NationStates Jolt Archive


Is the US the only major country that's done this for Sudan?

Armed Bookworms
25-12-2004, 21:24
Also, can anyone tell me why this wasn't in the Chicago Tribune today? Oh, wait, I know. It's because it's something good involving Bush.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/970501.cms
Gnostikos
25-12-2004, 21:27
Though the intent is good, I doubt it's going to do anything. Seems like a token law.
AAhhzz
25-12-2004, 21:32
Though the intent is good, I doubt it's going to do anything. Seems like a token law.

Whoa...wonder where I can sign up for a 300 Million dollar token
Superpower07
25-12-2004, 21:33
Though the intent is good, I doubt it's going to do anything. Seems like a token law.
Thing is though, it's better than us sitting around on our duffs (like the UN) and doing nothing
Conceptualists
25-12-2004, 21:36
Also, can anyone tell me why this wasn't in the Chicago Tribune today? Oh, wait, I know. It's because it's something good involving Bush.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/970501.cms
Papers are printed on Christmas in the States?
Gnostikos
25-12-2004, 21:55
Papers are printed on Christmas in the States?
Depends on the paper. I know the Washington Post delivers every day of the year, including Christmas.

Whoa...wonder where I can sign up for a 300 Million dollar token
$300 million is a lot less on an international scale than on an individual scale. And if you read the whole thing, the money is conditional.

Thing is though, it's better than us sitting around on our duffs (like the UN) and doing nothing
That's true, but I really don't see much that really can be done. It is a humanitarian crisis there, indeed, but there are so many other problems. Take epidemiological and logistical problems for instance. Some places are just hell holes right now, and there are enough other problems in the world that nothing can address them all, outside of destruction of most or all humans.
Conceptualists
25-12-2004, 21:59
Depends on the paper. I know the Washington Post delivers every day of the year, including Christmas.
Wow.

I suddenly feel so provincial now
Sonneterre
25-12-2004, 22:01
Canada was the first country to raise the issue of Sudan on the world stage. Canadian spending makes U.S. spending on Sudan look, not like a joke (because no matter how you look at it, $300mil is a lot), but less impressive than it initially sounds. Canada's around 11% the size of the U.S. (population-wise (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004379.html)) and about 9% the size of the U.S. economically (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0874911.html), but has spent (or sent) approximately $40mil in aid for Sudan since October 2003 (http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?id=335). Figure that out, and a population 9% of the size of another is spending 13% of what the larger is. That means that if Canada's GDP was as large as the U.S.'s, we'd be spending 44% more than the U.S. would, or approximately $432mil. So, while I'm going to applaud the U.S. for its actions, I will ask why it's not doing more.

*edit* Of course, the original question pertained to major countries, and we Canadians know enough about the U.S.'s general opinion of us to know that we don't necessarily constitute a major country.
AAhhzz
25-12-2004, 22:17
Though the intent is good, I doubt it's going to do anything. Seems like a token law.

Sudan: UN Resolutions Continue To Be 'Weak and Meaningless'
By Eva Dadrian*
Pambazuka, December 2, 2004

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/sudan/2004/1202meaningless.htm

Opening paragraph
For the past two weeks, the intensified violence in Darfur, Western Sudan, the restrictions imposed on humanitarian aid to 1.4 million people, and the expulsion of senior aid officials from two of the most renowned international humanitarian organisations are the dire result of the past and present failure of the United Nations Security Council, the United States, the international community and the African states.

My, my, seems like in this reporters opinon the ranking order is UN, US, International Community and the African States.

Why in the world would the US rank above the international community in this?

Lets look further..

Could it be possible that because we, Africans, do not agree with the policies of Washington, London or Paris, we are ready to sacrifice the lives of our own people and hence reject any human rights resolution condemning an African state? This is exactly what happened at the UN General Assembly in Nairobi ten days ago. A draft resolution which could have denounced the killings and the ethnic cleansing that is still taking place in Darfur was frustrated by developing countries including almost all Islamic and African states. Is Africa saying to Sudan “Maalesh (never mind, in Arabic) - do not “fully and unconditionally respect your obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights as well as other regional and international human rights treaties to which you, Sudan are a State Party”.

What? The UN Helpless? Held back from even SAYING that whats happening in Darfur, (Western Sudan) is a bad thing while the US pours millions into an effort to stop the slaughter. 300 million...also

on page 2 of the original newspaper colum
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-970501,curpg-2.cms

"The legislation also authorizes 100 million dollars as an incentive for the warring parties to reach a final and comprehensive peace agreement.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher on Monday said the United States "is gravely concerned by the intensified violence that has been taking place in Darfur in recent days." He added that "both sides need to pull back and respect the ceasefire."

Boucher made his remarks as African Union mediators met with delegates from the Sudanese government and two main rebel groups in a bid to revive stalled talks on the fighting that has left an estimated 70,000 people dead and 1.5 million displaced "

Does this mean we are willing to give 100 million dollars to murderers just to stop them from shooting each other? Why?

Where is John Kerry decrying the waste of federal funds?

Where is Ted Kennedy insinuating that the 100 million will somehow go to line the walets of the rich?

What is the UN doing? Oh that's right nothing

closing paragraph
Human rights activists, observers, analysts and US officials have all condemned the extremely weak and meaningless United Nations Security Council resolution (Nairobi). Now, Khartoum and the militias it has armed have “carte blanche” to continue their vicious treatment of the black African people of Darfur with impunity. They can kill, burn, rape, displace people, usurp their land and propagate racial hatred in the province.

About the Author: Eva Dadrian is an independent broadcaster and Political and Country Risk Analyst for print and broadcast media, who currently works as a consultant for Arab African Affairs (London) and writes on a regular basis for African Analysis (London), for Al Ahram HEBDO Echos Economiques and Al Ahram Weekly (Cairo) and contributes to Africa Service BBC WS (London).

Those UN guys better get a lot of Blue helmets in there quick before another 2 Million people die
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/sudanindex.htm

Hope they can get there soon...
AAhhzz
25-12-2004, 22:26
$300 million is a lot less on an international scale than on an individual scale. And if you read the whole thing, the money is conditional.


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...501,curpg-2.cms

I think its the additional 100 million on page 2 thats conditional. Thats the part that's called an Incentive.

That's true, but I really don't see much that really can be done. It is a humanitarian crisis there, indeed, but there are so many other problems. Take epidemiological and logistical problems for instance. Some places are just hell holes right now, and there are enough other problems in the world that nothing can address them all, outside of destruction of most or all humans.

*blinks* The destruction of most or all humans is to you a solution to any problem?

Tell me is that a humanitarian veiwpoint? Or just the natural conclusion that humans are the source of all the world problems?
AAhhzz
25-12-2004, 22:38
So, while I'm going to applaud the U.S. for its actions, I will ask why it's not doing more.

Well, we are streached a bit thin right now with the Holiday season and all that...*just joking*

On page 2 of the article there is an additional 100 million as a, well, a bribe to the warring parties to stop killing each other.

I applaud Canada's generosity and hope that the 340 million in aid given between the two of us can assist the people of Sudan somewhat. I also hope that 100 million is enough of a bribe to get them to stop killing each other.

*edit* Of course, the original question pertained to major countries, and we Canadians know enough about the U.S.'s general opinion of us to know that we don't necessarily constitute a major country.

Well, I cant speak for everyone, but Canada has been there for the US on numerous occasions providing assistance. September 11th for one, when a great many planes were allowed to land in Canada (and who knew if any more planes had hijackers on them?) thus clearing the skys as quickly as possible. For their help in the days afterward I will always be extreemly grateful.

Respectfully

AAhhzz
Gnostikos
25-12-2004, 22:41
*blinks* The destruction of most or all humans is to you a solution to any problem?

