Clarification/Follow-up by SanchoPanza on 09/14/04 6:28 am:
It would be nice if you took your Starbucks, your KFC, your scammimng corporations out of the rest of the world, pull your necks back into your 1930's isolation and let everyone else actually have a life.

No one wants your "aid" which is the lowest rate of any country as a % of GPD and the second lowest of any developed country per capita. Most of your aid goes to two countries, Israel and Egypt and much of the rest is tied up with conditions that ensure that the money ends up back in American pockets for providing services that could be developed more efficiently otherwise.
You are too full of your own self importance and most of the world would be happy to see you all die in a plague. It would certainly solve a lot of problems.
I'm from a country on list 1 and guess what? 80% of the people here opposed what you did in Iraq with the support of our cynical government who were only interested in licking your butt. We don't want your thanks, nor your products, nor your one sided "deals" that leave everyone (including many of your own people) but your chosen elite worse of year by year.
Get a clue and stop reading crap propaganda about how the whole world turns on your effort and realise that unless you get off this ego trip then you will continue to receive uninvited messages carried by large aircraft, rudely delivered to the desks of your largest corporations.
Your notice is disgusting and shows your complee ignorance of the world at large that has been clearly influenced by your own media and nothing else.

Try looking up how much "forign aid" you "give" comppared to the cost of this war... not just to you but to the country you attacked on a false pretext. Compare that to what other countries give in relation to the size of their population or their money generating capacity.
Try to find out what is paid for by the money you provide in foriegn aid and the maybe you might have half a clue.

The rest will be too complex until you have carried out the first exercise.

Clarification/Follow-up by kindj on 09/14/04 7:56 am:
Sancho,

>>No one wants your "aid"<<

Really? Then why do we hear the whole world crying like babies as soon as we even think about reducing it?

Yeah, we give a lot to Egypt and Israel. Egypt is still somewhat of a mystery to me, but I've donated not only money, but actual armed service to Israel, and would do so again. When every other nation in that region (and many nations in Europe) are clamoring for the destruction not only of the State of Israel, but for the extermination of the Jewish race, yeah, I'll stand up for them. You are either for them or against them, and you've made your position perfectly clear.

I personally don't give a frog's fat ass if you drink our Starbucks or benefit from our wealth. To my mind, wealth spent overseas on ungrateful backstabbers is wealth that could have been better spent here.

Go cry to the UN. They can sit with you and hold your hand and hug you while you piss and moan about the mean ol' US. Of course, that's ALL they'll do, as they're as impotent as Bob Dole without his Viagra.

I'm an American. I'm free to live as I see fit, and to succeed or fail as I choose. If the rest of the world doesn't like that, no one is stopping them from returning the checks. But you don't see a whole lot of that, do you? Hell, no. If you don't like where the money comes from, DON'T TAKE IT!!!

I'm an American, and a Texan to boot, so I say if the rest of the world doesn't like it, they can kiss my ass.

DK

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 09/14/04 8:18 am:
Sancho;please clarify :1st you say that the world doesn't want our aid and then you complain that we are not giving enough. But that is typical . Bush pledges 15 billion dollars for fighting AIDS in Africa so of course AIDS activists demonstrate against him . Makes plenty of sense to me.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 09/14/04 8:35 am:
Sancho,

Let us assume that you are 100% correct in that our foreign aid is the lowest of any developed country as a percentage of GDP. I happen to believe that that is incorrect, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that it is true.

We have by far the largest GDP of any country in the world. Which means that on a real dollar basis, we give more foreign aid than any other country in the world... by far. We gave by far the largest amount of actual dollars in 2003, nearly double what the next largest country gave ($15.8 billion worldwide, compared to Japan the, #2 country, which gave $8.9 billion in 2003). This amounted to 0.92% of GNI (Gross National Income).

Now, what do you think the world's reaction would be if we did indeed stop giving foreign aid?

In 2003, USAID showed total distributions of $7.5 billion. Of that less than 10% was to Israel or to Egypt. The bulk of it was to countries in Africa ($874 million), Asia ($910 million), Europe ($539 million), Eurasia ($688 million), and Latin America ($497 million). This doesn't include REGIONAL programs that help multiple countries, totaling an additional $3.96 billion.

