The Anti-American Backlash

[crocodile deathroll]

How can America address the intense anti-American backlash which is now already exploding out of control.
You only have to look at the indicators like Mecca Cola and other boycotts of everything American.

Or does America desire to be police force of the world in order to rule the world with all its military might to impose its power on the rest of world by force so that at least the world will respect America out of fear.

IMO that is how Saddam Hussein rules Iraq. Isn't that exactly the kind "evil" they desire to eliminate. It is starting to smack like the emergence of a global police state with America at the helm.

Little wonder there is a Global Backlash (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2847115.stm) against the US and UK in particular

[Reginald]

I notice in your post that you dont mention that the article refers to a Muslim backlash. Your post implies a general worldwide backlash.

Ok lets see what happens.

And I read there that this is put forward by the MCB the muslim council of Britain. This body expressed sympathy for the taleban.

And is it exploding "out of control"? Any evidence for this emotional speculation?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
How can America address the intense anti-American backlash which is now already exploding out of control.
You only have to look at the indicators like Mecca Cola and other boycotts of everything American.

Exploding out of control seems like an overstatement. People have very short memories, as their policies of Iraqi appeasement demonstrate.

Or does America desire to be police force of the world in order to rule the world with all its military might to impose its power on the rest of world by force so that at least the world will respect America out of fear.

So let me see if I have this straight- it's kosher to have America foot the bill in cash, equipment and manpower in pretty much every mismanaged UN effort at peacekeeping or nation-building, but when we apply the same "police force" to something in our own interest, then it's labeled imperialism? Sounds like a crappy deal to me.

Face it- the world regularly calls on our "jack-booted thugs" when it's convenient. Pardon the hell out of us for doing the same thing for ourselves that we did for Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti.... etc. etc.

Yeah, and people wonder why so many Americans have doubts about the legitimacy of the UN and our role in it.

IMO that is how Saddam Hussein rules Iraq. Isn't that exactly the kind "evil" they desire to eliminate. It is starting to smack like the emergence of a global police state with America at the helm.

That's a very simplistic analogy. We're going in to kick out an international criminal and brutal dictator. It's not like we're going to invade and re-do every American flag with 51 stars (a-la Saddam and Kuwait). If nothing else, you can count on the fact that we couldn't afford to do this every year even if we were inclined to, which any fool can see isn't the case. There are many valid objections to American action, but "the creeping hand of imperialism" is certainly not one of them.

Little wonder there is a Global Backlash (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2847115.stm) against the US and UK in particular

Latest US polls show 65% support for immediate military action in Iraq and less than 30% against. As to the rest of the world... well, as the French have amply demonstrated, there's just no pleasing some people. Americans aren't in the habit of losing sleep over the opinions of intransigent nations bent on recapturing some form of global significance.

Oddly, it was the French who once held hegemony. I guess it takes one to know one.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
Or does America desire to be police force of the world in order to rule the world with all its military might to impose its power on the rest of world by force so that at least the world will respect America out of fear.

IMO that is how Saddam Hussein rules Iraq. Isn't that exactly the kind "evil" they desire to eliminate. It is starting to smack like the emergence of a global police state with America at the helm.





You got it!

But, I don't think that the US would work as a police force, it already works in a very different way (which is more dangerous). It is not only military intervention by which the US wants to impose its power on other nations but also by economic and political intervention.

It means that financial resources are conditioned to apply political and economic reforms in countries where the US has specific interest on.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Q-Source



It means that financial resources are conditioned to apply political and economic reforms in countries where the US has specific interest on.

We've been doing that for decades.

It's called "international aid."

Next question?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Jocko


We've been doing that for decades.

It's called "international aid."



Oh, how nice of you people. How couldn't I see that?

God bless "America" :rolleyes:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jocko


We've been doing that for decades.

It's called "international aid."

Next question?
"We will give you money if you do what we say and withold it if you don't."
:confused:
Funny, I thought those were "bribery" and "blackmail". I guess I'm not up on the lingo.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Q-Source




You got it!

But, I don't think that the US would work as a police force, it already works in a very different way (which is more dangerous). It is not only military intervention by which the US wants to impose its power on other nations but also by economic and political intervention.


Been readin' that Chomsky fellow again???

:rolleyes:

Barkhorn.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Tricky

"We will give you money if you do what we say and withold it if you don't."
:confused:
Funny, I thought those were "bribery" and "blackmail". I guess I'm not up on the lingo.

I don't know if I should file this under "double-standard hypocricy" or "entitlement mentality."

When I see people marching in third-world nations, demanding that their governments stop accepting US aid, then I would accept that you have a point. Until then, I will calmly remind you that no nation provides nearly as much aid to developing countries and America does, including countries hostile to ourselves.

Your remark that they are somehow automatically entitled to Uncle Sam's wallet is part and parcel of why so many Americans feel that the UN is a joke.

[Tmy]

What's Mecca cola?? The only boycotts Ive heard about is the American boycott of French goods. Which I looking to do. Not because of their anti-war stance. They can decide what they want. But they have been going out of their way to sabatoge the US efforts to gain support.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jocko


I don't know if I should file this under "double-standard hypocricy" or "entitlement mentality."

When I see people marching in third-world nations, demanding that their governments stop accepting US aid, then I would accept that you have a point. Until then, I will calmly remind you that no nation provides nearly as much aid to developing countries and America does, including countries hostile to ourselves.

Your remark that they are somehow automatically entitled to Uncle Sam's wallet is part and parcel of why so many Americans feel that the UN is a joke.

You misunderstand me. I believe that bribery and blackmail are legitimate tools of statescraft, and are as old as politics themselves. Let us not euphamistically call them "foreign aid" and pretend that we give this money with no strings attatched. That would be hypocricy.

[Segnosaur]

My question is what will happen if the U.S. invades, overthows Saddam, and 2 things happen: The Iraqi people cheer (hmmmm... how would that happen if we attacked them? That's right, they want Saddam gone more than anyone), and the U.S. and coaliton forces start turning up the really nasty stuff (chem weapons, mass graves, etc.) There's evidence both of these will happen. I wonder what all the anti-war people will do then?

That said, the Daily show recently had a foreign policy expert (he was with the government during several Democratic administrations, and heads up a think tank in Washington, but unfortunately I couldn't remember his name. Anyone help with that?) He was asked about the world's "hatred" towards the U.S., and how people thought Bush was more hated than Saddam.

His response? When people are questioned further, and they are asked "Should the U.S. withdraw all its forces then?", pretty much everyone says "No".

The same thing happened in Korea.... The current president got elected on an anti-American platform; the U.S. says they are going to withdraw their forces. The reaction? Koreans get upset.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Tricky


You misunderstand me. I believe that bribery and blackmail are legitimate tools of statescraft, and are as old as politics themselves. Let us not euphamistically call them "foreign aid" and pretend that we give this money with no strings attatched. That would be hypocricy.

No, I understand you perfectly. What's hypocritical is thinking that any foreign aid, given and accepted freely by some dirt-pile nation of starving people, is comparable to balckmail or bribery.

I don't give a rat's patootie if you think they are legitimate forms of diplomacy. But it bothers me that your entitlement mentality has so badly obscured your reasoning. Let me demonstrate the differences.

Blackmail:
Accept this money or we will bomb you.

Foreign aid:
Accept this money and only use it to build a self-sufficient nation. We'd like you to use our model.

If America actually "forced" other nations through "strings" to be like us, don't you think all those trillions of dollars would have done something by now?

Would you consider your requirement to perform at your job to be "blackmail" for your paycheck? Is quid pro quo the same as extortion? I think you'd best re-examine your definitions.

[c0rbin]

Or does America desire to be police force of the world in order to rule the world with all its military might to impose its power on the rest of world by force so that at least the world will respect America out of fear.

The UN is a toothless organization. Where are "resolutions" from France or Germany to arrest Saddam as a supporter of terrorism?

Saddam is a murderous dictator. Yeah, yeah, I know "the mean old uneducated US put him there." Well the world is complicated and sometimes you need to roll up your sleeves and get to work

And the work will be good work.

[Reginald]

Yes foreign aid is given for the reasons of ....blah, blah.

