:57:29 AM new
I like it. A good beginning. Hopefully down the road we could continue changing it until we are ONLY giving to countries in this way.
posted on January 3, 2004 11:35:45 AM new
So basically, the U.S. won't give much, if any aid to countries that are run by dictators. Does the U.S. usually give a lot to these countries to begin with?
posted on January 3, 2004 11:53:57 AM new
Yes, when you consider how many dictators we have supported when it suited our needs... Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on January 3, 2004 12:02:31 PM new
KD - We'd have to pull up each and every country we give aid to and then see what kind of government they have...in order to answer your question.
But I personally don't donate my hard earn money to causes I don't support, nor causes that fight for the oposite of my beliefs. And I really don't care for my tax dollars to be spent that way either. 'Course...I don't have much say in that except in my vote on who I want to see elected.
But, just like with President Bush offering aid to Iran after their recent earthquake, I questioned why we would do so when the NW they are developing most likely won't be used for heating their homes, since they're sitting on trillions of barrels of oil. But, alas, they refused our money aid. So..I'm happy.
posted on January 3, 2004 12:24:19 PM new"But, just like with President Bush offering aid to Iran after their recent earthquake, I questioned why we would do so when the NW they are developing most likely won't be used for heating their homes, since they're sitting on trillions of barrels of oil. But, alas, they refused our money aid. So..I'm happy."
Linda, Donating to disaster relief is not endorsement of a foreign policy. Thirty thousand people are dead and 80,000 are homeless.
ubb.ed.
[ edited by Helenjw on Jan 3, 2004 03:02 PM ]
posted on January 3, 2004 12:33:31 PM new"KD - We'd have to pull up each and every country we give aid to and then see what kind of government they have...in order to answer your question."
It's hard for me to believe the U.S. doesn't know everything about every country already, especially which ones are run by dictators or dictators-in-waiting. I agree that the U.S. is the most generous country on the planet, but I also think most of this aid is politically motivated. It's already been proven that sanctions don't hurt the dictators, so I wonder how stopping aid money will change that.
posted on January 3, 2004 12:33:54 PM new
Think Iran would give us relief funds for humanitarian reasons, helen? I don't. For the same reasons they've stated they've refused ours.
But remember we did offer, when you again reference how we do NOTHING/LITTLE to aid other countries.
edited to add: This action obviously shows the world that rather than get all aid to their own suffering people, they refuse aid from the US and Israel. Speaks volumes.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 3, 2004 12:35 PM ]
"But remember we did offer, when you again reference how we do NOTHING/LITTLE to aid other countries."
Never have I said that, Linda. I know that it's a useless question but where did I again reference how we do NOTHING/LITTLE to aid other countries and where did I mention it the first time?
You are making unfounded spurious statements again, linda.
posted on January 3, 2004 12:51:57 PM new
Not true helen. You have constantly made comments about how we should be giving more to help other countries.
And here we have Iran not accepting aid for those suffering people, and you can't admit that accepting funding from all offering countries except the US and Israel isn't political? LOL you're only fooling yourself.
posted on January 3, 2004 01:14:00 PM new
LOL oh...I see, because you say it 'infers' then that means it's so. It infers only what was stated. I'm OBVIOUSLY not speaking to a comment you made in this thread.
You're like a pit bull....grab a hold of something and just can't let it go.
Why don't you follow your own advice and get back on the topic.
posted on January 3, 2004 01:50:18 PM new
Linda, if the U.S. cuts off aid, or much of it, to Africa, I would worry about how that would affect the AIDS epidemic. Also, there is so much unrest in South Africa and other areas, I would think this would only worsen the problem.
Sometimes I think Bush is trying to fix everything in the world he feels is wrong. He tends to blanket all 'unruliness' as somehow being terrorist related, or terrorism in the making. Poverty and religion are the real enemies, not the people who have to live under these conditions. Although I can appreciate his valiant attempts to do something, I don't think much will change until those 2 things are addressed.
posted on January 3, 2004 02:07:28 PM new
KD - Are you 'dropping' hints to helen, since you mentioned Africa? [just teasing]
----
First of all I guess I feel there is nothing wrong with a policy that states:
The program will favor countries whose governments are judged to be just rulers, welcoming hosts for foreign investment and promoters of projects to meet their people's basic health and education needs.
Corrupt police states need not apply.
________
Second, if countries like yours wish to handle their foreign aid in different ways, that's there choice. No where is it written that American has to 'take care of all the worlds poor'. To me that sounds like that
'one world' concept. We have our own poor/needy to care for first.
To me that sounds like a socialist point of view. Like as soon as "all in the world are equal/have equally", everything will be fine. Nice dream, but very unrealistic, imo.
I think rewarding the positive, rather than bribing the negative is the way to go. As you can see in the posted article, countries are beginning to line up to get this funding.
posted on January 3, 2004 02:30:03 PM new
Why is it the U.S. has to aid all impoverished countries? (I know there is poverty, I feel badly for all starving people, but then what about the impoverished at home first, or is that too liberal to think that way??)
I'm not looking it up, but how many other 'westernized' countries give aid, to who, and how much?
For ex; how much foriegn aid or relief does Canada give? or Germany? or France? Italy?
