What Really Happened

The real war ....
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/whiteflag.jpg

Death Iraq soldiers . Look the white flag

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/surrender.jpg

No Comments

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/basra1.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/iraqibabyburn.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/basra2.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/basra5.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/basra3.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/manandgirl.jpg

If this girl was your sister? ... would you going to forgive the people that do this... to her.

This is what really happend in the war.


Rocko

Edit: changed some of the pics as link because they are very crude

could you please post the extremely graphic ones in links. i really did not need to see that this morning :angry:

also, our soldiers wouldn't fire on white flags unless there was a threat. remember when we welcome them and our soldiers died? chances are they either saw a gun, or were getting fired at.

edit: again i ask you, put those in links with a WARNING sign next to them :angry:

edit again: i see the white flag. but who knows...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kAb@25 April 2003 - 18:21
could you please post the extremely graphic ones in links. i really did not need to see that this morning  :angry:

also, i don't see the white flags. they look like potatoe sacks to me. also, our soldiers wouldn't fire on  white flags unless there was a threat. remember when we welcome them and our soldiers died? chances are they either saw a gun, or were getting fired at.

edit:

again i ask you, put those in links with a WARNING sign next to them  :angry:

---

Yeah,I also believe all the stories about 'friendly' fire were just the result of a conspiracy by the extremely left-wing journalists & their communist masters,such as AOL-Warner & Rupert 'The Red' Murdoch :blink:

Now then,where are my spectacles?.....the ones especially prescribed for a severe case of selective myopia B)



Take care

Some innocent civilians were harmed, some killed. However, thousands more people have been killed by the very same government that has been established there for 30 years. The collective forces have served a great cause for the nation of Iraq. Those people will now be free to live without the violent oppression of their own government. The world is a safer place now. You won't weaken my resolve by some disturbing pictures. :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jibbler@25 April 2003 - 16:28
Some innocent civilians were harmed, some killed. However, thousands more people have been killed by the very same government that has been established there for 30 years. The collective forces have served a great cause for the nation of Iraq. Those people will now be free to live without the violent oppression of their own government. The world is a safer place now. You won't weaken my resolve by some disturbing pictures. :huh:

---

wow. another person on this board that isn't liberal. :)

(i mean this in a good way)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kAb+25 April 2003 - 20:23--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kAb @ 25 April 2003 - 20:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jibbler@25 April 2003 - 16:28
Some innocent civilians were harmed, some killed.&nbsp; However, thousands more people have been killed by the very same government that has been established there for 30 years.&nbsp; The collective forces have served a great cause for the nation of Iraq.&nbsp; Those people will now be free to live without the violent oppression of their own government.&nbsp; The world is a safer place now.&nbsp; You won&#39;t weaken my resolve by some disturbing pictures. :huh:

---

wow. another person on this board that isn&#39;t liberal. :)

(i mean this in a good way) [/b][/quote]
kAb-

You are wise beyond your years-let&#39;s see if you catch hell for being rational ;)

Quote:

---

Those people will now be free to live without the violent oppression of their own government. The world is a safer place now. You won&#39;t weaken my resolve by some disturbing pictures.

---

I certainly hope you are right. However history would tell us that regime changes don&#39;t always have happy endings and in the Middle East I would imagine there are people who have optimistically looked forward to a benevolent regime only to face being re-traumatised.

Wherever there is oil there is a potential for corruption, and that will always be the case with the Middle East.

I hope they do the mop up well, preserve records at all costs. Without any attempt to set up the tribunals properly and without a proper UN oversight over the process, I fear that &#39;mistakes&#39; will remain buried, people will continue to be victimised and there will be further casualties (how many refugees are going to successfully make it???)

1978-9 was a defining moment in Middle East history.

