World Forums

Well if Eugene's been drinking early tonight....


.........you( Mate), Leo and the rest of the cheerleaders have been smoking heroin ALL YEAR....

You're still talking about Saddam?

LMFAO!

Your leaders sent our boys to die for a Sunni Republic!!!!!!!....Iraqi women now deem head-scarves as a "protective garment" IN BAGDAHD!

Hundreds of thousands of innocents dead....the death toll from this slaughter will exceed the number of Saddam's murders (when Rummy was shaking hands w/him!).

20% of US Casualties are resulting from Humvee deficiencies....

I see you guys started your party WAY EARLY!!!!!!

Stay off the smack.

TEN-FOLD INCREASE!!!!!!!!


LMFAO!!!!!!!!


"we forgot to add a zero"

QUICK QUESTION FOR ALL YOU "MACHO MEN":

IS IT A "QUAGMIRE" YET?

LMFAO!!


......SUCKERS.......

TOP 10 WAR PROFITEERS OF 2004

http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/a ... hp?id=1029

The effort to help is far from over, notwithstanding all the usual suspects on the Left implying that George Bush's stance on the Kyoto Protocol is responsible for the latest tsunami.

Shit I must have missed the memo! Didn't realize we lefties had to blame the tsunami on Bush and Kyoto! But now that I know I better get on board! Bush is to blame for the Tsunami!

And Marko:

The left really do get dumber by the nanosecond.

Maybe you should ask for a link or a quote or something next time, before you take Leonid's word on what lefties think... Haven't heard anybody be it left or right blame the tsunami on Bush's stance on Kyoto. If these people exist they are not lefties but loonies.

Eugene, I recall you asking me a few weeks back why I wouldn't admit to being a liberal; I AM liberal, but leftists have hijacked the word and given it a brand new definition that doesn't sit well with my personal beliefs. For me, being liberal does NOT mean blaming America for EVERYTHING that goes wrong in this world; it doesn't mean concocting wild conspiracy theories or making unsubstantiated accusations like the above.

1. ARE you a liberal in the british or in the american interpretation of the word.

2. LOL at your definition of liberal....... Are you serious?

3. It's interesting at how the non-liberals like Leonid and you seem to know better what we liberals (US usage) think.....

Back to the tsunami, if we want to know the real reason for the tsunami we obviously can't trust notorious lefties like Eugene, Dezzi etc, but we have to ask the righties: What did cause the tsunami?

Answer from Ayn Rand: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archiv ... php#004312

Ayn Rand institute says US aid to disaster victims is wrong, though private charity "may be entirely proper, especially considering that most of those affected by this tragedy are suffering through no fault of their own." (emphasis added)

I'm waiting to hear about the minority of victims suffering because of self-inflicted tsunami damage.

So it was obviously this minority that caused the tsunami! Evildoers! Maybe a good thing I missed the memo, I would have stopped searching for the truth and never realized who really is to blame!

<b>Zeus</b>

1. I generally use British interpretations or the original meaning of the word. I am liberal in the sense that I'm for liberty and individual freedom. I want less state control, not more, etc. That kind of liberal.

I support the right to choose and couldn't care enough to even begin to dislike homosexuals. They can do as they please, and so will I. I just want the government to stay out of my life. The individual is always more important than the State IMO. Hayek is my favourite "liberal" in terms of my own definition.

2. I didn't define liberal in my last post at all! I simply defined what it wasn't; what some people erroneously make it out to be.

3. I don't know better; I think it's perfectly logical that those of us (myself included) with the means to do so help out the less fortunate in incidents such as this.

Nobody has the obligation to give monetary aid, but it would be nice if they did. I mean, if the same thing happened to us and the world stuck its middle finger up, it wouldn't be very nice. When we try to imagine how it would feel, we should make the right decision.

As for Ayn Rand, not really interested. However, I don't think anyone is blaming this disaster on humanity. What you pasted above was probably a grammatical error. I'm sure whoever wrote it doesn't think that some people affected by it WERE responsible.

1. Marko is exactly right. People posing as "liberals" nowadays are mostly Leftists. Their ideology has nothing or, at the best very little, to do with the classical British political philosophy.