Tell me is that a humanitarian veiwpoint? Or just the natural conclusion that humans are the source of all the world problems?
It is the only way end the human suffering on any type of large scale.
AAhhzz
25-12-2004, 22:48
It is the only way end the human suffering on any type of large scale.

I would submit to you that while human suffering is horrible it is always preferable to human death. While a person might be suffering they are still alive and while alive can hope that the future may be better. Even a suffering person can still observe the sunrise/sunset and enjoy its beauty

Once dead, well not much for them to do at all is there?

Genocide should never be a solution to human suffering.
Robbopolis
26-12-2004, 03:10
Personally, I think it's sad that it took both the UN and the US this long to do anything. Genocide and slavery have been going on in Sudan for the last 20 years or so, with the Muslim north waging war on the Christian and animist south. And we never saw anything in the news. Makes you wonder where their interests lie.
Kwangistar
26-12-2004, 03:22
Canada was the first country to raise the issue of Sudan on the world stage. Canadian spending makes U.S. spending on Sudan look, not like a joke (because no matter how you look at it, $300mil is a lot), but less impressive than it initially sounds. Canada's around 11% the size of the U.S. (population-wise (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004379.html)) and about 9% the size of the U.S. economically (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0874911.html), but has spent (or sent) approximately $40mil in aid for Sudan since October 2003 (http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?id=335). Figure that out, and a population 9% of the size of another is spending 13% of what the larger is. That means that if Canada's GDP was as large as the U.S.'s, we'd be spending 44% more than the U.S. would, or approximately $432mil. So, while I'm going to applaud the U.S. for its actions, I will ask why it's not doing more.

*edit* Of course, the original question pertained to major countries, and we Canadians know enough about the U.S.'s general opinion of us to know that we don't necessarily constitute a major country.
That assumes that this bill is the only aid the US has sent to Sudan since October of 2003 - which isn't true. Whether or not it adds on enough to cover the difference I don't know, though.
AAhhzz
26-12-2004, 08:59
That assumes that this bill is the only aid the US has sent to Sudan since October of 2003 - which isn't true. Whether or not it adds on enough to cover the difference I don't know, though.

Your right, it wasnt the only funding for Sudan

http://www.afsa.org/fsj/sept04/AFSANEWSSept2004.pdf
September 2004

Page 8
"The Defense Appropriations bill made its way rapidly through the House and the Senate. The bill was reported out of conference on July 22. It included $95 million in humanitarian aid for Sudan"

http://www.usembassy.org.uk/forpo588.html
"During the summer, USAID, working with the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), put in place a "robust" program to aid the estimated 2.2 million people in Darfur who are at risk of being victims of violence or disease, Garvelink said.

However, he said, the government of Sudan has imposed numerous obstacles that impede aid workers from getting food and shelter supplies to all the places where such aid is needed.

The United States has already spent more than $302 million for humanitarian assistance to Darfur, but more will be needed in 2005 if an unchecked system of "ethnic cleansing" continues, Winter said."

This leaves us with a $397 million dollar humanitarian effort in 2004

Now for 2005 we have the the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004, which gives $300 Million in aid and offers a $100 million "incentive" if the warring parties stop killing each other.

In addition
http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=8223&fcategory_desc=Legislation%20and%20Policy

The House of Representatives has passed a $19.4 billion spending bill for foreign aid and export assistance for the fiscal year beginning October 1 (FY05).

The measure passed late July 15 by 365-41 continues a post-September 11, 2001, trend of increasing U.S. foreign aid spending. While the bill would provide 9 percent less than the Bush administration requested, it would provide 11 percent more than the FY04 amount.

The House-passed bill would provide no funding for Iraq. Funding for reconstruction in Iraq was included in a $21.2 billion FY04 supplemental spending bill. Most of the FY05 funding increases are for international HIV/AIDS assistance and for U.S. allies in the war on terrorism.

The measure would provide $2.2 billion for programs to combat HIV/AIDS, the highest level ever. It also would provide $1.25 billion for the Millennium Challenge Account, the administration's supplemental aid program for developing countries that meet certain political and economic standards. That amount is 25 percent more than current spending but only half of Bush's request[U].

The measure would provide $311 million for humanitarian aid for Sudan and prohibit any funds to go to the Sudanese government unless the secretary of state certifies it has ended all support for militias attacking civilians in the western region of Darfur.

So for FY 2005 we are looking at $ 711 Million in 2005 for a two year total of over $ 1 Billion.

And as to how much nations give

http://www.oecd.org/home/

Official Development Assistance (ODA) from 2000 to 2003
ODA in U.S. Dollars (Millions)
Country 2003

1. United States 15,791 :)
2. Japan 8,911
3. France 7,337
4. Germany 6,694
5. United Kingdom 6,166
6. Netherlands 4,059
7. Italy 2,393
8. Canada 2,209
9. Sweden 2,100
10. Norway 2,043
11. Spain 2,030
12. Belgium 1,887
13. Denmark 1,747
14. Switzerland 1,297
15. Australia 1,237
16. Finland 556
17. Ireland 510
18. Austria 503
19. Greece 356
20. Portugal 298
21. Luxembourg 189
22. New Zealand 169

Source: OECD Web site

With our military streached as it is a military intervention by the US looks to be impractical so this may be a chance for the UN to step up to the plate.

Respectfully

AAhhzz
Water Cove
26-12-2004, 10:23
Fact: of all the western countries, the USA scores lowest on humanitatian aid in percentage of GDP. Europe is the biggest contributor along with some (moderately) wealthy nations spread across the globe. 300 million, although nice to have on your bank account, is pocket money for the US. So actually, it keeps most of its wealth in its own pockets. While in, for example Benelux, France and Germany the government budget for foreign aid actually threatens a budget deficit.

I think there was a bible story about Jesus and his apprentices watching someone raise charity. And technically Jesus said "The rich give gold coins, but an old lady gave one copper coin. The poor lady gave most, because she dedicated all her money to the poor".

So, like it or not, the USA is not generous. They might give for charity, which I encourage. But they should never think of themselves as 'most generous' when a small random country gives a larger share of its (little) wealth. Technically, even Cameron could be more generous than the USA.

So why would Bush care about humanitarian aid? Well first off, all he had to do was sign. Because he would lose face if he (again) opposed the common good. He is not required to honor his word because Sudan might sink into obscurity again, forever. And the few sacrifices he has to make now are less important than damaging his world reputation even more. It is actually some clever popularity stunt with Sudan as the stage. After all, how many rednecks could know the difference between humanitarian aid in dollars and humanitarian aid in percentages? And that's the catch. The west gets praised for helping because they influence the media. The Congolese doctor, planner or cook working for the Red Cross or Unicef is never mentioned by the media even though they put themselves into harms way to actually help. Why? They have not enough money to make a show of it.
AAhhzz
26-12-2004, 21:52
Fact: of all the western countries, the USA scores lowest on humanitatian aid in percentage of GDP. Europe is the biggest contributor along with some (moderately) wealthy nations spread across the globe. 300 million, although nice to have on your bank account, is pocket money for the US. So actually, it keeps most of its wealth in its own pockets. While in, for example Benelux, France and Germany the government budget for foreign aid actually threatens a budget deficit.

Why do you lump Europe together?
Do they vote as a whole what each participant is going to donate?


Do they each meet their promise to the UN to devote 0.7% of their GNP for Official Developmental Assistance?
Answer?
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

"Agenda 21: Rich Nations Agreed at the United Nations to 0.7% of GNP To Aid When the world's governments met at the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, they adopted a programme for action under the auspices of the United Nations -- Agenda 21. Amongst other things, this included an Official Development Assistance (ODA) aid target of 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) for rich nations, roughly 22 members of the OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development), known as the Development Assistance Committee (DAC)."

Of the contries involved only Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Sweden actually meet the stated goals.

I think there was a bible story about Jesus and his apprentices watching someone raise charity. And technically Jesus said "The rich give gold coins, but an old lady gave one copper coin. The poor lady gave most, because she dedicated all her money to the poor".