However remember that this creates a dependance, and subsequently any threat to withdraw continuing aid could be seen as blackmail.

So Tricky is right, its all just money to achieve some leverage.

However the point of the thread is a GLOBAL backlash against the US/UK.

If this is the case why is it that the French now seem to be trying to appear more open in their view. The Current BBC straw poll shows that from 13,000 votes taken 52% now believe the US/UK stance to be right as opposed to the French/Russian line.

Perception is changing, people see UK/US/Spain submitting compromise (although not much of a compromise) and the French saying it will veto in any circumstance. As I said in an earlier post People dont like arrogance, they didnt like the US arrogance at the start and now they dont like the French arrogance at the end.

There are few precedents for what is happening here, the threat of ovewhelming force, the UN in disarray, mirrored in NATO and The EEC, I think any speculation about how the world will react, indeed just what will happen in any sphere of global politics is in a deep deep fog.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Reginald

If this is the case why is it that the French now seem to be trying to appear more open in their view. The Current BBC straw poll shows that from 13,000 votes taken 52% now believe the US/UK stance to be right as opposed to the French/Russian line.

Perception is changing, people see UK/US/Spain submitting compromise (although not much of a compromise) and the French saying it will veto in any circumstance. As I said in an earlier post People dont like arrogance, they didnt like the US arrogance at the start and now they dont like the French arrogance at the end.

Has there been a poll done on why people are changing their opinions?

Certainly, some people may be changing their attitudes because of French arrogance. But, its also possible others are changing their attitudes because of the stuff the weapons inspectors keep finding.

Or maybe Blair is a good leader and communicator, and is able to sway people to his side.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Has there been a poll done on why people are changing their opinions?

Certainly, some people may be changing their attitudes because of French arrogance. But, its also possible others are changing their attitudes because of the stuff the weapons inspectors keep finding.

Or maybe Blair is a good leader and communicator, and is able to sway people to his side.

I expect it's a combination of these things. Plus, the perception of inevitability may be letting some who might otherwise object on utopian grounds off the hook.

"Well, since it's going to happen anyway, is it really all that bad?"

Whatever the reasons, I think the war will be swift and public opinion will swing quickly once US troops discover illegal infrastructure with "Made in France" stamped all over it. Many things will become clearer once Saddam's veil is lifted.

[Jocko]

http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2003120263,00.gif

[mbp]

Originally posted by Jocko
Until then, I will calmly remind you that no nation provides nearly as much aid to developing countries and America does, including countries hostile to ourselves.
Nonsense. Have a look at the table on this (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp?so=d2001#oda) page.
Yes, the US provides the most in absolute numbers, although Japan is a very close second. But as the US has by far the largest population of any of the industrialised countries, anything else would be very surprising.
If you add the numbers for all EU countries together you'll find that the total amount is almost three times what the US provides.
In % of GDP the US provides the lowest amount of any industrialised nation.

I'm not saying that the US should give more. That's for the Americans to decide.
But you shouldn't claim to be the most generous when that is far from the truth.

[headscratcher4]

I'm going to have a jingoist moment...not rational, reactionary...so don't hold me to it when I begin to think more rationally...

Anyway, I will worry about "anti-Americanism" when people from around the globe stop trying to come here. I will worry about it when China is the place were global refugees head, when people are banging down the door to live in Iraq and Iran because they've established a just society. When Mexicans start going home because economic opportunities, justice, healthcare opportunities, etc. are better back home than in the US.

I will worry about it when moslems come up with something better than "coke" rather than a re-named immitation of coke to show that their serious about boycotting the wicked US. I will worry about it when residents to Terhan stop trying to figure out how to hide their satalite dishes from the authorities so that they can get news and other programming from the West.

My point isn't that Anti-Americanism isn't a concern -- both longterm and short term -- or that there isn't some valid points being raised in many of the protests against American action. Rather, there is much hypocracy in the Anti-Americanism that seems to be emerging...and hypocracy is not a valid, alternative ideology or global system.

We, in the US, need to listen to the world and its protesters. THere is much that we here can and should learn. There are many failures that we must recognize in America, it's policies and how they are executed. But, I don't think France or Germany or Russia, China or North Korea are exactly in a position to lecture the US from a position of true moral superiority.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
I'm going to have a jingoist moment...not rational, reactionary...so don't hold me to it when I begin to think more rationally...

Anyway, I will worry about "anti-Americanism" when people from around the globe stop trying to come here. I will worry about it when China is the place were global refugees head, when people are banging down the door to live in Iraq and Iran because they've established a just society. When Mexicans start going home because economic opportunities, justice, healthcare opportunities, etc. are better back home than in the US.

I will worry about it when moslems come up with something better than "coke" rather than a re-named immitation of coke to show that their serious about boycotting the wicked US. I will worry about it when residents to Terhan stop trying to figure out how to hide their satalite dishes from the authorities so that they can get news and other programming from the West.

My point isn't that Anti-Americanism isn't a concern -- both longterm and short term -- or that there isn't some valid points being raised in many of the protests against American action. Rather, there is much hypocracy in the Anti-Americanism that seems to be emerging...and hypocracy is not a valid, alternative ideology or global system.

We, in the US, need to listen to the world and its protesters. THere is much that we here can and should learn. There are many failures that we must recognize in America, it's policies and how they are executed. But, I don't think France or Germany or Russia, China or North Korea are exactly in a position to lecture the US from a position of true moral superiority.

Spoken like a true empiricist and skeptic Grady! You da man. :D

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
Or does America desire to be police force of the world in order to rule the world with all its military might to impose its power on the rest of world by force so that at least the world will respect America out of fear.

IMO that is how Saddam Hussein rules Iraq. Isn't that exactly the kind "evil" they desire to eliminate. It is starting to smack like the emergence of a global police state with America at the helm.



Yes, you have found us out. We hope to rule the world through fear and military might. The promise, sent to every American through email from the President, is that we will each rule our own country ("with an iron fist") by the end of the decade. Those who voted Republican in the last election will get priority, of course, but even the Democrats and Greens will be parcelled territory that they can use to develop a "jack-booted police state" (to quote the email).

I personally was promised Sudan, though I was hoping for something with a better climate. Presently, I am trying to trade it for despotic control of Malta, plus a left-handed junta leader to be named later.

Anyone have something a little more temperate that they'd like to trade for ultimate control of Sudan? Please PM me with offers.

NA

[Jocko]

Originally posted by mbp

Nonsense. Have a look at the table on this (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp?so=d2001#oda) page.
Yes, the US provides the most in absolute numbers...

Which was my point.

...although Japan is a very close second. But as the US has by far the largest population of any of the industrialised countries, anything else would be very surprising.
If you add the numbers for all EU countries together you'll find that the total amount is almost three times what the US provides.
In % of GDP the US provides the lowest amount of any industrialised nation.

Where does the % of GNP enter into it? Do you think Ethiopia cares what the percentage of GDP is? Absolute dollars is the only significant measure. Plus, what is the total population of the EU? Since you say it matters in dollars, does it not also matter in Euros?

I'm not saying that the European contribution isn't important, and global aid should be globally funded. But when America is assailed on all sides about our "arrogance" and "imperialsm," all we have to do is pull out our check register to put lie to such claims.

I'm not saying that the US should give more. That's for the Americans to decide.
But you shouldn't claim to be the most generous when that is far from the truth.

By total dollars spent, America is the most generous nation in the world. Period. You can parse the numbers a hundred different ways, but to those who receive our aid (which is a hell of a lot of countries), the only question is "how much?"

By the way, there is a vocal minority of isolationists here in America who would like to see an end to all international aid. We still spend the most in spite of them. So the decision about how much to spend has been more or less answered in that regard.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by mbp

Nonsense. Have a look at the table on this (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp?so=d2001#oda) page.
Yes, the US provides the most in absolute numbers, although Japan is a very close second. But as the US has by far the largest population of any of the industrialised countries, anything else would be very surprising.

Interesting link. Its going to take a while to go through everything in it though... Some things have me concerned that it may be biased (Like links to Noam Chomsky, and comments about GM foods), but I'll put that aside for now.