I think I&#39;ll wait it out and see what happens....I am glad that Saddam is gone but I think it was a pyhrric victory for many. On the other hand, being a cynic I also subscribe to the view that history is written by the victors, and therein lies the problem. There has to be some openness and accountability in the change of regime, and the US enthusiasm to become overly involved in it should be tempered.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chloe_cc2002@25 April 2003 - 23:01

Quote:

---

Those people will now be free to live without the violent oppression of their own government. The world is a safer place now. You won&#39;t weaken my resolve by some disturbing pictures.

---

I certainly hope you are right. However history would tell us that regime changes don&#39;t always have happy endings and in the Middle East I would imagine there are people who have optimistically looked forward to a benevolent regime only to face being re-traumatised.

---

This is very true. However, the coalition can only do so much. We have freed them from oppression, we have provided food, water, medical supplies, rebuilt their power grid, and their oil wells are now producing again. We are working to create a democratic government there.

The tools are in place for Iraq to flourish as a nation. They could surpass Syria, Iran, Turkey, Isreal and other middle-eastern countries. There is always an opportunity for this to fail, but I believe that the Iraqi people can build a strong nation with the help we have provided. Only time can answer these questions for us.

There is an incredible opportunity here for the Iraqi people. There are some very wise people in their nation faced with the challenge of bringing this country into the 21st century.

I hope so.

The problem is that the US is &#39;handpicking&#39; the representatives of the tribunal and some have suggested that this is by design so that they may be inspired by some ulterior agenda. Trials that investigate crimes such as genocide under the "auspices" of an interim Government that is selected by the US could have the appearance of lacking in partiality, being under the control of the US.

Some commentators have suggested that whilst it is important that the Iraqi people have control over the process of accountability, there is a further problem that may detract from their credibility and appearance of neutrality.

The two sources for the constitution of the tribunal are the Iraqi exiles and those who served in the Iraqi system under Ba&#39;ath party rule. The difficulty in avoiding tensions becomes clear and it is quite complex. The appearance of impartiality is just as important as the reality. Those who have served under Ba&#39;ath party rule could be seen as politically motivated or compromised. There are problems with those repressed by the former regime, the Kurds & Shia, despite their qualifications for similar reasons. They would face credibility problems in the eyes of other Arab countries.

Many suggest and I think correctly that the tribunal should be a mixed one and that UN involvement in terms of oversight and resources is critical to creating the appearance and reality of fair, impartial and independent trials.

"The United States and its coalition partners have a responsibility to help build a strong and independent judiciary for Iraq. In the meantime, we urge you to work towards the establishment either of an international ad hoc tribunal authorized by the Security Council, or, if that is not possible, a mixed national-international court, created either by the Security Council or an agreement between the U.N. and an interim Iraqi authority"

These are the sentiments expressed in communications to the UN, and I think they all stem from the same concerns, namely the desire to avoid ad hoc and arbitrary justice being meted out in an atmosphere which could give rise to "post conflict" Iraqi justice.

It is clear from their experience in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia that the US commanders have learnt of the devastation that cluster bombs can cause in areas where there are high populations of civilians. This is clearly a violation of international law. The US however has failed to PUBLICLY acknowledge the extent of this and it is fairly clear that they knew that cluster munitions had not only a high failure rate in terms of precision and leaving duds around which would cause additional carnage.

I think that the US detaching themselves from the process would lend credibility to the process. This is especially so when the US have been involved in securing the "victory" and they are showing that they are not willing to be responsive to claims that they have been in flagrant breach of international law themselves. It is disingenuous.

Nice Orwellian Newspeak kAb,
liberal = militant facist simpathiser
there is no liberation
US troops watch as the recorrds of Iraq burn [except for the oil ministry]
US troops watch as hospitals and museums are looted [that museun had the artifacts of writing and the wheel]
US troops watch while medicine and water and electricity are not made available to Bagdad

US troops watch but can&#39;t find Saddam or the weapons they went to get

the only people fooled are US fools

Echinda is so anti american that his posts no longer hold any validity
Your right "cheeseweasle"
You sound extremely like the left in this country.
France has no honor.
How sad.
I bet you Love my name.