I have a feeling that other countries besides Israel and Egypt would be severly adversly effected by cutting of this foeign aid.

Specifically, Jordan ($250 million), India ($191 million), Indonesia ($142 million), Bangladesh ($109 million), Serbia ($110 million), Russia ($148 million), and Ukraine ($155 million) would be the hardest hit in terms of actual dollars. In terms of adverse economic impact, I have no idea which countries would be hardest hit... I suspect that some of the African countries would fall into that category, even though they are receiving fewer actual dollars, because every dollar they receive is actually a higher percentage of their economies.

Israel and Egypt would both survive the economic effect of the loss of aid. Both Israel and Egypt have good, strong economies that are not completely reliant on foreign aid. Both have industry, both have thriving economies (Israel even more so than Egypt), and both can afford to feed their own people. They would survive.

The rest of Africa, Asia, Latin America and Eurasia would not.

That is probably why so many countries are begging for our aid... even if fat-cat Europeans like you want us to lay off. You think that by getting rid of US aid to the rest of the world you are saving them from the evil American Empire. Saving them from what? Their next meal? An education? Medicines and vaccines that heal them?

You claim that you have the third world's best interests at heart. You think you are the one who is in touch with what the rest of the world wants? The rest of the world wants what EVERYONE wants... to live another day. And cutting US foreign aid is NOT the way to accomplish that.

US isolationism would result in MILLIONS of deaths by disease and hunger and war. But as far as you are concerned, that's fine, as long as the USA get's out of the rest of the world's business.

Guess what? The rest of the world WANTS us in their business.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 09/14/04 8:39 am:

kindj:

Dude, you da man. I liked what you said - well not the Texas part, but the rest was good.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 09/14/04 8:50 am:
DK,

I'll second that 'you da man', even the Texas part.

Steve

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 09/14/04 9:54 am:
Sancho,

Instead of throwing out vague statistics on US foreign aid, aka propaganda, why not tell the rest of the story? Like the 33.6 billion per year from the private sector, through groups such as World Vision where Americans like my wife and I sponsored 733,000 poor children last year? What are you doing to help besides berating the US for not meeting your standards?

And if you don't want our Starbucks and
KFC's, tell them...not us.

Steve

Clarification/Follow-up by SanchoPanza on 09/14/04 12:44 pm:
When I say that the world doesn't want your aid I mean that the rest of the world would rather not get screwed for what they make and have to rely on handouts. Yes other countries do it but you are the market leaders and you control the market.

What do you mean by vague statisics aka propaganda. Is that what you call facts you don't like every time?

Let's not be vague eh let's get really precise.

ODA in U.S. Dollars (Millions) ODA as GNP Percentage
Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2000 2001 2002 2003
1. Norway 1,264 1,346 1,746 2,043 0.8 0.83 0.91 0.92
2. Denmark 1,664 1,599 1,632 1,747 1.06 1.01 0.96 0.84
3. Netherlands 3,075 3,155 3,377 4,059 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.81
4. Luxembourg 116 142 143 189 0.7 0.8 0.78 0.8
5. Sweden 1,813 1,576 1,754 2,100 0.81 0.76 0.74 0.7
6. Belgium 812 866 1,061 1,887 0.36 0.37 0.42 0.61
7. Ireland 239 285 397 510 0.3 0.33 0.41 0.41
8. France 4,221 4,293 5,182 7,337 0.33 0.34 0.36 0.41
9. Switzerland 888 908 933 1,297 0.34 0.34 0.32 0.38
10. United Kingdom 4,458 4,659 4,749 6,166 0.31 0.32 0.3 0.34
11. Finland 371 389 466 556 0.31 0.33 0.35 0.34
12. Germany 5,034 4,879 5,359 6,694 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.28
13. Canada 1,722 1,572 2,013 2,209 0.25 0.23 0.28 0.26
14. Spain 1,321 1,748 1,608 2,030 0.24 0.3 0.25 0.25
15. Australia 995 852 962 1,237 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.25
16. New Zealand 116 111 124 169 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.23
17. Portugal 261 267 282 298 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.21
18. Greece 216 194 295 356 0.19 0.19 0.22 0.21
19. Japan 13,062 9,678 9,220 8,911 0.27 0.23 0.23 0.2
20. Austria 461 457 475 503 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.2
21. Italy 1,368 1,493 2,313 2,393 0.13 0.14 0.2 0.16
22. United States 9,581 10,884 12,900 15,791 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.14


Aid per capita and DON'T tell me it's propganda to compare countries in relation to their population or their capacity to produce wealth. Their is no kudos in slapping yourselves on the back over the huge amounts of money your government supplies in aid just because your population and your land mass happens to be so much bigger. THAT is godammned propaganda.