2003
France 0.41% of GNP <-- this percentage actually threatens a Budget Deficit?
Germany 0.28% of GNP <-- this percentage actually threatens a Budget Deficit?
Canada 0.26% of GNP
USA 0.14% of GNP <-- We have a 400 Billion dollar Budget Deficit, we still give some.

Yup, we are miserly arent we?
But we are hardly the only country to not live up to its stated promise of 0.7% are we?

Even Fances with its 0.41% hardly represents the poor lady giving all she owned to the poor does it? it stll leaves them with 99.59% of thier Budget left does it not?

Of course the 0.14% dontated by the US accounts for 23.05 % of the total donations to the UN Official Development Assistance.
see
http://www.globalissues.org/images/NetODA2003.jpg

If the US lived up to the promised 0.7% contribution our share would have been $ 78.5 Billion, basically giving more than the rest of the world combined.

Do we make more than the rest of the world combined? Hardly seems likely.

So, like it or not, the USA is not generous. They might give for charity, which I encourage. But they should never think of themselves as 'most generous' when a small random country gives a larger share of its (little) wealth. Technically, even Cameron could be more generous than the USA.


Truthfully I dont recall trying to claim that the US was "the most generous" All I did was point out that we had given the largest single donation

Of course our citizens are not exactly slouches in the charitable giving department
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

"Grants by Private Voluntary Agencies was $7.29 billion (up from $6.93 billion the previous year). $4.57 billion of which came from the U.S. alone ($4.07 billion the previous year)

So the US gave 62% of the total private donations? And here I thought we were miserly

Where is Europe in this equation I wonder?

This on top of the 15.7 billion in Govermental aid in 2003, during the start of the Iraqi war, during the same year we passed legislation giving 21 billion to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure. 36.7 Billion in Official Forgein aid then that year and another 4.5 from private organizations so call it 41 Billion in forgeign aid in 2003

So why would Bush care about humanitarian aid? Well first off, all he had to do was sign. Because he would lose face if he (again) opposed the common good. He is not required to honor his word because Sudan might sink into obscurity again, forever. And the few sacrifices he has to make now are less important than damaging his world reputation even more. It is actually some clever popularity stunt with Sudan as the stage. After all, how many rednecks could know the difference between humanitarian aid in dollars and humanitarian aid in percentages? And that's the catch. The west gets praised for helping because they influence the media. The Congolese doctor, planner or cook working for the Red Cross or Unicef is never mentioned by the media even though they put themselves into harms way to actually help. Why? They have not enough money to make a show of it.

My point was President Bush was trying to Increase the levels of aid given. If he had remained silent the aid would have likely increased a couple of percentage points been signed and on its way, But President Bush tried to make a major increase in the budget for Foreign aid and you dismiss it.

President Bush's reputation on the world stage could hardly be worse so why should he bother with stunts? Particularly when he is being pounded daily for his spending why should he exert his political capital to increase Foreign Aid or for that matter to spend more in Sudan?

As far as Sudan goes, how much has EU contributed, either as a whole or country by country. References if you will. Your quite keen on giving your opinion but a bit of independent references would be nice occasionally.
Copiosa Scotia
26-12-2004, 22:01
Also, can anyone tell me why this wasn't in the Chicago Tribune today? Oh, wait, I know. It's because it's something good involving Bush.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/970501.cms

The answer to your first question is yes. Whatever anyone might think of the United States, it is in fact the only large, developed nation doing anything of value to help solve the situation in Sudan.
Armed Bookworms
26-12-2004, 23:00
Fact: of all the western countries, the USA scores lowest on humanitatian aid in percentage of GDP. Europe is the biggest contributor along with some (moderately) wealthy nations spread across the globe. 300 million, although nice to have on your bank account, is pocket money for the US. So actually, it keeps most of its wealth in its own pockets. While in, for example Benelux, France and Germany the government budget for foreign aid actually threatens a budget deficit.
See, we are much, much more capitalist the most of europe, so the GDP isn't exactly a good indicator of how much our government actually gives. As a percentage of what our government collects, it's a much greater amount.
BLARGistania
26-12-2004, 23:09
that bill is about 200 years too late.
Bhutane
26-12-2004, 23:35
The reason the UN is so impotent, is because the US blocks resolutions pertaining to it spending money, commiting troops, or putting resources behind any effort, either them or Russia.

For the UN to work, we must adopt multilateralism, and put aside national interests for the greater good.
AAhhzz
26-12-2004, 23:39
See, we are much, much more capitalist the most of europe, so the GDP isn't exactly a good indicator of how much our government actually gives. As a percentage of what our government collects, it's a much greater amount.

Yeah this is true.

Projected US Government Income 1,847 Billion ( 2004 )
Official Government Foreign Aid 36 Billion ( 2004 )

Or 1.94% of Government income in 2004 goes to Foreign Aid :)

However it is the agreement with the UN to base the amount of Aid on GNP so we come out at a very small sum 0.14% in 2003 (GNP~ 11,450 Billion ) :(

But if the US tax burden is about 1,847 billion out of 11,450 Billion that makes our tax burden about 16 % or so of the GNP.

Wonder what the average tax burden is in these other countries, and how much of their governments income is going to Foreign aid.

Any idea Water Cove??
AAhhzz
26-12-2004, 23:42
that bill is about 200 years too late.

We Owed Sudan 300 Million in 1804? I thought the French owned Sudan back in that time frame...or was that Spain?

Could never keep track of which Eupropean county owned what other part of the globe 200 years ago.
Kryogenerica
26-12-2004, 23:45
I would submit to you that while human suffering is horrible it is always preferable to human death. While a person might be suffering they are still alive and while alive can hope that the future may be better. Even a suffering person can still observe the sunrise/sunset and enjoy its beautyEven though this is OT, I beg to differ here. Human suffering is not always preferable to death. If I were being tortured, I imagine I would be hoping to die to end it. If I were starving and watching my children starve with no prospect of food, I would hope death came quicker for them as well as me to end the pain. Bugger all the pretty sunsets. If I were dying of cancer like my 13 year old neice is right now, I would find every pill in the house and swallow them with a bottle of vodka to wash it down. She is in pretty much unrelievable pain every day, she has no hope of a cure and is just waiting to die.

As terrible as it looks in text, I would rather see my kids and myself quickly dead than suffering like these scenarios. I saw my mother die quickly, my grandmother die slowly and am seeing my neice die by increments - I know which I would choose.

You couldn't really hold to your position if you had seen any real suffering. :( A person can't enjoy a sunset if they can't see it through the pain... :(




Sorry for the digression - please continue.....
Haken Rider
26-12-2004, 23:46
Why do you lump Europe together?
Do they vote as a whole what each participant is going to donate?

Yes. The EU has a program.
AAhhzz
26-12-2004, 23:47
The reason the UN is so impotent, is because the US blocks resolutions pertaining to it spending money, commiting troops, or putting resources behind any effort, either them or Russia.

For the UN to work, we must adopt multilateralism, and put aside national interests for the greater good.

*nods* Yeah, when you have that many competing interests it is difficult to say the least to get anything done.

Thats why so many countries have done unilateral ( or smaller alliances than the UN anyway ) actions in the past few years.

Kosovo, Ivory Coast (French, no UN sanction nor do I recall them even approaching the UN on it), Iraq, Sudan (US Aid)
Bhutane
26-12-2004, 23:50
Sweden has a GDP of $PPP (purchasing power parity) 26,050 per capita, and contributes 0.8% of GDP to foreign aid, it's population is 9 million and it currently has income tax at the highest level at about 50%, I don't know what their tax income is though.

And just in perspective, military spending, in the US 3.2% of GDP!!!, in Sweden 1.9%, still higher than their foreign aid budget, but the disparity is nowhere near as big.