i&#39;m proud to be anti-american (not just anti US Gov)&#33;
they want to rule the world and the american people go along with it and love it&#33;
they want to send Muslims the same way as the Native Americans&#33;
YOU AIN&#39;T GONNA TAKE ME ALIVE, YOU YANK MOTHERFUCKER&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry: :angry: :angry:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hypoluxa3k@16 May 2003 - 05:05
i&#39;m proud to be anti-american (not just anti US Gov)&#33;
they want to rule the world and the american people go along with it and love it&#33;
they want to send Muslims the same way as the Native Americans&#33;
YOU AIN&#39;T GONNA TAKE ME ALIVE, YOU YANK MOTHERFUCKER&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry: :angry: :angry:

---

wow. how ignorant. have you ever stepped foot in the united states, even if you dont want to? u dont know any americans...dont lie.

hehehe
I love being called a Yank&#33;&#33;
I love it&#33;

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hypoluxa3k@16 May 2003 - 11:05
i&#39;m proud to be anti-american (not just anti US Gov)&#33;
they want to rule the world and the american people go along with it and love it&#33;
they want to send Muslims the same way as the Native Americans&#33;
YOU AIN&#39;T GONNA TAKE ME ALIVE, YOU YANK MOTHERFUCKER&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry: :angry: :angry:

---

This makes me sick on both sides of the line its people like this that make this world a bad place

Quote:

---

hypoluxa3k

i&#39;m proud to be anti-american (not just anti US Gov)&#33;
they want to rule the world and the american people go along with it and love it&#33;
they want to send Muslims the same way as the Native Americans&#33;
YOU AIN&#39;T GONNA TAKE ME ALIVE, YOU YANK MOTHERFUCKER&#33;&#33;&#33;

---

Yeah, I know what you mean. The USA is such a terrible country. That&#39;s why so many people are lining up, begging to be allowed to immigrate to Syria and Iran ... and why US immigration offices lie dormant with officials having virtually nothing to do. I mean, really, who wants to live here anyway? :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@24 May 2003 - 13:50

Quote:

---

hypoluxa3k

i&#39;m proud to be anti-american (not just anti US Gov)&#33;
they want to rule the world and the american people go along with it and love it&#33;
they want to send Muslims the same way as the Native Americans&#33;
YOU AIN&#39;T GONNA TAKE ME ALIVE, YOU YANK MOTHERFUCKER&#33;&#33;&#33;

---

Yeah, I know what you mean. The USA is such a terrible country. That&#39;s why so many people are lining up, begging to be allowed to immigrate to Syria and Iran ... and why US immigration offices lie dormant with officials having virtually nothing to do. I mean, really, who wants to live here anyway? :lol:

---

:lol: :lol:


and the U.S. definetly doesn&#39;t give billions of dollars of aid to other countries... its the other way around&#33; :o


:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

kAb wrote:

and the U.S. definetly doesn&#39;t give billions of dollars of aid to other countries... its the other way around&#33;

---

Yeah (sigh) ... I guess it&#39;s the cross we have to bear for being such an unloved country. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@24 May 2003 - 17:05

Quote:

---

kAb wrote:

and the U.S. definetly doesn&#39;t give billions of dollars of aid to other countries... its the other way around&#33;

---

Yeah (sigh) ... I guess it&#39;s the cross we have to bear for being such an unloved country. :rolleyes:

---

kAb & OTD-

You both seem to be in agreement with me on this point (tell me if I&#39;m wrong):

Nobody who frequents this forum who isn&#39;t a U.S. citizen seems to have the imagination to put themselves in our shoes, however vicariously.

This can&#39;t help but sound overly righteous, but it IS ONLY AN EXERCISE.