1. Luxembourg $352.30 per person
2. Norway $307.95 per person
3. Denmark $302.72 per person
4. Netherlands $216.71 per person
5. Sweden $191.48 per person
6. Switzerland $150.30 per person
7. France $104.68 per person
8. United Kingdom $74.88 per person
9. Belgium $74.25 per person
10. Finland $73.01 per person
11. Ireland $72.11 per person
12. Japan $71.53 per person
13. Germany $67.96 per person
14. Austria $50.07 per person
15. Australia $45.30 per person
16. Canada $40.36 per person
17. Spain $33.07 per person
18. Portugal $26.82 per person
19. New Zealand $25.23 per person
20. United States $23.76 per person
21. Italy $17.24 per person
22. Lesotho $0 per person
23. Saudi Arabia $0 per person
24. Korea, South $0 per person



You really don't know this sh*t. I guess you just eat Fox News for breakfast, lunch and dinner and live in your dream world where America is the father of all nations.

Clarification/Follow-up by SanchoPanza on 09/14/04 12:47 pm:
Don't forget either that at least 6 billion of that "aid" goes to Israel and Egypt in reciprocal agreements so the figure that goes to the rest of the world is even much lower.


What I do is personal and I don't broadcast it over the net. I'll tell you one thing I don't sponsor Christian fundamentalism in the third world. Have you ever been to check out any of the places that your money goes to or any of the children you are supposed to be sponsoring? I bet they have a real nice church.

Clarification/Follow-up by SanchoPanza on 09/14/04 12:57 pm:
When every other nation in that region (and many nations in Europe) are clamoring for the destruction not only of the State of Israel, but for the extermination of the Jewish race, yeah, I'll stand up for them. You are either for them or against them, and you've made your position perfectly clear.


On that point you can go f*ck yourself.

How dare you suggest that I am against the entire Jewish race and want to see them destroyed. Only through your own bullsh*t "logic" can you drag up sh*t like that. You are either for them or against them? Again f*ck you for trying that sh*t with me. Don't ever do it again.

Too many paranoid Jews on this site and too many paraniod armchair warriors both retired and never have beens.

If I see a fundmental wrong then I call it whether it's by Jews or not that does not make me anything but a person, that is pointing out a fundamental wrong. F*ck you again for your insinuation. F*ck you again for good luck.

Clarification/Follow-up by kindj on 09/14/04 1:10 pm:
>>Actually, I don't watch a whole lot of TV news. Too much bias from both sides. Well, I take that back, I DO watch a little, but when something really gets my interest, I do my own research.

>>live in your dream world where America is the father of all nations.<<

Actually, we're pretty young, so I guess we're the child of all nations, if you want to be actually correct about it. And yeah, it's a dream world. A world where if you can dream it, it can happen. A world where millions of people dream about coming. If it's so bad, how come those folks keep on pouring in? Even from oh-so-civilized Europe? Hmmmmmm??

>>the rest of the world would rather not get screwed for what they make and have to rely on handouts.<<

Like I said, don't take the checks. Or better yet, pull themselves out of the hole that corrupt governments have put them in. We'll be happy to help, as we've had pretty good luck doing that ourselves.

>>ODA as GNP Percentage<<

I think that's already been covered by our resident economist.

>>but you are the market leaders and you control the market.<<

Ahhh, now we're getting somewhere. To the root of the issue, as they say. Perhaps you'd be happier if Russia, France, China, N Korea, or freakin' Jamaica controlled the market? Better yet, let's just pool all our money and give it to the UN, they're a pretty responsible bunch. In case you haven't noticed, communism has failed as a viable economic system, and socialism ain't far behind.

>>What I do is personal and I don't broadcast it over the net.<<

We agree. I don't either.

