[QUOTE] Originally posted by storch: *
*"Root cause" for terrorism = U.S. not charitable enough.
Typical.
[/QUOTE]
**
What's "typical"? That any criticism of the US is automatically my justification/acceptance for acts of terrorism? God Forbid i (oh no, not another of those intolerant, frothing, rabid Muslims) should dare to criticize the almighty US. That makes me anti-American automatically... and an apologist for terrorism, i suppose. Does anyone else have any other stereotypes they want to throw at me while we're having fun? None of you (well, with one or two exceptions) has even met me, i absolutely hate it when people make generalizations without knowing two cents about the individual.
No other country apart from the US has the financial resources to be able to spend $87 billion on an illegal military adventure. My point is quite simply that that money could have been spent in a far more worthwhile manner, like for example, to build orphanages for orphans, or to provide anti-retroviral drugs for pregnant, HIV mothers. Or to build effective hospitals that provide free medical care. Or to construct more mobile clinics in rural areas of particular African countries. Myriad of ways.
And the "root" causes of terrorism, by the way, are not that the "US" is not being charitable enough. It's the world not being charitable enough. You should understand, perhaps, that it's afterall in the US government's own interest to improve its image around the world - and there may be few better ways, IMHO, to do this than to fight the terrorism of Aids. This will show the world what the US is capable of, rather than spending billions upon billions towards violating a decimated country's sovereignty.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by AvgAmericanGirl: *
**But what can war on Aids do to build world peace?
(besides dropping condoms out of airplanes?)
[/QUOTE]
*
That's not precisely what i was thinking but hey - whatever works, i guess. i am not saying that trying to help Aids orphans in African countries is the 21st century panacea.
Aids is killing far, far more people than al Qaeda has. It is a form of terrorism but less directly 'relevant' to North Americans and hence more easily pushed by the wayside.... because Aids is still seen as something that, on a global scale, affects 'them' - those Africans living so far away. Do you not believe that if we try to make the lives of those who are affected by this terrible disease, a little less painful and a little more dignified, that can only help to stabilize a society? What do we possibly have to lose ? Money? Bush doesn't seem to think twice before wasting billions and billions, $87 billion to be exact; according to Kofi Annan it would just take $10 billion to begin a very good start against the war on Aids. Surely even Aids orphans deserve an opportunity for a more dignified life, some hope for dignified employment, some hope for accessing anti-retroviral drugs, some hope at a life that we would not deny anyone else. And if, from a 'pragmatic' pov, in the process, the public image of 'western' countries is improved, then what do we have to lose.
Unfortunately the American Symbol should be the STORK. We Americans should remember that the sticking our heads in the sand does not solve anything. And those babies the stork brings will surely come with 80 some billion dollors right?
Yeah.. too bad we’re scaring off the immigrants that could help by paying taxes.
Anyway, I see Nadia’s point.. It’s all about relevance. Personal risk, even when imaginary, is much more motivating than statistics. Do I need to bring up Stalin’s quote again? It’s easy to marginalize epidemics that don’t seem to affect you. Thus we find the average Yanks willing to do whatever they are told is necessary to ward off personal risk yet they are, if not ignorant of, complacent towards real crises that can actually have broader yet more indirect consequences.
Aids is but one such problem. Nadia is not saying that we should abandon our efforts against personal risk. She is using it to say that we should do a better job of accounting for all forms of risk. When approaching one problem, we should not neglect others, if possible. Actually, I think Bush’s speech itself had a defense for the concept Nadia is speaking of:
This is a narrow application of the idea, but, taken as fundamental, it should be clear why moderation should be employed and attention paid to even those dangers that don’t immediately seem dangerous.
Thank you, Spoon, for taking the time to explain my position better than i could have in my state of anger and frustration. i really appreciate that. Thank you. You have a very balanced way of expressing your opinions and that is highly commendable particularly in this Forum. i hope you don’t lose that.
George Bush wants that much to spend on the US military presence in Iraq, but what else would it buy you? Laura Barton asked doctors, teachers, charity workers and campaigners
Mark Lopatin, War on Want
As George Bush asks the American taxpayer to bail out his administration over the chaos in Iraq, the world’s poor are eating crumbs off the summit table at the World Trade Organisation meeting in Cancun. That the richest nation on earth can spend more on going to war than the entire world spends on aid is a sorry reminder of our failure to eradicate poverty. All the things they could do with that sum of money fit snugly under the banner of the millennium development goals the UN agreed to achieve by 2015 - eradicating extreme hunger and poverty, universal primary education, and ensuring environmental sustainability, for example.
Susan Osborne, executive director of communications, Cancer Research UK
These are scary numbers: $87bn is 183 times our annual income - enough to provide all our 3,000 doctors, scientists and nurses with the equipment, infrastructure, state-of-the-art facilities and back-up support they would ever need to bring cancer under control, both in Britain and the developing world.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Now let's hear it again, "It's all about the Oil!"
Wasn't that the big theory that the US was doing this to make money? If the US pumps $30Bil per year of Iraqi oil, how long will it take to pay back the US?
So please tell me geniuses how is the US going to make money in this endeavor? And please do not bore me with the Haliburton stuff, as very little of that will be paid back to the treasury in taxes.