I'm a British citizen and am not impressed with my nations track record in this, although the government has recently put foreign aid at 0.7% of GDP.
The Black Forrest
26-12-2004, 23:53
Meh!

All sanctions do is allow the politicals to go to their constituates and say "By god we did something"

Most sancations rarely work.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/iraq/sanction.shtml
Bhutane
26-12-2004, 23:55
Yeah, but that's the problem, smaller alliances than the UN create a perceived elitism, we need to do what we can within the UN, not outside it in any form of illegal action or smaller alliance, although Kosovo was the only thing NATO has done (in recent years) that's done any good.
AAhhzz
26-12-2004, 23:57
You couldn't really hold to your position if you had seen any real suffering. :( A person can't enjoy a sunset if they can't see it through the pain... :(

I watched my Mother die of cancer a few years ago, then my Father in Law a year later, so yeah I know what you mean by suffering.

Please know you have my sincere and heartfelt condolences on your neice.

On an individual scale the choice to end your own life should be a right.

But would you apply the same thinking to all the people suffering in Sudan? Should they all die to end the suffering? Should it not be a choice for each individual?

I was responding to a statement that the only way to end suffering would be the death of most or all human beings. Something quiet different I think, something that I can not agree with at all.

Respectfully

AAhhzz
Bhutane
26-12-2004, 23:59
Yes. The EU has a program.

Each country in Europe donates to a central fund, which is then distributed to poorer areas of Europe as aid to redevelop etc. Each nation in Europe distributes international aid (outside of the EU) independently I believe.
Water Cove
27-12-2004, 00:03
Why do you lump Europe together?
Do they vote as a whole what each participant is going to donate?


Do they each meet their promise to the UN to devote 0.7% of their GNP for Official Developmental Assistance?
Answer?
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

"Agenda 21: Rich Nations Agreed at the United Nations to 0.7% of GNP To Aid When the world's governments met at the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, they adopted a programme for action under the auspices of the United Nations -- Agenda 21. Amongst other things, this included an Official Development Assistance (ODA) aid target of 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) for rich nations, roughly 22 members of the OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development), known as the Development Assistance Committee (DAC)."

Of the contries involved only Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Sweden actually meet the stated goals.



2003
France 0.41% of GNP <-- this percentage actually threatens a Budget Deficit?
Germany 0.28% of GNP <-- this percentage actually threatens a Budget Deficit?
Canada 0.26% of GNP
USA 0.14% of GNP <-- We have a 400 Billion dollar Budget Deficit, we still give some.

Yup, we are miserly arent we?
But we are hardly the only country to not live up to its stated promise of 0.7% are we?

Even Fances with its 0.41% hardly represents the poor lady giving all she owned to the poor does it? it stll leaves them with 99.59% of thier Budget left does it not?

Of course the 0.14% dontated by the US accounts for 23.05 % of the total donations to the UN Official Development Assistance.
see
http://www.globalissues.org/images/NetODA2003.jpg

If the US lived up to the promised 0.7% contribution our share would have been $ 78.5 Billion, basically giving more than the rest of the world combined.

Do we make more than the rest of the world combined? Hardly seems likely.




Truthfully I dont recall trying to claim that the US was "the most generous" All I did was point out that we had given the largest single donation

Of course our citizens are not exactly slouches in the charitable giving department
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

"Grants by Private Voluntary Agencies was $7.29 billion (up from $6.93 billion the previous year). $4.57 billion of which came from the U.S. alone ($4.07 billion the previous year)

So the US gave 62% of the total private donations? And here I thought we were miserly

Where is Europe in this equation I wonder?

This on top of the 15.7 billion in Govermental aid in 2003, during the start of the Iraqi war, during the same year we passed legislation giving 21 billion to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure. 36.7 Billion in Official Forgein aid then that year and another 4.5 from private organizations so call it 41 Billion in forgeign aid in 2003



My point was President Bush was trying to Increase the levels of aid given. If he had remained silent the aid would have likely increased a couple of percentage points been signed and on its way, But President Bush tried to make a major increase in the budget for Foreign aid and you dismiss it.

President Bush's reputation on the world stage could hardly be worse so why should he bother with stunts? Particularly when he is being pounded daily for his spending why should he exert his political capital to increase Foreign Aid or for that matter to spend more in Sudan?

As far as Sudan goes, how much has EU contributed, either as a whole or country by country. References if you will. Your quite keen on giving your opinion but a bit of independent references would be nice occasionally.

0,7% is a lot of money even in small countries. It can mean the difference between surplus and deficit. It's no wonder few rich countries want to meet the requirements when 0,7% could go to education or healthcare from which you hear some horror stories as well (Don't laugh, even Scandinavia has its troubles I'm sure). Misdirected, yes. But voilation? I bet half of the politicians don't even know about this humanitarian aid promise made by people before them. Of course, not that you did but don't mention as Austria to prove your point because recent polls showed one third of the people see something is Nazi-ism, Belgium starting to follow close behind.

Also, European Union countries not only donate individually but as the Union as well. They're going to do it to Turkish Cyprus which is OUTSIDE the Union and not very well off. There is lots of improvement to be made in the new member states. And I don't think I'm wrong when I say the EU wanted to help outside its borders before. It might not be enough aid to get all countries to the 0,7%, but easily indirectly puts them ahead of the USA. Don't forget all members pay for their membership and that does seem to take up a bit of room on a pie-chart.

Naturally, as with all countries there are tons of leeches and all-around imbeciles that don't know how to run humanitarian help and are thus to blame for a lot of inactivity.

Surely France and Germany are no poor ladies, but that's why they say 'charity begins at home'. Anyone upset with their government's/countrymen's/friendly countries' humanitarian achievements can donate to Unicef or the Red Cross or anything.

And where do individual donations come into play in these numbers? There is lots of charity from where I'm from. How many rednecks and liberals do that in the US? From what I've read, not many. An atlas doesn't lie.

You didn't claim the USA was the most generous, and I never thought anyone did for that matter. It's just a warning to all, and again 'charity starts at home'. I don't put that much faith in governments when it's about charity.

US corporations might aid the charitable cause, but on the other hand they are outsourcing jobs. Makes you wonder don't it? I personally trust corporations even less on charity than governments. Its either for infrastructure or reputation, or otherwise the company is not at home in the cold and uncaring world of business. Oh, and the US has the most corporations in the wolrd (or most of anyway) so it's no surprise that they take up most of the percentage. If Chinese companies OWNED this world and rarely gave charity, they'd be on top as well, all the way. "But fine, you can have your Pepsi and Nikes mr. Numbutulasie." <-- corporate charity at work in my little world, no offense

Of course I dismiss anything Bush does, I wouldn't care less if that donkey's ass sold his chimp farms and donated the cash to Unicef. The damage is done, only god can redeem him now. What's three hundred million dollar to a few thousand dead Iraqis, Afghanis, coalition soldiers and who knows how many others? Funny is, part of his family fortune seems to come out of Nazi Germany so instead of making bloody money he'd be actually giving Africa blood money. What's worse is that you can't understand his ways and shouldn't sympathise for him. George Bush is no Russian Communist Party or German Nazi party where there are Schindlers joining for their own purposes, he is A MAN. A man with comparable powers and no connections to the real world. If I where a Guru his negative aura would blind me here. What kind of mind trick he's playing with Sudan I don't know but I know this for certain: he's no more saintly than any member of the EU or the rest of the world leaders. He can carry out his plans all he wants but I'm not going to thank him for it. Just as surely as I won't thank Hitler for keeping our population in check and culling those who squander resources.

As for my sources, they're books. Fine, unbaised, modern school books that I don't have handy now, and wouldn't be able to scan anyway if I had them.
Haken Rider
27-12-2004, 00:12
Each country in Europe donates to a central fund, which is then distributed to poorer areas of Europe as aid to redevelop etc. Each nation in Europe distributes international aid (outside of the EU) independently I believe.

