»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Tsunami: Political Issue?
| The Alley |
|
Tsunami: Political Issue? |
|
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
From Democracy Now! "Humanitarian groups have launched what is believed to be the largest relief effort in the world's history. Billions of dollars will be needed in the coming weeks. While the Bush administration has pledged to play a major role in the relief effort, it is already coming under criticism for its handling of the crisis. On Monday, the Bush administration pledged an initial $15 million for the effort. After a top UN official described the donation as "stingy", the US pledged another $20 million bringing the total offering to $35 million. To put the figure in perspective, President Bush plans to spend between $30 and $40 million for his upcoming inauguration celebration. And the amount pledged to victims of the tsunami is dwarfed by the Bush administration's war effort in Iraq. The U.S. has spent an average of $9.5 million every hour on the war and occupation of Iraq. With a current price tag of $147 billion, the U.S. has spent an average of about $228 million a day in Iraq. In other words, the U.S. spends what it promised on the tsunami relief effort in less than four hours in Iraq. Meanwhile the Washington Post reports that President Bush is also being criticized for failing to address the devastation caused by the tsunami. Bush has been vacationing at his ranch in Texas and - unlike German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder - has decided not to cut his vacation short. Bush has not even spoken publicly yet about the tragedy. The Post reports some foreign policy specialists accused the president of communicating a lack of urgency about an event that will loom as large in the collective memories of several countries as the Sept. 11 attacks do in the United States. Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations said, "When that many human beings die -- at the hands of terrorists or nature -- you've got to show that this matters to you, that you care." Middle East analyst Juan Cole writes that Bush has lost a unique opportunity to reach out to the Muslim world by showing compassion in a time of tragedy. Indonesia, one of the nations hardest hit, is the most populous Muslim country in the world. Cole writes "If Bush were a statesman he would have flown to Jakarta and announced his solidarity with the Muslims of Indonesia." The White House has announced that Bush will conduct a National Security Council meeting today by teleconference to discuss several issues, including the tsunami. One White House official attempted to explain Bush's silence by saying: "The president wanted to be fully briefed on our efforts. He didn't want to make a symbolic statement about 'We feel your pain.'" But another official described Bush's silence as "kind of freaky." *************************************** This $35 million, to be exact, is 1/4200 of what the Bush Administration has spent on the war in Iraq. I understand just now as well that Bush said at his Texas ranch that he wants to form an international coalition to respond to this disaster of "biblical proportions" as Al Howard, a British tourist who was staying on an island near Aceh when seeing the city of Banda Aceh shortly after the tsunami hit, described it as. If this is truly the "typical response from America", well, then it's a rather ingenuous response. Our government chooses to continue dropping bombs and fighting an albatross of a senseless war rather than redirect a mere four hours of war money to the eight percent of Sri Lanka's population that's now homeless. Perhaps now after putting the warning system in place, they'll finally also stop harrassing these climatologists who perhaps could have pinpointed these types of disasters before and begin to take them seriously as they should be. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 [This message has been edited by Alicat (01-02-2005 07:34 PM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2004 Nadia Lockheart - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Chanson Senior Member
since 2000-08-19
Posts 1559Up Creek w/Out Paddle |
Perhaps the same people/governments who are now spitting on the generosity of ours also, upon opening a gift given to them at Christmas or for their birthdays, say to the giver, "I wanted a bigger/better/more expensive gift, so no thanks". Just another way to look at things. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Every little bit helps, Chanson. I've always believed that and still do. I already made my contribution. I gave $40 to the Red Cross. And indeed I expect whether it is four cents or $4 billion, any relief effort should give the same generous response of thanks to the donator. But we also have to look at the real terms here. There's many, especially here in this state of Oregon, which has a 6.5% unemployment rate, who have nothing to give right now except their thoughts and prayers. There is much spirit and grace in private contributors, but all at once it is disingenous to expect much of the burden and charity to be contributed by the community itself. The government, which claims to care so much about spreading freedom to the world and such, should be doing more itself. This wasn't a disguised opportunity to attack Bush, this IS an open criticism of Bush. First in that he waited four days to make a response, and second looking at the real terms of the money being contributed, and when you compare it to his own inauguration and the war in Iraq, it's rather slim pickings. Is that type of thinking greedy? See, I think it is. I'm just bringing the real terms to you all, like I have recently in my activism with the homeless community in stressing that $5.15 for a minimum wage sounds like we'vemade progress compared to fifty years ago, but in real terms, it's arguably the lowest minimum wage ever when you consider the skyrocketing prices in many areas of life, from health care to insurance. You know what $35 million divided by my $40 is? It's 875,000. In other words, if 874,999 other Americans contributed the same amount as me, it would total the $35 million the U.S government intends to give in immediate relief. That's barely more than the total population of Indianapolis! In real terms, does that sound like a lot at all? Now, I've heard in the Washington Post as well that in addition to the initial relief money, the United States is dispatching a Marine expeditionary unit, the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and a 'maritime preposition squadron' from Guam to help with the situation. Even so, $35 million for initial funding in a disaster of "biblical proportions", in real terms, especially when comparing to the war in Iraq, is not a very genuine gesture. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
Sorry...but it's early days yet...the U.S. gives and gives...and pledging an amount is a far cry from what will eventually be given! I don't understand making this disaster a political discussion... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: What about the other 93.5 percent who aren't unemployed, Noah? quote: I couldn't possibly disagree more, Noah. The role of government should be to protect. Period. Charity has to be the province of the people, else it STOPS being charity. It becomes just another bill to be paid come April 15. When giving stops being voluntary, no one will want to give. I commend you for giving forty bucks, Noah. That shows real character. Now, multiply that by 93.5 percent of the population of Oregon and you should know where your efforts will best be directed. If you can get a few sawbucks from all the taxpayers, then great. If you can't, perhaps you shouldn't complain because someone else can't either. |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
Your "Even so" got to me... Noah, we can't solve all the world's problems... They have called up the national guard here in PA and I am sure in other areas and they are to be sent to help with rebuilding( they are engineers I believe) and their families were told to expect them to be gone for 7 months...I think about those families and the loss of their family units and money to keep their homes etc...also...the service is never meant to pay them a living wage... I think of my nephew in Iraq who I'm sure is having family( he is single) help pay his bills and keep his home while he is on his second or maybe third(some being secretive)tour of duty there... There is only so much one country can do and maybe you should spend your time making a cause in your own state and raise funds for the survivors of the Tsunami. Giving is fine...complaining doesn't do a bit of good...why not make a positive spin on it and go out and raise some money..donate blood to the red cross...etc.etc. those of us who can help will.. besides any money coming from the government to help with relief is our money from working taxes...isn't it? so the people of the United States are helping even if they aren't named individually. sorry if I sound grumpy maybe I am just tired of the President and the US being blamed for Mother Nature and everything else that happens... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I agree with the above comments. Noah, it appears you are using this tragedy as another avenue for Bush bashing. Where did that article you reproduced come from? An unbiased source? I doubt it. There is no more generous country in history than the United States and the fellow from the UN thinks our contrubution is stingy? Where the hell is the UN then? Where is this organization that you think so highly of besides standing there saying America should do more? There was an Indonesian on tv saying "Where are the Americans??" not where is the UN, not where is Al-quada, not where are the Moslems. We get blamed for trying to do good in the world and blamed for not doing enough good. This would be a good way to show the Moslems a good side of us by showering them with money? How transparent is that? I admire your efforts and your personal participation in these efforts of relief but don't cheapen it by using it as a Bush bashing platform, please. For once take the politics out of it, please. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Where is the economically booming China in this event? Where are the oil rich Moslem nations? “A condition which has long affected people in the West is now becoming increasingly common in India. Obesity is rarely a problem people usually associate with India. But one study has found that nearly half of all high-income women in Delhi are overweight. “ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/986628.stm Seems there might be other sources for charity very nearby. |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
I'd say it's inevitable that America as a myth, as an institution, as a living analogy of prosperous culture gets 'blamed' and demanded of by suffering nations, and nations affected by trauma and great loss. Part of parcel, unavoidable. Many arguments here - the immediate one of who is responsible in providing enough aid to cope with this disaster that defies words; the argument of aid and the dependency it encourages; the arguments about the American government that never seem to end heh. Ultimately - the world's rallying to help. I think that's a good thing. Simplistic? Perhaps. Last night, on tv, I watched a mother and a father each carrying a dead child away from rows and rows and rows of dead, festering bodies. The children looked like they were sleeping. Now, that's simplistic enough for me, right now. K |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
It's awful Severn, the pictures on tv and on here...the interviews..it is almost an unbelievable occurance and no manner of help will ever make up for the losses... it is unequaled in its devastation and there will be many more deaths in the days/weeks/months to come, from diseases... it is a world problem...a humanity problem that will affect the whole civilized world M |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Like we need a 9.0 earthquake to criticize Bush? I guess we should be happy with what we get. My mother called me yesterday and asked if I was okay. How many Americans know how to read a map? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
75,000 and counting. NY Times, Bush outlines aid plan. Have we done enough? |
||
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
Did anyone ever see the movie, "It Could Happen To You" with Nicholas Cage where he promises to split his lottery winnings with a waitress in lieu of a tip? The bottom line was that the money was not important to this policeman, or waitress. How this movie ends makes a huge statement on what charity, and love actually is. The citizens of New York opened their hearts and mailed them $2. here, $5. there, $50., and so on, and it amounted to $600,000 when they finish opening all their mail, enough to keep her coffee shop, and start thier lives over but together. If every person who could - sent even a very small charitable amount to one of the agencies collecting, it adds up to relief, and that is what is needed period. Another thing to note is that even in Sri Lanka they have put their political differences away for now to help with this disaster and work together. That has to say something about the magnitude of the need there right now to stop disease from running rampant. A piece from the link below: "In a national address Tuesday, Sri Lanka's president, Chandrika Kumaratunga, asked the country to shed its ethnic differences and invited the Tigers to join a relief effort. And on Wednesday, the leader of the Tamil Tigers made his own peace offering, issuing a statement of condolence to the southern Sinhalese, his sworn enemy. In Manalkadu, none of this matters. Nobody talks politics here anymore." http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/10524547.htm?1c I would like to think we all still live in a world that we can care about each other, and if I am dreaming - please, don't wake me. If you want to know how to help - I wrote a little senryu, and on it is all the information you need to help. /pip/Forum91/HTML/002463.html |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
They've stopped counting the dead now. I'm not sure we can count this as a 'disaster.' A disaster is something we think of, in general, as an event that we recover from; the return from the event is signified as a recovery to the same position we started from. We don't stop counting the dead in disasters. There will be no recovery from this. Instead it will be a reshaping. Whole indigenous Indian tribes lost. Landmasses shifted. The world tilting on its Axis? Infrastructures destroyed... My God. This beggars belief. Many people will all do their little bit, Noah, like you have and those little bits will add up. I read today that Bush stated that the pledge 'is just the beginning' of what the US will offer. I've watched the things you say in the Alley and the more I think about it I'm disappointed in you, for this post, for the tone of this post, for the angle of this post. Though having said that I know you have a good heart, and genuinely care. I just suggest, like others I guess, that you redirect that care into something positive. Which is really what the rest of the world needs to offer right now, in whatever way, in whatever amount, they can. K |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
I read this thread and have to shake my head. The U.S. provided 40% of the disaster relief aid in the world last year. We responded as a government to 61 declared disasters. The money initially given is the amount of money on hand in the emergency relief fund and will be used in the initial evaluation period. It is anticipated the government will provide a billion or more dollars in relief for this disaster. http://www.state.gov/p/40108.htm All agencies of our government are working together and were within hours of the tragedy to provide relief. That of course does not take into consideration the charitable contributions of Americans who have always and will always respond to the suffering of others. On Christmas Eve in church we took an offering for blankets in the Sudan, I can assure you many collections will be taken for the tsunamis victims in our church. This will occur in thousands of homes and churches across America. Rather than petty political bantering, this is a time when the people of the world will unite to provide assistance to those in need. The U.S. and its people will be at the forefront in efforts to relieve suffering and will do so notwithstanding the naysayers in our own country. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Noah, “While the Bush administration has pledged to play a major role in the relief effort, it is already coming under criticism for its handling of the crisis.” “perspective” ‘I want to work to save every child out there. And I know the president does, and I know the American people do. But neither we nor the international community have the resources nor the mandate to do so. So we have to make distinctions. We have to ask the hard questions about where and when we can intervene. And the reality is that we cannot often solve other people's problems..."’ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/etc/slaughter.html |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Here's a good article that pretty much sums up the spirit of America and the American people: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindachavez/lc20041229.shtml And we will do more than our part, as always, as we should: the government, and the people through private donations and donations through the houses of worship. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Reification. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