2. Charitable donations cannot be obligatory, no matter how much they're desirable and helpful.

3. Ayn Rand Institute may or may not represent Ayn Rand's opinions correctly, but suffice it to say few people supported personal freedoms, especially freedom of individual from the state, as much as she did.

Anyway, it would be nice to have a direct quote from the aforementioned institute regarding the latest human tragedy, if that is possible.

Well it would be nice to get a quote from lefties blaming the tsunami on Bush/Kyoto too....

Marko

1) British liberal, ok got it. Problem is that the US usage is different. So usually when somebody posts liberal here, it's the US version.

2)But your non-definition of US liberal is strange anyway. By saying what a liberal isn't your explaining how you see the people who call themselves (erronously you claim) liberal. So you are basically saying that US lefties, that call themselves liberals like to blame everything on the US, love conspiracy theories and are generally a bunch of nuts?

3) No disagreement.

Ayn Rand. Grammatical error, would be my guess too. But at least I posted something, not a direct link to Ayn Rand, but something, while Leo just posted, ahhhh lefties blame the Tsunami on Bush because of the Kyoto protocol and you decided that that was proof of the lefties getting dumber by the nanoseconds. Without anything except Leo's word. Your going to get called on that one every time around here. And as I said, I posted more to back up my claim (well not really my claim, just a point as stupid as Leo's): Rightwingers believe some of the victims caused the Tsunami is better documented than Leo's cheap shot.

And the liberal thing again. People are not posing as liberals, lefties in the US are called liberals. It's not lefties saying. Hey we are liberals, it's everybody refering to lefties as liberals. My guess is that in the US it's used more for social issues, religion, homosexuality, abortion etc., while in Europe more for financial issues. Of course I prefer the European way. The whole thing is just more proof for the superiority of Europe

mate wrote:Eugene

Just like US supported terrorism (support for Mujaheddeen, Contras, Pinochet).

Supporting the Mujahadeen against an invading, bent on conquest, Soviet Empire is different from supporting Mujahadeen insurgents that want to defeat democracy and impose their own brand of totalitarianism. But, you really knew this.

But, Hussein has never been proven to support international terrorism.

I see you started drinking early in anticipation of the new year. Anyways, I'll see you here next year. Don't drink too much vodka tonight!



Cheers, Mate

Mate

You lose again. USSR did not invade Afghanistan. It never did. But, you would know that, would you not?

You see, discussing most manners requiring knowing something about them. Ergo - your downfall.

Interestingly, you made sure not to say anything about US support of contras.

Marko

Marko wrote: 1. I generally use British interpretations or the original meaning of the word. I am liberal in the sense that I'm for liberty and individual freedom. I want less state control, not more, etc. That kind of liberal.

I support the right to choose and couldn't care enough to even begin to dislike homosexuals. They can do as they please, and so will I. I just want the government to stay out of my life. The individual is always more important than the State IMO. Hayek is my favourite "liberal" in terms of my own definition.

That is EXACTLY what I consider a liberal to be - defending personal freedoms.

Nobody has the obligation to give monetary aid, but it would be nice if they did. I mean, if the same thing happened to us and the world stuck its middle finger up, it wouldn't be very nice. When we try to imagine how it would feel, we should make the right decision.

Yet when one was to complain about the lack of aid, the response from the likes of Leonid is "so who's stopping you?"

That is EXACTLY what I consider a liberal to be - defending personal freedoms.

Well, in this definition, I would qualify as a liberal, too- and so would the American and most European constitutions.

The individual is always more important than the State IMO.

True. States are supposed to be there for the benefit of their cititzens - not vice versa.

Yet when one was to complain about the lack of aid, the response from the likes of Leonid is "so who's stopping you?"

While in most cases, taxes and re-distribution are counterproductive, there do exist exceptions. This is one such. People donate money to victims of major disasters, and this makes the world a better place than it would be if people simply "stuck its middle finger up". And to point this out, it makes the world a better place not only in terms of charity or humanity, but also economically. That's because, simply put, the international cooperativeness creates an insurance effect of sorts, which does have an economic value.