I&#39;ve attempted, on other occasions, to help them try:

Imagine you have the power, financial, military, what-have-you, and the altruistic inclination to HELP-anywhere in the world. You are willing to spend the lives of your own to render aid.
You literally have whatever it takes to vanquish evil (subject to definition), equalize any playing field, cure (almost) any ill, and the will to help in almost any situation- in most cases, without compensation.
You know, as the world&#39;s leading consumer of goods and resources, as well as being the richest and most powerful country on Earth, you have a duty to do so; not "sharing" would be sinful.

Your giving is boundless; if some disaster befell your erstwhile ally, France (even FRANCE), you would be on the scene, doing whatever it took, doing whatever needed to be done.

You know, also, that this altruism will not result in anything approaching universal respect, indeed, the likelihood is just the opposite.

Do you take your ball and go home? Do you attack those who betray you?
Do you refuse aid? Do you close your borders? Do you adopt isolationism as your overarching foreign policy?

No. You can&#39;t.

Cuz you&#39;re the United States of America ;)

Ah-I guess you have to live here, huh? B)

That about says it all, j2k4. Bravo for putting it so eloquently.

http://archives.theconnection.org/ar..._from_want.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@24 May 2003 - 23:51
You know, also, that this altruism will not result in anything approaching universal respect, indeed, the likelihood is just the opposite.

---

unfortunately for shock and awe, my strength is rapidly gaining. but my first reasonable response will be to j2k4: you have said a lot of complimentary things in your last post about the philanthropy of the USA. but no specifics. I hate to muddle the dialogue with facts, but is it not true that the US has spent increasingly less on international aid/development in the past decade or two? I read last week that the targetted funding to the developing world of Western countries is set at 0.7% of GDP...the US spends I believe the lowest of any g8 country, in relative terms -- close to a tenth of the target.

I&#39;m not saying the US doesn&#39;t do any good abroad. But to portray washington as some bastion of selfless benevolence is innacurate. And the money spent on &#39;other people&#39;s problems&#39; is often at least partially motivated by something other than altruism.

As for France befalling some sort of mishap, its important to keep in mind that its in America&#39;s own best interests to rectify as best it can -- economic trade with the EU is an important element to the functioning of the US economy. So intervention is by no means a sign of Christian fellowship and selfless giving. In contrast, i don&#39;t recall the USA responding to Rwanda. Where something like 800,000 civilians were slaughtered. and the impact on the american economy was nil.

All nations practice enlightened self-interest to one degree or another, thus my somewhat cynical comments are equally applicable to other countries, and aren&#39;t an American-specific attack. Just resist the rose-tinted propaganda, the world is a cruel place. It is, after all, the home of Shock and Awe.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by myfiles3000@24 May 2003 - 18:53
Just resist the rose-tinted propaganda, the world is a cruel place.&nbsp; It is, after all, the home of Shock and Awe.

---

http://www.ob1knorrb.com/images/covers/10_foot.jpg

hmmm, which one to use...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by myfiles3000+24 May 2003 - 19:53--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 24 May 2003 - 19:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@24 May 2003 - 23:51
You know, also, that this altruism will not result in anything approaching universal respect, indeed, the likelihood is just the opposite.

---

unfortunately for shock and awe, my strength is rapidly gaining. but my first reasonable response will be to j2k4: you have said a lot of complimentary things in your last post about the philanthropy of the USA. but no specifics. I hate to muddle the dialogue with facts, but is it not true that the US has spent increasingly less on international aid/development in the past decade or two? I read last week that the targetted funding to the developing world of Western countries is set at 0.7% of GDP...the US spends I believe the lowest of any g8 country, in relative terms -- close to a tenth of the target.

I&#39;m not saying the US doesn&#39;t do any good abroad. But to portray washington as some bastion of selfless benevolence is innacurate. And the money spent on &#39;other people&#39;s problems&#39; is often at least partially motivated by something other than altruism.

As for France befalling some sort of mishap, its important to keep in mind that its in America&#39;s own best interests to rectify as best it can -- economic trade with the EU is an important element to the functioning of the US economy. So intervention is by no means a sign of Christian fellowship and selfless giving. In contrast, i don&#39;t recall the USA responding to Rwanda. Where something like 800,000 civilians were slaughtered. and the impact on the american economy was nil.

