Originally posted by MerkIndeed. They'll even film nice videos about how much good our tax money is doing. While they're at it, they'll write reports tallying up how much more US tax money is needed to aleve hunger, if only we would send it over. All these reports are done scupuously honest such that is insulting for us to even question the integrity of the contributors. Meanwhile we are to believe our own leaders kill people for pure entertainment.
Yes. We can be their sugardaddy. Other countries LOVE it when we're their sugardaddy. They never seem to gripe much over that.
All the while, the dictators stay in nice palaces, travel and stay in nice hotels, eat very well, but the hunger never seems to go away.
But if we dare ask for miniscule reform while sending billions, we're critized for medling. They only thing we can seem to do to please everyone is to send more money with no strings and no oversight.
Yes, I am sure a few billion dollars kindly sent to Sudan would end suffering in Durfar.
2 edits
Originally posted by techsouthIf giving money to a devastated region puts money in the hands of a despot who then deposits the proceeds into a numbered Swiss bank account, then is the problem in giving?
Indeed. They'll even film nice videos about how much good our tax money is doing. While they're at it, they'll write reports tallying up how much more US tax money is needed to aleve hunger, if only we would send it over. All these reports are done scupuously honest such that is insulting for us to even question the integrity of the contributors.
Yes, I am sure a few billion dollars kindly sent to Sudan would end suffering in Durfar.
The problem did not go away, but surely there has to be a due diligence, on the part of the giver, a duty of care shown towards those that are supposedly helped by aid, such that warlords and potentates are not empowered by and bolstered up by this sort of humanitarian funding. Who is in the better position to determine the best way for the people devastated by war or famine or both to receive the benefits of the funding. Their so called leaders, or the nation doing the funding?
Originally posted by techsouthSome good points that highlight the stupidity of the current flow of money.
Indeed. They'll even film nice videos about how much good our tax money is doing. While they're at it, they'll write reports tallying up how much more US tax money is needed to aleve hunger, if only we would send it over. All these reports are done scupuously honest such that is insulting for us to even question the integrity of the contributors. Meanw ...[text shortened]...
Yes, I am sure a few billion dollars kindly sent to Sudan would end suffering in Durfar.
Centralised aid has for years acted as a destructive force in the world. It creates beaurocratic centralised corrupt governments. Many third world countries government officials are more concerned about controling the flow of aid than they are about developing their economies.
However this should not be used as an excuse not to stop billions living in poverty. The solutions to these problems would benefit the world. The hard part is to do it in a way that creates a de regulated and fairer world trade.
Originally posted by wittywonkaIf you mean by distance stupid, I'd probably agree with you.
Oops...I hit enter and started the thread before I posted...hold on a sec...
Has anyone (and I'm sure many have) noticed how distant (although possibly not the best word choice) Americans seem to global problems? While Americans grieve over the deaths of 32 deaths of college students (and I am in NO WAY WHATSOEVER diminishing the tragedy of the VT sho ...[text shortened]... Word choice and grammatical...
1 Edit -- Merk's suggestion
1 Edit -- Posting my edits 😛
GO ON! BITE! I KNOW YOU WANNA!!!!
Originally posted by shavixmirThat must be it. As a country, we long ago outpaced and surpassed every other country on earth, because we're stupid.
If you mean by distance stupid, I'd probably agree with you.
GO ON! BITE! I KNOW YOU WANNA!!!!
It couldn't just be that you don't give us credit for being the largest humanitarian program the world has ever seen. Nope. Not at all. You don't think you're better than us.
Or could it be that we don't care about most countries because they piss and moan, but never acknowledge anything positive, ever?
Originally posted by MerkYou outpaced every other country because
That must be it. As a country, we long ago outpaced and surpassed every other country on earth, because we're stupid.
It couldn't just be that you don't give us credit for being the largest humanitarian program the world has ever seen. Nope. Not at all. You don't think you're better than us.
Or could it be that we don't care about most countries because they piss and moan, but never acknowledge anything positive, ever?
a: you're bigger
b: you used nazi scientists
America humanitarian?
Now that really is up for debate.
2 edits
Originally posted by wittywonkaThis is perhaps the most pathetic overly simplistic thread subject i have ever encountered. It ranks right up there with "Save Bacon!" from a few years back when the peta bread crowd was on about a piece of bacon that hadn't been killed yet.
Oops...I hit enter and started the thread before I posted...hold on a sec...
Has anyone (and I'm sure many have) noticed how distant (although possibly not the best word choice) Americans seem to global problems? While Americans grieve over the deaths of 32 deaths of college students (and I am in NO WAY WHATSOEVER diminishing the tragedy of the VT sho Word choice and grammatical...
1 Edit -- Merk's suggestion
1 Edit -- Posting my edits 😛
How many Americans have you met total in your life? Five thousand?
I would be surprised if it is that many.
Anyway, here is a clip from Workers World, one of thousands of likeminded socialist net mags. This probably is news to you, but the vast majority of the world supports the attackers in Darfur. Read this little sample, then review the entire article then do some research on who is trying to get intervention to stop the genocide. But it will require work. This is one of the hardest hit propaganda subjects on the net. Keep in mind... this is a rant against the possiblility of US intervention.
U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell, Secretary of State Condo leezza Rice, Gen. Wesley Clark and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have all argued in favor of intervention in Sudan.
These leading architects of imperialist policy often refer to another model when they call for this intervention: the successful “humanitarian” war on Yugoslavia that established a U.S./NATO administration over Kosovo after a massive bombing campaign.
The Holocaust Museum in Washington issued a “genocide alert”—the first such alert ever issued—and 35 evangelical Chris tian leaders signed a letter urging President Bush to send U.S. troops to stop genocide in Darfur. A special national curriculum for students was established to generate grassroots support for U.S. intervention.
Many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) have embraced the campaign. Liberal voices such as Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, Rabbi Michael Lerner of TIKKUN and Human Rights Watch have also pushed the campaign to “Save Darfur.”
http://www.workers.org/2006/world/darfur-0608/
A challenge to you. Why is the UN blocking the US in trying to stop this madness? Any good ideas on that? I'll give you a hint. Roughly 70 percent of the member nations comprising the UN are socialist or outright dictatorships. Hmmmm.... what are the odds then?
2 edits
Use the UN official www site as sources when you research Darfur. IF you can find any references... and it isn't easy, these are the ones they have posted there:
Sept 16, 2004
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sgsm9484.doc.htm
Nov 19, 2004
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8249.doc.htm
Mar 30, 2007
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=22083
Jan 2 2007
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=21142&Cr=sudan&Cr1=
I would think that this is the very definition of cover-up. Do you see anything that has happened or is this a classic case of "lip service" meeting the need of the gutless wonders of the UN?
A casual glance might make one think that they are doing great work over there. So why the continued genocide?