What Really Happened

[clocker]

[myfiles3000]

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'm not saying the US doesn't do any good abroad. But to portray washington as some bastion of selfless benevolence is innacurate. And the money spent on 'other people's problems' 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'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'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'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.

[clocker]

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

hmmm, which one to use...

[j2k4]

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.

[OlderThanDirt]

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.

[myfiles3000]

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

[myfiles3000]

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).

[OlderThanDirt]

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.

[OlderThanDirt]

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.

[myfiles3000]

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"?



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.