It seems you all are missing the two main intents I had to beginning this post in the first place. 1) To show how the U.S government is spending its money, to reveal how obsessed they are with military spending. I provided examples before from education to health care, and this is just enough angle to look at the government's obsession with violence and war. 2) The scientific root of the problem; the harrassment of climatologists and the need to have their research be accepted into the public eye and be treated with dignity. Some of you see this strictly as a Bush-bashing opportunity. I was expecting that response all along, because of the sense of patriotism, standing behind your president, etc. I could say some of you indeed took the same strategy during the holidays on liberal-leaning organizations and Christmas (which I do believe some of the examples were wrong) and I believe had Kerry been elected, honestly, many of you would be doing the same thing. Maureen and Severn were right about one thing though, definitely. We should also be taking the deep emotions we're feeling now and use them also in a positive force. Which is why I want to leave everyone with ways they can help out with the relief: 1) Chip in every penny, nickel, dime, quarter, dollar you can to these charities (or others you can think of) http://www.americares.org/ http://www.actionagainsthunger.org/ http://redcross.org/ http://www.christianchildrensfund.org/ http://www.fh.org/ http://www.islamic-relief.org/ http://www.op.org/ http://www.planusa.org/ http://www.savethechildren.org/ http://www.unicef.org/ 2) Donate blood/plasma. 3) If you have some extra/worn out blankets, clothing, ec. contribute to goodwill! ********************************** I'm just frustrated in that I want everyone to understand and realize where all the bulk of our money is going, and also to point out once and for all this harassment of scientists must stop immediately. The public deserves to know the real science right about now, and know exactly what we all must do to tone down possible reoccurences in the long run. Natural disasters always happen, historically, they always have. But the reports show that global warming is undoubtedly an agent to the growing problem of extreme weather, and we can prevent these types of storms many climatologists fear can cause $75-100 billion in damage in Florida or elsewhere in the near future. There's more to the problem than meets the eye. And I hate talking about the politics behind each issue more than anything else, but it is essential to talk about the grim reality behind these issues. I prefer to be the positive respondent. I provided all those charity links in how you can give to the less fortunate this Christmas through Heifer, Vetaid and Goodwill Gifts. I said how you can volunteer and help the homeless and oprhaned this holiday season. While doing that I also talked about some of the local issues homeless are struggling with recently, and te fact is, politics affect their lives too, whether they accept or deny it. I believe in all conscience, we must be forced to look at these sorts of things in both lights. Always have a positive outlook in dealing, but, there's also that obligatory role of critical judgement some take, some don't. I hate to take that burden but believe in my heart it is necessary to do so so we can underatand the full complexity of each issue. And, believe me, I applaud what many citizens are already doing to help out. This is said to already be the greatest relief effort for a single natural disaster in all of history. That's something to celebrate indeed! Anyway, I certainly hope $35 million is certainly just the immediate effort and tens of millions more will add to that really soon. Perhaps the redirection of a day of war funding in Iraq would be very beneficial. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I missed the part about the harrassment of the climatologists, Noah. Who did you say were doing that and how? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Just for the record: The US spends less than a quarter of 1% of the budget on non-military foreign aid. Most Americans believe it's around 25%. |
||
|
Chanson Senior Member
since 2000-08-19
Posts 1559Up Creek w/Out Paddle |
Noah-- Somebody says to you they think you are stingy for pledging only 40 dollars? How would you feel? |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
foreign aid and disaster relief are not synonymous terms. The U.S. government provides over fifty per cent of the funding for the World Food Program, a third of the funding for the U.N. refugee program and oever 25 per cent of the funding for the peace keeping operations along with 20 per cent of the entire U.N. budget. Christian charities, foundations and private individuals from the U.S. give 34 billion a year to foreign causes. That is over ten times the budget of the U.N. $40 is what percentage of an annual minumum wage salary? Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of the world is rallying to support the suffering of this unthinkable tragedy of epic proportions and only a very small minority is engaging in as indicated petty politics. interestingly enough, Massachusetts is at the bottom of charitable giving while Mississippi always ranks first. The blue states make up the bottom rung in per capita giving while the red states make up the top tier. (ack, interjecting petty politics here, sorry) [This message has been edited by Tim (12-30-2004 12:31 PM).] |
||
|
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
Tim - I have found always that those that have the least seem to try and give the most  They seldom say a word while giving it either. Maybe devastation has to hit closer to home to reach a heart?I really enjoyed Kacy's thread without the politics, but to each their own. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
The Bush Administration has been harrassing climatologists since the beginning, Michael. And it is extremely important you realize the politics behind this, because these are exactly the politics that will be reeling days, weeks, months after this disaster! Scientists continue to be suppressed, and their reports distorted by the White House of dire warnings about climate change, stem cell research, the dangers of mercury and hundreds of other toxic chemicals, the dangers of depleted uranium, Agent Orange, mining, nuclear weapons storage, and the power plants themselves. Over 4,000 scientists including 48 Nobel Laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences, have come out accusing the Administration of this, they continue to be blacklisted and harrassed, suppressed from releasing information to the public that is critical of the Bush Administration and its corporal contributors, whose anti-environmental, anti-sustainable record is, agreed among most studies, accelerating the effects of extreme weather and climate change. They, together, assembled this statement titled "Restoring Scientific Integrity in Decision-Making". You can find it here: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=33731 Climatologists now predict if these patterns continue, in fifty years, 25% of all houses within 500 feet of the ocean will vanish. That is quite a bold prediction, but plausible, especially after four major hurricanes and now this tsunami. Effects are being felt all across the world. We have seen depressing floods in Bangladesh kill thousands and leave thousands more homeless and sick from malnutrition. We see our great glaciers vanishing at alarming, accelerating rates in the Himalayan mountains. In result, virtually all the great rivers of Asia are threatened to dry up, which can cause untold damage to their irrigation agriculture and leave millions in famine. We had that massive heat wave in Europe in summer 2003 that killed about 20,000 people. The results affect us globally. And very little is being done. Me and some others have been talking about the environment in threads here over the election season, where no one who was primarily a Bush supporter participated in the discussion, either because its plainly obvious he is the worst environmental president ever or they refuse to take any of the accusations in more than just a grain of salt either because of patriotic pride or the atmosphere that it's just another "Bush-bashing opportunity". But if anyone looks at his environmental record, it is clear on the need to protect it, we've taken so many steps backward. It was President Sr. Bush himself who said this on April 23, 1990: "Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry; and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now, more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance." He would be wise to be listening to his father right now. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Tim, I don't get it. Are you accusing me of being among the minority who is stingy and interested solely in the petty politics than the disaster itself, either because $40 sounds like a stingy contribution or because I happen to lean blue and live in a blue state? I don't know what the mean minimum wage salery is, but I'll have you know I currently am unemployed, and that $40 I contributed is over two-thirds of the Christmas money I received from my relatives. Believe me, if I had a job right now, I'd give even more. And I wish I could give more. It strikes me as sarcasm when you say, after noting out how charitable statistics, that you change the tone to "fortunately..." then go day to night with following up with "only a very small minority" is interested in the politics. Personally, I am proud of what I've contributed, and am only attempting to help by offering my support while also noting out the obsession with military spending in relation to all other things and the need to embrace science. Those aren't petty politics, it's exactly what's going on. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
the comment was not directed towards you Noah and dealt with another point, if you feel a sense of satisfaction from your giving, then good for you. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Exactly my point. One is preventative, the other is reactive. Which one is better? quote: Now, why is that? quote: Not disputing this. Though if the UN Budget is 3.4 billion, you'd think the government would actually pay the dues it owes, don't you think? quote: Yes, but how much money would we free up if we scrapped SDI? That's political and, forgive me, but I don't think it's petty. quote: That's okay.  Hmmm, blue states also pay more to the federal government than they receive, red states pay less than they receive. Maybe we should stop income redistribution and send the money to other countries. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If we scrapped sdi? India has a nuclear arms program and no tsunami warning program...whose fault is that? Noah, thank you for letting me know that Bush is responsible for all of the natural disasters we go through because scientists are being suppressed. Perhaps if Clinton were still in office, there would have been no hurricanes in Florida and no earthquake in Asia..it's all W's fault. This whole finger-pointing scenario is insulting to the victims of this tragedy. ...and, yes, Massachussetts IS at the bottom of the states in charitable giving and many of the eastern states keep it company there. They talk a good game about giving and sacrifice - but they refer to YOUR giving and sacrifice, not theirs....typical. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I read the article you gave from the Center For American Progress, Noah. Here are the stories they have run for the past month.. * Administration Releases Bogus Report on Re-Importation, December 22, 2004 * Bush Blocks Progress on Global Warming, December 21, 2004 * Rumsfeld Dishonors Fallen Soldiers, December 20, 2004 * Conservatives Bilk Public on Medicare, Cash In With Drug Industry, December 16, 2004 * White House Crony Convention, December 15, 2004 * President Prepares to Slash Medicaid, December 14, 2004 * Troops Pay Price for Administration’s Incompetence, December 13, 2004 * Kerik’s Spotty Record, December 10, 2004 * Rumsfeld Takes It On the Chin From The Troops, December 9, 2004 * Conservatives Leave Americans Out in the Cold, December 8, 2004 * After Blocking Intel Reform, House Rushes to Pass Bill with No Scrutiny, December 7, 2004 * Thompson Cashes In on Health Care, December 6, 2004 * Bush Administration's Approach to Muslim World Incoherent and Counterproductive, December 3, 2004 * DeLay's Unethical Behavior Grows, December 2, 2004 * Wal-Mart Harms American Workers, December 1, 2004 It's easy to find a liberal, anti-Bush organization and quote their work as gospel as you have done twice in this thread. Why not try to find some unbiased sources, if possible. It would make your, and their, accusations a little more believable. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Tim, “if you feel a sense of satisfaction from your giving, then good for you.” I remember reading an article decades ago that asserted that more often than not charity was an egoistic, even egotistic, rather than altruistic act. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Actually, the generosity index also includes things like church donations and tithing and those, at least according to beliefnet, are hard to find statistics for. And we already knew that Southern and Midwestern states tend to be more religious. Apparently, also according to beliefnet, African American churches receive more than other churches. This isn't to criticize giving or even giving to a church. It is intended to point out that throwing out that statistic is, well, stating the obvious. ---------------- You're worried about India? Ah, it's the potential argument again. Sure, they're not a threat now, but someday, somewhere, they might be. Problem is that SDI doesn't work so even that argument fails. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sure it is, John. One derives personal pleasure from charitable acts, as it should be. Everyone wins - the donor for the sense of well-being from giving and the receipient of such charity. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You missed my point, Brad - what a surprise. No, I'm not worried about India as a nuclear power. What I referred to was that if they could donate their brainpower and resources for a nuclear arms program why couldn't they donate some of the same for a disaster prevention program? Doesn't seem to me, expecially right now, they had their priorities in order. You think that statistic is obvious? Ask 100 people which state gives more in charity - Mississippi or Massachussets - and see how many get it right. You want a little example...check out Kerry's charitable donations for the past 20 years, LOL!  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
No, you changed the subject, I tried to change it back. I suggested the idea first, remember? SDI doesn't work, SDI doesn't work, SDI doesn't work. Hmmm, how about using the money to research better construction techniques for Florida? If asked who gives more money than it receives, Massachusettes or Mississippi, the correct answer is Massachusettes. If asked which group of people give more money to churches, the correct answer would be Mississippi. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Brad, “SDI doesn't work, SDI doesn't work, SDI doesn't work.” Yet. And with governments like in North Korea, (which has already test flown one of its missiles over Japan, while letting three million of its own people starve to death), and in Iran, (which is working on a missile that can reach beyond its primary target, Israel), there is a readily perceivable need. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
India Turns Its Back on Outside Help ‘"If and when we need their help, we will inform them," Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said Thursday, noting that U.S. President George W. Bush had called with the offer.’ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142950,00.html Seems Bush can’t do anything right. P.S. U.S. Companies Give Millions in Aid http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142966,00.html |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Balladeer, believe me, I really would like to provide non-unilateral sources as much as I can, I believe we'd all like this sort of relief. And I'd be happy to do so the same time some here stop quoting Fox News as the source behind their side of the story. I'm tempted to believe when that happens, in providing one biased half of the story, I must provide the other biased half. I've seen an accelerating amount of unilateral citations (particularly from Huan Yi) here, from Fox News especially, and because I believe in the freedom of speech and such, and surely Fox news is a voice and resource in itself, the fact Fox News is even a resource here is not what bothers me. What bothers me is while this happens, and seems to be tolerated, my polar opposite resources I provide are charged at, and that's the problem in my mind. But I'll be making the effort in the new year, and I hope on the other end that's also done likewise. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
State Having Giving Relation G.I ---------------------------------------------- Mississippi 50 5 45 1 Arkansas 47 6 41 2 Oklahoma 43 8 35 3 Louisiana 42 10 32 4 Alabama 38 7 31 5 Tennessee 34 3 31 6 South Dakota 44 14 30 7 Utah 31 2 29 8 South Carolina 40 12 28 9 Idaho 41 20 21 10 Wyoming 21 1 20 11 Texas 23 4 19 12 West Virginia 48 31 17 13 Nebraska 35 19 16 14 North Dakota 46 30 16 15 North Carolina 27 15 12 16 Kansas 25 18 7 17 Florida 20 13 7 18 Georgia 17 11 6 19 Kentucky 39 33 6 20 Montana 49 43 6 21 Missouri 29 24 5 22 New Mexico 45 40 5 23 Alaska 24 21 3 24 Indiana 28 29 -1 25 New York 5 9 -4 26 Iowa 36 44 -8 27 Ohio 32 42 -10 28 California 6 17 -11 29 Maryland 4 16 -12 30 Illinois 10 22 -12 31 Maine 37 50 -13 32 Delaware 13 27 -14 33 Washington 11 25 -14 34 Vermont 33 47 -14 35 Oregon 26 41 -15 36 Hawaii 30 45 -15 37 Virginia 7 23 -16 38 Arizona 22 38 -16 39 Nevada 14 32 -18 40 Pennsylvania 18 36 -18 41 Michigan 16 35 -19 42 Colorado 8 28 -20 43 Connecticut 1 26 -25 44 Minnesota 12 37 -25 45 Wisconsin 19 46 -27 46 New Jersey 2 34 -32 47 Rhode Island 15 49 -34 48 Massachusetts 3 39 -36 49 New Hampshire 9 48 -39 50 Don't mean to make you dizzy, Brad, but I couldn't reproduce this with all the columns in order. This is the Official 2004 State Generosity Ranking bystate. The first number is the ranking of the state in average income. The second is the state ranking of percentage of charitable contributions. The third is the difference between the two and the fourth is their national generosity ranking. For example, Massachussetts (and I apologize to them since I called them the lowest when actually New Hampshire holds the 50th position) has the third highest ranking for income received, the 39th ranking in charitable contributions which gives it the 49th ranking among the states. This involves ALL charitable contributions... |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
 I just don't get it. You all lash out at me and shake your heads because I even had the thought of starting this thread and making this tsunami disaster a political topic, which indeed I can see how my bold opinions could arouse such strong, fervent reactions. Yet now you yourselves decide to hammer in the generosity index of the fifty states and seem to make the bold insinuation that Red states and Republicans are all Good Samaritans and meal tickets and all Blue states and Democrats/liberals are cheapskates and skinflints! Balladeer, Tim, you were criticizing me for making this topic politically-toned and to look at this disaster of epic proportions in a positive force. You also told me to keep politics out of this, please. Now, you yourselves are doing just what you begged me not to do, in that while you can perceive my input as just another Bush-bashing opportunity, now you are turning the topic into a liberal or Blue-state bashing opportunity. I don't know how valid that index is, but in any case I now ask you what you told me. Can we keep these type of red-blue politics out of this? And I can reason with how I may have aroused this type of reaction, but surely this is in no way helpful either. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
This is becoming a very sad thread. I don't even want to add anything to it, except to say, it always amazes me how those who accuse the poster of politicizing a topic seem determined to polarize it to the maximum. Bush appeared to be not only a few days late, but dollars short of many others with smaller pockets. Did that surprise me? Not at all. But why is it even an issue as to who gives or gets the most/least? We as Americans, prove ourselves time and again to be very generous, to be giving, and this isn't the time to slap anyone around for what they did or did not give. Please, move forward...there is far too much work to be done by all of us to help heal the worldwide troubles of this planet. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Noah, I apologize but I asked you not to make it political and then you went into Bush destroying the environment and Bush terrorizing scientists and stem cell research and global warming and so on and so on. Interesting that now when figures come up detrimental to democrats everyone wants to say let's stop politics and comparisons.....that's fine by me. It can stop here. It's all Brad's fault, anyway |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Here’s a side question: should the world community, including the United States, fund the rebuilding of the beach tourist sites, (seemingly popular with Westerners), in the impacted areas? Noah, What is it you find bias in Fox reporting India declining outside aid, or the charitable contributions pledged by U.S. companies? |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