All nations practice enlightened self-interest to one degree or another, thus my somewhat cynical comments are equally applicable to other countries, and aren&#39;t an American-specific attack. Just resist the rose-tinted propaganda, the world is a cruel place. It is, after all, the home of Shock and Awe. [/b][/quote]
myfiles-

My post was admittedly idealistic in content, a little too &#39;pie in the sky&#39;, maybe, but my intent was to get some who would second-guess our overall intent (internationally) to think-to literally put themselves in our shoes, and imagine what it would be like to possess THAT ability; what would THEY do?

If they would/could imagine a concept thus, I would defy them to follow another path; I&#39;m not preaching to those beyond redemption-I would expect THEM to dismiss me with derision.

But I can take it-I&#39;m a bit of an idealist, and (U.S.) American, to boot.

I am well aware that we spend money overseas acting in our own interest; I would defy them to do THAT, too.

I would also bet my OWN money they would make mistakes (huge ones).

The fact remains, WE TRY&#33;

We always have.

And if we stop spending, influencing, and acting when need be, things will get worse-I&#39;d bet my own money on that, too.

As for decreased aid overseas, I don&#39;t believe anybody out-spends us-who would profess to be capable of establishing a standing, obligatory dollar-figure? Hogwash-
My point is, there is entirely too much hand-biting going on.

As far as Rwanda (that wasn&#39;t a first), and situations like it, I agree, a serious re-think is in order re: all of Mid- and North Africa (Qaddhafi). I fear, though, more on-site involvement (the kind you hate) may be required.

Quote:

---

myfiles3000 wrote:

I hate to muddle the dialogue with facts, but is it not true that the US has spent increasingly less on international aid/development in the past decade or two? I read last week that the targetted funding to the developing world of Western countries is set at 0.7% of GDP...the US spends I believe the lowest of any g8 country, in relative terms -- close to a tenth of the target.

---

That&#39;s not an entirely accurate figure since it only takes "government" aid into account. I&#39;m uncertain whether or not there is a clear statistical measure of this ... but, I&#39;m fairly confident that we have more NGOs providing "private" aid to developing countries than any other nation I can think of. In fact, it&#39;s possible that funding from NGOs exceeds what our government metes out. Food for thought, anyway.

P.S. And this comes from someone whose ex-wife was a Filipino. How many immigrants do we have in this country who send money/products home to their relatives? That&#39;s another "aid" source that can go unnoticed in the statistical scheme of things. Not counting the money Filipinos send home to families, the amount of products sent overseas is phenomenal. Filipinos even have a word for it ... they call them Balikbayan Boxes ... boxes sent by ship that include everything from clothing to food to electronics. And money-wise, Filipinos avail themselves of door-to-door services (cheaper than Western Union) where you pay a company the money you want to send, they take a small cut, and the rest heads to the islands where it&#39;s delivered in Pesos. I can only imagine how much money/products Mexican immigrants (legal and otherwise) send home as well ... not to mention other immigrants.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@25 May 2003 - 02:29

---

j2k4 et al, I&#39;ll let the numbers speak for themselves. I find them more convincing than platitudes like "at least we try" and "too much hand-biting".

Comparison of aid spending as % of GNI -- USA is 21st, behind Greece and Portugal

http://www.cbpp.org/4-25-00bud-f1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@25 May 2003 - 03:14
I&#39;m fairly confident that we have more NGOs providing "private" aid to developing countries than any other nation I can think of. In fact, it&#39;s possible that funding from NGOs exceeds what our government metes out. Food for thought, anyway.

---

I wish i knew definitively, but I believe the majority of NGO funding comes from the government anyway. so i&#39;m not sure the distinction makes a difference (a meaningful one, anyway).

Quote:

---

myfiles3000 wrote:

j2k4 et al, I&#39;ll let the numbers speak for themselves. I find them more convincing than platitudes like "at least we try" and "too much hand-biting".