I'm pretty sure Britain gives a lot of aid and relief, probably? maybe? as much as the U.S. but who else???
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on January 3, 2004 03:39:21 PM new
Linda, I've never thought the U.S. should take care of anyone and have argued many times about how unfair it is to be spending money overseas when there are poor at home to take care of.
When you talk about equality, I think the basics of having food to eat and a roof over your head should be an equal right available to every human. Nothing socialistic about that, and an achieveable dream imo.
posted on January 3, 2004 07:29:06 PM newThink Iran would give us relief funds for humanitarian reasons, helen? I don't.
Linda, that's a terribly selfish thing to say. In that you are implying that if you don't help us, we won't help you. So, on what level does that put us? If your neighbor's house was burning down would you not rush over to help? Or, would you comment, "Well, since I don't think they'd help me, I won't help them."? So, were we to sit back and just watch the helpless in Iran as they died? I don't know what God you believe in, but mine would not look too kindly upon that.
Humanitarian Aide: Humanitarian aid is given namely in the case of natural disasters or armed conflict and in general in emergency situations that are of such dimensions that the area or country concerned cannot master them alone. The first aim of humanitarian aid is therefore to save lives and to alleviate suffering among the population affected by the consequences of the emergency.
posted on January 3, 2004 07:39:31 PM new
Cheryl - You have a good heart. I gave you my personal opinion.
So, on what level does that put us? If your neighbor's house was burning down would you not rush over to help?
I don't think I'd be living next door to neighbors that hated me, my lifestyle and my religion. I'd hopefully be living next door to neighbors I respected, trusted to do me no harm even though we held different religious, political differences.
So....on that premise I can't answer about MY neighbors. But I am answering about a country that would love nothing better than to see us destroyed. So...sorry my heart isn't as 'giving' as yours appears to be.
So, were we to sit back and just watch the helpless in Iran as they died?
No, be happy the Bush administration does not share my views on this issue. They have offered to help.
But if you and Helen could just be open to seeing that it's their leaders WHO DON'T WANT OUR HELP....that THEY'D rather let their own people suffer and die before accepting help for those same people [the US and Israel] because we do hold different life views.
I don't know what God you believe in, but mine would not look too kindly upon that.
You deal with what your God expects from you and I'll do the same. I'll be the first to admit I'm not one to 'turn the other cheek' when someone tries to hurt me or mine.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 3, 2004 07:44 PM ]
Leave me out of your ignorant rants. I have no respect for anyone who would deny help to people affected by a disaster regardless of their government affiliation. We are talking about people just like Americans with children, homes and families who have suffered a tremendous misfortune. Thirty thousand have been killed and 80 thousand are without homes. If you have no compassion for those people, you should be ashamed.
You are ASSUMING that they want our country destroyed.
posted on January 3, 2004 08:14:59 PM new
KD - Are we still speaking on an International level or are you taking this to an individual level?
Charity is giving...not being forced to give.
Each country should be doing all it can to take care of their own.
I think the basics of having food to eat and a roof over your head should be an equal right available to every human. They do in our country. I don't know about yours.
posted on January 3, 2004 08:19:32 PM new
So then helen....are we now going to see a reversal in your past behavior where you blame the Iranian leaders for denying this help to their own people? LOL I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
posted on January 3, 2004 08:41:00 PM new
I know what you're saying, Linda... just because a dictator has suffering people, it shouldn't be automatic for countries to supply aid when the dictator (& co.) do nothing to help their own people. I agree.
Sometimes countries are paid to NOT do business with "bad" countries. By stopping the money that goes to them, you'll just be opening the doors to them getting the money through other means.
Also, what if Canada or Mexico sent aid to a country on the rejected list? Would we be punished by the U.S. in some way?
posted on January 3, 2004 09:03:24 PM new
KD - I think it's quite clear that paying 'bribe' money to countries to not produce NW has not worked. [North Korea]. Nor has any foreign aid we've given to any country prevented other countries from selling arms to nations we currently consider our enemies. Then there are countries I believe we try to help not out of any political benefit, but rather because America is a generous nation and tries to help those in need.
About Mexico and Canada:
I'd say you're free to do whatever you'd like to do with your money.
If I felt you were aiding a country like Iran whos leaders are most definitely Anti-American, I would of course, reconsider if I wanted to continue giving you aid. Any country who give support to Anti-American countries certainly doesn't need the money they're giving to them.
So it would be silly for me to continue giving aid to their country. They could just keep their own money and use it for their needs, rather than giving it to another country.
posted on January 3, 2004 09:20:25 PM new
Foreign Aid has always been one of my pet peeves. I think it should given out only, when we no longer have anyone under poverty and our standard of living is 30% above other nations.
This Nation provides aid to many Nations such as Canada and Mexico in the form of National defense.
The Military of these Nations are almost broke. They only serve when our tax money pays.
posted on January 3, 2004 09:40:43 PM new
Kraft, Canada sign a treaty with the United States to provide for their National defense
because with the type of Government you have they can't afford one. Your treaty with us is the only reason aren't speaking French period.... Instead of French & English.
But, alas, they refused our money aid. So..I'm happy.