America Haters Unite!! (1 Viewer)

[doggogo8]

Read this.

$148,000,000,000 On a war that has killed over 100,000 people.
$350,000,000 On a relief effort that could save over 100,000 people from disease.

The American Government has spent over 400 times more on death than they have on life--that's a pretty darn good indication of their priorities.

The American National Debt increases by $1.77 billion per day, bringing it to its current total of over $7.5 trillion. The average American household has over $120 thousand in debt.

As a percentage of the total American Debt (conservatively estimated at $20 trillion), the Tsunami Relief pledge is about 0.0047%.

In conclusion, the American government is not so stingy as they are 'selectively stingy'. That's what I hate about the American Government.

Ah, i like that piece of information , SARCASM,
but if u really blame who, u shouldn't lame the american people as an whole , u should blame the BUSH administration and the GENIUS that voted for bush,
all his cry of "WEOPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION" and "AXIS OF EVIL" that is a bible-beater, aiming for the uneducated to vote for him.
Bush is sly, he spends all those money, money FROM THE TAX-PAYERS(AND MIDDLE CLASS), for his own purpose, for his own war, his oil money, BUSH he is tooooo ridiculous!@>@

 

[Kierkegaard]

Kierkegaarde spreekt je Nederlands

No.

but if u really blame who[???], u shouldn't lame the american people as an whole

I didn't. I shall not bother with the rest of your post.

 

[ZabZu]

Someone made a point about how the ammount of aid america originally gave was equivilent to half that of an f-16.
Let me point out that indonesia, a country of such poor people, has expensive jet fighters... Now i am not saying that a nation such as India should have to give up its weapons, as it is in a war and needs them for its sovereignty but what about indonesia... They have jet fighters while their people need aid, homes.... Hows bout they sold off some of their military in order to make up the money.

Yeh i agree. Its very frustrating that a country such as North Korea concentrates on increasing its military strength instead of providing food and adequate support for its population.

 

[Comrade nathan]

I think what people are saying about the US stating giving aid is combating terrorism at the same time,may have be taken out of context a bit.

Obviously the terrorist are not like the US government make them out to be, which is the cartoonish evil which wish nothing more to make the world suffer.For them to push this neo con war effort the need to make the illlusion they are defeating terrorism.

This aid is a bit of a double sword in a way. In one way the aid relief to muslim countries can slow the rise of Islamic extremism in this reason. If the US gave no or little aid, or if any Western nation gave little aid, then the radical Imams are given amo to recruit more young men into the Islamic groups. The can tell people that the Western christain nations do not care for the Muslim world and do not help us at times of disaster. So in way, but not how the US portray they are slowing terrorism, but ofcourse this is a band aid solution.

The other side is of the sword is to gain support for the war effort. The aid campaign can rasie morale of citizens at home who are starting to doubt the US intentions and the affect of a war on terror. This gives a bit of hope to citiznes that the US are not making matters worse and that the are still battling this cartoonish terror demon.

With that said, what can the countries do, they cant refuse aid. All they can really do is be weary of the US attentions. It would even be unwise for the governments to expose the real intentions of the western nations. Im waiting for trade aggrements to be enacted on as way for rebuilding the country and futher more opening up the markets.

 

[Bone577]

Per GDP the US provides very little aid at all. I am unaware of the figures but pretty much all developed countries give more, even Australia does. The highest contributors at over 1% GDP per anum are the Scandanavians and the Netherlands/Holland, from memory this is many times greater than the US.

 

[waterfowl]

The main reason people would be upset with America's lack of 'aduequate' funding would be because America is usually seen (mostly by themselves) as the police, lawmakers, carers of the world.
They continually state how they are saving the Iraq people, and the world with their wars and ''peacekeeping'' efforts, yet they spend more on that than helping people who are in dire need of aid.
Perhaps they prefer to be law enforcers.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Ok, you guys do realise that part of the cost of the iraq war is rebuilding right?
You do know that those comparisons aren't yet including the cost of the use of the carrier and such in the region for the extended period of time.

 

[Bone577]

Ok, you guys do realise that part of the cost of the iraq war is rebuilding right?

If by rebuilding you mean the massive amounts of cash going to American buisness in what is more akin to subsidy along with massive privatisation in favour of American buisness, then yes.

 

[waterfowl]

Ok, you guys do realise that part of the cost of the iraq war is rebuilding right?

So it should, they are half the reason the rebuilding needs to take place!