Of course if doesn't matter who pays for the help. If I know that my own chance to be helped in case I fall victim to such a disaster does not depend on my own donations now, I am better of myself keeping my own money than donating it. Problem is, if everyone thinks so, the positive effects of the donation system will go. That's the "free rider" dilemma.

I've come across no proof that Hussein directly supported Abu Nidal, although I know the group (and the man) resided in Iraq from time to time. Hussein kicked him out, and then he was allowed back in, but the group has been defunct for many years.

Defining the exploits of Hamas as international terrorism is interesting.

Mate, I stick by what I've always said - Islamic terrorist groups have been a loose affiliation, pitted even against each other, as well as various 'apostate regimes' in the ME, as well as against the West. There are fewer international jihadi groups that strike Western targets than fingers on one hand. Is it more than two? There are more 'terrorist' groups in iraq, for example.

You think my position is/was that Islamic terrorism is a fictional threat? You know that's rubbish. As ever, our argument has been over the magnitude and coordination of that threat. For example, I think it far more likely that Islamic terrorism against the West will be carried out with ordinary 'weapons', like airplanes, than with WMD and the like. A concern? Naturally. A strong likelihood? No way. And warring on Iraq to obviate the scenario? Big. Fat. Failure. Decentralizing control of the purported arms has left them... where exactly? And what would encourage ME regimes that may consort with terrorists to give them their most valued weaponry? Threatening such regimes and attacking them.

My mind is settled, and I really did hold a bushel of doubt on the matter, even as I tested my reckoning against others such as yourself. Iraq was an enormous mistake with geopolitical ramifications that work against the objective (prevent terrorism against the West). If in doubt, compare violence against Westerners in Iraq before March 2003 with now. Spain, anyone?

The new Iraqi government is likely to be aligned with Iran. Hussein was once a favourite buffer. The Sunnis have withdrawn, leaving the Kurds as America's best friends in Iraq, a sorry minority against the Shi'ite dominated ballot. The new government will have to distance itself from the US in order to establish legitimacy with the people. And I posited well before the war that the US public would have no taste for a protacted sortie in the ME. You know it yourself. You've been talking about 'will power' for quite a while. There will be no reordering of the ME. And when the job is left barely begun, Americans will have the Bush government to thank for further alienating the US from the region and the wider world. Democracy itself will undo the ambition. You have commented that there was 'already' antipathy for the US emanating from the ME, as if escalating it didn't really matter. Don't you understand that this is critical? Not war for democracy, but diplomacy for moderate Islam was and is needed. The West needs the ME to be well-disposed to it, not to emulate its polities.

And you never explained how democracy was supposed to undermine terrorism, nor how the idea would 'catch on', instead of entrenching and expanding extremism against Western values.

"If we can get them to look past the carnage, they will see the light of liberty."

Felix

US Constitution is liberal. No doubt about that.

However, certain circles are trying to make it less so by attempting to introduce a certain amendment to constitutionally limit the marriage to that of one woman and one man.

That the US Constitution had, most of the time, been more liberal than the American political center of mass is a known fact.

Secondly, on aid - Japan just pledged $500M. With millions needing this help, it is simply strange that a much smaller country, with economy in much worse shape than ours, is able to give more than US.

It still remains unclear who's preventing Eugene Berkovich to give more than Yasuhiro Nakasone did:)

Eugene

you failed to get my point entirely. Being a liberal does not necessarily mean to approve homosexual marriage or even support unlimited abortion right. Rather, it denotes the belief that individuals can do better than the state most of the time, and that, as a result, the state should not use any more authority than absolutely necessary. There may, however, still be conflicting opinions on what is "absolutely necessary" and what is not.

So, you are liberal because you believe that the state should allow whatever behavior does not harm others.

Here's another liberal view: Indivuduals can do better with their money than the state can, which is why the state should restrict social services to a minimum, in order to keep taxes to a minimum and create more incentives to work/build up enterprises. Not my view, but a view that can legitimately be called "liberal". What's funny about this is that this way, even Leo could be called a Liberal...

Nothing funny about it, Felix. Simply because I'm a follower of the British liberal political philosophy.

To me individual reigns supreme, not the state. Certainly I don't believe in a nanny-state.

My America is about Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, William Buckley and Norman Podhoretz.

I believe in the U.S.Constitution as written and meant by our Founding Fathers, not leftist cretins imposing their hateful opinions on the country.

I support the state that keeps criminals behind bars, maintains the rule of law and upholds American power from one end of the world to another.

I despise the state of the affirmative action, excessive taxation and regulation, to name the few of its transgressions against my liberty only.

So my opinions may be liberal in one sense and conservative in another. But as was mentioned previously, I most certainly know the difference between "liberal" and "leftist".

Felix K wrote:Eugene

So, you are liberal because you believe that the state should allow whatever behavior does not harm others.

Exactly as I have been saying here.

However, I believe, state should make sure people's rights are protected as nothing short of keeping an army of bodyguards can protect individual rights.

Also, I believe, people should have a right not to go hungry and be taken care of, should they be unable. Unfortunately, this is where state MUST come in. As it is not certain whether private donations or any otherwise support would necessarily come in. So, in many ways, state is there to make sure we're not hungry.

Leonid wrote:It still remains unclear who's preventing Eugene Berkovich to give more than Yasuhiro Nakasone did:)

Nothing does. And chances are, I do.

However, uncle Sam MUST give more than the Empire of the Rising Sun. You know, stronger economy and larger population, and, most of all, the unrelenting feeling of its own self-righteousness.

However, I believe, state should make sure people's rights are protected as nothing short of keeping an army of bodyguards can protect individual rights.

True, the state must provide public goods that would not be produced (or produced in inefficiently low quantity) if they were subject to private initiative only. Personal safety is an example for that. Other examples include infrastructure, national defense and, in certain areas, scientific research and culture.

Also, I believe, people should have a right not to go hungry and be taken care of, should they be unable. Unfortunately, this is where state MUST come in.

I agree in principle. The right to state your opinion freely is rather useless if you have nothing to eat. However, one must take into account that a social system is not only expensive, but also produces negative incentives: Too great welfare will prevent people from even wanting to find a job, and too high taxes will prevent otherwise productive entrepreneurs from making investments from which the economy would benefit.

In any case, I live in a state where no one needs to be hungry. Compared to the US, our complaining about the social system is on a high level really.

Leonid wrote:Nothing funny about it, Felix. Simply because I'm a follower of the British liberal political philosophy.

Well, the "funny" part is that when I composed the message, I had to think about the term "neoliberal" which came up in Germany in the late 80s and which would, in many ways, describe you, who is normally more likely to be called a "neocon".

I believe in the U.S.Constitution as written and meant by our Founding Fathers, not leftist cretins imposing their hateful opinions on the country.

No doubt I can relate to that, although I would choose a different wording.

Leonid wrote:]So my opinions may be liberal in one sense and conservative in another. But as was mentioned previously, I most certainly know the difference between "liberal" and "leftist".

You do, no doubt, but about some others I am not so sure.

Eugene

Since your monetary awareness has risen to new heights recently, how would you evaluate the USS Lincoln's relief operations on Sumatra?

How much is it worth?

Also, how much 40% of the UN relief operations annually is worth?

Pause for a second, do not answer - I don't really need your answers. Do you care about what Americans do or this tsunami is just another opportunity to loose your anti-American reflex and utter silly things?

Well, dear friends, we're now into the tenth day of the tsunami crisis and in this battered corner of Asia, the UN is nowhere to be seen -- unless you count at meetings, in five-star hotels, and holding press conferences.

Aussies and Yanks continue to carry the overwhelming bulk of the burden, but some other fine folks also have jumped in: e.g., the New Zealanders have provided C-130 lift and an excellent and much-needed potable water distribution system; the Singaporeans have provided great helo support; the Indians have a hospital ship taking position off Sumatra. Spain and Netherlands have sent aircraft with supplies.

The UN continues to send its best product, bureaucrats. Just today the city's Embassies got a letter from the local UN representative requesting a meeting for "Ms. Margareeta Wahlstrom, United Nations Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator and the Secretary-General's Special Coordinator for Humanitarian Assistance in Tsunami-afected countries." Wow! Put that on a business card! And she must be really, really special because she has the word "coordinator" twice in her title!

The letter, in typically modest UN style, goes on to explain that "Ms. Wahlstrom's main task will be to provide leadership and support to the international relief effort. She will undertake high-level consultations with the concerned governments in order to facilitate the delivery of international assistance." Oh, and she'll be visiting from January 4-5.

Once, again, a hearty Diplomadic "WOW!" She's going to do all that in two days! The Australians and we have been feeding and otherwise helping tens-of-thousands of people stay alive for the past ten days, and still have a long, long way to go, but she's going to wrap the whole thing up in a couple of days of meetings. Thank goodness she's here to provide the poor lost Aussies and Yanks with leadership. The Diplomad bows in awe to such power and wisdom. The letter is signed, by the way, by the same UN official who suggested a couple of days back that the Australian and US air traffic controllers in Aceh should don UN blue.

Ok, enough with the UN; you get the picture. Now to the EU. The EU could copy the Australian-American model of acting quickly and effectively to save lives, or they could copy the UN model of meeting at a leisurely pace to plan for the possibility of setting up a coordination center that will consider making a plan for the possibility of an operations center to consider beginning to request support for the tsunami's victims. Ah, my wise friends, guess which model of "action" the EU chose? No need to emulate those "cowboys" from Australia and the USA with their airplanes and loading crews working round-the-clock; oh, no, much too tacky, sweaty and dirty. No need to feed into the system those goofy Aussiyankeebushowardian New World Anglo-Saxons already have created. No, they'll follow the much more elegant Kofi Annan model. A couple of EU planners have shown up to begin making arrangements for an assessment team to arrive, etc., etc., you know the rest. Meanwhile, people die.

The US military has arrived and is clearly establishing its presence everywhere in Banda Aceh. They completely have taken over the military hospital, which was a mess until yesterday but is now completely up and running. They brought big stocks of medicines, materials for the operation room, teams of doctors, water and food. Most of the patients who were lying in the hospital untreated for a week have undergone medical treatment by the US teams by this afternoon. US military have unloaded lots of heavy vehicles and organize the logistics with Indonesian military near the airport. A big camp is being set up at a major square in the town. Huge generators are ready to provide electricity. US helicopters fly to places which haven't been reached for the whole week and drop food. The impression it makes on the people is also highly positive; finally something happens in the city of Banda Aceh and finally it seems some people are in control and are doing something. No talking but action. European countries are until now invisible on the ground.

Leonid wrote:Well, dear friends, we're now into the tenth day of the tsunami crisis and in this battered corner of Asia, the UN is nowhere to be seen -- unless you count at meetings, in five-star hotels, and holding press conferences.

Aussies and Yanks continue to carry the overwhelming bulk of the burden, but some other fine folks also have jumped in: e.g., the New Zealanders have provided C-130 lift and an excellent and much-needed potable water distribution system; the Singaporeans have provided great helo support; the Indians have a hospital ship taking position off Sumatra. Spain and Netherlands have sent aircraft with supplies.

The UN continues to send its best product, bureaucrats. Just today the city's Embassies got a letter from the local UN representative requesting a meeting for "Ms. Margareeta Wahlstrom, United Nations Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator and the Secretary-General's Special Coordinator for Humanitarian Assistance in Tsunami-afected countries." Wow! Put that on a business card! And she must be really, really special because she has the word "coordinator" twice in her title!

The letter, in typically modest UN style, goes on to explain that "Ms. Wahlstrom's main task will be to provide leadership and support to the international relief effort. She will undertake high-level consultations with the concerned governments in order to facilitate the delivery of international assistance." Oh, and she'll be visiting from January 4-5.

Once, again, a hearty Diplomadic "WOW!" She's going to do all that in two days! The Australians and we have been feeding and otherwise helping tens-of-thousands of people stay alive for the past ten days, and still have a long, long way to go, but she's going to wrap the whole thing up in a couple of days of meetings. Thank goodness she's here to provide the poor lost Aussies and Yanks with leadership. The Diplomad bows in awe to such power and wisdom. The letter is signed, by the way, by the same UN official who suggested a couple of days back that the Australian and US air traffic controllers in Aceh should don UN blue.