>>Have you ever been to check out any of the places that your money goes to or any of the children you are supposed to be sponsoring? I bet they have a real nice church. <<

Actually, yeah I have. I've been to several mission sites within the US (whoops, we're not talking about us, are we). OK, how about the ones in Guatamala, Kenya, and Nigeria? Oh, yeah, I've also been to some of the ones in the Phillipines. And guess what I found? A "nice church" is not real high on their list of priorities. A place to meet without being shot kinda is in some of them. But they meet where they can and my bet is that the Lord hears them just as good as he does the people at St. Peter's. Maybe even better.

>>Don't ever do it again.<<

I'll do as I please.

The war on terror is more than a war on terror. It's a war on the fundamental right of all humans to live FREE and to worship however and whomever they choose, so long as it's done in a peaceful manner. Radical Islam is striving to do what Russia couldn't: dominate the world, by force if necessary. Sorry if I came across too harsh there, I really am, but Israel is not up for compromise for me, and I'm not Jewish.

>>Too many paranoid Jews on this site and too many paraniod armchair warriors both retired and never have beens.<<

And most of the reasons for the paranoia of the groups you mention stem directly from Europe, both past and present. You know the saying, "Fool me once...."

Europe so loves to be the fountain of so-called civilization. Europe is on the verge of "civilizing" themselves right out of history, if they keep turning a blind eye to the realities of the world.

Again, sorry about the insinuation. Got a little passionate.

DK

Clarification/Follow-up by Yiddishkeit on 09/14/04 2:05 pm:

Panza,

*Too many paranoid Jews on this site**

Actually the more concerned Jewish people are on this site the better. For the record there is only two on this board that I'm aware of....Elliot and myself, so stop with the streotyping.

Many issues are not as pertinant and/or not as black and white as people make them out to be. For me there are issues, however, that have implications and ramifications to my Jewish heritage and for the future of Israel, as well as the country I'm a citizen in...the United States.


**armchair warriors both retired and never have beens**

Actually this board has Vietnam vets, Gulf War vets and other military served individuals. I'm an ex-Marine and Elliot served in the IDF for a short stint. Why you even mention retired persons shows a lack of respect. I'm trying to give you the beneift of the doubt, but at the same time your tone has become obnoxious. Check yourself and don't mistake my kindness for a weakness.



Bobby

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 09/14/04 3:17 pm:
Sancho,

I'm not concerned with 'broadcasting' our personal charity all over the net, I do not need to slap myself on the back nor hear any congrats from anyone about it. It's very personal, and one of the most fulfilling things I do every month to provide a little help...for real needs such as food, healthcare and education for a young girl in Lebanon and another in El Salvador. I haven't been there, but I can almost guarantee they have no 'nice church,' which is not the primary focus of World Vision. My concern is to help meet their needs, out of love. Those girls mean everything to me, something you can't factor into ODA's and GDP's. THAT is the generosity of the American people which your statistics can never measure.

Clarification/Follow-up by Chouxxx on 09/14/04 3:20 pm:
Sancho:::Thanks for your eye-opening statistics and dialogue. Very enlightening. Americans are generous people, but lazy as far as knowing anything about the rest of the world.

Men think with their d*cks as you see here on this Board, and don't understand that there are *consequences* for our actions if we make big mistakes. Just seeing that we are losing the War in Iraq *bigtime* only causes them to cling to macho back-slapping here on the Board. Then, hurl insults to anyone who offers a differing opinion.

Choux

Clarification/Follow-up by SanchoPanza on 09/15/04 12:40 am:
It's not exactly charitable to hold your bounty like a sword over the benficeries every time you want to force your views on them.
That is not freedom at all, that is economic terror. It's another way of bullying people just as cynical as offering sweeteners to nations like Pakistan (who harbour terorists) to use their ground to invade Afghanistan. Stick carrot/ Carrot stick. Conditional "aid" espiacially as advocated in this thread is an abhorant practice and I'm sure that every country on the planet would prefer to operate outside of such a cynical routine and break up the economics system that leaves you with so much and them with so little.
Take Nepal. They received 100 million dollars of military aid in 2002 to combat the Maoist rebels but it was said if they spent 10% of that on improving the infrastructure of rural villages then people would be much less likely to join the Maoists.