One question I have is, what do they consider to be "foreign aid"? Money to other governments, or direct food and/or medical suplies? How do 'loans' factor in?

And what about military support? If the U.S. sends troops in to Kosovo to stop genocide, or to Somalia to try to ensure food aid gets to the people intended, does the cost of the millitary count against the 'foreign aid', since the actions are design to directly help the disadvantaged. (I picked those 2 missions because they seemed to be the best examples of the U.S. doing something that wouldn't be largely in its own self-interest, like Iraq and Afghanistan.)

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tricky

"We will give you money if you do what we say and withold it if you don't."
:confused:
Funny, I thought those were "bribery" and "blackmail". I guess I'm not up on the lingo.

Oh man. My bank once gve me money for a car loan so long as they could hold the title over my head. They wouldn't give me the money if they couldn't get what they wanted. Damned banks and their bribery and blackmail.:rolleyes:

[Jocko]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


Yes, you have found us out. We hope to rule the world through fear and military might. The promise, sent to every American through email from the President, is that we will each rule our own country ("with an iron fist") by the end of the decade. Those who voted Republican in the last election will get priority, of course, but even the Democrats and Greens will be parcelled territory that they can use to develop a "jack-booted police state" (to quote the email).

I personally was promised Sudan, though I was hoping for something with a better climate. Presently, I am trying to trade it for despotic control of Malta, plus a left-handed junta leader to be named later.

Anyone have something a little more temperate that they'd like to trade for ultimate control of Sudan? Please PM me with offers.

NA

Careful, some will think you're serious about this.

Of course, I'm laughing all the way to the bank... I drew France, and I was thinking about making it one big parking lot for Great Britain.

[c0rbin]

They wouldn't give me the money if they couldn't get what they wanted. Damned banks and their bribery and blackmail.

Funny one, Troll. I wish my bank would treat me like the Marshall Plan treated the European allies after WWII.

Anyway, if the US was an arrogant warmonger, why are we still playing footsy with the UN?

If we're so gung-ho to bomb Bahgdad that we would do it with or without France's permission, why haven't we?

I don't think it is because of some protesters.

[mbp]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Interesting link. Its going to take a while to go through everything in it though... Some things have me concerned that it may be biased (Like links to Noam Chomsky, and comments about GM foods), but I'll put that aside for now.

Oh, that site may be indeed be biased. I can't even say that I've read it all. But the numbers are from the OECD.


One question I have is, what do they consider to be "foreign aid"? Money to other governments, or direct food and/or medical suplies? How do 'loans' factor in?

The numbers are for "Official Development Assistance". I've seen this definition:
"Official development assistance is construed by the OECD Development Committee as including only "concessional" transfers to developing countries, meaning that all or part of each ODA transaction is a grant or is loaned at rate of interest and/or on repayment terms more beneficial to the recipient than market rates and terms. "


And what about military support? If the U.S. sends troops in to Kosovo to stop genocide, or to Somalia to try to ensure food aid gets to the people intended, does the cost of the millitary count against the 'foreign aid', since the actions are design to directly help the disadvantaged.

I don't think that is included, no. But many other nations have taken part in UN peacekeeping missions, and their expenses aren't counted either.

[Troll]

Originally posted by c0rbin


Funny one, Troll. I wish my bank would treat me like the Marshall Plan treated the European allies after WWII.

Anyway, if the US was an arrogant warmonger, why are we still playing footsy with the UN?

If we're so gung-ho to bomb Bahgdad that we would do it with or without France's permission, why haven't we?

I don't think it is because of some protesters.

Thanks

excellent points by the way. I keep telling people that want to think we're all gung-ho war freaks, that if we actually were the war would be over by now. But AUP, UCE and a few others just don't like to hear anything not said by them apparently.

I sincerely think that the current administration has seen the problems that many of us have with the way the UN conducts certain business and wants to address those faults. Thus the game play taking place at the UN. But as with the UN resolutions, there bust be a consequence for not complying. An "or else", if you will.

The UN affords no "or else". Currently the US is saying, " Give an or else on these things, or we'll give you one"
Saying, "Billy don't slap your sister" is nice if Billy listens. But if Billy wants to test you, you have to be able to say and back up something like , "Billy don't slap your sister, and the next time you do I'm gonna slap your ass and you you'll be confined to your room for three weeks"

There has to be an "or else" in damned near everything, otherwise it's just empty words floating around. Pay back your loan or else we'll take your house or car. Love honor and respect your spouse or else they'll burn ya in a divorce. Drive the freaking speed limit or else pay a fine. Properly cook your food or suffer salmonella, etc..........

Iraq never had an "or else" thus the non-compliance with previous resolutions.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Troll


Thanks

excellent points by the way. I keep telling people that want to think we're all gung-ho war freaks, that if we actually were the war would be over by now. But AUP, UCE and a few others just don't like to hear anything not said by them apparently.

I sincerely think that the current administration has seen the problems that many of us have with the way the UN conducts certain business and wants to address those faults. Thus the game play taking place at the UN. But as with the UN resolutions, there bust be a consequence for not complying. An "or else", if you will.

The UN affords no "or else". Currently the US is saying, " Give an or else on these things, or we'll give you one"
Saying, "Billy don't slap your sister" is nice if Billy listens. But if Billy wants to test you, you have to be able to say and back up something like , "Billy don't slap your sister, and the next time you do I'm gonna slap your ass and you you'll be confined to your room for three weeks"

There has to be an "or else" in damned near everything, otherwise it's just empty words floating around. Pay back your loan or else we'll take your house or car. Love honor and respect your spouse or else they'll burn ya in a divorce. Drive the freaking speed limit or else pay a fine. Properly cook your food or suffer salmonella, etc..........

Iraq never had an "or else" thus the non-compliance with previous resolutions.

You couldn't be more right. This is precisely the problem with the UN. The mistake is in thinking there is only one world, geopolitically, when there are at least two.

First, you have the "civilized" world (cue the hue and cry about American arrogance!)... for instance, look at the US and France. Relations are at the lowest point in living memory, and are likely to get even worse soon. But do either America or France worry about being bombed by the other? No. Why is that? Because there is a certain standard of conduct between civilized nations. It doesn't even need to be written down or shoved through the alimentary system of the UN for it to be observed. It's just what civilized nations do. We know in time that we will settle our differences without violence.

Then you have the uncivilized world (hit it again, anti-Americans!) who don't observe such traditions. The biggest mistake is to treat an uncivilized nation like a civilized one, and expect similar deference in return. It just doesn't happen.

One favorite saw from the protesters is that we armed and supported Saddam. Fair enough. But why has he been such a problem since then? Because he feels no debt and no obligation. Because Iraq is not a civilized country- and it will be dealt with as such.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by mbp

The numbers are for "Official Development Assistance". I've seen this definition:
"Official development assistance is construed by the OECD Development Committee as including only "concessional" transfers to developing countries, meaning that all or part of each ODA transaction is a grant or is loaned at rate of interest and/or on repayment terms more beneficial to the recipient than market rates and terms. "

Ouch. What an ugly definition.

They mention "transfers to developing countries", without mentioning whether it is a transfer to the government, or a transfer directly to the people (direct "food aid"). And so I guess loans are counted, but do they count the complete loan amount, or only the 'savings' that the receiving country gets?
Originally posted by mbp

I don't think that is included, no. But many other nations have taken part in UN peacekeeping missions, and their expenses aren't counted either.
True. Canada gets involved in just about every peace keeping mission there is. And I believe Pakistan was involved in Somalia. But does the U.S. spend more or less than other countries in trying to use its military to help the disadvantaged? (I don't have figures for that myself. Just a question that I think would need to get examined before praising or condeming the U.S.) For example, Norway, Sweden and Denmark give a higher portion of their GNP, but I don't hear of them contributing much to peace keeping. (I could be wrong about that...)

Other things that I've thought of....
- They like to comment on aid as a percentage of GNP. Is it fair though, because the U.S. tends to have a much more productive economy than many countries in the world. A per-capita value may be more fair (although the U.S. probably still gives a smaller portion per-capita than other countries)
- Some Americans may make the criticism that many of these countries can only afford to spend that much on foreign aid because they had the U.S. providing military protection for so many years during the cold war

[Skeptic]

How can America address the intense anti-American backlash which is now already exploding out of control.