Comparison of aid spending as % of GNI -- USA is 21st, behind Greece and Portugal

---

True, but getting back to my last post, how much money do Greek/Portuguese NGOs spend overseas? Government aid is not the true picture of ALL aid.

Quote:

---

myfiles3000 wrote:

I wish i knew definitively, but I believe the majority of NGO funding comes from the government anyway.

---

I doubt that. I suspect the majority of NGO funding comes from organizations like the United Way or corporate sponsorship (or both). And in the United Way&#39;s case, funding comes from grassroots America, one individual at a time ... though I suspect corporate sponsorships are the real cash-cows. But, as I said, I&#39;m unaware of any statistical information either way.

the worlds wealthiest nation, and the economic, political and military hyperpower of the world, donates a quarter of the average of the nations sampled, and 1/7th of the UN target. Is this "trying"?

http://www.globalissues.org/images/NetODA2001.jpg

By the way, I should point out that I don&#39;t necessarily have anything against US military interventions. Indeed, i think the problem is that American voters can&#39;t stomach the casualties, which leads to 800,000 dead to save 50 or 100 american lives. This ain&#39;t what i call bravery. Or selflessness.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by myfiles3000@24 May 2003 - 20:55


By the way, I should point out that I don&#39;t necessarily have anything against US military interventions. Indeed, i think the problem is that American voters can&#39;t stomach the casualties, which leads to 800,000 dead to save 50 or 100 american lives. This ain&#39;t what i call bravery. Or selflessness.

---

Where/when did this happen?

Well, I said it before and I&#39;ll say it again. Government funding does not constitute all funding. Using government foreign aid statistics alone in an inaccurate portrayal of aid from any country in general and wealthy countries in particular.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@25 May 2003 - 03:46

Quote:

---

myfiles3000 wrote:

I wish i knew definitively, but I believe the majority of NGO funding comes from the government anyway.

---

I doubt that. I suspect the majority of NGO funding comes from organizations like the United Way or corporate sponsorship (or both). And in the United Way&#39;s case, funding comes from grassroots America, one individual at a time ... though I suspect corporate sponsorships are the real cash-cows. But, as I said, I&#39;m unaware of any statistical information either way.

---

Corporate?&#33; Hang on a second, i thought the topic was international development aid. i don&#39;t know what % of funding is accounted for by corporations, but common sense would dictate that it&#39;s in the neighbourhood of squat. after all, providing clean drinking etc is not compatible with maximizing profits. its not the role of the private sector to save the world.

Quote:

---

myfiles3000 wrote:

Corporate?&#33; Hang on a second, i thought the topic was international development aid.

---

I thought the topic was "the real war" ... and that questions of foreign aid (not just government foreign aid) came out of it.

Quote:

---

i don&#39;t know what % of funding is accounted for by corporations, but common sense would dictate that it&#39;s in the neighbourhood of squat. after all, providing clean drinking etc is not compatible with maximizing profits. its not the role of the private sector to save the world.

---

No, it&#39;s the role of corporatations to find a tax write-off ... and corporate charitible funding is a very good way to do this -- especially if corporations give hard goods at "their" prices and write them off at "retail" prices. And NGOs are always lobbying them, eager to suggest methods of doing this. It&#39;s also a good PR tool. But, regardless of their motivations, the money is spent.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker+24 May 2003 - 21:03--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 24 May 2003 - 21:03)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--myfiles3000@24 May 2003 - 20:55


By the way, I should point out that I don&#39;t necessarily have anything against US military interventions. Indeed, i think the problem is that American voters can&#39;t stomach the casualties, which leads to 800,000 dead to save 50 or 100 american lives. This ain&#39;t what i call bravery. Or selflessness.

---

Where/when did this happen?[/b][/quote]
Ah,I&#39;m still waiting...

Quote:

---

clocker wrote:

Ah,I&#39;m still waiting...