Mmm, can be true. I just said that because there is a European minister for charity, who's from my country.
AAhhzz
27-12-2004, 00:58
0,7% is a lot of money even in small countries. It can mean the difference between surplus and deficit. It's no wonder few rich countries want to meet the requirements when 0,7% could go to education or healthcare from which you hear some horror stories as well (Don't laugh, even Scandinavia has its troubles I'm sure). Misdirected, yes. But voilation? I bet half of the politicians don't even know about this humanitarian aid promise made by people before them. Of course, not that you did but don't mention as Austria to prove your point because recent polls showed one third of the people see something is Nazi-ism, Belgium starting to follow close behind.

Perhaps the politicians dont know about it, perhaps they do. Have you asked any of them personally?

And I had not heard anything like that in Austria or Belgium, I certainly hope that if that is so, it turns out to be a passing movement in the body politic and not a growing one.

Also, European Union countries not only donate individually but as the Union as well. They're going to do it to Turkish Cyprus which is OUTSIDE the Union and not very well off. There is lots of improvement to be made in the new member states. And I don't think I'm wrong when I say the EU wanted to help outside its borders before. It might not be enough aid to get all countries to the 0,7%, but easily indirectly puts them ahead of the USA. Don't forget all members pay for their membership and that does seem to take up a bit of room on a pie-chart.

Just as the Sudan bill is probubly outside of the UN accounting since it is not going thru the UN. So would many of the other approreation / emergency bills that pass across the desk of the President of the US. Want to bet on how much ( not if, but how much. I dont think there is any chance that US governemnt will do nothing ) the US gives to help in the eathquake/tsunami emergency in Southeast Asia?

And where do individual donations come into play in these numbers? There is lots of charity from where I'm from. How many rednecks and liberals do that in the US? From what I've read, not many. An atlas doesn't lie.

Numbers dont lie either, 4.5 Billion from Private Agencies funneled into the UN. That is 62% of the entire world's private contributions to the UN Development Fund. Obviously quite a few rednecks and liberals are donating, (nice use of prejorative terms there. You slipped them in really smoothly, you must have been practicing for a while ) at least more than Europeans, Asians, Middle Eastern or African contributers are.

Of course I dismiss anything Bush does, I wouldn't care less if that donkey's ass sold his chimp farms and donated the cash to Unicef. The damage is done, only god can redeem him now.

Is that not true of everyone, at least in a spiritual sense? How people perceive a person is a lot less important than how God veiws them wouldnt you agree?

Dismissing the actions of the person who is the US president makes little sense if your discussing world politics isnt it?

What's three hundred million dollar to a few thousand dead Iraqis, Afghanis, coalition soldiers and who knows how many others?

Now your trying to tie these two disparate arguements together? Lets try to stick to a single topic here.

Funny is, part of his family fortune seems to come out of Nazi Germany so instead of making bloody money he'd be actually giving Africa blood money.

Funny part is its none of his own money that we are talking about, so why do you bring it into the conversation at all except as a smear tactic?

Its Government funds we are speaking of, so what has the EU donated to assist the Sudan in its time of crisis?

What's worse is that you can't understand his ways and shouldn't sympathise for him. George Bush is no Russian Communist Party or German Nazi party where there are Schindlers joining for their own purposes, he is A MAN. A man with comparable powers and no connections to the real world. If I where a Guru his negative aura would blind me here.

Huh? Is english your first language??

As a man I dont think President Bush is all that exceptional in any aspect, not saintly nor devilish, not an idiot or a genius.

He is however the US President so obviously he has something about him that swayed the US electorate to place him back in office again. I doubt you would understand the appeal or repulsion he has for US citizens anymore than I would understand the appeal/repulsion of Blair, Chirac or Shcoeder.

And "if I were a Guru", implies your not one and can not therefore personnally know about his "arua" anyway.

Your just making assumptions based on your own perceptions aren't you?

What kind of mind trick he's playing with Sudan I don't know but I know this for certain: he's no more saintly than any member of the EU or the rest of the world leaders. He can carry out his plans all he wants but I'm not going to thank him for it. Just as surely as I won't thank Hitler for keeping our population in check and culling those who squander resources.

No, definetely not a saint by any streach of the imagination, but not the devil incarnate either.

Giving 300 million to 400 million hardly seems a mind trick. Sounds like fairly concrete assistance to me. Might not be a huge amount on the scale of US GNP but it is certainly not nothing. What is the EU doing in terms of assistance for the Sudan?

Considering the way he has made choices based on what he percieves as US interests and the information available to him I doubt that your thanks would sway him one way or another.

And nice attempt to equate President Bush with Hitler, not biased at all are you?

As for my sources, they're books. Fine, unbaised, modern school books that I don't have handy now, and wouldn't be able to scan anyway if I had them.

And we all know that school books never have any inaccuracies or biases in them dont we? We can ask the Palestienian children about their school books, that praise sucide bombers or the Iraqis, that praised Saddam as the Father of their nation and the hope of the Arab world, or the American school children where if you learn about Europe at all its where our forefathers came from and thats about it. ( Of course there are courses in European sultures and such I am speaking of an average school in an average state ) Each country has its own veiwpoint / bias.

Why would you try to claim yours is free of all such stains?

Question still remains unanswered.

What has the EU or any nation thats part of the EU done to assist the situation in Sudan?

Or did you have nothing to say on that because there is nothing to say?
Water Cove
27-12-2004, 14:02
Perhaps the politicians dont know about it, perhaps they do. Have you asked any of them personally?

And I had not heard anything like that in Austria or Belgium, I certainly hope that if that is so, it turns out to be a passing movement in the body politic and not a growing one.



Just as the Sudan bill is probubly outside of the UN accounting since it is not going thru the UN. So would many of the other approreation / emergency bills that pass across the desk of the President of the US. Want to bet on how much ( not if, but how much. I dont think there is any chance that US governemnt will do nothing ) the US gives to help in the eathquake/tsunami emergency in Southeast Asia?



Numbers dont lie either, 4.5 Billion from Private Agencies funneled into the UN. That is 62% of the entire world's private contributions to the UN Development Fund. Obviously quite a few rednecks and liberals are donating, (nice use of prejorative terms there. You slipped them in really smoothly, you must have been practicing for a while ) at least more than Europeans, Asians, Middle Eastern or African contributers are.



Is that not true of everyone, at least in a spiritual sense? How people perceive a person is a lot less important than how God veiws them wouldnt you agree?

Dismissing the actions of the person who is the US president makes little sense if your discussing world politics isnt it?



Now your trying to tie these two disparate arguements together? Lets try to stick to a single topic here.



Funny part is its none of his own money that we are talking about, so why do you bring it into the conversation at all except as a smear tactic?

Its Government funds we are speaking of, so what has the EU donated to assist the Sudan in its time of crisis?



Huh? Is english your first language??

As a man I dont think President Bush is all that exceptional in any aspect, not saintly nor devilish, not an idiot or a genius.

He is however the US President so obviously he has something about him that swayed the US electorate to place him back in office again. I doubt you would understand the appeal or repulsion he has for US citizens anymore than I would understand the appeal/repulsion of Blair, Chirac or Shcoeder.

And "if I were a Guru", implies your not one and can not therefore personnally know about his "arua" anyway.

Your just making assumptions based on your own perceptions aren't you?



No, definetely not a saint by any streach of the imagination, but not the devil incarnate either.

Giving 300 million to 400 million hardly seems a mind trick. Sounds like fairly concrete assistance to me. Might not be a huge amount on the scale of US GNP but it is certainly not nothing. What is the EU doing in terms of assistance for the Sudan?

Considering the way he has made choices based on what he percieves as US interests and the information available to him I doubt that your thanks would sway him one way or another.

And nice attempt to equate President Bush with Hitler, not biased at all are you?



