Jump to content
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt

Recommended Posts

Posted

You're citing a conference paper which contained no information about overall US spending on anything as justification for your claim?

 

You're dancing around the need to justify your claims by spitting out a bunch of mumbo-jumbo about charts on TV and aid organizations. You were talking previously about aid paid for by US taxes. Now you've moved on to aid organizations, which is an entirely different topic.

 

If you want to debate this seriously, come up with some facts. If not, please stop making wild claims supported by hasty web searches.

 

 

Chris Tessone

Brown Belt, Kuk Sool Won

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

By the way, according to the figures listed on the US Government's budget website for 2003 (http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/pdf/bud34.pdf), the expenditures budgeted for FY 2003 total $2.052 trillion. So your "trillions of dollars" figure isn't sound.

 

According to this same document, the actual outlay listed under "International Assistance Programs" is $12.6 billion for 2001. Projected figures for FY 2002 and 2003 are $13.1 and $13.9 billion respectively. The international affairs budget was $16.6 in 2001, with projections of $23.5 and $22.5 billion in FY 2002 and 2003. For a little comparison, national defense rated $329 billion in 2001, with projections of $350.7 and $396.8 billion in FY 2002 and 2003.

 

So the US isn't exactly the world's biggest philanthropist, it seems.

 

 

Chris Tessone

Brown Belt, Kuk Sool Won

Posted

As some of you will know, I am no fan of "Homer" Bush, but I wouldn't call him a Nazi. I think he's more idiot than evil.

 

Reminds me of the unhappy days when President Alzheimer was threatening the whole world in the 80's along with his hideous love-interest Thatcher. (does everyone know that Thatcher got a lot of her ideas of monetary policy from the fascist dictator, General Pinochet? figures!)

 

In a war against terrorism it is almost impossible to win by legitimate means - the conflict in Ireland was prolonged by the fact that (by and large) the British forces were not allowed to use summary justice (though some lawless renegades undoubtedly did on many occasions). However, if we claim that we are civilised, and better than terrorists then there is really no other choice. This is why many people have shown concern about the status of the Taliban/Al Qa'eda terror suspects in Gitmo at present and why people like Kissinger get people's blood boiling.

 

On the topic of impossible wars, the UK and her colonies started what would have been (and surprisingly wasn't) an impossible war against Nazi Germany in 1939. It's true that we would not have won without the help of the US and other Allies (people often forget the help of Canada, Australia, India, etc!) but had to fight anyway. Historians have suggested that Hitler would have tolerated Britain and may have imposed something like an equivalent to the Vichy government instead of a full-blown invasion.

 

This is an interesting thread! :smile:

 

I hope it has a future :dodgy:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My karma will run over your dogma

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Posted

Interestingly its only in the last year or so that it has been made illegal for American companies and individuals to send money to the IRA, since that's their major source of funding and a lot has now been cut off they've had to turn to other methods, like training other terrorists.

 

 

---------

Pil Sung

Jimmy B

Posted

On 2002-05-15 13:17, TKD_McGee wrote:

 

We often pay for everyone with our tax money, we build everyone factorys and bridges or what have you...

 

The US does more for all the countries than anyone else does. Foreign aide is in the Trillions...

 

Whilst I am not trying to denigrate the giving of aid to nations in worse circumstances than t US, any money spent by a first-world country to aid a third-world country will actually benefit the giver... They will gain political clout, cheap labour, access to natural resources etc from the country that they aid. Any money that is given as aid eventually returns to the giver... generally with interest.

Posted

CKD - true, and it's what's hopefully going to scupper the IRA and organisations like it. There has been a lot of tacit support for Irish terrorism in the US in the past, when judges have given sanction to convicted terrorist murderers who have escaped from British prisons, on the grounds that they were really political prisoners!

 

There was also a terrific amount of funding and gun-running from the USA to Ireland. This seems bizarre now, in the wake of you-know-what, that green terrorism was at best quiety ignored and at worst, condoned by the legal system in the recent past!

 

However now that the world HAS changed the IRA has tried to go more to drugs, protection rackets and training other international terrorists (FARC, ETA, etc) to get more money. This will be a huge mistake for them - they have been caught training FARC guerillas in Colombia. FARC are known to be anti-American and so now fall into The War Against Terrorism (thankfully that has never been acronymed!!!) and so the US finally has to burn the bridges with Irish terrorism.

 

There is a lot of satisfaction in Northern Ireland that finally, these terrorists have been recognised by a major funder, as no better than those Al Qu'eda cowardly rats who homicide-bombed NY and Washington.

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My karma will run over your dogma

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Posted

it wasn't lawless renegades it was forces organised and armed by the UK

 

ps. don't tell me not jump to conclusions as u don't understand the IRA. the ra don't sell drug the loyalists do. that is a fact. the IRA all ways ran protection rackets as for training other paramilities thats is a different matter

 

pps. dont talk about what u dont understand

 

on the bush/america front i was watching a programe last night where american news reporters came out and said that due to the environment since 9/11 that they couldn't publish impartial reprts. this environment was intentionaly created (or expanded on) by the american gov

 

[ This Message was edited by: g on 2002-05-17 13:55 ]

Posted

And why exactly are the IRA and Loyalists planting bombs and killing each other at the moment? Is it the potato famine (how long ago was that) or the whole religion thing (they're both Christian for God's sake, or claim to be) or do they just want to kill people as they have all along?

 

 

---------

Pil Sung

Jimmy B

Posted

America fought against tyranny and won.

 

There is nothing wrong with fighting for freedom. Planting bombs does not qualify as freedom fighting, it is a cowardly act.

 

Sorry if I offend anyone but that's how I feel.

 

Let me say that I sympathize with the cause but not the methods.

 

 

Ti-Kwon-Leap

"Annoying the ignorant since 1961"

Posted

I'm sorry but the United States is by far the greatest and most powerful country on the planet. I back Bush in what he is doing and has done and as for 9/11 all Americans were brought closer because of that day so that shows we are even that much stronger.

 

If you don't love this country like the rest of us do then leave, cause if that is how you feel we don't want you.

 

No offense but this is how I feel.

 

Pete

 

AMERICA RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

2nd Degree black belt in Kenpo Karate and Tae Kwon Do. 1997 NASKA competitor-2nd place Nationally in Blackbelt American Forms. Firearms activist!

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...