Ignore it, since most of the hype about "out of control world protest" is done by the same tiny group of professional protestors that never managed to achieve anything. It's the "US OUT OF NORTH AMERICA!" type of crowd, mostly.

You only have to look at the indicators like Mecca Cola and other boycotts of everything American.

While "Mecca Cola" it has the advantage of being an unamerican product proudly displaying the defiance of the people against American imperilaism, it has the disadvantage of tasting like s--t. Do YOU drink it instead of Coca-Cola? Did YOU give up your american-made products?

No? Thought so.

As your attitude (TALK a lot about boycotting American prodicts, but still use them) is typical of the average "anti-war protestor", US exports don't have much to fear, I believe.

IMO that is how Saddam Hussein rules Iraq. Isn't that exactly the kind "evil" they desire to eliminate.

Why, of course. It's exactly the same thing.

We all know that the US secret service tracks down all the protestors, kills them, and imprisons their families. We all know that the US sends troops to shoot dead anybody who dares disagree with the proposed action against Iraq. We all know that evey newspaper in the world that dares criticize US policy is instantly closed and its editors executed as "traitors" and "counterrevolutionaries" by CIA agents. We all know that the US starves its own citizens in order to provide the world with shocking pictures of malnurished babies which they claim are all Iraq's fault in order to justify an attack.

Yes, NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL between Iraq and the US...

It is starting to smack like the emergence of a global police state with America at the helm.

Didn't you just prove in a previous post that American soldiers are all sissies for actually using their superior technology in war and not fighting hand-to-hand like REAL MEN do in all those (American-produced) action films?

Why should you be afraid of a nation of sissies, then?

[mbp]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Ouch. What an ugly definition.

Indeed. And I certainly won't claim that these numbers are the absolute and final truth about foreign aid. But I do think they are the best ones available, and they are the ones usually used by governments (at least in my part of the world).


Canada gets involved in just about every peace keeping mission there is. And I believe Pakistan was involved in Somalia. But does the U.S. spend more or less than other countries in trying to use its military to help the disadvantaged? (I don't have figures for that myself. Just a question that I think would need to get examined before praising or condeming the U.S.) For example, Norway, Sweden and Denmark give a higher portion of their GNP, but I don't hear of them contributing much to peace keeping. (I could be wrong about that...)

You may not hear much about it and because we are small countries the contributions aren't that large in absolute numbers. But there are Danish, Swedish and Norwegian troops in both Bosnia and Kosovo right now. And all three countries have historically been very involved in UN peacekeeping operations.


Other things that I've thought of....
- They like to comment on aid as a percentage of GNP. Is it fair though, because the U.S. tends to have a much more productive economy than many countries in the world. A per-capita value may be more fair (although the U.S. probably still gives a smaller portion per-capita than other countries)
- Some Americans may make the criticism that many of these countries can only afford to spend that much on foreign aid because they had the U.S. providing military protection for so many years during the cold war
I agree that % of GNP doesn't in itself tell the full story. But on the other hand I don't think that a relatively poor country such as for example Estonia should be expected to give as much aid (per-capita) as a (relatively) rich country like Denmark.

[Reginald]

I'm still waiting for a proof that this anti-american feeling is exploding out of control.

[DanishDynamite]

Jocko: So let me see if I have this straight- it's kosher to have America foot the bill in cash, equipment and manpower in pretty much every mismanaged UN effort at peacekeeping or nation-building, but when we apply the same "police force" to something in our own interest, then it's labeled imperialism? Sounds like a crappy deal to me. "Foot the bill"? As usual, the right wing nuts are strong on rhetoric and short on facts. From this site (pdf file): (http://www.un.int/france/pdf/fiche1.pdf.)

Not least, EU Member States are the largest financial contributor to the UN system. They pay around 37% of the UN's regular budget, around 40 % of UN peacekeeping operations and around 50 % of all UN Member States' contributions to UN funds and programmes. Despite the fact that they already contribute far more to the UN than its 28 % share of world GDP, the EU as a whole decided to keep its overall financial contribution at the same level as before in the last round of UN budget negotiations in 2000.

[mbp]

Originally posted by Jocko

Where does the % of GNP enter into it? Do you think Ethiopia cares what the percentage of GDP is? Absolute dollars is the only significant measure. Plus, what is the total population of the EU? Since you say it matters in dollars, does it not also matter in Euros?

Only absolute dollars count? What about absolute euros? :)
But of course the size of the population matters. And the EU does indeed have a larger population than the US (380 million vs 280 million). Still, that doesn't change the fact that the EU countries together provide more both in absolute dollars, dollars per "unit of population" and indeed in % of GDP.



By total dollars spent, America is the most generous nation in the world. Period. You can parse the numbers a hundred different ways, but to those who receive our aid (which is a hell of a lot of countries), the only question is "how much?"

By your definition of generosity, the US are indeed the most generous nation, having recently taken over that title from Japan.
My view of generosity is somewhat different, though.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Jocko: "Foot the bill"? As usual, the right wing nuts are strong on rhetoric and short on facts. From this site (pdf file): (http://www.un.int/france/pdf/fiche1.pdf.)



And as usual, Europeans can't rebut an argument as it's given.

I said (twice, now) that America is the largest contributor based on cash delivered. That has not been disproven.

I've got some of you saying, "well, not based of % of GDP!"
And I have others saying, "Not as much as the EU!"

Except for the fact that the EU is a collection of countries, not even a confederation, really, and the comparison is invalid. If I had asserted that North America contributed more, then your comparison would have a point.

I didn't, and you don't.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by mbp

Only absolute dollars count? What about absolute euros? :)
But of course the size of the population matters. And the EU does indeed have a larger population than the US (380 million vs 280 million). Still, that doesn't change the fact that the EU countries together provide more both in absolute dollars, dollars per "unit of population" and indeed in % of GDP.

Why are you even trying to argue this point? I'm saying, when you take all the dollars America contributes, put it next to a pile of Euros that any COUNTRY (you're the one, along with DD, who seems to think the EU is a country)... the dollar pile will buy more food and infrastructure than the Euro pile. Even your own source supports that.

I made mention of a single fact- that America contributes more than any other country, and you keep trying to re-cast in into terms that I did not state as qualifiers.

As usual, Europeans are more focused on how much they can spend, whereas America prefers to look at how much a needy country can expect to receive.


By your definition of generosity, the US are indeed the most generous nation, having recently taken over that title from Japan.
My view of generosity is somewhat different, though.

Well, suppose my measure of generosity was based on "how many government dollars were gleaned from taxes on sheep farmers," putting Argentina at the top of the list?

So, basically, what? The only useful thing you've posted here is to confirm that my clear assertion was correct, which I already knew.

[Tony]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger




I personally was promised Sudan, though I was hoping for something with a better climate. Presently, I am trying to trade it for despotic control of Malta, plus a left-handed junta leader to be named later.




I was promised France, my first action as despotic ruler will be to paint the Eiffel Tower hot pink. :)

[DanishDynamite]

Jocko:And as usual, Europeans can't rebut an argument as it's given.

I said (twice, now) that America is the largest contributor based on cash delivered. That has not been disproven. What are you talking about ? Perhaps it is foreign aid, in which case mbp has demolished your claim.

I was referring to your claim that "America foots the bill in cash, equipment and manpower in pretty much every mismanaged UN effort at peacekeeping or nation-building".

Try to at least understand your own claims.
I've got some of you saying, "well, not based of % of GDP!"
And I have others saying, "Not as much as the EU!"

Except for the fact that the EU is a collection of countries, not even a confederation, really, and the comparison is invalid. If I had asserted that North America contributed more, then your comparison would have a point.

I didn't, and you don't. Your assertions have all been shot down, even if you don't seem to know what they are.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Jocko: What are you talking about ? Perhaps it is foreign aid, in which case mbp has demolished your claim.

I was referring to your claim that "America foots the bill in cash, equipment and manpower in pretty much every mismanaged UN effort at peacekeeping or nation-building".