And we all know that school books never have any inaccuracies or biases in them dont we? We can ask the Palestienian children about their school books, that praise sucide bombers or the Iraqis, that praised Saddam as the Father of their nation and the hope of the Arab world, or the American school children where if you learn about Europe at all its where our forefathers came from and thats about it. ( Of course there are courses in European sultures and such I am speaking of an average school in an average state ) Each country has its own veiwpoint / bias.

Why would you try to claim yours is free of all such stains?

Question still remains unanswered.

What has the EU or any nation thats part of the EU done to assist the situation in Sudan?

Or did you have nothing to say on that because there is nothing to say?


You don't have to be smart to be a politician. I know eight parliament members who probably come from the most sheepish and chaotic levels of human evolution. Barring the wannabes who percieve Islam as a threat and blame poor countries of being reckless spenders.

Of course a lot if bills pass the presidential desk. Just as condolence letters passing Rumsfelds desk. All they have to do is sign, seeing as how they didn't actually come up with the laws and proposals themselves. Not signing them would just make a few people upset with the government. It would indicate at least some people take the initiative to get the ball rolling. And they might not even be a part of the congress or senate or anything.

Be that as it may, eveytime there is some comparison on development aid the US seems to rank lowest of the rich countries. Maybe both of our sources are lying. Maybe it is because most of the rich people in the world live in America that it overwhelms charity reports, without there having to be a lot charitable people anyway. If South Africa was as rich as the USA instead, they'd be responsible of most of the charity instead as well. It doesn't mean people there are actually generous. The sick thing about this capitalist world is that with money, you are everything and everywhere. When you are poor, the rich will make a name for themselves over your dead body. And look good doing so. It's better than not giving dime for them, but why are we turning it into a popularity contest here? The most important thing about charity is giving something to help others and not expecting anything in return. Not even prestige.

If I sounded un-nuanced and unreasonable at the end, then that's because I always resent Bush. I haven't seen him do anything good. I see he is prejudiced, I see he is a liar, I see he is a warhawk, I see he doesn't have the guts to fight a country with real WMDs. Some bill that he signs to aid Sudan is not changing my mind because first: it wasn't his idea in the first place. Second: I already said I don't believe charity automatically makes someone good. This whole discussion actually started with Bush. I am not automatically dismissing the presidents actions, I'm automatically dismissing Bush's actions. I've seen the person who's currently president, and don't like that person a bit.

With blood money, I mean his family wealth. An investigation suggested his family had a deal going on in Germany and the money got laundered in Nazi occupied territory before being tranferred back to the US. The idea alone of Bush's family having had ties to the Nazis makes me hate them. I never said they gave some of that money to a bullied country, but I guess that was a little unclear.

Of course I'm biased against Bush. I'm as biased as his supporters are. The difference is the information we're getting. Half of the US and nearly all of the rest of the world is biased against Bush. To me and many others he's the devil himself, or just extremely stupid. Could anyone blame us for constructing our own opinion based on his actions?

Oh and I don't think my information is biased or anything. We have no flag-waving patriotism nonsense here. One of my media sources was put together as a joint effort by Evangelists, Catholics and Reformist broadcasting stations yet does not cater to their respective movements. Textbooks I read have no misgivings about stating the cruelties and misbehaviours of the country where they where printed. Of course, if Americans challenge the truth that "The US declared war on Japan, and the Axis officially rallied to their allies cause" in favor of "The US immediately declared war on all the Axis" then the truth is hidden between the lies. If the truth becomes lost thanks to lies, how will you ever learn from history? That's an idicator that biasis obscures the truth in favor of nationalism and thus the the biased will rediscover truth when it bites them in their face, which is too late. Maybe you should take my word, that sources are not everything and easily corrupted. I was taught to believe that the US/UK air raids over Germany where similar to the bombings of London, Warsaw and Rotterdam. Would you agree that is more or less the truth, unbiased and I am therefore more reliable than for example a brainwashed Iraqi child or nationalist American?

As for your question: Europeans do give to Sudan, even if it is indirectly. They give to the Red Cross, Unicef, etc. We don't see humanitarian workers at work in Sudan, but we do see Bush signing a bill. That doesn't mean the humanitarian workers don't exist. Besides, have you ever seen what happened to the Medicins Sans Frontiers worker Arjan Erkel? The man who was kidnapped in Dagestan by Chechens rebels? I bet not, but he was a European doctor risking his life for a satelite state republic. We don't see him much, but his skills and sacrifices are much more valuable than any amount of money Bush pumps into Sudan charity. That proves Europe is no less 'generous' than the US, anywhere.
Bunnyducks
27-12-2004, 14:40
As far as Sudan goes, how much has EU contributed, either as a whole or country by country. References if you will. Your quite keen on giving your opinion but a bit of independent references would be nice occasionally.

EU has contributed only some 300 million this year (according to this Sudanese source... which may not be the most reliable... but I think the figure is about right). http://www.splmtoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5317

I have no clue how much the member countries have directed to Sudan themselves. However much it may be, I doubt it's enough.
AAhhzz
27-12-2004, 16:29
EU has contributed only some 300 million this year (according to this Sudanese source... which may not be the most reliable... but I think the figure is about right). http://www.splmtoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5317

I have no clue how much the member countries have directed to Sudan themselves. However much it may be, I doubt it's enough.

Oh very cool! Thank you ever so much for the reference. I kept googling for EU/Sudan articles and could not find any that referenced any particular amount of euros/dollars. Then again when you google and get 70,000 articles to sort through, well can be a bit time consuming to visit them all.
:)
So the answer to the thread is no, the EU has also contributed to Sudan. I hope that both our efforts help to bring this conflict to a close, but considering what I have read of the Sudenese government those hopes are somewhat dim.
:(
Have a very good New Year

Respectfully

AAhhzz
imported_Wilf
27-12-2004, 16:35
Wilf remembers.........US/Western Leaders give aid and loans to mid-east country, and withdraws trade sanctions (for example arms sales)

.............................Mid/east country fails to create a pro-west democracy

a cookie for who can tell me what happens next ?
AAhhzz
27-12-2004, 17:23
Sweden has a GDP of $PPP (purchasing power parity) 26,050 per capita, and contributes 0.8% of GDP to foreign aid, it's population is 9 million and it currently has income tax at the highest level at about 50%, I don't know what their tax income is though.

And just in perspective, military spending, in the US 3.2% of GDP!!!, in Sweden 1.9%, still higher than their foreign aid budget, but the disparity is nowhere near as big.

I'm a British citizen and am not impressed with my nations track record in this, although the government has recently put foreign aid at 0.7% of GDP.

My hats off to you then. While it does seem to be a tiny fraction ( the 0.7% ) when working out a national budget every branch of government is scrambling to appropreate all that they can and a 0.7% can be a Huge amount to devote to charity as a nation.

Sweden's highest tax bracket is 50%? Ouch, thats got to hurt when paying that bill. I would assume Sweden has a progressive tax scale so the lower income brackets pay less than 50% which would help them make ends meet.

As to the military budget, we have had a large standing military force since the 1940's. While Bush I and Clinton did cut back on the size of the military to the tune of about 40 to 50% (depends on how you look at the numbers) it is still a huge force. Since the Reagan years a lot of emphisis has been placed on achieving parity with the equivelent civilian pay. This has resulted in annual pay increases between 2.5% to 8% (for some ranks) for much of the last 20 years. So a large portion of that 3.9% is to pay the 3 million or so Active Duty, Reservists and Civil service employees as well as pay contract costs associated with the military ( i.e Dining facilities run by contractors ).