http://www.nypost.com/commentary/37436.htm |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Balladeer, I understand and respect what you're saying, and I already said I could see where my making-this-political could channel these sorts of emotions. I'm just saying it was you, yourself, who begged me not to make this political, and though I may not have apologized necessarily, I sympathized with your concern. But then it was you and Tim who wanted to take this the next step forward and inflate this thread into what sounded to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong, it's just how I felt it as) as "Oh, cheapskates, you wanna talk about cheapskates, let's talk about you blue states...etc.". I don't know what could have made that happen. If it was because I publicly said I gave $40 to Red Cross, I just find that sad. I didn't mean to come off sounding egotistical or anything, I believe everyone who is contributing anything from half of their lottery winnings to two dimes and a nickel stored in their savings jar should give themselves a pat on the back. A little pride never hurts anyone. And it's not just those who are giving money either. It's those who are giving blood, and plasma. It's those who are volunteering with UNICEF or PeaceCorps and going there to assess the damage and find solutions and ways to help. It's those donating blankets and clothes. Simply those who are giving their thoughts and prayers and sending cards. Look, I'm sorry that this thread has become such a mess. I'm sorry if I aroused these wild emotions here. I never wanted this to lead into a red vs. blue thread or anything like that. I guess I just feel desperate, feel deeply, about so many like issues, and when I feel everything is interconnected, sometimes anyone feels something is to blame here. The fact plainly is, I believe the scientific community must be embraced, for there's more than just those who died in the earthquake activity, but there's tens of thousands more who will die from the diseases of malaria and such, thus it's urgent the scientific community must be embraced, and I still believe in outrage the government is blindly obsessed with funding the war over all basic qualities of life. But I'm sorry if I took this the wrong direction, I really am. Look, I absolutely realize and agree now we should let them make the assessments in peace, then the numbers should go up, and I promise, unless I absolutely feel I need to, like if the number remains $35 million after the assessments are complete, I'll keep Bush out of this discussion. I also ask that we stop the red-blue generosity crossfire. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Who said I wanted to stop? quote: I can live with that. (Though Tim brought in the state comparison thing first.) |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Noah, regardless of the topic or whatever comments happen to be said, I always know that your heart is in the right place....peace, friend  |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
I agree with you totally Brad, Massachusetts does pay more in taxes than Mississippi. The blue states generally make more money than red states and therefore their taxes are more. That is the point. Democrats believe money should be funneled through the Federal Government and have the government solve people's problems. That is a philosophical difference in the parties. The Republican view would be that taxes should be low and individuals should take care of themselves and others rather than the federal government. We have had somewhat of a turnaround in that idea recently in the area of welfare; it seems to be working. As far as your statements about tying foreign aid to emergency relief assistance, those are two entirely different and while the U.N. traditionally would try to tie the two together, there are different interests involved. You are talking apples to oranges when you go there. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Tim/Mike http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142991,00.html Couldn’t resist it, (I’m going to Hell). |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LOL! Save me a spot, John. I was wondering a bit on how global warming or the ozone layer helped cause a tsunami |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Facts have a way of cutting through the nonsense. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
First of all, as an aside, I've learned the amount the U.S government is now providing after assessment of the damage has jumped tenfold to $350 million. No complaints there!  Millions more may still need to be provided in the weeks to come with the inability to unload the cargo from bays and seaports and such, and with the worries of malaria spread, etc. but I am quite satisfied with a contribution such as this!Now, about the new article (and no, you are NOT going to Hell!  )This is just the bias I've talked about for months. In the sub-headline, it reads "Environmental activists are shamelessly trying to exploit last week's earthquake-tsunami catastrophe in hopes of advancing their global warming and anti-development agendas." The bias and misleading information is also seen where it reads, "environmentalists are also looking to blame economic development for the devastation wreaked by the tsunamis in hopes of slowing down progress in the third world." I've volunteered for Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, etc. and in my experience, I beg to differ. There's a great fathomable difference between not believing in economic development and believing in ecological wisdom and economical justice. "Moreover, the environmentalists are in feverish denial about the two factors that will, in the end, contribute most to the horrendous death toll from the tsunamis — the lack of an early warning system and lack of adequate post-disaster sanitation, both of which are tragic by-products of the region's severe economic under-development. Given that fact, how deceptive and calculating of the environmentalists to blame "development" as the deadly cause!" Uh...no. I've heard no discrepancy from anyone at the local branch office I volunteer at located at 11th and Clay that with an early warning system and better provision of salubrious lavatories and accessories, everyone in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Indonesia etc. would be better off right now. Of course I agree there. I also believe soil erosion and the accelerating emission of carbon-based elements into the air and waters is adding to the extremes of extreme weather, and also happen to believe, like he believes himself, that tectonics can lead to climate change, and ocean temperature variations cause the rocks underneath the earth to become unstable and therefore, may cause seismic eruptions. "It's bad enough that environmentalists continually try to advance their agendas based on what can only be described as comically wrong information. But what's really troubling is that they seem hell-bent on denying poor nations the opportunity to develop economically so as to pull themselves out of their abject poverty." Steven Milloy indeed contributes a great deal in working to note out examples of "junk science" from the likes of the media to lawyers to businesses to activists to scientists. No one can argue that there is junk in all professions. However, Steven, is, after all, a regular weekly columnist for Fox News, and judging by the headlines alone, you can see his obvious political slant, where he plays adversarily with Bush and ridicules activists' claims incessantly with the frequent mentioning of Clinton and the Kyoto Protocol. Studies that support a right-wing agenda are endorsed, while studies that don’t are harshly criticized. Of course the "Junkman" used to be a lobbyist for Philip Morris and Monsanto (two corporations I boycott) which they themselves exploited poor and helpless consumers worldwide for financial and personal gain and their crimes of the spreading of disease and social irresponsibility on humanity (why else would they change their name to Altria?) Let's also not forget that Milloy led the The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, and its principal backer was Philip Morris. Milloy is not only a kingpin on "junk science", he's one on adversarial junk journalism as well. The only real conclusion here is that Steven Milloy is not just the "junkman", he's also simply a "Bushman". Consider these quotes from his own weekly edition: ************************************ "Sentiment regarding 'the environment' doesn't seem to be a major factor in voters' minds as they weigh the decision whether to cast their ballots for President Bush or John Kerry." (sounds to me Milloy believes the environment is not an issue at all with the way he's quoted it) "Bush has been roundly criticized on environmental issues since he took office. But this criticism has largely come from left-leaning environmental activists and their supporters in academia, the vast majority of whom didn't vote for Bush in 2000 and, moreover, probably wouldn't vote for a Republican under any circumstance." (Strikes me as he believes any criticism of Bush, especially on an obvious terrible environmental record, is unacceptable.) "So I pay no attention to what so-called environmentalists say about Bush. Their attacks usually don't present the facts fairly and are designed to politicize and polarize voters." "The most notable environmental decision Bush has made so far was his decision to pull the U.S. out of the economic dance-of-death known as the Kyoto protocol... The difference between the candidates is that Bush has rightly raised questions about the 'science' underlying global warming hysteria and is not at all interested in an international treaty." "I suspect that the decision-making on the environment would be handed over to his wife, Teresa Heinz-Kerry... much the same way the health care issue was handed to Hillary Clinton during the early part of the Clinton administration. The environment is a hot-button issue for Teresa, and I doubt he'd turn down the billionaire who made his presidential campaign possible. What that probably means is that environmental extremists will once again have free reign over the EPA." (One must understand the incredible reduction of the EPA staff and the staff re-appointment under this administration) So to someone who admits he pays no attention to anything environmentalists say about Bush now, it's clear Milloy, and this source, is fiercely biased. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Noah, Are you saying the Greenpeace UK and Friends of the Earth quotes in Milloy’s article: ‘the executive director of Greenpeace UK (search) told the British newspaper The Independent, "No one can ignore the relentless increase in extreme weather events and so-called natural disasters, which in reality are no more natural than a plastic Christmas tree." Friends of the Earth (search) Director Tony Juniper told the same British newspaper, "Here again are yet more events in the real world that are consistent with climate change predictions." A spokesperson for the Indonesian arm of Friends of the Earth told the Agence France Presse, "We can expect in the coming years similar events happening as a result of global warming and therefore help and prevention are the responsibility of the Northern countries as well.", are fabricated? Are you saying his statement: “Earthquakes aren't caused by the weather or greenhouse gas emissions; they're caused by tectonics — that is naturally moving geological faults. While tectonics may cause climate changes, the reverse is not true.” is false? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0819/p16s01-sten.html A few things we know: 1. We know that tectonic plates are all connected. 2. We know that the climate is changing. 3. The controversial parts are the mechanisms that generate climate change, and the effects of one tectonic plate with others over large distances. I lived through the Northridge, California quake , one year, one day, and, if memory serves, one hour later, the Kobe, Japan quake hit. Is there a connection? There seems to be a similar coincidence/connection between the South Asian quake and the quake that hit Iran last year. So how does global warming cause, or magnify, earthquakes? Well, apparently glaciers provide a stabilizing influence to tectonic plate movement. The weight and pressure provided by glaciers provides a "push back" to the stresses of tectonic movement. This keeps them from moving as quickly as they might. When glaciers melt, this stabilizing effect is lessened and tectonic plates become more active. But there aren't any glaciers near the Indian ocean? Yes, but the tectonic connections I mentioned earlier would indicate that instability in one region leads to instability in another. It's a stretch, but not completely out of the blue. If correct, the prediction is that more earthquakes are coming. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
A stretch, Brad? LOL. Now that is Junk Science. I pity the poor guy who admits he blew his nose just before the last three major quakes, 'cause sure as rain, he'll get blamed, too. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Brad, calling that just "a stretch" is the real stretch. ROFLMAO |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Life was so much simpler growing up in the fifties and sixties. By 1984 the governments of the world were going to be totalitarian and control our every action and thought- BUT It didn't matter because we would have no trees by the seventies because acid rain as a foregone conclusion would destroy all vegetation in the world and hearken the end of plant life and destroy the food chain- BUT It wouldn't matter because of the population explosion, we would be in the midst of world-wide famine and anarchy; even with the lowest projections of the experts, there was absolutely no way a crisis could be avoided- BUT It didn't matter because we were all going to die in a nuclear explosion anyway- UNLESS we all paid heed to our civil defense training and went in the hallways at school and placed our heads between our knees and didn't open our eyes so we would go blind and then not go outside and live on the big barrels of water and crackers kept in the basement- YEP- I have to admit I believed everyone of those predictions (which were offered as fact) as a child and thoroughly believed I would not live past the age of thirty... which may be why our generation came up with the idea of getting rid of everyone over thirty... ack... now over thirty... anyway, Happy New Year all... off to find a hallway and some stale crackers.... |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
It's interesting that you brought up the fifties. The last time we had a series of 9.0 earthquakes was during the fifties. Will it happen again? I don't know, but let's see what happens. Ah, c'mon guys, I said it was a stretch, I didn't say how much stretching was involved. How long has continental drift and plate theory been accepted by the mainstream? 30, 35 years? It's still a new science and it's astonishing how much we don't know. This idea isn't science, it's just bringing two newspaper articles together (One from the NY times a couple of weeks ago and the one posted above). 40 years ago professional geologists scoffed when amatuers pointed out that Africa and S. America looked like puzzle pieces. 30 years ago, people thought an ulcer was caused by stress, 20 years ago, we thought it was impossible to grow new brain cells, 10 years ago, we all thought the universe expansion rate was slowing down. Okay, okay, maybe I've been reading too much Bruce Sterling recently. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
What about all those butterflies and the havoc their fluttering about can eventually create? There they are, evil incarnate, slyly going from flower to flower! |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Huan Yi, to answer your question, I want you to take a look here: http://www.prwatch.org/node/3159 Milloy has a history of mildly distorting the quotes of others just enough to make it not seem so obvious in furthering his own junk science agendas and for personal gain. Perhaps there are indeed scientific communities that are desperate in getting their research out to the mainstream eye and see this as a golden opportunity, but while Milloy accuses them of exploiting the tragedy for their own personal and social gain, Milloy himself is dubbing and exploiting their own words for his personal gain of credibility and on the dishing out of "junk science". In other words, jumping the gun and leading to rash conclusions can certainly arouse far more miscommunication. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
By the way, I just tried to re-title this thread to "Tsunami: Political Issue?" because with the satisfying new number coming in, money is no longer the issue here, but rather "Where do we go from here?", but 24 hours have elapsed so I can't edit the title myself. Could I get some help from a moderator perhaps? Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
Since everyone wants to wallow in the politics of disaster, let me add this: I was stunned (but shouldn't have been) to read this morning (Associated Press, not liberal 'rant' news) that our wealthy current president has not yet made any personal donation, and it took him three days to even SAY anything about this tragedy. That speaks volumes to me, about the 'leader' so many have chosen. Shaking my head here.  Last to the giving plate is not where our leader should be.I won't say more than this as to the politics of this catastrophic human tragedy. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Kacy, I agree that it is troubling Bush waited nearly four days to make a statement to the public following the tsunami disaster. As far as the money issue is concerned now, though it is true he hasn't yet made a personal contribution, Bush's press secretary Scott McClellan specified he intends to give one soon, and also appointed Clinton and Sr. Bush to lead the contribution efforts. Anyway, $350 million is more like it to me as a welcoming and comfortable donation. Of course I'm still troubled with how much more the war is being funded and such, but I no longer see money as the central problem, but rather the focus now must be put on two things: leadership, like Kacy got at, and the debacle between the Junkman and the scientific community. And I believe the scientific community MUST be embraced, must stop being blacklisted and jaded from the public. I think the general public has the right to hear from both the scientists and Milloy and decide for themselves what is sound and what is junk. For each side is just half of the puzzle in my mind, and though there is undoubtedly "junk science" out there, when you have someone who admits he doesn't think at all of environmentalists anymore and their claims, you've got a big problem. There needs to be a bi-lateral community established, agreeing what science is sound and what is junk. One set up kind of like the 9/11 Commission, etc. This issue can't be settled simply on the Robert Kennedys and Steven Milloys. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
kayjay Member Elite
since 2002-06-24
Posts 2015Oregon |