[/QUOTE]
The $87 billion asked for, accompanied by many other billions that the US has spent in Iraq did not come out of G.Bush's/Cheney's/Halliburton's pocket....it came out of the US treasurys pocket, which is funded by all american taxpayers..........but the direct oil revenues and income from the huge contracts these companies and folks secured in Iraq will go into Bushs/Cheneys/Halliburton's pocket.....and Bush/Cheney/Halliburton certainly wont be sharing those revenues with the US taxpayers.
US presidents in general, dont care about America as a long term superpower. They care about America as an 8 year superpower, at the most.....the maximum possible length of their presidency. They make decisions that strike well in the short term, and before the ill-effects of their decisions start to show, their term is over.
What's "typical"? That any criticism of the US is automatically my justification/acceptance for acts of terrorism? God Forbid i (oh no, not another of those intolerant, frothing, rabid Muslims) should dare to criticize the almighty US. That makes me anti-American automatically... and an apologist for terrorism, i suppose. Does anyone else have any other stereotypes they want to throw at me while we're having fun? None of you (well, with one or two exceptions) has even met me, i absolutely hate it when people make generalizations without knowing two cents about the individual.
Your intolerant, soft-on-terrorism friend,
nadia
[/QUOTE]
A rather frothy response.
Now, in your earlier post, you stated:
•While Bush is busy causing the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq, generations of children will grow up with real terrorism in their midst ...
What implication is a reader to take form this? That poverty and perpetual crisis in Africa are the responsibility of the world? I don't think that is what you wish to convey at all.
The wanton waste of money that could otherwise go to prevent future African terrorism I'm sure far exceeds $87 billion and can be found in the treasuries of so many of the world's governments as well as private citizens.
I'm surprised you took it as such a personal attack. I think using a dubious charge against GWB and predicting future African terrorism in the same sentence holds very strong implications as to what you meant when you wrote it.
Does it surprise you that I didn't take it to mean that you were indicting the world at large?
[QUOTE] Originally posted by storch: *
**I'm surprised you took it as such a personal attack.*
[/QUOTE]
Storch, The reason i interpreted it as such is partially because you made the comment that "there is a mindset that says..." No, with all due respect, you don't know my mindset, no one here does with the exceptions of one or possibly two. You stated "Typical" after you stated, "Root cause" for terrorism = U.S. not charitable enough." That "typical" irked me. i am not a "typical" Muslim-bashing person if that is what was implied by yourself. It will take more than comments on a discussion forum to comprehend any person. i am sure i have biases about you that are probably way off the mark and i would be proven wrong upon closer inspection of your personality. So please kindly extend to me the same courtesy. i try very hard not to make judgements about others based upon a superficial understanding.
The US is the only country that may be about to spend $87 billion upon sustaining the occupation. That is why i was making the argument that, surely, $87 billion could be better spent (theoretically speaking) upon other far more worthier projects, maybe sustainable agricultural development for poor farmers in African countries for example. But maybe this is the leftist in me talking.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Now let's hear it again, "It's all about the Oil!"
Wasn't that the big theory that the US was doing this to make money? If the US pumps $30Bil per year of Iraqi oil, how long will it take to pay back the US?
So please tell me geniuses how is the US going to make money in this endeavor? And please do not bore me with the Haliburton stuff, as very little of that will be paid back to the treasury in taxes.
[/QUOTE]
GET REAL!....The point has and always will be oil and the money the Hal and Co will make. What the American People are just finding out is that it was and is about cleaning out their pockets and the U.S. Treasury. They can do it by causing more fear and hatred.
The Real Axis Of Evil is those in control of our military and in The White House. Dear Ohio Guy, are you really that niave?
GOOD MORNING VIETNAM !!! again.
President 'Select' Bush should be impeached for this!! Liar!!
[QUOTE]
Now let's hear it again, "It's all about the Oil!"
Wasn't that the big theory that the US was doing this to make money? If the US pumps $30Bil per year of Iraqi oil, how long will it take to pay back the US?
[/QUOTE]
Hey Ohioman. I don't know what they say in the news down in Akron, but I think the rest of the world knows it is all about Oil. The key is not about money, it is about control or power. The US by controlling Iraq controls the worlds second largest oil reserve now.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mufakkar: *
^
Read her post again. No where has she said that future terrorists from Africa should or would target the US. She has simply labelled generalized poverty, AIDS and illeteracy as forms of terrorism against the people. But your reply suggests that because you spend money in Africa, you somehow have the right to ravage any country you choose. Care to defend that statement? I don't know about spending the most in Africa since Doctors without Borders UNAIDS, and UNHCR are the largest presences in Africa. One is French and as for UN I believe the US is woefully behind on paying its dues to that organization. Also countries such as Japan tend to end up footing the bill for most of your attempts at helping others (Gulf war I and II stand out lemme verify and get back to you on the others).
While replying please keep in mind that criticism comes not out of hate but from genuine concern and a desire to improve.
[/QUOTE]
Of course poverty causes insecurity and crime. Hunger and poverty cause many people to behave in ways that most wouldn't in normal circumstance.
What I don't understand is AIDS coupled with terrorists?
Imagine that..an AIDS victim coupled with a uzi.
IMHO the UZI that needs covering is fairly easily covered with a rubber sheath......anyway, thats what the rumor is.
I can agree that AIDS itself is "TERRORIST" and fighting the terrorist threat of AIDS would be money well spent.