About 25% is for personnel costs, another 30% is Operations and Maintenance (some contract costs are carried in here so a portion of this is still paying saleries ) another 4 % is the entire Department of Atomic Energy...and the list goes on...take a look

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/sheets/24_13.xls
(Excellent breakout of the federal budget, an overveiw only. short and sweet at 818 rows)

Further cutbacks on the military are expected but given the current activities that might or might not happen on schedule (Note on spreadsheet the drop in personnel costs in FY 05 from FY 04, this is with about a 3% pay raise)

Have a Great New Year

Respectfully
AAhhzz
John Browning
27-12-2004, 17:53
I find it pretty consistent that if America does anything "good" in European eyes, it's either ignored, minimized, belittled, or generally left out of the press. If America does anything that Europeans even remotely dislike, it's front page news.
Haken Rider
27-12-2004, 17:57
I find it pretty consistent that if America does anything "good" in European eyes, it's either ignored, minimized, belittled, or generally left out of the press. If America does anything that Europeans even remotely dislike, it's front page news.
True.
Say how is this Americans-Europeans bitching on each other-thing started?
AAhhzz
27-12-2004, 18:32
The most important thing about charity is giving something to help others and not expecting anything in return. Not even prestige.

Your absolutely right, I guess I was feeling somewhat defensive at someone saying that our donation was just a token.

You might have noticed there is a bit of American bashing that happens here now and again. I am usually not offended or upset by it, just try to understand the posters point of veiw and respond clearly to thier points, if I have a response to make anyway. For some reason that particular dig hurt.

Maybe becuase I realize that its going to take far more than 300 - 400 million to help Sudan, though I think trying to bribe the warring parties was a nice touch :) .
Maybe because I worry about the annual deficit and its continuous adding to the national debt.
Maybe because its seldom that the US seems to receive credit for the positive things we do. What was it? 2 years ago or so that the US was voted off the UN Human Rights commision and Sudan was voted in? ( or was that Lybia? Cant recall off the top of my head )

For whatever reason I "had my back up" and wanted to get the point across that we are generous, its not like we horde our money.

We have the Combined Federal Campaign amoung Government employees like me that raised about 250 million in 2003
( latest data http://apps.opm.gov/cfcresults/2003%20Summary%20Total%20Report.cfm )

Not too shabby for individual contributers piling up thier money together.

We also have other campaigns of various sorts going round it seems every few months. My own donations are not huge or anything, but I do feel the pinch now and again, perhaps that's what irritated me over it.
(Christmas was tight, but good for the kids....oh well, the look in their eyes was enough to make it worthwhile :) )

Besides, have you ever seen what happened to the Medicins Sans Frontiers worker Arjan Erkel? The man who was kidnapped in Dagestan by Chechens rebels? I bet not, but he was a European doctor risking his life for a satelite state republic. We don't see him much, but his skills and sacrifices are much more valuable than any amount of money Bush pumps into Sudan charity. That proves Europe is no less 'generous' than the US, anywhere.

Truthfully I had never heard of Arjan Erkel, but I have heard of Doctors Without Bourders, they are on the CFC listing actually, and the "undesignated funds" of the CFC are divided out amoung the 400 or so organizations in the fund.

Only 7 million out of the 250 million was undesignated so its a fairly small amount, but its something.

My own contributions go to Amrerican Red Cross, American Cancer Foundation, (in memory of loved ones) and the AF Widows Village.

And every nation has such selfless individuals as Arjan Erkel, so we all can be proud of those individuals. A great many of them serve their country in their military, finding that service to be their calling, or the way they feel they can best contribute back to their nation.

If I seemed to be taking shots at you please accept my appologize, it was certainly not my intention to insult you. Just being perhaps a touch too defensive.

See you around I am sure

AAhhzz
AAhhzz
27-12-2004, 19:15
True.
Say how is this Americans-Europeans bitching on each other-thing started?

*wonders if we can blame France and get away with it.....Nah...*

Dont really know, part of it has to be laid at President Bush's feet though for appearing to be isolationistic and unilateral during the first few months of his first term

I say "appearing" because thats how it seems to me.

Bush walked away from Koyoto agreement dismissing it as too damaging to the economy, no one reported that the Senate ( one part of the congress which must ratify any treaties made ) had turned it down flat by I think a 97 - 3 vote against it.

Koyoto never had a chance to pass through Congress, so Bush walked away from it not expending any time to make it look like " I worked as hard as I ever have in my life to make that work out but I was blocked at every turn"

So by refusing to put on a useless and deceitful show of trying to get Koyoto passed he gave the Europeans the impression of snubbing the rest of the world.

Same for the Anti Ballistic Missle Defense Treaty, when you look at it our biggest fear now isnt an all out nuclear war with China or Russia with thousands of war heads flying. All parties have figured out thats a no win situation.

Our greatest worry is, say some lunitic, with a few nuclear weapons mounted on missles, maybe located really really close to China, lobbing the few warheads he has at this neighbors over threatened economic sanctions from Japan. Oddly enough Bush seemed to realize that it wasnt the great nations that were the threat now but the smaller rogue nations before anyone else took note of that fact.

So Bush announced his intention to withdraw from the treaty discussed it with Putain, I believe he even promised to share the results of the research so that Russia and others that were in the treaty could deploy thier own defense. Putain agreed and poof there goes the treaty.

But the press hearlded it as another instance of Bush's unilateralist and beligerant additude.

And when pressing the UN for 6 months to Authorize the use of force to enforce its own resolutions against Iraq, France went from an ally willing to discuss and negotiate on it to Chirac outright saying they would veto any measure authorizing force. The intellegence, even from UN sources, as faulty as it seems now seemed to indicate that Iraq had or could produce WMDs (Chemical and Biological) in fairly short order and that the sanctions were breaking down and if Saddam wanted to he would soon be able to start working on his nuclear programs again.

So Bush made the choice to depose Saddam before that threat could fully develop. Right or wrong he made that choice and took flack over it since, never mind getting the factsstraight when you can quote Ted Kennedy saying that the war was planned in Jan 91 just to line the pockets of the rich, and of course the press loved to repeat the phrase "rush to war" constantly for the 6 months leading up to the war and for a year after we started.

Never mind that Haans Blix report stated that the Iraqis were not "fully cooperating" and were at some points stonewalling. Hardly compliance with the UN resolutions was it, but Bush is blamed in the press as a unilateralist that rushed to war

And the list goes on and on and on...

Odd thing though, did you ever notice that even Before he was elected the reputation as being unilateralist and beligerent and a stupid frat boy was already formed in the press? And the majority of the press seemed all too willing to keep harping on those points, sort of like they portrayed Reagan as a dangerous cowboy even before he was elected and the image stuck for years. Now he is recognized widely as the President that helped ( not did it by himself but definetly helped ) end the Cold war without a shot fired.

In Texas I do seem to recall that Bush worked very well with the Democratic party in building consenses and establishing working relationships with Democrats. Hardly unilateralistic, perhaps the press has a bit of blame in the US/European divide

What do you think?
John Browning
27-12-2004, 19:30
True.
Say how is this Americans-Europeans bitching on each other-thing started?

The natural outgrowth of the demise of the former Soviet Union as a world superpower and the consolidation of the EU.

The EU is seeking to define itself, since it was previously defined as being on one side or the other of the Cold War. It is also maturing into a more unified power structure, but isn't quite there yet.

We also have generations of Europeans who have been assiduous about being peace-oriented. Their whole defense system apparatus is literally incapable of projecting power on a superpower level, with the exception of a paltry number of strategic nuclear weapons, which are useless on the whole. And yet they wish to be treated as a superpower. Without the military or the weapons, of course.

There also seems to be superpower wishes amongst the individual nations of the EU. France and the UK would both like to be regarded as superpowers, even though they are not, and never will be again.

It's hard to live with a country that suddenly wakes up and finds out it can really kick some ass, after all these years of not doing anything at all. And when it acts in the same interests as those in the EU, they remain quiet. And if it doesn't (or fails to act), they get noisy because they know they are impotent in a world power projection sense.
Water Cove
27-12-2004, 22:25
Your absolutely right, I guess I was feeling somewhat defensive at someone saying that our donation was just a token.