Try to at least understand your own claims.
Your assertions have all been shot down, even if you don't seem to know what they are.

France is a country.
The EU is a trade confederation.

America is a country.
North America is trade confederation.

I think you're the one with the semantics problem, DD. SHOW ME A COUNTRY THAT COUGHS UP MORE THAN UNCLE SAM, and you will have "shot down" my assertion. It's not so simple when you're not running France, is it?

While I think it's great that your country contributes to UN efforts, the automatic- and I'll say it again, even though it's becoming tiresome- ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY exhibited by Europeans flies in the face of everything we believe in.

In fact, to have it your way, could be summarized thus:

"From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need."

And as a follower of that horribly mistaken ideology, you never have an answer when the accountant runs up to you, breathless, to announce that needs and abilities didn't balance out this month.

[aerocontrols]

Please let's not forget the at least $34 billion (http://www.techcentralstation.be/2051/wrapper.jsp?PID=2051-100&CID=2051-082102B) in private aid.

Does anyone here have information about other countries' private overseas giving?

MattJ

[Jocko]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Please let's not forget the at least $34 billion (http://www.techcentralstation.be/2051/wrapper.jsp?PID=2051-100&CID=2051-082102B) in private aid.

Does anyone here have information about other countries' private overseas giving?

MattJ

Considering the confiscatory tax rates in Europe, I expect it probably tops out at a combined $14.87 or so. Who has money to give to other governments when it's already earmarked for your own?

[DanishDynamite]

Jocko: France is a country.
The EU is a trade confederation.

America is a country.
North America is trade confederation.

I think you're the one with the semantics problem, DD. SHOW ME A COUNTRY THAT COUGHS UP MORE THAN UNCLE SAM, and you will have "shot down" my assertion. It's not so simple when you're not running France, is it? Once again, I'm unsure what you are refering to. I assume it isn't the "foot the bill" claim in regards to peacekeeping, as that has already been debunked. Hence you must be refering your "aid" claim, which was that "no nation provides nearly as much aid to developing countries as America does". As mbp's site shows, this is true. However, you also said that "America is the most generous nation in the world", which of course is wrong, as mbp showed.
While I think it's great that your country contributes to UN efforts, the automatic- and I'll say it again, even though it's becoming tiresome- ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY exhibited by Europeans flies in the face of everything we believe in.

In fact, to have it your way, could be summarized thus:

"From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need." The fact that the US is less generous as regards the plight of people in need, is well-known.

BTW, to have it your way, any country receiving aid from the US should be forever gratefull and must see themselves as servants of the US forever.

Wake up and smell the coffee.
And as a follower of that horribly mistaken ideology, you never have an answer when the accountant runs up to you, breathless, to announce that needs and abilities didn't balance out this month.As it happens, I'm not a socialist. I have always voted for "right of center" parties. However, even "right of center" parties in this country have a social consciousness.

[c0rbin]

The UN affords no "or else".

That's because they spent it all on limos...aaaaaanyway.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Jocko: Once again, I'm unsure what you are refering to. I assume it isn't the "foot the bill" claim in regards to peacekeeping, as that has already been debunked. Hence you must be refering your "aid" claim, which was that "no nation provides nearly as much aid to developing countries as America does". As mbp's site shows, this is true. However, you also said that "America is the most generous nation in the world", which of course is wrong, as mbp showed.

No, mbp showed that by skewing the figures a certain way, he could assert that the EU as a WHOLE contributed more, which is evidence against a claim I did not make in the first place.

What I don't understand is you two essentially repeating, over and over, "yes you're right, but if we're talking about measuring things THIS way..." when I've been crystal clear in my statement. Quit putting words in my mouth and disproving points I never made.

The fact that the US is less generous as regards the plight of people in need, is well-known.

Says who? You own sources show I'm right unless it passes the "We're going to pretend the EU is one big country for the sake of this particular argument" test. How can a blatantly untrue assertion be "well-known"?

BTW, to have it your way, any country receiving aid from the US should be forever gratefull and must see themselves as servants of the US forever.

I've said no such thing. That is an assumption that has been voiced by you, and you alone. Please find a reference I made to America making ANYONE a slave. All I said was that foreign aid is a privilege, not a right, which is "well-known" to go down badly with entitlement-minded folks like Europeans. You just don't get it.

Wake up and smell the coffee.
As it happens, I'm not a socialist. I have always voted for "right of center" parties. However, even "right of center" parties in this country have a social consciousness.

Then explain your belief that America automatically owes more because it has more. That sounds like forced redistribution of wealth to me.

And "social consciousness" is a highly subjective term. I wouldn't lightly trust anyone to make policy based on that alone. Ask Hitler if he had "social consciousness" about his politics and I'm sure you'd get a very long explanation that he had.

[mbp]

Originally posted by Jocko

Why are you even trying to argue this point? I'm saying, when you take all the dollars America contributes, put it next to a pile of Euros that any COUNTRY (you're the one, along with DD, who seems to think the EU is a country)... the dollar pile will buy more food and infrastructure than the Euro pile. Even your own source supports that.

Your original claim was:

I will calmly remind you that no nation provides nearly as much aid to developing countries and[sic] America does

This is false, as Japan is providing nearly as much aid, for any reasonable definition of "nearly".
As for the rest of my "arguing", it might just be the case that I was trying to make a point of my own.


As usual, Europeans are more focused on how much they can spend, whereas America prefers to look at how much a needy country can expect to receive.

Any needy country can expect to receive far more aid from European governments than from the American administration. What is your point here?

If I was in dire straits I know I would rather receive $10 each from three different people than $15 from one. In your world things must be different.

Sigh.

It's not as if this matters a great deal to me. I just wanted to put your wild claim in perspective.
Personally, I think that much of the aid given (from all countries) is either used inefficiently or ending up in the wrong hands. If we really want to help the third world we should give them better access to our markets instead of alms.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Tricky

"We will give you money if you do what we say and withold it if you don't."
:confused:
Funny, I thought those were "bribery" and "blackmail". I guess I'm not up on the lingo.

You hit the nail on the head, and now Turkey seems to be falling for the bait.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Jocko
http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2003120263,00.gif

This is how the rest of the world views George W@nker Bush

[LucyR]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
As it happens, I'm not a socialist. I have always voted for "right of center" parties. However, even "right of center" parties in this country have a social consciousness.

Oh yes? So what have the Danes ever done for the world, hey?! You've been bullied by the Hun a couple of times but that's about your sole claim to fame.

Fcuk. Just remembered Lego. One of the greatest toys of all time.

As you were.

[Tricky]

I just watched a special on CNN. They interviewed a lot of people in different mideast countries. Most of the interviewees spoke very good English having been educated in the West. Many were very pro-democracy. Yet every single one said that for the US to start this war is tantamount to recruiting for the terrorists. This is not just a possibility. It is a certainty.

Regardless of how justifiable this war is, it is the worst thing the US could possibly do to itself. We are changing the world perception of us from being an international conscience, to an international bully. This war will make our enemies stronger and our friends weaker. In fact, it has already done so.

Continuing on this road will lead to disaster. I love my country, right or wrong, but when I see it is wrong, it is my duty as an American to point it out. That is what patriotism is about, not waving a flag and cheering for the bombs to fall.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Tricky
I just watched a special on CNN. They interviewed a lot of people in different mideast countries. Most of the interviewees spoke very good English having been educated in the West. Many were very pro-democracy. Yet every single one said that for the US to start this war is tantamount to recruiting for the terrorists. This is not just a possibility. It is a certainty.

Regardless of how justifiable this war is, it is the worst thing the US could possibly do to itself. We are changing the world perception of us from being an international conscience, to an international bully. This war will make our enemies stronger and our friends weaker. In fact, it has already done so.

Continuing on this road will lead to disaster. I love my country, right or wrong, but when I see it is wrong, it is my duty as an American to point it out. That is what patriotism is about, not waving a flag and cheering for the bombs to fall.

I love my country too, but now thanks to that sanctimonious cretin in Canberra the PM "John Howard" with his full support to the war in Iraq there is also an Anti-Australian backlash.
We are really kidding ourselves that the Bali bombings that killed around 80 Australians and over 200 all up is not a consequences of his policies. And we have millions of those religious hot heads right at our doorstep in Indonesia.
What a hornet's nest has he stirred up.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tricky
I just watched a special on CNN. They interviewed a lot of people in different mideast countries. Most of the interviewees spoke very good English having been educated in the West. Many were very pro-democracy. Yet every single one said that for the US to start this war is tantamount to recruiting for the terrorists. This is not just a possibility. It is a certainty.

When did it become a certainty? I put it in the same category as an urban legend.... Everyone THINKS things are a certain way... But unless they themselves are going to strap on the explosives, their insight may not be any better than western intelligence.

There MAY be a short period of time when terrorism will increase. But by showing that they will stand up to terrorist nations, other state sponsors of terrorism will curb their activities. And seeing how people live in a 'free' Iraq will encourage others in the area to perhaps see the U.S. as someone who can help bring prosperity.

Originally posted by Tricky

Regardless of how justifiable this war is, it is the worst thing the US could possibly do to itself. We are changing the world perception of us from being an international conscience, to an international bully. This war will make our enemies stronger and our friends weaker. In fact, it has already done so.

If the war is justifiable and the U.S. fails to act, then it shows the U.S. to not be the voice of conscience, but a voice of apathy. It will encourage enemies to be bolder, since the U.S. isn't willing to use appropriate force when the situation warrants, and people will be less likely to stand with the U.S.

[crocodile deathroll]

Here are some of the disturbing images I found which are fueling the Anti-American backlash. It is the images which are shown to the Arab world and as the war in the Baghad streets may well be extremley dirty there will almost certainly be a lot worse to come.


These are images which I find extremely disturbing so be warned.
Disturbing images (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/gulfwar2/civilians.htm)

[crackmonkey]

Sometimes innocent people die in war. It's sad.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by LucyR


Oh yes? So what have the Danes ever done for the world, hey?! You've been bullied by the Hun a couple of times but that's about your sole claim to fame.

Fcuk. Just remembered Lego. One of the greatest toys of all time.

As you were.

What an ignorant comment.

The Vikings were not soley Danish people, but without them, Modern Europe and hence, the modern world would not be what it is today. History doesn't begin Sept. 1, 1939. :rolleyes:

No England, no France, No United States. Without Danish and other Scandenavian accomplishments in the 800s, we wouldn't be here to bitch about 'em.

Unless you can speak Algonquin...

[Troll]

Originally posted by mbp

Nonsense. Have a look at the table on this (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp?so=d2001#oda) page.
Yes, the US provides the most in absolute numbers, although Japan is a very close second. But as the US has by far the largest population of any of the industrialised countries, anything else would be very surprising.
If you add the numbers for all EU countries together you'll find that the total amount is almost three times what the US provides.
In % of GDP the US provides the lowest amount of any industrialised nation.

I'm not saying that the US should give more. That's for the Americans to decide.
But you shouldn't claim to be the most generous when that is far from the truth.

sorry but your link shows moneys given via the UN. we give a lot more outside of the UN. so maybe we aren't the biggest contributers to the UN's findings of causes to give to, but can you honestly say we give less money to other nations as a whole?

and drop the GDP crap already. If you bust your ass and make 200 million a year and I bust my ass and make 800 billion a year, does it mean I amobligated to give more to thankless people?

geez I need to edit yet again.

Define generosity. Is it more money or a higher percentage of your money?

[Reginald]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
Here are some of the disturbing images I found which are fueling the Anti-American backlash. It is the images which are shown to the Arab world and as the war in the Baghad streets may well be extremley dirty there will almost certainly be a lot worse to come.


These are images which I find extremely disturbing so be warned.
Disturbing images (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/gulfwar2/civilians.htm)


Very disturbing pictures here. I think to see them and not take pause to think would be very diffecult indeed, especially if you have children of a similar age to those shown.

But as I was looking, news came in that yet more missiles have been launched at Kuwait city, there are children there too, the Iraqi regime DELIBERATELY fires missiles on civilian areas. with the sole puropse of doing the things shown in the pictures to the people of Kuwait. The quicker he is stopped, the quicker it all stops.

I regret the death of all those civilians in Iraq, I also regret the deaths of all those tens of thousands murdered by Saddam, the ones that Al Jaziera didn't film.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Reginald


Very disturbing pictures here. I think to see them and not take pause to think would be very diffecult indeed, especially if you have children of a similar age to those shown.

But as I was looking, news came in that yet more missiles have been launched at Kuwait city, there are children there too, the Iraqi regime DELIBERATELY fires missiles on civilian areas. with the sole puropse of doing the things shown in the pictures to the people of Kuwait. The quicker he is stopped, the quicker it all stops.

I regret the death of all those civilians in Iraq, I also regret the deaths of all those tens of thousands murdered by Saddam, the ones that Al Jaziera didn't film.

BINGO:D

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by mbp

Nonsense. Have a look at the table on this (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp?so=d2001#oda) page.
Yes, the US provides the most in absolute numbers, although Japan is a very close second. But as the US has by far the largest population of any of the industrialised countries, anything else would be very surprising.
If you add the numbers for all EU countries together you'll find that the total amount is almost three times what the US provides.
In % of GDP the US provides the lowest amount of any industrialised nation.

I'm not saying that the US should give more. That's for the Americans to decide.
But you shouldn't claim to be the most generous when that is far from the truth.

Read history. Look for a description of the Marshall plan. The creation of NATO. Stationing US Troops in Western Europe until (and still) the Wall came down.

[crocodile deathroll]

I am not party to the anti-American backlash but I am anti-Bush. I think over 50% over the voter turnout in the US at the last presidental elections were terrific in my mind. The ones that didn't vote for him.

BTW Bush is party to the backlash for sure.

[Supercharts]

I do not support boycotts. This may have been posted before. It was sent to me. Some of you may find this interesting.

FRENCH PRODUCT LIST

Air Liquide, Alcatel, Allegra (allergy medication), Aqualung
(including: Spirotechnique, Technisub, US Divers, and SeaQuest),
AXA Advisors Bank of the West (owned by BNP Paribas), Beneteau
(boats), BF Goodrich (owned by Michelin), BIC (razors, pens and
lighters), Biotherm (cosmetics), Black Bush, Bollinger (champagne),
Car &Driver Magazine, Cartier, Chanel, Cheese labeled "Product of
France", Chivas Regal (scotch), Christian Dior, Christian Lacroix,
Club Med (vacations), Culligan (owned by Vivendi), Daniel Cremieux,
Dannon (yogurt and dairy foods), DKNY, Dom Perignon, Durand
Crystal, Elle Magazine, Essilor Optical Products, Evian bottled
water, Fina gas stations and Fina Oil (billions invested in Iraqi
oil fields), First Hawaiian Bank, George Magazine, Givenchy,
Glenlivet (scotch), Hachette Filipacchi New Media, Hennessy,
Houghton Mifflin (books), Jacobs Creek (owned by Pernod Ricard
since 1989), Jameson (whiskey), Jerry Springer (talk show) Krups
(coffee and cappuccino makers), Lancome, Le Creuset (cookware),
L'Oreal (health and beauty products), Louis Vuitton, Magellan
Navigational Equipment, Marie Claire, Martel Cognac, Maybelline,
Méphisto (shoes and clothes), Michelin (tires and auto parts),
Mikasa (crystal and glass), Moet (champagne), Motel 6, Motown
Records, MP3.com, Mumms (champagne), Nissan (cars; majority owned
by Renault), Nivea, Normany Butter, Ondeo/Nalco Water Treatement,
Parents Magazine, Peugeot (automobiles), Perrier Sparkling Water,
Pierre Cardin, Playstation Magazine, ProScan (owned by Thomson
Electronics, France), Publicis Group (including Saatchi &Saatchi
Advertising), RCA (televisions and electronics; owned by Thomson
Electronics), Red Magazine, Red Roof Inns (owned by Accor group in
France), Renault (automobiles), Road &Track Magazine, Roquefort
cheese (all Roquefort cheese is made in France), Rowenta (toasters,
irons, coffee makers, etc,), Royal Canadian, Salomon (skis),
Seagram's Gin, Sierra Software and Computer Games, Sitram Cookware,
Smart &Final, Sofitel (hotels, owned by Accor), Sparkletts (water,
owned by Danone), Spencer Gifts, Sundance Channel, Taylor Made
(golf), Technicolor, T-Fal (kitchenware), Total gas stations,
UbiSoft (computer games), Uniroyal, Universal Studios (music,
movies and amusement parks; owned by Vivendi-Universal), USFilter,
Veuve Clicquot Champagne, Vittel, VIVENDI-SEAGRAM, Wild Turkey
(bourbon), Wine and Champagne labeled "Product of France", Woman's
Day Magazine, Yoplait (The French company Sodiaal owns a 50 percent
stake), Yves Saint Laurent, Yves Rocher, Zodiac Inflatable Boats.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Supercharts
FRENCH PRODUCT LIST
....

Wine and Champagne labeled "Product of France"


Lucky we have that list to keep us informed :D



... Actually, I'm not at all sure about the Chivas Regal and Glenlivet ones. As far as I know they're brands owned by the Chivas Bros Ltd, who are based in Paisley. Could be wrong, of course.

Edited again to admit that once again I'm wrong - they're now owned by Pernod-Ricard. Fancy that.

[mbp]

Originally posted by Troll

sorry but your link shows moneys given via the UN.

Wrong. The numbers are for bilateral aid.


Define generosity. Is it more money or a higher percentage of your money?
That's the question, I suppose. A third possibility would be money per capita.
I you really think absolute numbers are the true "measure" of generousity then we'll just have to agree to disagree. But in that case you must admit that it is very hard for small countries to be generous.

[Troll]

Originally posted by mbp

Wrong. The numbers are for bilateral aid.


That's the question, I suppose. A third possibility would be money per capita.
I you really think absolute numbers are the true "measure" of generousity then we'll just have to agree to disagree. But in that case you must admit that it is very hard for small countries to be generous.

I agree with your last comment. To be honest I think my whole problem with this lies with the concept that people must give to everything. when I was in the Marines I had an allotment going out to two charities. I later found that the World Wildlife Fund were a bunch of anti-hunting loons and ceased to give to them. As I determined that giving money/aid to them was not in my best interest, cannot nations do the same and not give to certain funds or countries that are not in their own interests as well?

[mbp]

Originally posted by Supercharts

Read history. Look for a description of the Marshall plan. The creation of NATO. Stationing US Troops in Western Europe until (and still) the Wall came down.
What on earth has that got to do with anything?
I was rebutting this simple statement:
Originally posted by Jocko

Until then, I will calmly remind you that no nation provides nearly as much aid to developing countries and America does, including countries hostile to ourselves.

This is clearly in the present tense and has nothing whatsoever to do with Western Europe. Can you explain to me how anything on your condescending to-do list could possible alter my opinion about Jocko's statement?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by mbp

That's the question, I suppose. A third possibility would be money per capita.

...or whatever measure you pull out of your bunghole to support your incorrect assertions about American greed, right?

You tried this one on me too, and it didn't work.

I you really think absolute numbers are the true "measure" of generousity then we'll just have to agree to disagree. But in that case you must admit that it is very hard for small countries to be generous.

As most liberals believe, you're more concerned with how much someone is giving than someone else is receiving.

Tax the rich...
Feed the poor...
Till there are no...
Rich no more...

A clearer thinker might have phrased that so it read that there are no POOR no more. But no, it's all about redistribution of wealth and little to nothing about actually helping people in need.

I am quite pleased to disagree with you.

[mbp]

Originally posted by Troll

To be honest I think my whole problem with this lies with the concept that people must give to everything. when I was in the Marines I had an allotment going out to two charities. I later found that the World Wildlife Fund were a bunch of anti-hunting loons and ceased to give to them. As I determined that giving money/aid to them was not in my best interest, cannot nations do the same and not give to certain funds or countries that are not in their own interests as well?
Certainly. I'm not a big fan of this kind of aid myself, as I think it too often ends up in the hands of local tyrants or clever businessmen from the donor country. As I've already mentioned in this thread I think the best thing we could do for the third world would be to give them better access to our markets.
(Although direct aid is probably appropriate in some areas like sanitation, schools and hospitals.)

I didn't enter this thread to criticise the US - only to protest against what I still feel was an incorrect statement by Jocko.

[mbp]

Originally posted by Jocko

...or whatever measure you pull out of your bunghole to support your incorrect assertions about American greed, right?

Please show me where I've asserted anything about American greed.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
I am not party to the anti-American backlash but I am anti-Bush. I think over 50% over the voter turnout in the US at the last presidental elections were terrific in my mind. The ones that didn't vote for him.

BTW Bush is party to the backlash for sure.

Just lately the polls indicate 69% of Americans agree that President Bush is taking the correct action in Iraq. So now feel free to be 69% anti-American. :D

Your PM is doing the right thing...existing in close proximity to that "hornets nest" and appeasing them will not keep you safe. Weakness is provocative... The Bali bombing had nothing to do with the Aussies joining the coalition. The Bali bombing was an indication that these islamic idiots will hate you and kill you no matter what you do, yet you vilify your leaders for correctly identifying and reacting to the existing threat. Bloody amazing.

-zilla

[Jocko]

Originally posted by mbp

Please show me where I've asserted anything about American greed.

Okay, "lack of generosity" if you prefer. Goodness, but you ARE hung up on semantics, aren't you? The fact remains that you have consistently skewed figures to create the illusion that America isn't the most generous nation on earth, in terms of absolute dollars.

And before you go and start playing games with THAT again, please fully address my previous post.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Just lately the polls indicate 69% of Americans agree that President Bush is taking the correct action in Iraq. So now feel free to be 69% anti-American. :D

Your PM is doing the right thing...existing in close proximity to that "hornets nest" and appeasing them will not keep you safe. Weakness is provocative... The Bali bombing had nothing to do with the Aussies joining the coalition. The Bali bombing was an indication that these islamic idiots will hate you and kill you no matter what you do, yet you vilify your leaders for correctly identifying and reacting to the existing threat. Bloody amazing.

-zilla

And now for your information only 25% of Americans believe the war is going well, well down from about 75% a week ago.

[Supercharts]

Does anyone find it odd (if you have been reading this thread over the last few days) how 'certain' replies disappear?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Supercharts
I do not support boycotts. This may have been posted before. It was sent to me. Some of you may find this interesting.

FRENCH PRODUCT LIST

Alcatel

I contract for them and am expressing my displeasure with them by taking their money!

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll


And now for your information only 25% of Americans believe the war is going well, well down from about 75% a week ago.

What poll would that be genius?

Sorry....can't stick around....see there's a really good show on right now. Lots of stuff exploding....bad guys getting waxed....130,000 Bruce Willis look a likes wearing the uniform of the US army, airforce, and marines, running around killing idiots that think like you croc. :D Big fun...you should tune in sometime.

-zilla

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by rikzilla


What poll would that be genius?

Sorry....can't stick around....see there's a really good show on right now. Lots of stuff exploding....bad guys getting waxed....130,000 Bruce Willis look a likes wearing the uniform of the US army, airforce, and marines, running around killing idiots that think like you croc. :D Big fun...you should tune in sometime.

-zilla

I gather you back the Bush Abomination and that reality TV war movie entertains you. How sick!!
As you well know, Al-Jazeera is not the only facter behind the AAB but also Bush and Dick Cheney's crony companies (http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold03202003.html) cashing in on the spoils of war like Halliburton, and awarding the contract before other foreign companies have a chance to put in for a tender.

It is appears to me like this Bush Abomination had an ulterior motive for this war.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Jocko
The fact remains that you have consistently skewed figures to create the illusion that America isn't the most generous nation on earth, in terms of absolute dollarsNo one has disputed that. What they have disputed is your assertion that absolute dollar values are a good measure of generosity.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll


I gather you back the Bush Abomination and that reality TV war movie entertains you. How sick!!
As you well know, Al-Jazeera is not the only facter behind the AAB but also Bush and Dick Cheney's crony companies (http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold03202003.html) cashing in on the spoils of war like Halliburton, and awarding the contract before other foreign companies have a chance to put in for a tender.