Ok, enough with the UN; you get the picture. Now to the EU. The EU could copy the Australian-American model of acting quickly and effectively to save lives, or they could copy the UN model of meeting at a leisurely pace to plan for the possibility of setting up a coordination center that will consider making a plan for the possibility of an operations center to consider beginning to request support for the tsunami's victims. Ah, my wise friends, guess which model of "action" the EU chose? No need to emulate those "cowboys" from Australia and the USA with their airplanes and loading crews working round-the-clock; oh, no, much too tacky, sweaty and dirty. No need to feed into the system those goofy Aussiyankeebushowardian New World Anglo-Saxons already have created. No, they'll follow the much more elegant Kofi Annan model. A couple of EU planners have shown up to begin making arrangements for an assessment team to arrive, etc., etc., you know the rest. Meanwhile, people die.

The US military has arrived and is clearly establishing its presence everywhere in Banda Aceh. They completely have taken over the military hospital, which was a mess until yesterday but is now completely up and running. They brought big stocks of medicines, materials for the operation room, teams of doctors, water and food. Most of the patients who were lying in the hospital untreated for a week have undergone medical treatment by the US teams by this afternoon. US military have unloaded lots of heavy vehicles and organize the logistics with Indonesian military near the airport. A big camp is being set up at a major square in the town. Huge generators are ready to provide electricity. US helicopters fly to places which haven't been reached for the whole week and drop food. The impression it makes on the people is also highly positive; finally something happens in the city of Banda Aceh and finally it seems some people are in control and are doing something. No talking but action. European countries are until now invisible on the ground.

Yanks and the Aussies have only provided under $400M of the relief, which is, currently, under 15% of the total $2.9B. Germany and Japan have alone provided more than Aussies and Yanks together.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiap ... index.html

Is this again an ignorant drivel spewed by you, Leonid?

And, one more thing, if telling it how it is somehow anti-American - I am guilty as charged.

I believe that a country that tries to appear the most righteous nation in the world (along with being the richest and the mightiest) should set example for the others. It seems that in the truly important matters, Yanks are taking a back seat to the unassuming Germans and Japanese.

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Following is a list of monetary contributions pledged by governments and the World Bank to help Indian Ocean nations hit by the December 26 earthquake and tsunami, compiled from reports by Reuters bureaus and U.N. agencies. (Private donations are in parentheses where available)

(in millions of dollars)

African Union 0.10
Algeria 2.00
Australia 46.48
Austria 10.88 (13.60)
Bahrain 2.00
Belgium 16.32
Britain 96.00 (146.00)
Bulgaria 0.14
Canada 66.00
China 60.42
Cyprus 0.37
Denmark 76.83
EU 31.29
Finland 6.12 (17.68)
France 66.38 (49.00)
Germany 660.00 (130.00)
Greece 0.40
Hungary 1.20
Ireland 13.62
Italy 95.00
Japan 500.00
Kuwait 10.00
Libya 2.00
Luxembourg 6.80
Netherlands 34.00
New Zealand 3.60
Norway 181.90
Poland 1.00 (1.30)
Portugal 10.88 (2.72)
Qatar 25.00
Saudi Arabia 30.00
Singapore 3.10
Slovakia 0.23
Slovenia 0.11
South Korea 50.00
Spain 68.02
Sweden 80.00
Switzerland 23.81 (39.24)
Taiwan 5.25
Turkey 1.25
UAE 20.00
USA 350.00
Venezuela 2.00
World Bank 250.00
Total: 2,890.50 (385.94)

Oh, by the way, Australia, Canada, Finland, and Spain also join Japan and germany as country whose relief funds surpass USA's per capita.

As well as Norway, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, UAE, Italy, and Kuwait!

Leonid wrote:
]So my opinions may be liberal in one sense and conservative in another. But as was mentioned previously, I most certainly know the difference between "liberal" and "leftist".


You do, no doubt, but about some others I am not so sure.

Again from what I know in the US "liberal" equals "leftist".
See the US election with the "ultra-liberal" Kerry....
You can discuss the real or original meaning as long as you alll want to, the fact remains that in the 21st century in the US a liberal will be a lefty. In other parts of the world, including Switzerland not.