---

Me, too. I&#39;m unaware of any military adventure of the United States where we killed 800,000 people to save 50-100 American lives.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@24 May 2003 - 21:49

Quote:

---

clocker wrote:

Ah,I&#39;m still waiting...

---

Me, too. I&#39;m unaware of any military adventure of the United States where we killed 800,000 people to save 50-100 American lives.

---

Perhaps he was indulging in a bit of ah, hyperbole.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by myfiles3000+24 May 2003 - 21:35--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 24 May 2003 - 21:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@25 May 2003 - 02:29

---

j2k4 et al, I&#39;ll let the numbers speak for themselves. I find them more convincing than platitudes like "at least we try" and "too much hand-biting".

Comparison of aid spending as % of GNI -- USA is 21st, behind Greece and Portugal

http://www.cbpp.org/4-25-00bud-f1.jpg [/b][/quote]
Myfiles-

I noticed the numbers spoke (regardless of percentage of GDP) to the tune of &#39;1560&#39; (BILLION&#33;??&#33;?) in 1980 and &#39;fell&#39; steadily until they reached a low of &#39;2504&#39; (again, BILLION&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?) in the most recent year quoted.

I&#39;m not sure of the effect of inflation during the same time frame, but I&#39;d bet it doesn&#39;t keep pace with this, uh, (here goes nothing) GROWTH-SHRINKAGE :blink:

I hope you&#39;ll forgive me for failing to realize an expectation on the part of the U.N. (their &#39;target&#39; number) rose to the status of a hard obligation. In light of this, I&#39;m relatively sure they&#39;re upset about Iraq, too, huh? Just a guess.

I thought (even during the Clinton years) that we were the masters of our own ship; we haven&#39;t been scheduled by the U.N. to join the E.U. by any chance, have we?

By the way, just to confirm that I am up to speed:

The U.S. is officially a HYPERPOWER?

As defined by the U.N.?

Cool-THAT doesn&#39;t bother me in the least. :P

Quote:

---

http://www.cbpp.org/4-25-00bud-f1.jpg

---

notice how the graph shows how much we&#39;re going to spend in the next two years :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@25 May 2003 - 05:07
I noticed the numbers spoke (regardless of percentage of GDP) to the tune of &#39;1560&#39; (BILLION&#33;??&#33;?) in 1980 and &#39;fell&#39; steadily until they reached a low of &#39;2504&#39; (again, BILLION&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?) in the most recent year quoted.

I&#39;m not sure of the effect of inflation during the same time frame, but I&#39;d bet it doesn&#39;t keep pace with this, uh, (here goes nothing) GROWTH-SHRINKAGE :blink:

I hope you&#39;ll forgive me for failing to realize an expectation on the part of the U.N. (their &#39;target&#39; number) rose to the status of a hard obligation. In light of this, I&#39;m relatively sure they&#39;re upset about Iraq, too, huh? Just a guess.

I thought (even during the Clinton years) that we were the masters of our own ship; we haven&#39;t been scheduled by the U.N. to join the E.U. by any chance, have we?

By the way, just to confirm that I am up to speed:

The U.S. is officially a HYPERPOWER?

As defined by the U.N.?

Cool-THAT doesn&#39;t bother me in the least. :P

---

this argument wouldn&#39;t hold up in high school, let alone a first year econ class. let alone a discussion among educated adults. The US economy has grown immensely since 1980, whereas the increase in spending has not kept place, not even close. To try to counter relative economic statistics with absolutes, well, again, i&#39;ll let THAT rhetorical device speak for itself. What next, compare current spending with that of the 1800&#39;s?&#33; I know, I&#39;ll knock on some guy&#39;s door, explain to him that the home he&#39;s selling sold for &#036;7200 in 1904, and offer him &#036;1400, because, its 100 years old, after all.

As i said, i hate to muddle the discussion with facts....

AFAIK, usa as hyperpower is a widely accepted term. but perhaps i read too much.