 

[Not-That-Bright]

So it should, they are half the reason the rebuilding needs to take place!

Ok... but when you are saying that they're spending all that money on 'death' you're not exactly being too accurate.

 

[waterfowl]

Ok... but when you are saying that they're spending all that money on 'death' you're not exactly being too accurate.

Sorry...they're spending half the money on death, and the other half is going to cleaning up their mess.

 

[Bone577]

Sorry...they're spending half the money on death, and the other half is going to cleaning up their mess.

The other half on subsidising US industry and what can only be described as profiteering or even stealing oil.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yes america is making a profit from the war in iraq

 

[Bone577]

Yes america is making a profit from the war in iraq

They aren't? I suppose you are right the middle east is devoid of any resources, isn't the last great resource front and isn't "the greatest material prize of the century". Nor has the US ever showed interest in the middle east, buisness or "free market" economics (being massive subsidy to US buisness). Nor in controlling oil through puppets or privatisation *chough*Iran, Suadi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Egypt, Venezuala *cough*
Sorry bout the excessive sarcasm, but really, there is soo much material benefit to be had in Iraq that your statement is bewildering, you seem almost in denial.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

So far all i have seen is american contractors getting rebuilding work... that's not that bad, it's not like they've given US companies ownership of the oil or the profits from that.
While i can see the US gaining some minor financial gains i doubt it'll be enough to create a profit given the cost of this war.

Where i think they're really hoping to gain is in power/influence in the middle east.

 

[Bone577]

So far all i have seen is american contractors getting rebuilding work... that's not that bad, it's not like they've given US companies ownership of the oil or the profits from that.
While i can see the US gaining some minor financial gains i doubt it'll be enough to create a profit given the cost of this war.

Where i think they're really hoping to gain is in power/influence in the middle east.

Iraqi oil has been privatised and sold to US buisness.

To me the whole war along with power and influence is a chance for massive state subsidy of US industry. Massive state expenditure is always good for the economy. It isn't too unlike what Hitler did to pull Germany out of recession.

 

[Kierkegaard]

Yes, Haliburton has received most of the contracts in Iraq.

 

[ArgueEverything]

This judging of what others should do really pisses me off, yet it is so common in any disaster. I'm sick of hearing people who actually take the time to write in the newspapers suggesting that rich people, such as actors, should donate more because they make millions, and big companies should. Im not saying its a bad suggestion, but i think they and nobody here has the right to suggest what others should do when the chances are that they themselves havent done all they theoretically could. The basic premise from such stupid and niave statements is that the rich have surplus and therefore should give more to victims of the disaster, yet why doesnt everybody in australia sell their second car or second house or second of anything?? Because we are, at the core, all greedy fuckers, who find it easier to say what 'others' can do. WE are the rich in the eyes of the victim, but that doesnt seem to count.

The premise that the "rich have surplus and therefore should give more" is the basis of our progressive tax system. Its intuitively fair and provides the greatest good for the greatest number - unless you'd prefer to return to the 19th century, when the poor were left to starve on the streets, and judging by the overall moral cynicism of your post, i'm not convinced that you wouldn't. It's not a question of whether or not a poor person would appreciate being taxed as heavily as a rich person, if she herself were filthy rich; that's besides the point. Of course, if I were as filthy rich as Kerry Packer or Rupert Murdoch, I may well try evading paying tax like they do. But empathy is entirely useless in this situation, assuming you have the best interests of the greatest number in mind. It's a similar situation in the case of Tsunami aid; it's bleeding obvious that the rich have money to donate, and that money would lead to the greatest good for the greatest number if it went to tsunami victims. If we expect rich people to pay more tax for things like public transport, schools, roads etc than poor people do, why shouldn't the same principle apply for something far more urgent than the Tsunami cause?

Your anecdotal examples are particularly useless. An average income family selling their second car is NOT equivalent to a rich person donating millions (or, in some cases, billions). The former has a far larger impact on the person/ppl in question than the latter. Derr.

 

[breaking]

fatboy slim - the joker

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I was wrong about germany, they have now increased their donation.. (not that i was really criticising germany, more criticising people for hastling america and not germany).

"Australia (760 million dollars) and Germany (668 million dollars)."
http://www.turkishpress.com/world/news.asp?id=050105191651.4u4uxt8a.xml

It's good to see that Australia is finally showing some compassion to the people of indonesia, we should (given our close proximity, closer than that of new zealand) be great friends, hopefully that might be one of the good things to come out of this disaster.