It's like anti-semite. When Leo accuses 97% of this board of being anti semitic, we now what he means. Not the litteral meaning.

"From what you know", it's better to remain silent, regarding everything:)

Australia ups the ante to about $750M. For a country that is at least ten times smaller than US in terms of population it's quite impressive.

USA is still at $350M

Eugene,

This isn't a poker game you know.

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris, in 2003, the world’s major countries gave $108.5 billion in combined foreign aid.
Of this, the United States contributed $37.8 billion or 35 percent of the total.

The next largest foreign aid contributor was The Netherlands, which gave $12.2 billion, following two years in which it was actually a net recipient of foreign aid.

Another thing one notices is that the foreign aid data are only for “official” (i.e., government) aid. The data are sketchy, but by all accounts Americans are far more generous in terms of charitable contributions than the citizens of any other country, explains Bartlett.

In 2003, charitable giving amounted to 8.6 billion pounds or 0.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in the United Kingdom, according to the Charities Aid Foundation.

In comparison, charitable giving amounted to $241 billion or 2.2 percent of GDP in the United States, according to the American Association of Fundraising Counsel.

In short, the charge of stinginess is unfounded. The United States carries much of the world on its back, providing other nations with security, aid and much of their investment and income. It also pays for a fourth of all the salaries of U.N. bureaucrats, says Bartlett.

Source: Bruce Bartlett, “Ungrateful U.N. Bureaucrat’s Charges Are Unfounded,” National Center for Policy Analysis, January 4, 2005.

You know I'm right Poldi!

Leonid wrote:According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris, in 2003, the world’s major countries gave $108.5 billion in combined foreign aid.
Of this, the United States contributed $37.8 billion or 35 percent of the total.

The next largest foreign aid contributor was The Netherlands, which gave $12.2 billion, following two years in which it was actually a net recipient of foreign aid.

So, basically, the Dutch (ready for this?) gave more money per capita than US! Much more! And so did about two dozen other countries!!!

"So basically" only America-bashers care about per capita aid. Victims need REAL HELP, which they get from the USS Abraham Lincoln, not from cretins who blather much about it while donating and doing nothing.

Barry...

My ass is still tied up at work, but I will respond to your latest post in the next few days. I have some things to say regarding the tsunami and US-Muslim relations.

Be prepared.

Cheers, Mate

I'll tell you what is uncriticizable — well-nigh uncriticizable: the coverage of the tsunami tragedy. I, and others, find the coverage quite objectionable, but it's hard to say why. I am someone who loves photojournalism; always have. But one more picture of an Asian tot with a desperate look on her face and outstretched hands . . . I mean, it's a little cheap, isn't it? A little too much. A great deal of journalism is exploitative, of course — but there is exploitation and there is exploitation.

And, of course, the tsunami gives plenty of opportunity — illogically — for West-blaming: The West should have prevented the earthquake, it should have prevented the tsunami, it should have had $100 billion in the region a week before the quake, it shouldn't be rich at all, it should tax its people into penury, we are guilty, we are guilty, we are guilty.

And tsunami coverage, of course, allows journalists to express their "caring" — even though these men and women might treat their families or their colleagues down the hall like you-know-what.

(By the way, do you remember the old definition of a Marxist? "Someone who loves humanity in groups of one million or more.")

If only Bush would have signed the Kyoto treaty, the tsunami would have never happened

Stingy Americans

http://blog.simmins.org/td.pdf

Leonid wrote:"So basically" only America-bashers care about per capita aid. Victims need REAL HELP, which they get from the USS Abraham Lincoln, not from cretins who blather much about it while donating and doing nothing.

First of all, you're the cretin who does not care that the mighty and self-roighteous America is not helping as much as much smaller countries.

Secondly, per capita is the only plausible criteria, which would allow comparisons accross a very wide spectra of countries' sizes and population.

Just like China is no richer than Switzerland, even though they have a greater GDP.

And, finally, please provide proof or even any reason to believe that I do not personally donate. And after you're done with that, do a little sing and dance about "lefties".