There is much to ponder within these many posts. The tough thing about cataclysms in nature is that abolute proof of a connection between such events and global changes in ozone, mean temperatures etc. is just beyond science. However, the changes pose a strong argument that we are on the threshold of changing life as we know it irrevocably. This is a great thread and thank you for starting it, Noah. Ken Through rubble and trouble and dark of night |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Here's something else to ponder here. Is the tsunami, also, a religious issue? http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/000962.html Melanie Phillips is a right-leaning British journalist, and writer of a controversial political and social weekly column in the U.K publishing Daily Mail, who is claiming that the Greens are usurping the tragedy in an opportunistic manner to promote their scientific agendas, and hints having faith alone through the tragedy, as well as accepting all nature throws at us, is the best way to cope. http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=18309 On the other side of the spectrum is Bill Berkowitz of Working for Change, who criticizes Bush and a number of right-leaning Christian organizations for failing to respond to the tsunami crisis until at least three days following the tragedy (Since the 30th, one of the organizations Berkowitz provided, Focus on the Family, provided an immediate action plan via Focus Radio) Has this disaster really went this full-blown politically and religiously across mainstream, or are these simply just two extreme positions that are all in their heads? I believe personally Melanie brings about some strong and meaningful points, not so much agreeing with her that this is much of a religious issue, but simply having faith during times of crisis. Melanie quotes from Chief Rabbi Dr. Sacks in her column, “The response was not to try to understand why disasters happen, but to accept what nature throws at us and then to bring as much aid and comfort to the bereaved and suffering as we can.” That’s where I believe faith comes in. You must hold faith and pray for the safety and health of communities affected by natural disasters like this, though I also believe you can have faith AND work to understand how disasters happen. That isn’t an unfaithful gesture, in my opinion, but rather an essential way in discovering patterns and, in the process, finding solutions, without challenging God’s faith. As far as Bill’s view is concerned, though I do criticize Bush’s late response to the tragedy as well, and perhaps to those particular organizations he cites, where he makes some strong points about these organizations preferring eyeing a ban on gay marriage and appointing judicial nominees, there is much tension behind his column as well, as, though he makes points on some hypocrisy going around, it arouses those type of red vs. blue politics again that only bring back so much bad blood. In my opinion, this is going way too far from both sides treating it as a religious issue, but that’s just one person’s opinion. Does religion play a particular role in this tragedy? If so, should it, are you saddened or horrified it has come to it? Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Let me try to get some clean up points here: quote: One, it still doesn't work. Two, what does SDI have to do with Japan or Israel? The intent is to protect the continental States, not other countries. Oh yeah, someday it'll work, and once that happens, and someday we'll extend it to other countries. This has nothing to do with SDI today. quote: And yet, you didn't follow it through. Mississippi receives more money than it sends to the federal government, Massachusettes receives less money than it sends. This is income redistribution that favors red states over blue. Why would blue states favor this, why would red states reject it? We have a gap between theory and practice. quote: Yet, in practice, the federal government keeps getting larger under either party. Those who receive entitlements simply change. quote: I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean here. Yes, they are different. I asked which one is better. There's nothing about apples and oranges that doesn't allow you to prefer one to the other. Still, could you direct me to some more information? ------------------------------ http://nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200501031119.asp With all this talk over the generosity index, (Don't know why Mike posted that, I've already seen it.), the above article was interesting. The generosity index is not based on absolute amounts of giving, only relative to state income. America, in absolute terms, gives more than any other country. In relative terms, it's the lowest of any industrialized nation. Mississippi gives more relative to income. Which state gives more in absolute terms? I don't care which way you go, but in order for any of these numbers to make sense, shouldn't we at least be consistent? One thing, however, seems fairly clear (Though it's hard to find statistics in this area). When it comes to private charity, America is number one. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't think I've ever heard discussion, before now, regarding the personal private contributions toward disaster relief of any U.S. President or any other Head of State, for that matter. Is it even anyone else's business what anybody personally donates towards relief efforts? Should we list all Heads of State, Senators, members of Congress, Parliament, and members of any other ruling body anywhere, with their respective incomes and their personal contributions toward relief efforts whenever a tragedy occurs? Do we really need one more test by which to attempt to judge the heart and integrity of another (as if we are even qualified to make such judgments anyway)? Or should we all just mind our own business and contribute whatever it is that we feel that we should, and respect others' privacy enough to allow them to do the same? |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
"And yet, you didn't follow it through. Mississippi receives more money than it sends to the federal government, Massachusettes receives less money than it sends. This is income redistribution that favors red states over blue. Why would blue states favor this, why would red states reject it? We have a gap between theory and practice." Not quite, you have to factor in a few things like military installations, seniors on retirement, medicare, medicaid, federal facilities, etc. Federal spending encompasses a few things other than welfare. D.C. far outstrips any state as far was federal expenditures in balance as to the others. Some might say it is a bit of obfuscation to indicate that federal spending is equated to welfare and entitlements. Perhaps the military and some federal spending benefits the entire nation. "Yet, in practice, the federal government keeps getting larger under either party. Those who receive entitlements simply change." Lost me there. "I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean here. Yes, they are different. I asked which one is better. There's nothing about apples and oranges that doesn't allow you to prefer one to the other." We appear to be on different brain waves, which more than a view folk have accused me of... The thread is about disaster relief, not foreign aid policy, neocon Wilsonian or pragmatic Trumanesque. The latter might be an interesting thread, certainly in relation to the U.N., but still apples to oranges to me. Final note, the average Mississippian gives over a $1,000 more a year than the national average per person. The only figure I had available was that the average Connecticut citizen, which has the highest income per person, gave $175.00 less per person than the national average. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Brad, the point of the generosity index is the word generosity. WHo is more generous? The man who makes 100 and donates 10 or the man who makes 1000 and donates 10? They both give the same amount so there is your "asolute" value. Does that make them equally generous? That is the point of the generosity index. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Okay, let's go down that route. Are Americans stingy? Yep. [quote]. . . the tsunami illustrates the problem: When grieving victims intrude onto our TV screens, we dig into our pockets and provide the massive, heartwarming response that we're now displaying in Asia; the rest of the time, we're tightwads who turn away as people die in far greater numbers. The 150,000 or so fatalities from the tsunami are well within the margin of error for estimates of the number of deaths every year from malaria. Probably two million people die annually of malaria, most of them children and most in Africa, or maybe it's three million - we don't even know. But the bottom line is that this month and every month, more people will die of malaria (165,000 or more) and AIDS (240,000) than died in the tsunamis, and almost as many will die because of diarrhea ( 140,000). And that's where we're stingy. In 2003, the latest year for which figures are available, we increased such assistance by one-fifth, for President Bush has actually been much better about helping poor countries than President Clinton was. But as a share of our economy, our contribution still left us ranked dead last among 22 top donor countries. We gave 15 cents for every $100 of national income to poor countries. Denmark gave 84 cents, the Netherlands gave 80 cents, Belgium gave 60 cents, France gave 41 cents, and Greece gave 21 cents (that was the lowest share, beside our own). It is sometimes said that Americans make up for low official aid with private charitable donations. Nope. By OECD calculations, private donations add 6 cents a day to the official U.S. figure - meaning that we still give only 21 cents a day per person. -- . . . . One of the most unforgettable people I've met is Nhem Yen, a Cambodian grandmother whose daughter had just died of malaria, leaving two small children. So Nhem Yen was looking after her four children and two grandchildren, and she could afford only one mosquito net to protect them from malarial mosquitoes. Each night, she had to choose which of the six children would sleep under the net. Do we really think that paying $5 for a mosquito net to keep Nhem Yen's children alive would be money down a rathole? When I contracted the most lethal form of malaria, in Congo, I was easily cured because I could afford the best medicines. But to save money, African children are given medicines that cost only 5 cents a dose but aren't very effective; the medicine that would actually save their lives is unaffordable, at $1 a dose. Do we really think $1 a dose for medicine to save a child is money down a rathole? Jeffrey Sachs, the Columbia University economist, estimates that spending $2 billion to $3 billion on malaria might save more than one million lives a year. "This is probably the best bargain on the planet," he said. The outpouring of U.S. aid, private and public, for tsunami victims is wonderful. But, frankly, the affected nations will get all the money they can absorb for the moment, and Thailand, Indonesia and Sri Lanka are far from the worst off in the world. "The really big money can be better and more usefully absorbed by developing good health and education programs in the poorest countries," noted Nancy Birdsall, president of the Center for Global Development. "But that's not as visible or heroic." --- . . . . The best response to accusations of stinginess is not to be defensive, but to be generous. And the measure of generosity is not what you offer when the spotlight is upon you, but what you do when the spotlight moves on. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/05/opinion/05kris.html?oref=login |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
If DDT were allowed to be utilized, millions of lives of young children could be saved from malaria. Because of political correctness, it cannot be utilized for fear bird's egg shells might weaken. Millions of children are not dying from the stinginess of Americans, but by the unfounded fears of environmentalists. (let's hear from Noah now) The U.N. has a global fund to fight Aids, malaria, tuberculosis. The U.S. is the largest contributor, the first contributor, the first contributor to make a second pledge, and in 2003 President Bush in the State of the Union requested and the Congress authorized 15 billion dollars. That does not count bilateral efforts to which the U.S. donates. As of 2003, the U.S. donated approximately one half of the global fund. I guess it is all a matter of perspective. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
And yet the world’s population has gone from three to six billion in less than one hundred years with another over three billion to be added in the next fifty, (with roughly two and a half billion of that increase expected in Africa and Asia). |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
I guess you could compare tragedies in other countries to the recent one in the Indian Ocean, but the first is too spread out to garner attention. Now, if all the hundreds of millions of children who died from abortion were aborted all on the same day or even week, there would be outcry. If all the AIDS and malaria victims all died from it on the same day or week, there would be outcry. Not to sound heartless, but they didn't. Millions were affected by the earthquake, aftershocks, and tsunamis in one day, hence the outcry and action. Perhaps I'm just too jaded for my own good. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Alicat, When the Khmer Rouge exterminated at a minimum one third of Cambodia’s population I don’t remember Americans being all that upset, no more than when an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were killed in 100 days. That Saddam Hussein murdered hundreds of thousands and let hundreds of thousands more die rather than let he and his be inconvenienced by sanctions didn’t and still doesn’t affect many. There seems to be a certain discrimination involved in determining when people get excited. If a “government” murders or allows murders of its own, that’s one thing, if a bug or god does it and that “government” seeks or is open to aid against that unauthorized mayhem it’s another. Also please remember abortions are legal. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You want to go down that route, Brad? OK then... Over 100,000 people die. Millions are displaced and many are dying of hunger. No one sends aid except for small token amounts. The UN does nothing to stop the tragedy. People continue to suffer. The tsunami? No - Somalia. 450,000 people die. men, women, children. Entire towns are destroyed. No one sends aid. The UN does nothing. The United States is told that if they interfere they will incur the disapproval and rebuke of the UN. Many countries insist that nothing be done to stop the disaster and turn their eyes away as more victims die. The tsunami? No, Hussein's rule in Iraq, including the gassing of Kurds and the tens of thousands placed in mass graves which have since been uncovered. 150,00 people die. Everyone sends aid. The UN calls the United States stingy and insists they do more. Help comes in from almost every country in the world to aid the victims. The tsunami - yes, finally. I guess there's a big difference between a natural disaster and a man-made one. Sad fact is that, in both, the victims are just as dead. You call America stingy, Brad, and you bring up some silly percentages to support your claim? You must be joking. Which is the correct percent of giving you require to take a country from stingy to giving? What percent of a hand-out do you feel is deserved to not be called stingy and what right do you have to demand it? You want absolute figures with regards to red and blue and yet you quote country percentages to refer to AMerica as not giving enough. What is really interesting to me is how the view changes based on politics. You, and many Democrats have expounded on Bush's "tax cuts for the rich", citing the claim that if, let's say for example, 10% is given across the board someone making 30,000.00 gets back 3,000.00 while someone making 100,000 gets back 10,000 therefore it favors the rich. You use "absolute" values there and yet come up with percentages to call the country stingy. Sorry for the length of the rant but people who makes such remarks about our country's "stinginess" after all we do for the world is really hard to fathom and organizations like the UN who have no problem closing their eyes or staring at the ceiling when mass-murderers kill innocent men, women and children and protest against someone doing something and then complain that we are stingy for not doing enough for natural disasters, even though the aid from the US, including public and private donations will top one billion and even though it is our ships doing all the transporting and delivery of the supplies and handling the logistics of the entire operation, aided by the support of wonderful countries like Austrailia, Japan and many others. To hear an American call our country stingy is mind-boggling to me, even coming from you, Brad. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LOL! Just saw your post, John....guess our minds were headed down the same path... |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Mike, Aren’t you at times reminded of: “Hamlet: Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of me! You would play upon me; you would seem to know my stops; you would pluck out the heart of my mystery; you would sound me from my lowest note to the top of my compass; and there is much music, excellent voice, in this little organ, yet cannot you make it speak. 'Sblood, do you think I am easier to be play'd on than a pipe? Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, you cannot play upon me.” (-: |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