When I was there during operation Iraqi Freedom the King recognised the existance of a dual state and the right if the Maoists to join the government. Yet since then they have been pushed out again and just last week America provided the King (who suspended the democratic government in favour of direct rule two years ago) with another $1,000,000 in military aid to atttack the Maoists , who are again defined as terrorists.

Despotic rulers the world over simply have to cry terrorist when anyone opposses them and they now have a free hand, filed with American weapons to smash their opposition.

I'm sure the rural Nepalese would appreciate you keeping your aid in this instance.

Clarification/Follow-up by purplewings on 09/15/04 5:45 am:
Good morning Sancho,

So what you've just said is that we should give to everyone, but expect nothing to ever be returned to us.
Not even a tad of loyalty or compassion.

That's perfect as an individual - very christian. However, as a nation of people, it would be non-productive. It's a wise government that can deal on the basis of "I give this and you give that". Other nations have to accept some responsibility as well. On the whole what we give is much greater than what we receive anyway.

Don't mistake us for Santa Claus. We've never made that claim.

PW

Clarification/Follow-up by kindj on 09/15/04 6:18 am:
Chouxx,

>>there are *consequences* for our actions if we make big mistakes.<<

There are consequences for inaction as well.

As to the part about us males thinking with lower appendages:

Do I still fall into that category if I've had a vasectomy? I mean, that's sorta like neutering, right?

DK

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 09/15/04 6:36 am:
Sancho,

Is aid without accountability a wise policy?

Clarification/Follow-up by SanchoPanza on 09/15/04 8:13 am:
There is a middle ground sometimes.

It seems so odd that a country with little political spectrum can produce so much extremist thought. It always seems to be all or nothing, one extreme to the other. Whenever I suggest that something is not quite right there is always someone trying to nail the oppossing exremist view to me and I get really fed up countering assinine comments that people direct at me as if I had raised them myself. If I say that hating Black people is pointless that does not mean that I hate white people. Likewise if I say that using aid as a political baseball bat is wrong it does not automatically follow that I think that there should be no consideration to the actions of any administration that receives aid.
You cannot validate your extremist views by arguing that the opposite extremist view is also invalid. No one suggested aid without accountability, the issue was a presedental announcement that aid would be withheld from any country that not only dared to object to American policy but failed to take an active part in it.

The idea is moronic quite frankly and I wouldn't want to get into degrees of it because the thoughtless poster never bothered to think about that in the first place. If you want an indepth discussion then use a little depth in the first place.

Clarification/Follow-up by purplewings on 09/15/04 10:56 am:
Evidently I am the 'thoughtless' poster since I posted this commentary to see what the reactions of other would bring.

I do see that you tend to criticize and when you are brought up on it, you say you didn't say that in the first place....and then it ends up being the fault of the poster. What do you think is wrong with that picture?

Accepting personal responsibility...?

Clarification/Follow-up by SanchoPanza on 09/15/04 11:20 am:
As I said, when I ctiricise what other people say I get nailed with this ridiculous bipolar attitude that to disagree with the veiw of one person is to take the extreme opposing view. It's nonsense and simply a tool to create diametric arguments that can allow for more extreme ranting. I might rant but I rant for moderation. Mostly I try to get people to try to understand a view other than the one they hold because often people don't consider an issue beyond that, which is why there is so much misunderstanding in the world.
If someone came on this board saying how Saddam Hussein was a man of peace I would be here to pull their argument apart just as I am here to pull apart any oother argument that doesn't seem to have a foundation in reality. Because there are no people advocating that the subject has not arisen.
If someone puts forward an absurd idea and I point out it is absurd then it is also absurd for people to suggest that I am advocating an equally aburd idea simply by dismissing the first one. It happens here frequently and it makes for a lot of pointless toing and froing. When I strat advocating that aid should be supplied solely upon need regardless of any other factor then people can raise the issue with me. You clearly raised the subject that aid should be entirely conditional to the support given to American foriegn policy and I disagreed. Personally I would like to see all aid passed through an international agency and conditional to international standards rather than nationalistic demands. I'd like to see an international military force funded the same way too, but there are too many national interests in the way of that little scheme. You want a global economy, you need a global administration.