It is appears to me like this Bush Abomination had an ulterior motive for this war.

Watching the enemy die in large numbers while American troops are safe is indeed satisfying. Watching American civilians leaping from 110 floors up was the truly sick scene. They hit us first...but we are going to finish them. It is my fervent hope that all Arab terrorist supporting regimes will band together and declare jihad to support Saddam....then we will have the excuse we need to wipe them out.

When the bullets start to fly croc,...all this debate society BS goes out the window. There is no gray on a battlefield...it's kill or be killed....and it's always highly satisfying for a line soldier to see heaps of dead enemy littering the battlefield.

As for war profiteers...sure....name me a war that someone somewhere didn't get rich off of. It is the nature of war and economics that this happens...it does nothing to speak of the legitimacy of said war.

We live in a different world since 9/11. If we do nothing, then enemy nations will feel free to continue running false-flag operations against us as did Saddam against the WTC...then throw up their hands and say "it wasn't me!" Nuclear or chemical armed "super-terrorists" need a state to hide in and gain support from. Pre-emptive war in this new environment is essential to remove this state support from terrorists. I only hope all these states are stupid and angry enough to join in the fight...it'll make the WOT more effective and quicker in the end.

Saddam had the ability to stop all this. So many thousands of his people's lives he could have saved by merely abiding by UN resolutions. Then...later...he still had the chance to save his countrymens lives and property by walking away into safe exile. But no, this monster decided his role as dear leader was just simply more important than the lives of his people. What an ass.

-zilla

BTW: The counterpunch link was informative. I went to the home page and found that the entire site is dedicated to all things anti-semitic. Nice place you get your news from chum! :mad:

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Martinm
No one has disputed that. What they have disputed is your assertion that absolute dollar values are a good measure of generosity.

They have not done so honestly, but rather to circumvent the facts that prove my original premise that America is the most generous nation on earth.

"Well, not if you take Europe put together!"
"Well, not as a % of GDP!"
"Well, not by whatever measure I just pulled out of my ass because I can't deal with reality!"

No one has made a cogent argument about what % of GDP has to do with the price of ass-wax in China. So what? To the recipients of the aid, the bottom line is all that matters.

Do you think these guys are squatting in their grass huts, trying to figure out what the billions of dollars figure out to in relation to GDP? That sounds more like someone trying to calculate a minimal tip in a restaurant to me.

How big is the pile of cash- that's the only question. No one else cares... or SHOULD care... how big the pile still in America is. To suggest otherwise is to show more concern over how much America is losing rather than how much a third-world nation is receiving. That smacks of cynical politicism and I don't give a flying eggroll what someone thinks about it based on such socialist criteria.

[Martin]

So...their argument that absolute dollar values are not a good measure of generosity is dishonest because they don't accept your premise that absolute dollar values are a good measure of generosity?

Let's get this straight. Joe Smith earns $20k a year and donates $1k of that to charity. Bill Gates, richest man in the world, donates $1001 dollars to charity. By your reasoning, Gates is the more generous.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Martinm
So...their argument that absolute dollar values are not a good measure of generosity is dishonest because they don't accept your premise that absolute dollar values are a good measure of generosity?

Let's get this straight. Joe Smith earns $20k a year and donates $1k of that to charity. Bill Gates, richest man in the world, donates $1001 dollars to charity. By your reasoning, Gates is the more generous.

Precisely. You're starting to grasp the idea.
Let's take this from the other perspective, the one that's not concerned with confiscatory taxes or forced redistribution of wealth, shall we?

You're Bob Jones. You're out of work. Your family is starving. You receive two charity checks, one for $1,000 and one for $1,001. Who is the more generous donor? Remember, your main concern is not starving, not keeping a political scorecard.

If you come back with something to the tune of, "Bill Gates has more so he should give more," then you're talking socialism and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Generosity is this sense should be measred not by what is given but by what is received.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Jocko
Let's take this from the other perspective, the one that's not concerned with confiscatory taxes or forced redistribution of wealth, shall we?

I never said anything about confiscatory taxes or forced redistribution of wealth.

You're Bob Jones. You're out of work. Your family is starving. You receive two charity checks, one for $1,000 and one for $1,001. Who is the more generous donor? Remember, your main concern is not starving, not keeping a political scorecard

Assuming you're using my two donors, Joe Smith is the more generous. If you're not, I don't know.

If you come back with something to the tune of, "Bill Gates has more so he should give more," then you're talking socialism and we'll just have to agree to disagree

Should he give more? IMO, yes. Should the government force this by taking more? Hell, no.

Generosity is this sense should be measred not by what is given but by what is received

You're conflating generosity with utility. The larger donation is (assuming no conditions) always more useful, but generosity should be measured in terms of what could have been given as compared to what was actually given.

[Q-Source]

Jocko
The fact remains that you have consistently skewed figures to create the illusion that America isn't the most generous nation on earth, in terms of absolute dollars


Martinm
No one has disputed that. What they have disputed is your assertion that absolute dollar values are a good measure of generosity.

Allow me to laugh hysterically...

HahaHahaHahaHaha
HahaHaha
Haha
Haha

The most generous nation on earth? :rolleyes:

You cannot measure "generosity" in absolute terms or as a share of USA's GDP.

You only can measure generosity (I assume that you are talking about financial aid) in terms of ratios. So, we should ask how much of each dollar was generated by each agent involved in the transaction.

So, even though Bill Gates has a lot of money, most of the money was generated by a large amount of consumers (profits) and by public (free) information. So, what Bill Gates returns to society should be considered in terms of what he received from society.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Martinm

You're conflating generosity with utility. The larger donation is (assuming no conditions) always more useful, but generosity should be measured in terms of what could have been given as compared to what was actually given.

Then, as I've said many times already, you are more concerned with how much the donor is losing than with how much the needy are receiving.

Say the US contributes $1 billion to a cause, and Camaroon donates $1,000. Say the % of the respective GDPs is equal. Who is the more generous as seen by that recipient?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Jocko

Generosity is this sense should be measred not by what is given but by what is received.

Why? Generosity is an attribute of the giver, not of the receiver; so why should a person's generosity be defined by what the receiver ends up with?

If I send someone an expensive christmas gift, does it really matter as to my generosity wether or not the package was lost in the mail?

Or to take another example - if I give $100 to a foreign charity, but my bank charges $5 for foreign transfers so I end up effectively giving $95 to the actual charity - am I then "$5 less generous" than someone who live in the same country as the charity is based in and who walked into the charity's main-office and put $100 down on the counter?

I think your use of the word "generosity" is contrary to the common usage in English.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Jocko
Then, as I've said many times already, you are more concerned with how much the donor is losing than with how much the needy are receivingYou're not reading what I write, are you? :rolleyes:Say the US contributes $1 billion to a cause, and Camaroon donates $1,000. Say the % of the respective GDPs is equal. Who is the more generous as seen by that recipient?They are both equally generous. The US donation is vastly more useful.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Leif Roar

I think your use of the word "generosity" is contrary to the common usage in English.

Not at all.


Main Entry: gen·er·ous
Pronunciation: 'jen-r&s, 'je-n&-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French genereus, from Latin generosus, from gener-, genus
Date: 1588
1 archaic : HIGHBORN
2 a : characterized by a noble or forbearing spirit : MAGNANIMOUS, KINDLY b : liberal in giving : OPENHANDED c : marked by abundance or ample proportions : COPIOUS
synonym see LIBERAL
- gen·er·ous·ly adverb
- gen·er·ous·ness noun

I would say that the definition is ambiguous on the point, having nothing to do with relative capacity for giving. You can define the synonym "liberal" many ways as well- if you apply "liberal" amounts of pickle relish to your hotdog, is that dependent on how much remains unused in the dish?

I will concede that generosity, due to its broad interpretation, is not the best term for the point I was making. Utility does seem to be a better fit. Thanks.

[Supercharts]

"In the Second World War, when the Americans liberated Paris it was a culture shock to French women finally to be sleeping with men who didn't call them "Fraulein."

Jackie Mason
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/mason.html