say it to my girlfriend every night. She only agrees with the "little organ" part  |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I certainly wouldn't say the United States is stingy. I believe the United States is a very generous nation when you consider all the private contributions being made everywhere. Millions of American families chipping in what they can. Sandra Bullock gave a million. Linkin Park even set up their own charity, Music For Relief. And I am satisfied that the administration is now giving $350 million. There's much generosity in this nation. I believe, rather, it is just how and where our money is being spent that's the problem. Somehow, I actually feel the problem is opposite of stingy. Rather, we spend a lot, and a lot of what is being spent is not strictly devoted to the basic qualities of life, but rather a senseless war that never had to happen. To have a feeling of exactly how obsessed the administration is with the war and military spending, Bush is about to ask for $80 billion more as "emergency" funding for Iraq, That'll push the total cost of the war above Vietnam. Pentagon’s spending has went up 41 percent in the past four years to $425 billion this year. Discretionary spending has virtually doubled since the Clinton Administration (and let it be known that I too was sharply disappointed with Clinton's role during the Rwandan tragedy.) I defend my initial remark before the contribution rose to $350 million in that it was a rather disingenuous offering when it is worth less than four hours of war in Iraq. Of course it still startles me that $350 million is barely over a day and a half of war in Iraq, and to see all that money that could have went to funding schools and provide a living wage for a third of Americans below the low income kill and haunt thousands, but I do give the administration credit there. But I still believe that initial $15 million and then the $35 million follow-up was very disappointing. It saddens me to see the world community in comparison being dissed here as well. After all, look at Australia. They've given $750 million (I think it's approaching a billion now). Germany has given $674 million. Japan has given half a billion. And for those lashing out at the U.N, pledges are around $4 billion now. And Tim, if you're choosing to go down the road of calling me a murderer of millions of children because I embrace the scientific community, I just find that sad. I absolutely believe there is faulty science out there, I also believe there is much reasonable, sensible results that must be taken seriously. If you're just going to believe everything the Junkman says, who admits himself he does not think anything of the environmentalists or listens to them, that's one heck of a problem. It's about time we hear both sides together and come to terms of what science is unanimously considered rational and what is not, so we know what we can use to find patterns and look for alternatives and solutions in the years ahead. Is that murder if we only listen? I think that's responsible thinking. Apathy is irresponsibility. While we're on that road, which Huan Yi and Balladeer are also treading, you don't think I don't care about the other atrocities we've witnessed in recent years? I wasn't born yet during the Khmer Rouge years between 1975-1979, but that doesn't mean I feel grieved for the many slaughtered then. I hadn't become really opinionated until the year after the time Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana's plane was shot down in 1994 and sparking that mass genocide of hundreds of thousands, particularly Tutsis, when I turned 12, but that doesn't mean I wasn't grieved by the atrocities. And I certainly have grieved over the fact there are indeed brutal men like Saddam Hussein who would kill his own people by the hundreds of thousands. You think I don't care or feel that? As far as abortion is concerned...well...it is a very sensitive issue and I don't want to go into it. Personally I've come to believe it is a sensitive issue women should decide the fate of. I believe that issue really isn't any of my business, other than just I have my own little opinion and that I am sympathetic with the opinions of those who oppose abortion. Anyway, after we talk of all those atrocities, I still can't get over how, nevertheless, anyone can advocate such a senseless war in Iraq, a war which its original claims have already been proven false, that has already killed, if not the estimate of over a hundred thousand, tens of thousands of men, women and children, not to mention has ruined the peace and everyday lives of innocent Iraqi families with life-afflicting injuries and waters poisoned with uranium deposits, which even those in Bush's cabinet admit conditions there will worsen in the months ahead, with not even an exit strategy in sight, thus will likely lead to the deaths of tens of thousands more, which, by the way, is not making the world safer, but is only incitng more terrorist instincts. There are those who are so adamant over such atrocities that happened before yet allow Bush and the administration to mirror and repeat these dark histories through this bloody senseless war. Frankly, I just don't get it, I don't believe it. How do I respond to all these atrocities, from Khmer Rouge, to the Rwandan genocide, to Saddam's massacre, to Bush's senseless war? Being the pacifist I am, I vow to myself I won't ever pit myself and the grievances I feel from these everyday tragedies to instincts and desires for revenge, etc. For I remember how I felt on September 11th and the weeks following the tragedy. I didn't react in anger, like some did, saying things like "OH MY GOD, WHO DID THIS, WAIT UNTIL I GET MY HANDS AROUND THEIR NECKS AND...". I reacted in sadness and sorrow, knowing that there are troubled souls in the world who even think of harming the innocent. All the same I knew I had to put myself in the shoes of someone like me in the place where those troubled souls came from. What would he think, what would he say? I believed and still believe with all my heart that if 9/11 taught me something, it was the need for the world to come together, like we did briefly after the tragedy, where I supported Bush during that time, and work to break the mirrors and see to it we set aside our differences and work to see these tragedies don't repeat themselves, through all adversity. Of course that didn't happen, and Bush and his colleagues thought of the lesson of September 11th differently. And the violence happening right now in Iraq is exactly that mirror I speak of. I feel somehow so many innocent Iraqis down there are experiencing a 9/11 of their own virtually every single day since March 2003. This brings me back to my post where I asked if the tsunami is a religious issue as well. Melanie Phillips (who leans right by the way) said that the real way to go about approaching the tsunami disaster is "to accept what nature throws at us and then to bring as much aid and comfort to the bereaved and suffering as we can." I believe Melanie makes a great point there, and though I added it is also necessary to work to understand the science behind the storms, as that isn't an unfaithful gesture, her positive message is exactly what I like to hear. I apply that same philosophy to such tragedies like those mentioned. Rather than duplicate a tragedy, I believe in simply reaching out to comfort those in need and build communities. In the end, all I can say is, I just don't understand it. I just don't. And I'm going to stop there in case I begin to cry blood. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
First the EU critizes the US and other 'rich' countries for being stingy, then the EU critizes Bush for not reacting fast enough, and now the EU is critizing the US for exerting too much influence in the Indian Ocean zone. Geeze, can't win for losing. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
It was the UN, wasn't it? The EU is rich. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Well Brad, I know the first two were also from the UN. Heard about the EU gritching during the Big Story on FoxNews with their complaints that the US has too much influence in that region for their delicate tastes. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: If that's what you believe, then stop whining about political correctness and start fighting for its reinstatement. quote: I'm not going to dispute this, but where did the generosity index go? Tell you what, I'll give Mississippi it's due (Oh wait, I already did. ), if you give California and New York theirs (And that includes all the other factors you wish to throw in.) quote: Why? You understand my words. I understand yours. I think foreign aid should be increased, I think military spending should be decreased (that is, reallocated). What you want is hard to fathom. You want Americans to continue believing that they fork out a lot more foreign aid than they do? Why? If it's wrong, why would you want that? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: So we should let people die? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: I don't know if it's jaded, but I think you're right, Ali. That's why I posted the Kristof article. Maybe, just maybe, if we stop bouncing around like a pinball, we might actually have to pay less in disaster relief. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: We were upset when we found out about it. quote: We were upset. quote: It does matter, but you're confusing a lot of issues here. There are still people who believe that countries should retain their sovereignty inside their own borders (thus, political oppression is allowable on the international scene). Hey wait, that's the conservative view, isn't it? It's also China's and many others. Why do you think that many saw the oppression of Hussein and the Taliban as aceptable? Because many are against the occupation in Iraq? You can do both, you know? quote: Get infant mortality rates higher and then we'll talk. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: There is a difference. I'm not saying it's a good thing, and, yes, the victims are just as dead, but national sovereignty is still an issue. That's why we backed out of the International Court, isn't it? quote: Well, I was just following the article, but I won't distance myself from it. The point is that most Americans do not know what percentage of what they make goes to foreign aid! quote: How about what they believe they're paying as opposed to what they actually pay? Okay, that's too much. How about half? a quarter? quote: Where have I demanded anything? quote: Again, what I said was I don't care. I just think it should be consistent before you trumpet your own horn and lambast Massachusettes or Connecticut, not to mention the real powerhouses of the US (California and New York). quote: *Sigh* You really have no idea what you're talking about here. I'm not against tax cuts in principle, I'm against tax cuts while you increase spending. I have the crazy idea that you should pay down the national debt as well. There's a lot more to say here, but that's another thread. quote: Yeah, I guess it's hard to face facts. quote: Actually, this is the same distinction that Tim and I talked about, disaster relief versus foreign aid. The whole point of the Kristof article is to bring attention to the lack of concern when there isn't a national disaster. I thought it was worth posting. I still do. quote: Well, sorry. I'm reading Uncle Tom's Cabin right now, and I'm at the chapter where Tom's new master, St. Claire's wife, reaches such depths of self deception that one has to laugh. It's over the edge but I do see a connection. I want foreign aid should increase. I think it is in our national best interest, and, to be honest, I'm not sure at all what you want. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
And I certainly have grieved over the fact there are indeed brutal men like Saddam Hussein who would kill his own people by the hundreds of thousands. You grieved, Noah? What does that mean? I'm sure loss of life for any innocents makes you sad but I never saw any entries by you here about the deaths of the thousands of Iraqui children under Hussein's rule, nor did I hear of your group there marching in their defense. So, if grieving means feel bad, with all due respect - big deal. Where was your outrage then? Where was the call for aid? The outrage from you and your groups only came when we went over there to get Hussein, the fellow who was doing the murdering, out of power. Where is the logic in that? I think one reason your groups despise Bush so much is he brought to light all of the things everyone knew anyway but did nothing about...the gassings, the tortures, the mass graves, the numbers of children dead from starvation. Not only could could they not ignore it, they had to acknowledge the fact that they did or said nothing about it....they just grieved. There was no call for action, no insistence that countries join together to help the innocents. There was just, "It's such a shame what is happening in Iraq - or Somalia - or Rwanda. Hey honey, wanna catch a movie?" Let Bush bring it to light, though, and they spring into action - against Bush! Go figure.... You don't know what is happening in Iraq, Noah, no more than I do. We are all slaves to the news reports and what we are told, but had one interesting experience. My girl and I went to church for the midnight Christmas service. There was a soldier back from Iraq there, in uniform. After the service I talked to him for a while. He told me he couldn't wait to get back there. When I asked him why he told me it was the most rewarding thing he had ever done. He spoke of the Iraqui citizens taking him in, hugging him, thanking him over and over. He spoke of the children who ran up to him, laughing and giving him kisses. He spoke of nights he sat around with Iraqui families and talked of the situation of the country and how they were so glad we were there. He spoke of a lot of these things and said that almost of the regular Iraqui citizens were in full support of the allied actions taking place, even though so much turmoil was going on right now. I asked him how he felt about what he read in the newspapers and he said a few words that should NEVER be said in church. Let's just say he has less than little respect for the press covering the war. I certainly got off the beaten path there but just let me say that if decent people showed as much energy and made as many demands for help to the victims of murderers and despots as they do natural disasters, the world would be much better off. Simply "grieving" for the tsunami victims wouldn't accomplish much and the grieving for the victims of Hussein or the warlords of Somalia accomplished the same. Should we recognize a country's "sovereign right" to commit mass murder against it's citizenry? You tell me.... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yeah, I guess it's hard to face facts. Yes, you're right, Brad. It's hard to face YOUR facts. Funny how you feel you are the one with the facts and the rest of us just what? Drifting in a realm of misunderstood mutterings? Who knows" But then...who cares? Ok, then. We're stingy and we don't send enough in foreign aid. We should make countries feel like the people who receive welfare checks. That way they will admire us and thank us for being such good compassionate friends....of course they will. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Noah/Brad, What I find so interesting, (I think I’ve alluded to it before), is how isolationist you are in the face of despotic horror. Franklin Roosevelt and his kind, had you been in your maturity in 1940, would have been your adversaries. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
“If that's what you believe, then stop whining about political correctness and start fighting for its reinstatement.” Had to chuckle at that response… I don’t know if it is so much as wanting to believe, just what the facts show… “I'm not going to dispute this, but where did the generosity index go? Tell you what, I'll give Mississippi it's due (Oh wait, I already did. ), if you give California and New York theirs (And that includes all the other factors you wish to throw in.) Glad you don’t dispute it. Nice turn to change the point to something totally unrelated, but in return, I will give California and California their due. “Why? You understand my words. I understand yours. I think foreign aid should be increased, I think military spending should be decreased (that is, reallocated). What you want is hard to fathom. You want Americans to continue believing that they fork out a lot more foreign aid than they do? Why? If it's wrong, why would you want that?” While I understand your words, I don’t always follow your point and I sometimes wonder if you understand mine, but what the hey… I don’t recall you saying foreign aid should be increased and military spending should be decreased (that is allocated). I suspect it would be hard for you to fathom what I want because I don’t ever recall saying. Your point as I recall is that utilizing the University Study that 25% of the U.S. population mistakenly believes what the U.S. spends on foreign aid. I have seen the annual study used many times over the years to make many points and have seen a fairly wide divergence in the percentages on the foreign aid question. While I might question the methodology, I readily agree the average citizen is uniformed on a number of issues. Heck, that is poli sci 101. I think people are generally uniformed politically on any number of issues. That includes the entirety of the political spectrum. I do think I said if you want to talk about foreign aid, that would be an interesting thread, but not related to the issue of disaster assistance. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
You grieved, Noah? What does that mean? I'm sure loss of life for any innocents makes you sad but I never saw any entries by you here about the deaths of the thousands of Iraqui children under Hussein's rule, nor did I hear of your group there marching in their defense. So, if grieving means feel bad, with all due respect - big deal. Where was your outrage then? Where was the call for aid? The outrage from you and your groups only came when we went over there to get Hussein, the fellow who was doing the murdering, out of power. Where is the logic in that? Balladeer, you know very well I didn't get involved in politics until Bush declared war in Iraq. I didn't use to be a frequent news watcher. In fact I barely watched any television at all. Just some Discovery Channel and some Cartoon Network cartoons. Most of the news I heard was through conversations with my parents, and I'd look at the newspaper once in a while. It was basically my junior year in high school I learned about the tragedy in Rwanda, and about the same time I became familiar with Saddam Hussein in a World History class. When I look at the texts and photographs, I can only imagine what the horrors must be from those situations. Speaking of which, the Portland Peaceful Response Coalition wasn't even founded until summer of 2002. I know I really can't physically prove I also grieve from those other tragedies I've specified, but I really do feel for those afflicted and condemn those merciless acts. I don't know if you, yourself, ever organized a rally against Saddam Hussein either, but I'm assuming you didn't either. You just shook your head and grieved. I think one reason your groups despise Bush so much is he brought to light all of the things everyone knew anyway but did nothing about...the gassings, the tortures, the mass graves, the numbers of children dead from starvation. Not only could could they not ignore it, they had to acknowledge the fact that they did or said nothing about it....they just grieved. There was no call for action, no insistence that countries join together to help the innocents. There was just, "It's such a shame what is happening in Iraq - or Somalia - or Rwanda. Hey honey, wanna catch a movie?" Let Bush bring it to light, though, and they spring into action - against Bush! Go figure.... First of all, no one wanted Bush to bring it to light, Bush did that himself. it was on his mind from the beginning. Secondly, once again, I was inactive from all politics until March of 2003, so though there are indeed others who are guilty of doing nothing at all to find alternative solutions to the conflict in Iraq, what could I have done? Finally, it's ridiculous that you believe that's the reason we're against Bush and his policies. We're against him simply because he's an oppressor. You don't know what is happening in Iraq, Noah, no more than I do. We are all slaves to the news reports and what we are told, but had one interesting experience. My girl and I went to church for the midnight Christmas service. There was a soldier back from Iraq there, in uniform. After the service I talked to him for a while. He told me he couldn't wait to get back there. When I asked him why he told me it was the most rewarding thing he had ever done. He spoke of the Iraqui citizens taking him in, hugging him, thanking him over and over. He spoke of the children who ran up to him, laughing and giving him kisses. He spoke of nights he sat around with Iraqui families and talked of the situation of the country and how they were so glad we were there. He spoke of a lot of these things and said that almost of the regular Iraqui citizens were in full support of the allied actions taking place, even though so much turmoil was going on right now. I asked him how he felt about what he read in the newspapers and he said a few words that should NEVER be said in church. Let's just say he has less than little respect for the press covering the war. That's where me and him would agree. I would also agree I have less than little respect for the press covering the war as well...not to mention the covering of peace. I'm glad you and your loved one had that great experience at church during the holiday season. Here in Portland I made several volunteering shifts at the rescue mission. They have four homeless veterans there, two who returned from Iraq last year, who told me their views, which are rather the opposite view. One of the soldiers said an Iraqi child ran to the front door in some smaller Iraqi town and tossed hard candy at him, shouting, "We don't want poison, your poison!" (sad sigh) I know there are those who are indeed grateful, but I keep hearing Iraqis say in reports though of course their country is better without Saddam around, life has gotten worse. I certainly got off the beaten path there but just let me say that if decent people showed as much energy and made as many demands for help to the victims of murderers and despots as they do natural disasters, the world would be much better off. Simply "grieving" for the tsunami victims wouldn't accomplish much and the grieving for the victims of Hussein or the warlords of Somalia accomplished the same. Couldn't agree more, Balladeer. What divides us is how we "show our energy" Should we recognize a country's "sovereign right" to commit mass murder against it's citizenry? You tell me.... You know my answer. And it's no. No country should be free to commit a massacre on its own people. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I'm an isolationist? "in the face of despotic horror"? *Sigh* Left is Right. Up is Down. War is Peace and on and on and on and on. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Noah/Brad, What I find so interesting, (I think I’ve alluded to it before), is how isolationist you are in the face of despotic horror. Franklin Roosevelt and his kind, had you been in your maturity in 1940, would have been your adversaries. I suppose we have different ideas of what "despotic horror" is. What one perceives as "freedom" may seem like torture to someone else. It seems while progressives and Democrats are desperate to give a non-violent alternative foreign diplomacy to work, the administration seems to believe war is the only way, the Orwellian concept that "War is Peace". Well, when the lion gobbles the lamb, wipes his lips and calls it peace, like Abbie Hoffman, I'm not for that peace at all. The world now agrees that the greatest threat to world peace is the U.S government, not terrorists. That should be an alarming thing to consider. If I was raised in 1940, you're right, I would have been supportive of FDR. (Just about 100% of the American people were) But 1) that's not the case, and 2) it's laughable Iraq is being compared to World War II. Vietnam is the more appropriate war to compare Iraq to. Am I really that isolationist? Am I really? Tens of thousands are being killed down in Iraq. The number will be much higher in the months ahead with no exit plan in sight. No, I am actually the contrary. I've been bleeding my heart out in attempting to end this war that's only been creating even more horror in the Middle East. I'm almost convinced now no matter if the total casualties reach 200,000, 400,000, Saddam's number, etc, you're going to defend the war no matter what. And (and I pray it doesn't happen) the war goes on and we wake up one day to hear the official word that the amount killed has matched the rough estimate Saddam killed, what will you say? I'm working to see to it this despotic horror ends, by not inciting its repercussions and working to pacify communities. Bush's war is simply nothing but another failed listen, another mirror of every other brutal war and massacre where many still failed to listen before. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I suppose we have different ideas of what "despotic horror" is. What one perceives as "freedom" may seem like torture to someone else. Hmmm, well, in the case of Iraq I would say gassing of men, women and children, mass executions, torture chambers, rapes committed by the soldiers and "royal" family, kidnappings, etc, etc, etc...would be my definition of despotic horror. If you can perceive it as a type of freedom, then so be it. The world now agrees that the greatest threat to world peace is the U.S government I would appreciate seeing any verifiable proof of that, Noah, if you have any to back that statement up. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Well, I didn't put it like that. But I kept throwing out numbers and suggesting that we scrap SDI. Still, I suppose a new thread is a good idea. I've been a little sloppy myself. Some of the numbers are a percentage of GDP, some are a percentage of the federal budget, and some are dollar figures. It all gets very confusing. When I can find the time, we can try to sort this out. But it's not 20% get it wrong. It's 20% get it right with a majority (or plurality, I'll have to check) think that the US spends 20% on foreign aid. And the numbers are dated 2002-3. At least, that's what I'm looking at. Oh yeah, 60% think we spend too much already. What're you gonna do? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
There’s seems a sort of: Yes, there are regrettably “gassing of men, women and children, mass executions, torture chambers, rapes committed by the soldiers and "royal" family, kidnappings, etc, etc, etc...” by others, but let’s get back to the real, really significant, issue which is “the greatest threat to world peace is the U.S government” mentality at play here. . . By the way Noah, You quoted me: “Franklin Roosevelt and his kind, had you been in your maturity in 1940, would have been your adversaries.” and responded: “If I was raised in 1940, you're right, I would have been supportive of FDR.” Please explain. Further, it no longer surprises me that: knowing full well the “insurrectionists’ have no more ambition than to return a nation’s men, women, and children to the nightmare they suffered before, ( like as if defeated Nazis were “rebelling” against American forces in 1946), you never the less ignore that to chastise the American effort to offer some brighter future as “despotic horror”. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
if you are going to straighten out the foreign aid figures, (and I readily admit the Mississippi vs. Massachusetts should not be considered as anything but a rough overview) I would think you would have to factor in any number of other figures. And I do firmly believe you can get figures to say anything. I believe most of your figures deal with government to government direct aid. Although I have little use for Mr. Morris as a whole, I do think he gives a general idea of what I am referring to in this article... http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/37782.htm as far as military aid or reallocation, yep, an interesting topic. I suspect if you took a vote in the general populace of the U.S., they would not oppose the U.S. military withdrawing from Korea or Europe. In fact, I suspect the left and right positions might be a bit muddled during the debate on those issues. Is the U.S. the most generous people in the world? Nope. Are they stingy? Nope. Unlike Ayn Rand, I do not think the world is white or black and that there is a whole lot of grey. Again, it depends on your perspective and interpretation. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“The rebels have warned of serious consequences if government soldiers are not withdrawn from welfare camps. . . Similar tensions to those in Sri Lanka are reported in the other worst-hit country, Indonesia. The Jakarta government and separatist rebels have accused each other of attacks in the devastated Aceh province over the last week, heightening fears it may hamper the much-needed aid effort. “ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4156763.stm Oh yeah, it’s the United States that’s the evil. Question, should American soldiers be put at risk, from hostile rebels, to aid tsunami victims? |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Hmmm, well, in the case of Iraq I would say gassing of men, women and children, mass executions, torture chambers, rapes committed by the soldiers and "royal" family, kidnappings, etc, etc, etc...would be my definition of despotic horror. If you can perceive it as a type of freedom, then so be it. No, I do not perceive that as freedom in any sort. In fact, rather the opposite. Oppression. For all we know, Saddam actually believed his brutal practices had a purpose to them, just as Bush's war is tagged with the recurring theme of "freedom" cloaked under a patriotic veil. So, if you consider all the above your official definition of "despotic hooror", I suppose you don't believe the abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the frequent bombings over Falluja and Baghdad, the over hundred thousand deaths of men, women and children as "despotic horror" either? If you truly see that as 'freedom", then so be it. I would appreciate seeing any verifiable proof of that, Noah, if you have any to back that statement up. Here's a taste of it: http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/002915.html Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Noah, "the over hundred thousand deaths of men, women and children as "despotic horror" either?" This number has been used before and refuted; repeating it regardless is a propaganda tactic. Whatever the number is, (and it is in the thousands), it should be also admitted who is doing the majority of the non-combatant killing and to what purpose. As it is, the above presentation could just as easily be used to blame the Allies for the deaths of six million Jews. Regardless of fact, your compass always goes back to America is evil North. P.S. You wrote: “The world now agrees that the greatest threat to world peace is the U.S government” Mike responded: “I would appreciate seeing any verifiable proof of that, Noah, if you have any to back that statement up.” Your reply: "Here's a taste of it: http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/002915.html " Did you actually bother to read this? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
For all we know, Saddam actually believed his brutal practices had a purpose to them, just as Bush's war is tagged with the recurring theme of "freedom" cloaked under a patriotic veil. Fine, Noah. Hussein's actions in Iraq are no different than Bush's actions. Your hatred of Bush has made you come up with comparisons that I would feel ashamed of if they were mine. You would even go so far as to try to justify a mass-murderer's actions...and then say they were no worse than the president's. I find that to be incredible.... Spare me the democratic banter of Abu-Graib, please. I realize that in lean times any point no matter how small has to be grasped tightly with both hands and squeezed as much as possible but I think it's about dry right now.... As far as your link, I saw nothing in it about terrorists at all. Did you read it thoroughly? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Noah, “Environmentalists Dispute Quotes Last week's column cited quotes from the British branches of two environmental groups, Greenpeace (search) and Friends of the Earth (search), blaming the Indian Ocean tsunami on global warming. I pulled these quotes from interviews group spokesmen gave to the British newspaper, The Independent. Both groups have disputed the quotes. In a letter to the Independent, a version that was also sent to FOXNews.com, Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace UK, and Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth in London, wrote: "Sir: On 23 December — before the earthquake and tsunami — we were asked by The Independent to comment on the dramatic increase in insurance claims resulting from hurricanes, droughts, floods and other early impacts of climate change. Our quotes appeared in an article on 27 December, as part of your coverage of the tsunami. For the record, we would like to make absolutely clear that earthquakes are not a result of climate change and we have never sought to make any link." However, it still seems that environmentalists are seeking to exploit the tragedy. For example, a similar quote from the Indonesian spokesperson for Friends of the Earth has not been disputed. And let's not forget that Greenpeace is not exactly innocent of trying to link tsunami-like disasters with global warming in the minds of the general public. All you need do is visit Greenpeace's own Web site promoting the global-warming disaster movie "The Day After Tomorrow," which features a photo of a giant wave hitting an urban area with the doctored caption, "The Day is Today: What Will You Do?"’ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143577,00.html Just to let you know I also had e-mailed the author with questions raised in this thread: Subject: "Milloy Blames Environmentalists First " Date: 1/3/2005 6:50:53 PM Central Standard Time To: stevenmilloy@yahoo.com CC: views@foxnews.com http://www.prwatch.org/node/3159 Dear Sir, Is article right or wrong? John |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: It has not been refuted. It has been contested. The only way to refute it would be to do another statistical study (actually two or three) and compare results. Websites that count numbers from newspapers don't count (and mysteriously omit all death resulting from aerial bombardment?). |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Again: “The Lancet study's headline figure of "100,000" excess deaths is a probabilistic projection from a small number of reported deaths - most of them from aerial weaponry - in a sample of 988 households to the entire Iraqi population. Only those actual, war-related deaths could be included in our count.” http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/ “Only those actual, war-related deaths could be included in our count.” Which is substantially lower. The article goes on about the flaws in the Lancet study's headline figure. Also: “a close look at the actual study, published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless.” http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887 |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
This should be really fun for history buffs: “Democratic nations seldom go to war willingly. The natural instinct of voters is to preserve peace whenever possible. Aided by a free press, there is also never a shortage of those ready to suggest alternatives to conflict. Yet sometimes war is inevitable. This is most obviously true when a nation is attacked. For some there is no other legitimate reason for war. Others believe that hostile intent on the part of other countries is also sufficient cause.” http://libraryautomation.com/nymas/americafirst.html [This message has been edited by Huan Yi (01-09-2005 02:09 AM).] |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
This number has been used before and refuted; repeating it regardless is a propaganda tactic. Whatever the number is, (and it is in the thousands), it should be also admitted who isdoing the majority of the non-combatant killing and to what purpose. As it is, the above presentation could just as easily be used to blame the Allies for the deaths of six million Jews. Perhaps, but I also believe our own media always tends to give conservative estimates of casualties in fear of a greater uprising of sentiment. That is, in its own form, propaganda as well. And with the way we have seen greater attacks each month since the invasion, I wouldn't be suprised whatsoever if it has surpassed 100,000, so I believe that estimate. Regardless of fact, your compass always goes back to America is evil North. No, my compass always goes back to the Bush Administration as a corrupt administration getting away with murder. P.S. You wrote: “The world now agrees that the greatest threat to world peace is the U.S government” Mike responded: “I would appreciate seeing any verifiable proof of that, Noah, if you have any to back that statement up.” Your reply: "Here's a taste of it: http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/002915.html " Did you actually bother to read this? Mmm hmm, I did. That was to clarify what Europe thinks as the greater threat to world peace; Iraq or the United States, in a non-scientific nevertheless significant poll. When you look at results at large which include other countries, where respondents respond saying a certain country is a threat or not, Israel is seen as the greatest threat to world peace at 59%, with the United States in the top five at 53%, one percent more than Iraq. Scientific or not, that SHOULD be startling, and notes the bridges tha have been burned since the invasion. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Fine, Noah. Hussein's actions in Iraq are no different than Bush's actions. Your hatred of Bush has made you come up with comparisons that I would feel ashamed of if they were mine. You would even go so far as to try to justify a mass-murderer's actions...and then say they were no worse than the president's. I find that to be incredible.... What I find far more incredible than that is that some are actually comparing Iraq to World War II. It seems that's all those who have a deep resentment or hatred of pacifists do. They take a previous major quagmire, and apply it to the current situation in a defensive-offensive type of manuevering. Huan Yi has done that in this thread, as his, if not hatred, resentment of pacifists is obvious, and he even went so far before as to insinuate it was because of those like myself his parents died, among with the Jews in World War II to the Tutsis in Rwanda to the innocent Iraqis under Hussein's rule. THAT's beyond incredible to me. And should history continue itself and in 2035, when World War IV comes around and we're not fighting it with sticks and stones, people like me and Huan Yi will be having these same debates. There's no justifying a mass murderer's actions here. It's all condemnation, and I condemn Bush for failing to learn the civility behind the crisis by continuing to punish innocent Iraqi families each day through further death and devastation. I just find it incredible that not only would someone's stance on this war contradict their sentiments to other disasters of our times, but even accuse those like myself, who never held a gun, never dropped a bomb, never had anything to do with these crises of humanity, as murderers. THAT'S incredible. Spare me the democratic banter of Abu-Graib, please. I realize that in lean times any point no matter how small has to be grasped tightly with both hands and squeezed as much as possible but I think it's about dry right now.... Fine. Just want you to remember and ponder it is all. As far as your link, I saw nothing in it about terrorists at all. Did you read it thoroughly? It's overall opinion in general, terrorist or not terrorist related. It's just one poll, of course, nevertheless when over 400,000 participate and record that wide of a margin, that should be alarming in any case. That should at least get you thinking and questioning. The point posting the link wasn't so much to just flat out make the case the U.S is indisputably the greatest threat to world peace, which seems to be a valid fact the world feels the U.S is more likely to be an obstacle in achieving world peace than Iraq, but to show how divided and increasingly unilateral and isolationist the U.S has become from the world, and the consequences that could bring. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Huan Yi: The initial point I was making regarding Steven Milloy's article was simply that Steven Milloy is biased. (And not just because he works for Fox News either) He is an opportunist who clearly, like I like to dish out the dirt on Bush and Balladeer likes to dish out the dirt on Kofi Annan, finds every opportunity he can to blame environmentalists in furthering his own junk science agenda, and for political and social gain. In my humble opinion, I don't agree with everything Greenpeace does (I've never volunteered for them, I volunteer for Sierra Club). I thought "The Day After Tomorrow" was one of the worst movies of 2004 simply because, even I believe, extreme weather isn't going to get THAT extreme, and I definitely find it discredible when their official web-site promotes a video clip from that film to their project. But that's just it. Milloy is no different on the right than some of these environmental organizations are on the left. Milloy has admitted in his very own words he doesn't care or read what environmentalists say, which reveals his clear, bold bias, and that is a huge problem. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently under fire, as is Merck, for the historical recall of Vioxx, and when some whistleblower Dr. David Graham had found out in advance Vioxx could increase risk of heart attack by as much as five times, the FDA continued to dismiss his research as "junk science" and even tried to silence him until Vioxx-related heart attacks occurred all throughout the nation. And with the way the FDA is accelerating drug approval, it should be alarming there may be another Vioxx lost in the shuffle. Matters like these cannot be solved by the scientists alone, nor by the Junkman. It's time we had someone who is willing to listen and care from both sides. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 [This message has been edited by Mistletoe Angel (01-09-2005 05:09 PM).] |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Noah, “What I find far more incredible than that is that some are actually comparing Iraq to World War II. It seems that's all those who have a deep resentment or hatred of pacifists do. They take a previous major quagmire, and apply it to the current situation in a defensive-offensive type of manuevering.’ World War II was a “previous major quagmire”? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You've twisted what he said, Noah, which does nothing but lessen your own credibility. What Milloy implied was that environmentalists are like the little boy who cried wolf a few too many times and was subsequently ignored because of it. And he's probably right. What Milloy forgets, and what you should be arguing instead of trying to misrepresent him, is that the little boy was eventually right. I suspect both the environmentalists and those who no longer hear their hyperbole still have lessons to learn from the story. quote: Which of the three words would you dispute, John? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Ron, “Encyclopedia article A quagmire (from "quake" + "mire") is, literally, shaky, miry ground; as a political term used to describe a foreign military campaign in which there is either no foreseeable possibility of victory or the objectives are unclearly defined, and at the same time no clear exit strategy has been formulated in the absence of victory.” http://www.onelook.com/?w=quagmire&ls=a And we both know what war the term refers back to when used. John |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Noah, “Perhaps, but I also believe our own media always tends to give conservative estimates of casualties in fear of a greater uprising of sentiment.” Who in the media do you consider most fearful, Dan Rather, Bill Moyer, Charles Rose, who? “Regardless of fact, your compass always goes back to America is evil North. No, my compass always goes back to the Bush Administration as a corrupt administration getting away with murder.” Thank you. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
You've twisted what he said, Noah, which does nothing but lessen your own credibility. What Milloy implied was that environmentalists are like the little boy who cried wolf a few too many times and was subsequently ignored because of it. And he's probably right. What Milloy forgets, and what you should be arguing instead of trying to misrepresent him, is that the little boy was eventually right. I suspect both the environmentalists and those who no longer hear their hyperbole still have lessons to learn from the story. Ron, look at this following excerpt from Milloy's October 7th, 2004 article (and yes, it's from Fox News itself) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134814,00.html "So I pay no attention to what so-called environmentalists say about Bush. Their attacks usually don't present the facts fairly and are designed to politicize and polarize voters." Is that, or is that not, precisely the point I was making? When you're the "Junkman", surely your job would be to clean up and take out the trash, right? How can you take out the trash when you don't even pay attention to the garbage that's coming in? It's like after reading a certain number of previous reports and stories, he now has gone cold turkey on all the scientific community in general and he just assumes all science is junk and just lets it slide on a conveyor belt trash compactor strategy. Right or wrong the environmentalists are, while it doesn't help to also keep crying wolf, it also doesn't help to just sit around with your arms crossed and wait for some sign of maturity. Involvement is development, and when Milloy himself is counter-crying wolf, nothing is being accomplished. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Noah, “Perhaps, but I also believe our own media always tends to give conservative estimates of casualties in fear of a greater uprising of sentiment.” Who in the media do you consider most fearful, Dan Rather, Bill Moyer, Charles Rose, who? Bill Moyer is really the only one of those three I've ever really turned to. I've never cared for Rather or Rose. (Bill Moyer retired a couple weeks ago from NOW) But I'd certainly consider Rupert Murdoch the most fearful. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Ron, “Encyclopedia article A quagmire (from "quake" + "mire") is, literally, shaky, miry ground; as a political term used to describe a foreign military campaign in which there is either no foreseeable possibility of victory or the objectives are unclearly defined, and at the same time no clear exit strategy has been formulated in the absence of victory.” http://www.onelook.com/?w=quagmire&ls=a And we both know what war the term refers back to when used. John I think you took my word usage too seriously. Quagmire is also simply a word for any major predicament or difficult time. But, in political terms, Iraq is definitely a quagmire already to me, and yes, otherwise known as "Vietnam II" in that it is a war we cannot win. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: There's an implied "because" in there, Noah. He pays no attention to environmentalists because they often don't present the facts fairly. A bit like the way you're trying to present his words to us? If you want Milloy, and those like him, to listen to you and those like you, clearly you should try to be more fair. The line between passion and fanaticism is a thin one. quote: You're doing it again.  No one was talking about the scientific community. The topic was environmentalists and, I'm sorry Noah, but you can't just create synonyms at will. Environmentalists are activists, not scientists (the fact that some scientists are also environmentalists doesn't make the obverse true). Most wouldn't know an ablation from an inversion if it bit them in the nimbostratus. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Noah, “Quagmire is also simply a word for any major predicament or difficult time.” Please provide your source for this definition. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
It's called a metaphor, John. Since writers devise them as they write, metaphors seldom have (or require) sources. Extricating one's self from a quagmire is difficult and unwelcome, but certainly not the impossibility your quote seemed to imply. I, for one, understood Noah's meaning quite clearly. I'm sorry you didn't, but fail to understand why picking nits should be more important to you than the real issues? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: How does one present facts fairly? They are either presented or they are wrong. I have no doubt that Milloy is biased, that he means what he says. Let's say The Day after Tomorrow scenarion comes true, environmentalists will say, "I told you so," and Milloy will argue that it's their fault. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Ron, "It's called a metaphor, John. Since writers devise them as they write, metaphors seldom have (or require) sources. Extricating one's self from a quagmire is difficult and unwelcome, but certainly not the impossibility your quote seemed to imply. I, for one, understood Noah's meaning quite clearly. I'm sorry you didn't, but fail to understand why picking nits should be more important to you than the real issues?" I thought the word’s usage might have something to do with it’s definition or especially its understood meaning acquired and as used in recent decades, (thereby revealing the perspective from which the event was perceived); my mistake. It would have been easier if he had written that World War II was a previous major bowl of spaghetti or pizza. But from now on, I will also understand that quagmire is also simply a word, but particularly a neutral metaphor for any major predicament or difficult time. As to the real issues, what’s the point: “No, my compass always goes back to the Bush Administration as a corrupt administration getting away with murder.” John |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
This is incorrect: quote: Historically, Athens under Pericles, Americans and the Spanish/American War, Europeans and WWI, Japan (technically, a democracy at the time) during the Russo/Japanese war, and following WWI, Americans again in the Gulf War I, and, hell, Gulf War II. Biologically, there are 4 basic instincts (the four f's). Fight starts with an F, Peace starts with a P. --- IBC does not refute the Lancet study (Did you read what they wrote) and Kaplan takes a statistical standard to pretend the numbers aren't there. Contested, yes. Refuted, no. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Brad: “This is incorrect:” Then David Gordon’s life has been spent in coming to a mistake. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
No, he just wasn't listening when his high school English teacher told him that it's really not a good idea to begin with unsupported generalizations. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Brad, The Russian Japanese War was engaged in by two countries led by Nicholas II, absolute emperor of Russia, and Emperor Mutsuhito, the first powerful Japanese emperor in centuries. World War I began when Emperor Francis Joseph’s Austria attacked Serbia, and Kaiser Wilhelm’s Germany declared war on Nicholas II’s Russia, (which was threatening to intervene), which had an alliance with France which in turn had an alliance with Britain as regards Belgium which the Germans invaded on their way to Paris. I let others, if they care, address the other examples you offered, (I think Persia trying to invade Greece may had something to do with Athens), but World War I and to a lesser extent The Russian Japanese War have been of interest to me. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
WWI started to a failed alliance system after Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serb. (I could have mixed the nationality. Serb or Croat). The ending primary players got pulled into that mess by alliances, and Germany ended up being mostly blamed for the entire thing. Austria was disciplined a bit, with the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. None of the instigating countries were brought to task. And it was Germany's humiliation and bankrupcy from other European countries which led to the rise of National Socialism (Nazi) and Adolph Hitler. Europe has always engaged in ways and means to decrease the power of opponents while bringing more benefit to themselves and increasing their holdings. It's been that way for many centuries. WWII was their comeuppance. And before you start, Huan, I intensily abhor what the Germans did to the Jews, Poles, Slavs, captives and dissidents. I've walked through Stutthoff where the memorial resides, right outside Gdansk and Sopot, and have walked through Krakow with its rebuilt red brick walls by the statue of a small child dressing in oversized Nazi BDU's. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: i'm not trying to start anything, but if one can say this, i'm curious if it's fair to say that americans are now recieving their comeuppance, both with global criticism and physical attacks, for similar policy? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Alicat, “And before you start, Huan” Why should I start? In my opinion Serbia should have been held to account, (it was its chief of Army intelligence who led and provided to the Black Hand group that carried out the assassination). But Kaiser Wilhelm was very bellicose in his support, knowing full well his relative, (a cousin I think), would be pressured in Russia to step in. In the end Wilhelm lost his job, the successor to Francis Joseph as well, and Nicholas his life, (along with his entire family). And yes, the Allied treatment, led by the French, created an environment that made Hitler possible. As an aside when Nicholas was visiting Japan as a young man, there was an assassination attempt on his life, (he suffered a head wound from the glancing sword that gave him headaches ever after). The author of the account I read offered no clear reason as to why the attempt occurred, speculating there had been some slight of etiquette to which the assailant had taken offence. It’s believed this experience, (profoundly apologized for; in fact it was another Japanese who saved him from being sushi), darkened Nicholas’s attitude toward the Japanese and thereby made him susceptible to maneuvers that led to the their war. However, in looking for confirmation of the Japanese emperor’s name I came across: “Nicholas hated the Japanese; as a young man, he had visited Japan. Drunk one night, he urinated in a Shinto temple. The Japanese policeman who found him watering the ancestors beat the prince savagely. Nicholas escaped with his life, but with his dignity sorely affronted.” http://www.avalanchepress.com/game1904_05.html So maybe it was all a matter of a tingle. [This message has been edited by Huan Yi (01-11-2005 12:51 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Obviously you feel it's safe to say, Raph, or you would not have manufactured the question. I'm not surprised.. I suppose you are right. The United States is getting its just desserts for all of the evil it has done in the world. We deserve to have our cities attacked and to have the world hate us. We don't do anything positive to aid any fellow countries and we are only concerned with conquest and political gain. The world would be a much better place without us. Satisfied? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Ralph, (?) The animosity the Arab world has for us is directly linked to our continued support to and for the existence of the state of Israel. And, in my opinion, some part of European animosity can be attributed to that as well, (it is muted, but anti-Semitism is still alive on the Continent). If it sold ovens to Arabs instead of arms to the Israelis the United States would be much more popular in the region, and other places as well. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
'deer' I'd be offended by those comments if they were from any other source but xenophobia rears its head again. As a non-American voicing opinions on American policy,(not American people or the nation itself) you've wrongfully labelled me Anti-American. again. But if I were American I suspect you'd still pose labels..red? commie? leftist? pinko? You know NOTHING of me or my intentions. Most often because you're too busy attacking to actually read anyone else's comments. I post on a predominately American board, amongst American friends. Feel free to label though, it's much easier than discourse or learning where i'm coming from. It wasn't posed to undermine Alicat or the States. I respect Alicat, he's able to maintain a discussion. What i i'm calling into question is the use of the term 'comeuppance', the term, for me, carries a sentiment of justification or getting what they 'deserved'. the question is if one can look at europe in that light, how does it differ from the current world view of american policy. are either correct? |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Huan? Raph short for Raphael. The critique I speak of goes beyond the Arab/Israel world or the current war. As an aside i think it's simplistic to view it simply in terms of anti-semetic. There are legitamate reasons to question support of Israel especially with regards to Palestine. But that's another discussion. Back to the topic. I'm talking about certain American policies like regime changes, coups and skirmishes including for example South America. Alicat stated "ways and means to decrease the power of opponents while bringing more benefit to themselves and increasing their holdings", one could argue that's exactly what the US has done in Mexico and South America. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Aenimal, I suspect he might call you a Bradshevik! |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
lol dah comrade |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You're right, Raph. I know nothing about you except for the words you write on this site. THAT is exactly what I was responding to...there was nothing in my comment about you personally, unlike your reply to me but that's ok. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