You might have noticed there is a bit of American bashing that happens here now and again. I am usually not offended or upset by it, just try to understand the posters point of veiw and respond clearly to thier points, if I have a response to make anyway. For some reason that particular dig hurt.

Maybe becuase I realize that its going to take far more than 300 - 400 million to help Sudan, though I think trying to bribe the warring parties was a nice touch :) .
Maybe because I worry about the annual deficit and its continuous adding to the national debt.
Maybe because its seldom that the US seems to receive credit for the positive things we do. What was it? 2 years ago or so that the US was voted off the UN Human Rights commision and Sudan was voted in? ( or was that Lybia? Cant recall off the top of my head )

For whatever reason I "had my back up" and wanted to get the point across that we are generous, its not like we horde our money.

We have the Combined Federal Campaign amoung Government employees like me that raised about 250 million in 2003
( latest data http://apps.opm.gov/cfcresults/2003%20Summary%20Total%20Report.cfm )

Not too shabby for individual contributers piling up thier money together.

We also have other campaigns of various sorts going round it seems every few months. My own donations are not huge or anything, but I do feel the pinch now and again, perhaps that's what irritated me over it.
(Christmas was tight, but good for the kids....oh well, the look in their eyes was enough to make it worthwhile :) )



Truthfully I had never heard of Arjan Erkel, but I have heard of Doctors Without Bourders, they are on the CFC listing actually, and the "undesignated funds" of the CFC are divided out amoung the 400 or so organizations in the fund.

Only 7 million out of the 250 million was undesignated so its a fairly small amount, but its something.

My own contributions go to Amrerican Red Cross, American Cancer Foundation, (in memory of loved ones) and the AF Widows Village.

And every nation has such selfless individuals as Arjan Erkel, so we all can be proud of those individuals. A great many of them serve their country in their military, finding that service to be their calling, or the way they feel they can best contribute back to their nation.

If I seemed to be taking shots at you please accept my appologize, it was certainly not my intention to insult you. Just being perhaps a touch too defensive.

See you around I am sure

AAhhzz


Is allright, I was up a bit late yesterday anyway. People just get off the hook at times. Now I'm an experience richer at least.

And I'm inclined to agree, the prestige of charitable work goes to those who take risks to put the money of the organization to good use. It's seems a thankless job when you are taken hostage and then your organization is to pay your release because your government takes the credit for negotiating a release, as was the case with Erkel. At least the government did more for him than Putin, who is responsible for the whole Chechen/Russian mess. When neither him or Bush do something for the real heroes, that makes me feel I'm stuck in the Axis of Misers by Russia, Italy and the US.

I admit my view of the US' reputation is pessimistic. In the last few years it took a turn for the worse. And will continue in the next four years. I hope when it's all over I can still acknowledge charity efforts world wide. To just get it out with some words of infinite wisdom: this world is screwing with my mind!
AAhhzz
28-12-2004, 01:11
At least the government did more for him than Putin, who is responsible for the whole Chechen/Russian mess. When neither him or Bush do something for the real heroes, that makes me feel I'm stuck in the Axis of Misers by Russia, Italy and the US.

Well, I am a news hound and I didnt hear of the situation, could have missed it I suppose. But not certain that Bush could do all that much if the situation was in Chechneya. We have kind of had "touchey" relationships with the Russians over Chechneya for quite a while.

Once 9/11 happened we sort of backed off our comdemnation of the situation. Now we have the Urikraine vote causeing tension. Fortunately the Urikraine supreme court threw the election out and is doing a start over, maybe this time the results will be more definitave and less easily contested. And goodness I hope Fair and above board


I admit my view of the US' reputation is pessimistic. In the last few years it took a turn for the worse. And will continue in the next four years. I hope when it's all over I can still acknowledge charity efforts world wide. To just get it out with some words of infinite wisdom: this world is screwing with my mind!

Well, give the benefit of a doubt where you can, and I hope you can keep what optimisim you have intact.
*slips Water Cove a screw driver to unscrew his mind a bit....just in case he needs it*

Be well

AAhhzz
Alomogordo
28-12-2004, 01:18
Also, can anyone tell me why this wasn't in the Chicago Tribune today? Oh, wait, I know. It's because it's something good involving Bush.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/970501.cms
Good?! He only did it for PR! 300 million dollars is nothing!
Example:
$300 million divided by population of Sudan-39,148,162 (July 2004 est.)

Rounded off to an even 40 million-that's $7.50 per person
AAhhzz
28-12-2004, 11:17
Good?! He only did it for PR! 300 million dollars is nothing!
Example:
$300 million divided by population of Sudan-39,148,162 (July 2004 est.)

Rounded off to an even 40 million-that's $7.50 per person

Well, no matter how you slice it 300 million is not exactly nothing is it?
How many tonnes of food will that bring in through UNICEF or the Red Cross?
Any ideas Alomogordo?

How long will that feed the affected population?

Also the entire population of Sudan is hardly involved, only about 2 million or so people are involved in the crisis.

How long will 300 million feed the affected people?

Now add the 300 Million to the 311 million aready alloted for Sudan in the Foreign Aid budget for FY 05 and your now up to 611 million.

Oh my, more than half a billion dollars now isnt it? Still PR to you?

And of course if you had read page two you would have seen that the bill also authorizes an additional 100 million to the warring parties if they will just stop killing each other.

Not a huge amount to be sure but if it stops the killing will it be worth it?

Now we are at 711 million.

How much money does it take to no longer be a PR stunt to you Alomogordo?

Total US Aid this year is 19 Billion, not quite as much as the 20% increase Bush asked for but still an 11% increase from 2004. Is that still a PR stunt?

And as for that, why should Bush bother with PR stunts??
He isnt going to get a fair deal in the major media no matter what he does and he isnt ever running for office again, so why should he care anyway?

And isnt Bush getting hammered by his own political party for how much he spends anyway?
How is spending more on Foreign Aid assisting him at home or across the Globe

So why would he bother?

Want to bet on how much emergency assistance the US gives to India, Shri`Lanka and the rest of the affected region?

Or will that also only be a PR stunt?

Oh heck read the other three pages in this thread if you care to and follow the links, you might just learn something.

AAhhzz
AAhhzz
29-12-2004, 09:17
Reading an about the aid effort in Indonesia Collin Powell said US aid would like rise to over a billion dollars.

Hardly a huge amount when measured against the damage I know but not bad for emergenvy aid

There was also this

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/28/stingy.americans.ap/index.html
(bottom of the page)

Natsios said the Paris organization's figures overlook a key factor -- the billions more Americans give each year in private donations.

Americans last year gave an estimated $241 billion to charitable causes -- domestic and foreign -- according to a study by Giving USA Foundation. That's up from $234 billion in 2002. The foundation did not break down how much was for domestic causes and how much for foreign.

2002 GNP for the US was 10 trillion and change, so private contributions added up to 2.3% of the GNP?

http://www.arnova.org/americans.php
looks like we keep it up in 2004 too
AAhhzz
29-12-2004, 09:42
Some reason to keep your optimism intact

http://www.aafrc.org/about_aafrc/bysourceof66.html

2003 data
Individual contributions were 74.5% of all charitable contributions and totaled $ 179.3 Billion dollars

Foundations 10.9% and totaled $ 26.3 Billion
Bequests were 9% and totaled $ 21.6 Billion
Corporations were 5.6% and totaled $ 13.4 Billion


http://www.aafrc.org/about_aafrc/bytypeof67.html

And where it went, doesnt say if the charity is Domestic or International but note one piece of the pie

10% or $24 Billion was Unallocated, sounds like the people gave without setting any condition on it or even caring where it went.

Perhaps the government doesnt keep up with the charitable contributions but it looks like the citizens are donating about 2.2 %

The UN measure was 0.7% GNP?...private contributions smoked that puppy :cool: