01-16-2005, 08:13 AM | #1 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Aid to Tsunami Victims II
It's really been interesting to watch this unfold. The tsunami victims seem to be a cause that all the liberals can really get behind. I saw Madonna and George Clooney parading their faces in front of the cameras just yesterday.
However, I have some questions. 1. What makes a tsunami orphan any more deserving of aid than a starving orphan in, say, East Timor? How much money has Australia sent there? 2. It is my understanding that President Bush is allowing donations made this year (2005) to be used for 2004 tax purposes. Does anyone else think that's a very dangerous precedent? 3. In another thread, I made the comment that we were called "stingy" by the UN. (You know, the organization that flew their flag at half-mast when Yasser Arafat died, but not when Ronald Reagan died.) Some of my words were: "The point is that the US continues to donate money for aid, even to people who hate us. We are by far the most generous nation in the history of the world, and we still (back to the point of the thread) get dumped on, particularly by the UN." Now my attention has been drawn to the following: Thanks, now get out Quote:
|
|
01-16-2005, 09:03 AM | #2 (permalink) |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
1. There is no difference between the two. The only difference is that the other children of the world: a) don't get plastered all over the media on a regular basis and b) the Tsunami disaster is immediate... the other childeren of the world are ongoing.
2. This encourages people to donate to a cause that needs money NOW, not a year from now... NOW. 3. The US gives a lot of money... the point the UN official was making was that as a percentage of total GDP the countries of the west (no country was singled out so give it an f'n rest already) gives a pittance. As for Reagan vs. Arafat... one was a former president and the other was a sitting president... I'm sure it is protocol. Are you saying that the UN should lower it's flag for ALL ex-leaders of the world when they kick off? As for the article... It is sure full of hate... Indonesia is grateful for the assistance... However, they do not want foreign troops in their country. Would you welcome Russian, Chinese, Kuwaiti, etc. troops on your soil? If they were required in the short term... I would be OK with this, but in the long term I certainly wouldn't. I would not be all that happy to see American troops (or any foreign troops for that matter) marching all over Canada. Indonesia is a sovreign nation. I don't see the problem with them saying, OK, thanks now please leave. The area in question has been the site of a brewing civil war... regardless of which side you would take in the dispute, it is their *elected* governments perogative to keep foreign troops out of this dispute. I think their reaction is hardly one that is Musilm vs. Christians as the author of this peice suggests. The Indonesian government works quite well with the US and Australia. Asking that the US not set up a base on their soil is hardly an act of war...
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
01-16-2005, 11:55 AM | #3 (permalink) | |
All important elusive independent swing voter...
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
|
Quote:
Anyways, I think Charlatan is on the right track. It's a bit early to jump on the "world is against us" bandwagon. It always sucks when "aid and charity" becomes so political. Money is money, aid is aid. Why prevent Israeli doctors from helping YOUR people? But, I don't think Indonesia was rude or ungrateful. They simply communicated what they wanted. Similarly, at a press conference, Armitage was asked if the newly elected Iraqi government asked (or demanded) the US to leave Iraq, he replied yes, immediately. SO if we are williing to respect the wishes of a newly formed government in Iraq , shouldn't we do th same for another country? |
|
01-16-2005, 12:00 PM | #4 (permalink) | |
Insane
|
1. Well, the tsunami completely destroyed many areas of the world. Trying to turn it into the argument you wish is retarded and seems to only try to draw some stupid ass emotional response.
2. No Quote:
Also, I don't really think that Americans care how other nations feel about us. The tsunami obviously did alot of destruction and killed alot of people and people wanted to help. Thats the key...people wanted to help. Therefore, people are donating because it makes them feel good. Finally, many people understand that those countries are shitty to us. However, we tend to think of the families that are suffering and think of their help as aiding fellow people in extreme times of need. |
|
01-16-2005, 12:30 PM | #5 (permalink) | ||
Loser
|
Quote:
|
||
01-16-2005, 12:48 PM | #6 (permalink) |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
Here is a question for you to answer SOB... India did not want ANY foreign troops on their soil. They let it be known that they didn't want any aid. India is primarily a Hindu country.
Does this make India "ungrateful?" Does this mean the world's Hindus are at war with us? Joregelito... why shouldn't the UN honour Arafat? While the view in the west is that he was a monster there are many nations who see him in the exact opposite light. I prefer to look at him as just one side of a very nasty coin. I would expect the same sort of honour to be accorded the death of a serving leader of Israel...
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
01-16-2005, 01:04 PM | #7 (permalink) |
All important elusive independent swing voter...
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
|
I guess I just don't think Arafat should be honored, at least by the UN. I can understand if the Palestinians want to. I guess I see it as a UN endorsement of the man (and his policies etc) and the UN is supposed to be at least neutral or objective. Meaning if they honored Arafat, then why not Reagan? So, for me, I think the UN should be at least consistent in that regard.
|
01-16-2005, 05:05 PM | #8 (permalink) |
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
As far as Indonesia goes, I'm not a fan. They are entitled to their opinions, and I don't fault them for wanting foreign troops on there soil. But at the same time I won't send them a dime of aid. I was watching the news a few nights back and I saw a man cleaning up wreckage, then I noticed his shirt... it was a picture of Osama Bin Laden, then I remembered, this was the country were after 9-11 people took to the streets celebrating. Also this is the same country that declared a fatwa of Jihad against America surrounding the run up to Iraq. Maybe they should be just a little more grateful to us Americans, see where they would be at had we left Muslim countries to aid them.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. |
01-16-2005, 05:12 PM | #9 (permalink) | |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
Quote:
I wouldn't be surprised to see that this is simple protocol.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
|
01-16-2005, 05:20 PM | #10 (permalink) | |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
Quote:
So far the only quotes I have seen are from the vice-president saying that he would like it if all foreign aid workers and troops would leave by a certain date. Before the Tsunami, these areas were off limits to foreigners and I'm sure they want to get back to status quo (regardless of how you feel about their reasons). As for the guy in the OSB shirt... complaining about that is like complaining that some guy in the US is wearing a Che Guevera shirt... I am fairly certain that the US administration does not support the Cuban Revolution... And finger pointing at a group of people dancing in the street post 9/11 is hardly fair either... do we have context? How many were involved? etc... This like saying because I see some Militiamen waving rifles around and forming an Army ALL Americans are armed to the teeth and fear the government's interfence... Don't judge 201 million people by what you think you see on CNN...
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
|
01-16-2005, 06:57 PM | #11 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Despite the fact that the opinion piece that started this thread was extremely biased, I thought I would post this news story.
Quote:
Mr Mephisto |
|
01-16-2005, 07:01 PM | #12 (permalink) | ||
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 01-16-2005 at 07:07 PM.. |
||
01-16-2005, 07:14 PM | #13 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Quote:
Well, then I guess all Americans should be too. The US company that sells these t-shirts is obviously indicative of ALL Americans. REF: http://www.tshirthell.com/store/prod...?productid=102 The US political party that uses the swastika as its symbol is obviously indicattive of ALL Americans REF: http://www.americannaziparty.com/about/index.shtml The actions shown in this image (used as just one example only) are obviously indicative of ALL Americans. Now to clear the air. I don't really think the above images represent the vast majority of Americans. They can be taken out of context. Such is the case with a picture of an Indonesian in an Osama Bin Laden t-shirt. Maybe he did support OBL, but it's not true to state that all Muslims do so. And certainly, the majority of Muslim nations number Al Queda in their list of enemies and are allies with the US in the so-called "War on Terror". Mr Mephisto |
|
01-16-2005, 07:40 PM | #14 (permalink) |
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
I'd believe that if most Muslim nations didn't support terrorist organizations, the only ally I've found in this war on terror is Pakistan, nix that Mushareff. The only reason he is helping us is because he has been targetted for assasination three times by "hardline" Muslims, and because people like Al Qaeda and the Taliban are a challenge to his power.
As far as I'm concerned, and this is only my opinion, I'm not a fan of Islam, and to be honest I don't think the people have are giving much to work with when it comes to them. I often find it to be a repressive religion of hate and ignorance. Now before you guys come back and try to assert how Christianity or Christians are somehow as bad as Islam, where in the civilized Western Christian world does it come anywhere close to the repressive nature of Muslim Sharian regimes? Why is it that women are treated as second class citizens in just about every muslim country? Where has been all the intellectual development in the Islamic world? Why do so many regimes openly support Idealoges of hate and terrorism? Where were all the Muslims speaking out against events such as 9-11? Why does all the leadership in the Muslim world seem to come to corrupt dictators or warlords? You guys can go ahead and call me prejudgiced and ignorant, I'll just fire back that many of you here are willingly ignorant to the frightening and troublesome reality our world is facing with the Islamic religion. P.S. I'm not asserting it's all bad, just the Islamic world is in need of a MAJOR intellectual and idealological(sp) Reform.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 01-16-2005 at 07:47 PM.. |
01-16-2005, 07:48 PM | #15 (permalink) |
whosoever
Location: New England
|
not to flog a dead horse...i say dead mostly because the original poster apparently put this one on fire and forget...
but, a "temporary" base for the best quick strike military force in the world? i can see why they refused...i'm pretty sure we would too. that said, the indoensian military is a huge obstacle to distrubuting aid, apparently... these are the guys we're buddying up to to help win the "War on Terrah." it's the classic example of borrowing trouble. in return for a possible benifit in subduing a muslim populace, we accept a corrupt regime that relies on human rights abuses to stay in power. such a regime so despicable, as to inspire folks to listen to extremist fanatics. God, when have i heard that one before?
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16 |
01-16-2005, 08:46 PM | #16 (permalink) |
Junk
|
In my humble opinion, the author in the original post (Dave Gibson) is an idiot. If he isn't careful, he may be headhunted by honestreporting.com. He would well fit in there.
As for pulling out of Indonesia, CNN had a blurb tonight that Wolfowitz agrees that as soon as possible, once things stabalize a pullout will begin accordingly.
__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard. |
01-16-2005, 09:48 PM | #17 (permalink) | |
Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate
Location: Los Angeles
|
Quote:
You do realize that the religion itself hasn't been the problem - its each government dealing with it in its own terms. For instance, the issue of women - in some countries, where government is much more secular, women are given great rights. Turkey, Jordan (believe it or not), and Iraq (yes, indeed) have long given women great rights. Countries where radical religion (Islam in this case) have often been the violators of their rights. And this has been true in supposedly "Christian" countries too - do you forget that women weren't allowed to vote til the 1920's in the US? Do you forget that women were once treated as property, rarely given jobs (and if so, at the worst of wages and in worst conditions) for a long time in our own history (which is but a fraction in world history)? The only difference is that we have advanced, but thats something you have to take by one case at a time - some "Western" nations are more liberal (funny that women's rights is a liberal issue but is used by the right in their arguments against Islam) in the feminist movement, others are not. There are women in our own country against those rights, just as there are those fervently in advancing their rights. Your next issue of intellectual development - do you seem to forget your history? The Eastern World has long been more advanced than the Western World. China for instance has long been the area of its greatest technological advance - compasses, paper, gunpowder (the big ones we all know of) has long been at the forefront in humanity's development of technology. Indeed, until the 1500's, the Muslim world was superior in technology and intellectual developments to the European/Christian world. Remember the Crusades and Richard the Lionheart? When he was wounded, Saladin sent his personal physicians to treat him - a testament to how medical techniques in the eastern world were superior to European methods. Indeed, the Crusades and Mongol Invasions finally brought much of the technology to Europe at last - papermaking, gunpowder, hell even the game of Chess. You can note however that in the 1500s, with the Rennaissance, and the beginnings of European colonization (the geographical location of Europe is big here), the shift in technology and power moved towards Europe - Europe and the US really broke away with the Industrial Revolution (which may not have come about with the power and resources via imperialism). Repressive nature in Christian countries? Do you seem to forget the Soviet Union (or are they un-Christian heathens despite the fact many are Eastern Orthodox, etc.?), Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and other nations in the last 100 years have often had a majority of Christians in the country? Of which many of its people were willing to follow? Hmm, next issue, you talk about regimes and their idealogues of hate and the lack of support against the terrorists of 9/11. Here's some thought - provide the quotes, the people who said em, and what nation they are from. I bet a lot of those are enemies of the U.S. from past events (Iraq), or are of radical religious governments like Iran, and previously Afghanistan. Furthermore, why must nations come out and make a statement - many nations dont give a rats ass about problems when they have their own. I dont see people asking for many countries in Africa to issue a formal statement about 9/11 and most don't care either. Its as though one expects teh entire world to send their condolences when those very own countries have their own issues and problems to deal with. How many in America cared when the trains in Spain were bombed? It was on the news and it was off within a week. Why do leaderships in Islamic countires end up in corrupt dictators? Here's a thought - look up the leaders of the countries in the world. Most, believe it or not, are authoritarian in nature. Corrupt dictators? Remember this quote? "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Hmm, let me see, last I saw, in Cuba they have a dictator, in Argentina they had many military juntas and dictators, Chile, Brazil, all within the last 50-100 (even 20) years. And hey, almost all those countries are 100% Christian! The type of religion does not equate to the rise of dictatorships. "Christian" nations have created some brutal dictators in the past - hey, there was Napoleon - hello Mussolini, hello Hitler! What does matter is when religion is brought into the government - it creates the big problems. Those Islamic countries with the biggest beef with the U.S. have been those with religious government nature - they often treat women like 2nd class citizens, they often support terrorist actions. Those who have secular governments more or less have been supportive or at least neutral with the U.S. Hell, Turkey is most certainly a Muslim country, but guess what - its been in NATO, is applying for the EU, and other than its people, has little if any semblance to your typical idea of the Muslim country. Type of religion doesn't determine how a country is run be it democratic or authoritarian - its the difference between religion being used to influence politics (or in some cases, control it) and those who don't allow religion in their politics. There is a big reason why I want religion and government separated fully - its because when religion is put in a government, one answers only to what one believes in religion, and no longer to the people who run the government (in democracies, that would be people). Thats when it gets dangerous. Before you call others ignorant of the issue, why dont you look deep into their history and study it first before you decide others don't have a clue about the situation. There are people out there who have dedicated their lives to studying geopolitical situations and how history affects us today - it would do well if you followed that before deciding others don't have a clue. So you know believe as you wish, but I think there is a whole lot more one can find see and learn when one does it with an open mind. Last edited by Zeld2.0; 01-16-2005 at 09:55 PM.. |
|
01-16-2005, 10:11 PM | #18 (permalink) | ||||||||||
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 01-16-2005 at 10:18 PM.. |
||||||||||
01-16-2005, 10:32 PM | #19 (permalink) | ||||||
Junkie
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Two quite seperate things. Quote:
And how can you describe Muslim countries as unAmerican? Of course they are. America supports the illegal occupation of Palestine by Israel. They are bound to resent that. A lot of the Muslim antipathy towards America can be traced back to (for want of a better term) "self esteem". And American actions only go to emphasize and exacerbate these problems. It's just a fact of life. Mr Mephisto Mr Mephisto |
||||||
01-16-2005, 10:50 PM | #20 (permalink) | |||||
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
[QUOTE=Mr Mephisto]Where does this happen (apart from Taliban Afghanistan which is now defunct)?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As for you other points, I'm not going to further open the flood gates into the legalities of occupation and the larger Israel/Palestinian conflicts.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. |
|||||
01-16-2005, 11:07 PM | #21 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
|
Quote:
I can post numerous references (both online and paper), and quotations if you want Quote:
Mr Mephisto |
||
01-16-2005, 11:15 PM | #22 (permalink) | |
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
I guess the Bishop of Berlin was wrong to feel threatened in 1935 then...
Quote:
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 01-16-2005 at 11:18 PM.. |
|
01-16-2005, 11:32 PM | #23 (permalink) | ||||||
Junkie
|
Quote:
Oh, and Herr Hitler himself. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Both the Catholic and Protestant Churches were very powerful in Germany. To think that Hitler wanted to destroy or remove them is incorrect and, to be perfectly honest, disengenuous. It is often used as an excuse as to why many Christians did not rise up and do more. A terrible time in human history... Mr Mephisto |
||||||
01-17-2005, 12:27 AM | #25 (permalink) |
Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate
Location: Los Angeles
|
Mojo: You do realize that the Catholic Church over the recent decades has tried to distance itself from association with the Nazi's? There have been numerous documents revealed in recent years about their associations (such as messages between Pius and Hitler) - indeed, Pope John Paul II has done much of his work as the Pope in mending religious relationships.
And you do realize that half your arguments just support the fact that its not the religion (in this case, Islam) that affects how governments are run - it is the fact that this happens to every religion but it mainly concerns how they are run which ends in result. Countries with a majority of Christians - even deeply religious ones - have fallen to dictatorships. So have Islamic ones. So have ones in Asia in their various religions. Some have been butchers of their own people (i dont get where the idea that a religion has to support is own people all the time - indeed, Christians have fought with one another in Europe for nearly as long as Christianity has been around), others have not. Maybe I should restate my point - be it Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, whatever, there have been similar results that lead me to believe its not a matter of religion, its a matter of people and the type of government set up. For instance, secular Islamic countries have had mixed features: a) Turkey - secular - one of the most pro-Western countries in the Middle East. Member of NATO and trying to apply for the EU - very close ally of the U.S. - other than the ethnicity and religion, its features would be nearly identical to any other Western democratic nation. b) Iraq - secular - before the 91 Gulf War, it had long been supported by Western nations as a buffer against radical Islam - it, however, had a butcherous dictator for a leader. c) Jordan - secular - ruled by the Hussein family (direct descendents of Muhammad iirc), it is ruled by the monarchy but it is a country that has been under the rule of good leaders. Indeed, the advances in literacy, health, and other conditions during the reign of the late King Hussein are considered one of the most remarkable in the Middle East. In fact, during his funeral in 1999, it was one of the most amazing things to see both radical Islamists as well as western dignitaries stand side to side to honor King Hussein - you had Clinton, Bush, Carter, Ford there along with Tony Blair, Prince Charles, Chirac, Schroder, and others there along side Araft, Syrian President Al-Assad, even Qadaffi's son. Hell, old Boris Yeltsin made the trip despite poor health. d) Pakistan - ruled by a military dictator, but has made its moves towards democratic reforms. Typically neutral with the U.S. due to the situation between India and Pakistan - this is the second largest Muslim country in the world (first being Indonesia) but has none of the supposed features of a repressive country of death. Indeed, this shows these countries with a nearly 100% Islamic population have had their mix of butcherous dictators as well as democracy and authoritarian leaders that have done good. You can put in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other countries where appropriate. Then you can look at countries that have (or had) religious governments - places like Iran and Afghanistan and you can see their share of rotten apples - though it is of note that many of these happen to be the governments where religion is mixed in. Indeed, looking at Christian/Western countries, you see similar patterns. Lets see: a) Argentina - it has a secular government, but it has been home to some dictators - remember Peron? Or how about the military juntas in the 70's and 80's that happened to call for the invasion of the Falkland Islands? Oh yeah, their country is overwhelmingly Christian (Roman Catholic to be exact). b) Chile - secular government, but hey, remember Pinochet? The immediate aftermath of his takeover was 3000 executed as well as 27000 suddenly disappearing off the face of the Earth. Martial law in the country, mmmm, fun. c) Spain - hey lets not forget Franco! Once sided with the Nazi's and Fascists to overthrow a democratic republic. Hell he ruled til the 70's and allowed the restoration of the monarchy. Ruled with an iron fist in Europe but largely ignored due to his anti-communist stance. Spain is as Christian as they get. As you can see, Christian countries have had their own problems and thats not even counting countries like Italy and Germany where Christianity is the overwhelming majority, governments were called secular, but were mass murderers, dictators, totalitarians. The one difference is that in most countries where Christianity is the top religion, the separation of state and religion is known and exists. I suppose thousands of years of history with such situations as the Inquistion, wars between Orthodox and Catholics, later Protestants, the influence of the Pope on politics, and other things have taught them to keep religion out of state. Islam hasn't found that in many of its countries yet (Iran, previously Afghanistan) and that has led to great oppression of ideas and people. Indeed, since I vehemently oppose religion with state, I think they do need things to change. But again, I contend with the idea that Islam is the root of the problem. It is not - its religion put in with government and ruling through that context that problems arrive. Religion is a powerful force - if you are a believer in religion, and there is the use of religion to tell people what to do, it becomes a powerful tool for those in powers. That of course is just part of it, but that is probably why it is so common for oppressive tactics to be used in non-secular countries. Indeed look at the history of the world and you will see that what religion the country is doesnt matter - oppression and butcherous leaders are to be found there. Do you forget Pol Pot and the killing fields of Southeast Asia? Now there was one sick SOB with pictures taken of those who are about to be dead and the hills of human skulls. Do you forget Stalin and how he killed his own people? Do you forget Hitler? Do you forget Mao and the communists in China, who killed my great grandmother simply because she owned land? And that is only in recent history - shall we go further back and look at butchers in history? I dont forget these things happen in many countries of all religions and government types. But you know what? I mean believe as you wish - these are things I have learned in my own studies and travels abroad. I have unfortunately witnessed my own share of problems and feelings (try taking a tour of some concentration camps like Auschwitz... your life will never be the same... its as though the stench of death has never left the place) and to each their own I guess. |
01-17-2005, 09:14 AM | #26 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Detroit, MI
|
OT
Quote:
Here in Detroit, we have the second largest Arab Muslim population outside of the Middle East. They run their own businesses, restaraunts, mosques, legal services, health clinics, car dealerships, book stores, bakeries etc. here in the city of Dearborn. There are some very wealthy muslims living in the suburbs, as well. You would pass out if you saw the house of a prominent Pakistani physician I pass on my way to work: it looks like the freaking Taj Mahal, and good for him. I think it's a bit of a stretch to designate America as officially "Anti-Muslim." I would say America provides a decent, peaceful life to many muslim-americans. How many Muslim countries give such a welcome to an American presence? /OT |
|
01-17-2005, 09:35 AM | #27 (permalink) | |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
Both sides of this debate are making sweeping judgements...
There are anti-American sentiments in many countries around the world, some of which have a larger percentage of Muslims in their population There are anti-Muslim sentiments in some parts of America. Just as there are anti-French sentiments in America... This is not to say that all America is anti-Muslim or all Muslim's are anti-American... Quote:
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
|
01-24-2005, 07:41 PM | #28 (permalink) | ||||||
Banned
|
Well, I started this thread and got distracted by discovering that my payroll company screwed up my end-of-the-year pay. Great timing.
In glancing over it, I noticed some interesting statements. Quote:
I'm also glad emergency rooms don't work on this principle. Quote:
Quote:
However, what I intended with this post is for someone to tell me why the Indonesians are more worthy of government assistance than anyone else. Just so we don't go off on a tangent, I'm not questioning PRIVATE donations. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In any case, here's a cartoon that pretty much hits the nail on the head in regard to the meaning of my original post. I guess the cartoonist is as "retarded" as I am. I can't think of a better way to express the point I was making, especially since I've met and talked to some of the "Lost Boys of the Sudan." |
||||||
01-24-2005, 08:05 PM | #29 (permalink) | |
Loser
|
Quote:
But since you wanted to create a polarizing discussion I suppose it makes sense for you to blame the "liberals". If you could have put aside your own hate for anything and everything liberal, you would probably have been able to recognize some of the obvious differences between the tsunami and, as per your example, Sudan. Here's a couple: - The tsunami was a blindingly sudden event. The tragedy in Sudan has been slowly progressing for a decade. - The tsunami is what is commonly referred to as an act of God, i.e. a natural occurence. The tragedy in Sudan is a political/racial conflict between groups of people. Both of these aspects are rather significant in regards to emotional response. So it is clear why conservatives and liberals have gotten behind the tsunami relief. Or I could flip it back on you - didn't you start a thread or complain about how the U.S. was accused of being stingy in aid? Well, now you're doing the exact same thing to "liberals" like Madonna and George Clooney. Aren't they doing enough for you by donating the money and time for any cause? You should be satisfied instead of criticizing them, right. But now you claim the you have no issue with personal contributions ... what do you call Maddona's and George Clooney's time and money? Or are celebrities not supposed to be allowed to use their celebrity status for good deeds if they don't use it for every possible good deed? edit: On second thought, I think you just had a typo in your first post. You're actually disappointed in conservatives for getting behind this tragedy as opposed to others. ANd this must be true because you have no qualms with personal donations, so you must be referring to government donations. ANd since we have a Republican government, that must be the source of your angst. Am I right or am I right. I thought so. Last edited by Manx; 01-24-2005 at 08:14 PM.. |
|
01-24-2005, 08:27 PM | #30 (permalink) | ||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Anyway, you are incorrect in assuming I like everything Bush Sr. and Jr. do. My opinion is that it is inappropriate for our government to decide what charities to support. If I believe my earnings should go to the Sudan, I should be free to send them there, instead of having them confiscated and sent by our government to a cause I don't support as much. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
01-25-2005, 08:57 AM | #31 (permalink) | |||
Loser
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Manx; 01-25-2005 at 09:09 AM.. |
|||
01-29-2005, 03:42 PM | #32 (permalink) | |||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Why are the Indonesians more worthy of the rest of the world's government assistance than anyone else? The best answer I can come up with is "the same reason Teddy Kennedy was able to dispatch the U.S. Navy to look for his nephew." |
|||
01-29-2005, 06:53 PM | #33 (permalink) |
All important elusive independent swing voter...
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
|
Sob,
Actually I think there is a coherent and deliberate function of American Foreign Policy as to why our government reacted in this manner. I believe Colin Powell himself has said: Our action in Indonesia is directly in our interest given: 1. Largest Mulsim population/country on earth 2. Opportunity to show US as a good guy and extend goodwill 3. Hopefully this type of action will pre-empt or neutralize terrorist activity, recruitment etc. 4. Our current administration, while partially neo-con, exercises a policy of realism and sometimes neo-realism. Condi herself has released a paper a few years back stating the best foreign policy be based on realist doctrine. So, we look out for our own interest (keep in mind, I am not making any value judgement but rather, a political analysis based on facts, not emotion). Our actions are primarily predicated on that belief. So, as the "war on terror" and such is the number one objective of US Foreign Policy our actions abroad will reflect that. My guess would be that, if Osama was rumored to be in Darfur in Sudan, we will see US action there. So in answer to "Why are the Indonesians more worthy of the rest of the world's government assistance than anyone else?" Short answer: Because it's in our interest. In purely theoretical or analytical terms it makes sense. But if one thinks about it emotionally then one will probably get upset or whatever. |
01-30-2005, 05:56 PM | #34 (permalink) | |||
Loser
|
Quote:
In your first post, you deride liberals and you deride private citizens. In a subsequent post you state this: Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
01-30-2005, 06:09 PM | #35 (permalink) |
Cracking the Whip
Location: Sexymama's arms...
|
Sigh,
Please play nice.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! |
02-03-2005, 06:48 PM | #36 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
I like it. |
|
02-09-2005, 08:16 PM | #37 (permalink) |
Crazy
Location: Bat Country
|
Its interesting to me how many people look at the aid given in the tsunami disaster in any other way than exactly what should have happened. It's one thing to try to guilt trip Americans into dishing out for other disasters in the world. It is an entirely different thing to say, oh, now you care? My father was born in Sri Lanka and I recently visited there. One refugee camp nearly broke into a riot over such things as toothbrushes, underwear, etc. The same camp, had gone 4 days without any food delivered. This was 4 weeks after the tsunami hit. It may seem to everyone that perhaps there are other places equally deserving of such money, but I promise you every cent of these donations are going to be used. And in regards to Sri Lanka denying Israeli troops, they were there, seen them with my own eyes.
Come on fellas, politics shouldn't play any part in this discussion, but it does n thats a shame. |
Tags |
aid, tsunami, victims |
|
|