what i write? if i say i don't like strawberries, does that mean i'm anti-fruit? i don't cauliflower, does that make me anti-vegetable? do you see what i'm getting at? Of course.. a label like Anti-American, your assumptions and the way you spoke to me('i'm not surprised') aren't personal at all. classic deer. how do you attack me and yet always leave our exchanges as the 'victim.' |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Raphael, “As an aside i think it's simplistic to view it simply in terms of anti-semetic. There are legitamate reasons to question support of Israel especially with regards to Palestine.” Yes, there are reasons, but if all others went away, the existence of a Jewish state of Israel in that part of the world and the United States support thereof would make any change in attitude only temporary. Much of the Arab world is simplistic in its animosity and the reason for it. “I'm talking about certain American policies like regime changes, coups and skirmishes including for example South America” I might accept that if the U.S. had been attacked by for example Bolivians, (Colombians associated with the drug trade have good reason). I think an equal case can be made for resentment because of the United State’s success and wealth; it very capacity for charity could be a source for rancor. The have nots hating the haves for having. As to Mexico, Santa Anna, fought and lost a war. Afterward, after the American Civil War, it was United States pressure that ended the European enthusiasm for their attempt to rule Mexico. Britain lost the colonies, but they’ve gotten over it. And please note that though everyone acknowledges the issue and the related problems with illegal immigration across the border, there is no American political support for building a wall along the Rio Grande, or hunting and sending back those Mexicans who managed to get North; I think that’s because more so in Americans now than in most there is a certain level of decency that cringes at such acts. Further note, those attacking the United States were and are not from Mexico City. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Huan I agree with the statement that were there no other reasons, anti-semeticism would still be there. But it's important not to forget Zionism, their views, their actions are a major blockade to peace. Often simply critquing Israel is considered anti-semetic. read Jews for Justice in the Middle East: http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html Michael Neumann's work http://members.tripod.com/~mneumann/mnisrael.htm and Uri Avenry's commentary getting back to topic, quote: first it goes beyond physical attacks, I also meant critique and sentiment towards US policy. And it's not a simple case of "Have nots hating the Haves"..read up on the history of the area, who owns the land and how they attained it. start with the 1954 Guatemalan coup for example. there's a history of meddling and exploitation.. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Raphael, “Our position, however, is that the Palestinians have a real grievance: their homeland for over a thousand years was taken, without their consent and mostly by force, during the creation of the state of Israel. And all subsequent crimes - on both sides - inevitably follow from this original injustice.” I need go no further. However it is characterized, (injustice, etc.), I agree that the event of the creation of the state of Israel, (and where), is the original and continuing source for animosity. But what do you do with it now and the people who live there? Every power meddles for the sake of its own interests. The Soviet Union actively and aggressively meddled seeking to bring communist regimes into power in both Central and South America for itself and as fronts against their democratic enemy to the North. As far as “exploitation”, what do you mean? Companies going down and exploiting resources for profit; someone in power invited and welcomed them in, and I don’t think it was like the Spanish stripping gold from the walls and bodies. Given their internal problems, I would hardly expect any in Central or South America to look at the United States with adulation. Africa holds the United States blameworthy for Africa’s AIDS issue, because in its mind the United States is not doing enough to solve a problem the United States had little or nothing to do in creating. As an aside, South and Central America are Roman Catholic and in Roman Catholicism a rich country not doing every thing it can and more to aid poor countries is a sinning country. Even if you are not personally religious it is part of the atmosphere and the idiom of consciousness. And some people will never be satisfied. Never. [This message has been edited by Huan Yi (01-11-2005 03:07 AM).] |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: That's the problem, maybe you should. And the media should. It goes beyond the creation of the state of Israel. The problem begins with aggressive Zionism as early as the 1800's. too many in the west are missing the palestinean angle. quote: how can you deal with the people unless you know ALL there is to know about the situation and the various grievances. a key point that the west is missing in all this. quote: Agreed. therefore going back to the question i posed. If one can say that Europe recieved it's comeuppance for its policies against countries like Germany, then is it fair to use the same idea regarding US policy? Or neither? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Raphael, “how can you deal with the people unless you know ALL there is to know about the situation and the various grievances. a key point that the west is missing in all this.” Save us some time. What is recommended be done with the Jewish state of Israel and it’s citizens now ? “If one can say that Europe recieved it's comeuppance for its policies against countries like Germany, then is it fair to use the same idea regarding US policy? Or neither?” Those are questions for Alicat to answer; he said it. I didn’t. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: lemme just look in my big book of answers to life's problems..lol Sorry Huan, don't have all the answers. i believe truth and accountability should play a factor in the Israelie/Palestinean conflict. It isn't, and a large part of it is do to revisionist history and slanted western media coverage..shrugs |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
going back to South America, read up on the affects of early US backed coups and why they happened(reasons aren't always political). Then read up on the affects NAFTA has had on South America. Is the US solely to blame for what plagues these countries? Of course not. That's a simplistic view, one I don't harbour. But the root of backlash and criticism is more than jealousy, and that's something that people should understand. i also have to disagree with your comments regarding roman catholicism being an overriding factor in that criticism. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ok, Raph, if my words offended you, consider this an apology. I, for example, don't like cauliflower, either. There is a question I would like for you to expand on, however, and I submit it respectfully..As a non-American voicing opinions on American policy,(not American people or the nation itself) you've wrongfully labelled me Anti-American. Since our leaders determine American policy and since we elect our leaders and since polls show the majority of Americans support those policies, then is what you are saying is that you like Americans but only those who share your viewpoints? From the examples you have given, policy that you don't agree with goes back for a heck of a lot of years. Are there any of our policies that you DO agree with? I don;t think it's that easy to separate the nation from it's policies when the majority of the nation supports them. Just curious - and without insults.. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Don't you people ever sleep?! Sheesh, this thread was busy and WAAAAY off topic last night, and that's ok. Huan, my 'before you start' thingy was put there just in case you misread my comments regarding Germany as pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic. Seeing how this has been done in other threads, I felt my fears justified. The 'comeuppance' part bothers me as well, so no need to get all bent out of shape. It's that blasted thing of mine where I can see and argue all sides of an issue. It can be a right bugger at times. In many ways, the US is having their comeuppance, and I do NOT include 9/11 in that, though some do. Centuries of protectionism, treaties, broken promises, dirty deals and shifty negotiations, such as getting proprietary rights to sugar cane plantations for a handful of pretty beads and some steel axe heads. That's part of responsibility and consequences, and we, as a nation, are having to deal with the sins of our fathers, as a figure of speech, just as every nation has to, including their citizens. Is the US getting their comeuppance? Yes. Are we helping others despite that? Yes. There are times when I'd like nothing more than for all the old protectionistic trade contracts dating back to the 1830's to be shredded and used to make pinatas. Start fresh with a fairer discussion table. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Deer most of the policies I speak of, past and present, aren't even made public until long after the fact. (That's the beauty of the Freedom of Information Act.) Many of the monsters being fought are the result of those policies. If we don't learn from the past we're doomed to repeat those mistakes, and whether you agree with me or not, that's what's happening today. It's true many support these policies, but not always for the right reasons. Fear, ignorance and complacency are godsends for governments seeking public support for policy. And that's not an American trait, it's a human trait. I'm not blaming Americans for being confused, especially after a horrible attack on their own soil. I'm blaming the government who would exploit that fear, or exploit their ignorance of certain areas of the world(Middle East affairs) |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Thanks Alicat, like i said it was never intended as an attack, just a question of the word comeuppance. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
So we support the policies you disapprove of because the majority of us who agree with our government's policies is afraid, ignorant, complacent and confused? I'll have to think on that one...it's confusing... Thanks for responding. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
BTW, when I refer to you using the word ignorant I realize you do not mean it in the insulting way, rather a lack of knowledge of particular subjects. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: No. Sigh, the dangers of generalization. I'm trying to avoid it, and you're trying to pin me to it. There are, of course, a wide variety of factors to consider. As I don't have unlimited time to spend online or on discussions, I have to limit myself to offering examples. Fear, complacency, ignorance and confusion are some, not all, of the reasons one might support policies that are hurting world opinion. You fail to understand that I've never claimed the tactics I abhore, are exclusive to the US. When you've accused me in the past I've given examples of other nations actions and have stated that we shouldn't be repeating those same mistakes. And when Huan Yi's commented that 'Every power meddles for the sake of its own interests.' did you see me disagree? What bothers me, the reason I'm constantly at odds with some, is the ease in which criticism of foreign policy flows from fingers. Yet when stating examples of similar actions, or offering examples of why nations are at odd with the US, it's immediately considered anti-Americanism. But the government of a nation, and the people of a nation are two different things. I don't think you honestly believe that every facet of government policy is directly tied to voters. You don't vote on assissinations, arms deals, secret coups and regime changes. And I don't think you honestly believe that all these actions have noble intent. These are the policies that have angered and created current critics and enemies. These are the policies I'm asking you to educate yourselves on and consider, while youre passing blame outward. It's not in contempt for Americans, but in concern for them. I live beside em, and happen to know alot of them.. What further agrivates me is that you think I'm in total agreement with/or justifying actions against the US, I don't. I'm speaking of, doing some small part to educate people who wouldn't otherwise know, things in the hopes that they don't repeat themselves or further escalate existing problems. People should know WHY things are what they are, it's not as simplistic as jealousy, fanaticism etc. There are also valid reasons, things being repeated under the current administration, that will ensure a cycle of criticism and even hatred will continue. Why is this wrong? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Raphael, “it's not as simplistic as jealousy, fanaticism etc.” But it well could be. Man has a voracious expecting appetite for satisfaction and an equal capacity for finding blame when his desires are not met or quenched; religions and philosophies have recognized this for thousands of years. The check and balance system of the government of the United States is based on the founding fathers’ mistrust of human nature. I am simply not convinced the United States or anyone else could do enough, including a second crucifixion, to finally bring universal content. The history of the United States has its blemishes, (with other histories as precedent and guide, how could it not), and yet for all its current power it has shown commendable restraint and concern for its actions. And I think the world at large is more concerned with the humanity of others by virtue of the United States’ however blemished example and influence. I think that is something to be noted and derive hope from. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: But it's not. quote: Agreed, but why add to the discontent? quote: Agreed again, I've never denied all that is right with the US and their ideals. But we also know that every ideal, every nation, and every person has a negative aspect. That aspect should be explored and understood, not ignored, otherwise what growth is there? We learn from our mistakes, or at least, we're supposed to. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, I really don't understand why you speak of what I am trying to "pin" to you, why I aggravate you, and other digs when I told you I apologized and asked a question in a respectful way with no rancor involved. I wasn't trying to be disrespectful or antagonistic. I simply asked a question in what I felt was a respectful way. I'm not blaming Americans for being confused, especially after a horrible attack on their own soil. I'm blaming the government who would exploit that fear, or exploit their ignorance of certain areas of the world(Middle East affairs) That was the comment of yours I based my question on. I didn't misrepresent it in any way and simply asked my question based on it with no "pinning" involved. I believe my question was civil. Why are nations at odds with the US? As you said... the government of a nation, and the people of a nation are two different things I do not believe that the people of nations are against the US, except in some cases where their governments have influenced them. I've lived in enough countries to be able to have this opinion. Some governments? Oh, yes but I doubt that their opposition is based on assassinations, secret coups and arms deals. The Israel question has some effect for sure. The oil for food and how the US killed the cash cow has also had an effect. The war in Iraq has had an effect although the 30-odd countries who participated have not seemed to suffer from it. I've heard no one protest agains Austrailia, who has been an excellent ally. Has the US meddled in other country's affairs? Undoubtably....some good and some bad. Im just glad I'm not one of the behind-the-scenes people who try to keep the world on an even keel. I don't even want to know about it....just keep the earth in one piece. I have a question. I believe you are not old enough to have gone through the Cuban blockade but, if you had been around, what would you have said about it? Would you have criticized Kennedy for interfering with Cuba's rights or would you have applauded the fact that the US government stepped in to take such action? Just curious..... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
For anyone interested in the true history of the Palestinian issue, I again recommend the book "From Time Immemorial: Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict" by a research historian, Joan Peters. It's available on Amazon. It's a real eye-opener and handily dispels all the revisionist history and propaganda put forth by Arafat and his peers that is pervasive today about the situation. Go ahead, I dare ya! |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Raphael, “Agreed, but why add to the discontent?” One can add to the discontent by doing anything, something, or nothing. Whatever, there will be those who find more injury. I know a few who could swim through a sea of corpses only to tell me of how hard their personal lives are and who is to blame. I would sooner be able to change the Earth’s rotation that convince some they might be mistaken. At some point, one just says enough and goes off to live his own life in peace. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
If you're being genuine and I've jumped the gun, than I sincerely apologize. But no offense, you've apologized before and yet here we are at it again in this thread. Consider the rest of the response an explanation of my position, which will hopefully ensure that that a misunderstanding/label won't occur again. quote: again. merely examples. not all, some. and if not directly than to their after effects. quote: there's the finger pointing, should i call that anti-european sentiment? we've discussed this in other threads and i offered examples of US companies like halliburton, skirting around US sanctions and playing benifiting from the the oil for food program. if there's contempt for the european nations who exploited the deal why not for halliburton and those in charge..like oh, say dick cheney. and if you do agree with that, how do you then resolve the ethical dilema of an adminstration handing over no-bid contracts to companies like this, comapnies who supported and benifited from the enemy you're fighting? As for Australia and other allies, nothing has happened to them..yet. But don't underestimate them or other allies, including canadians(shhhh we're in afghanistan and have some soldiers in iraq on exchange missions), as potential targets if it continues to escalate. as for the cuban blockade, are you speaking of the embargo itself imposed in 1960 or the cuban missle crisis? both are linked of course. if i may, i'd like to offer a little background for any who might not know what the hell we're talking about now as well as offer my opinion. the initial reason for the embargo, and what led to many US led coups in south america, was the socialist expropriation of land from foreign owners(mostly american) and back to its people. a noble ideal. but as in guatemala, the US rejected offers of compensation for the land. I think it was cost plus 5%. Not exactly sure. After talks broke down Eisenhower proposed the embargo in 1960. Big mistake. Add to that the failed Bay Of Pigs attack and Kennedy's expansion of the embargo in 1963 and what was Castro to do? The embargo and restrictions led him to seek help elsewhere, and the USSR swept in. Now instead of having a socialist government to contend with, they adapted the soviet system and you now had a communist government instead. and right in your backyard. As for the Cuban missle crisis? The Russians, recognizing an opportunity to get closer to US targets, shipped missles to Cuba. Legally they had the right to do so as the US had been placing missles across Europe and as close as Turkey. So who was at fault here? Russia was simply responding to what the US had done in Turkey, a desperate Cuba, due to the severe embargo, offered them the opportunity. shrugs. that's the history and cause of the situation, that said, seeing as canada would have been right in line with those attacks as a close US ally. i thank Kennedy for getting them the hell away from here. but, im also critical for creating that situation. the embargo undermined their socialist plan and forced Cuba right into the hands of the USSR. A monster created by policy. recap..no to embargo, but thanks for the getting rid of the nukes |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Denise i hope you don't for a second think i believe in the propganada or condone the methods of Arafat. The articles I offered are by Israeli/Jewish writers who have lived through and understand both sides to the conflict. Psst Ariel Sharon, he's not a peacenik, read about his past and tell me he's not on par with Arafat if not worse. John it's vital that we understand and learn from the situations we're in, otherwise what hope is their for change? [This message has been edited by Aenimal (01-12-2005 12:48 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"there's the finger pointing, should i call that anti-european sentiment? " No, but you may call it anti-French sentiment, which I will confess to readily. One may change the subject by pointing a finger at Haliburton but that doesn't make either side right. Curious thing is that I saw no derrogatory remarks aimed at Haliburton when Clinton awarded them two no-bid contracts but only when Bush did. But, as you point out, that's been hashed around on other threads. I'll second John's comment and leave it at that.. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Can't argue in favour of everything Clinton did. i don't like Clinton as much as you think I do. What i can say, is that i know that under his administration Halliburton and/or their subsidiary deal(s) were blocked due to direct conflicts with Oil-for-Food program regulations. shrugs. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Not at all, Raph. Your comments on the Arab-Israeli problem just brought that book back to mind again and I highly recommend it for anyone wishing to get the true complete picture of the origins of the conflict. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
