TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush opposes UK Africa plan (aka Bush is a twat)
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You still dont understand do you?! This is about America's refusal to accept the DEBT relief proposals...

If America refuses then SO WHAT? Move on, continue the plan, and live life as normal. As far as I am concerned you are upset at something the United States never promised in the first place.

Seems like greed to me.

It would be greed either way.

If the US doesn't help by lifting Debt constraints or tariffs on goods they are greedy and if they decide to help people will say there is an ulterior motive such as African oil that the US is after and again be labeled as greedy. It is truly a no win situation.

Re: Bush opposes UK Africa plan (aka Bush is a twat)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Why?! Why is Bush such a fucking cnut?! And why the fuck did people vote him back in power?! Jesus sometime stuff like this makes me mad link

Well if Bush is a "fucking cnut" its not because he doesn't send millions of dollars in aid to Africa:


"[Bush] pledges approximately $674 million of additional resources by the United States [sic] to respond to humanitarian emergencies in Africa":
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-brea...60845-1997r.htm


Looks like someone else looks like a fucking cnut now. Eh Georgey?!

quote:

Originally posted by Jackson Seems like greed to me.

It's just that Bush already has one hand in the Iraqi pie, so if he uses the other to offer help to Africa then he won't have one left to scratch his own balls.

I just hope that the UK goes forward with it's proposal regardless, and that the US follows suit at a more appropriate time for them...

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil As far as I am concerned you are upset at something the United States never promised in the first place.

It's not something that should have to be promised. It's something that everyone with a sense of morality should be aiming to deliver.

""This is not a time for timidity nor a time to fear reaching too high."

Re: Re: Bush opposes UK Africa plan (aka Bush is a twat)

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Well if Bush is a "fucking cnut" its not because he doesn't send millions of dollars in aid to Africa: "[Bush] pledges approximately $674 million of additional resources by the United States [sic] to respond to humanitarian emergencies in Africa": http://washingtontimes.com/upi-brea...60845-1997r.htm Looks like someone else looks like a fucking cnut now. Eh Georgey?!

To use your own source...

quote:

The Secretary-General also welcomes the specific pledges of approximately $674 million of additional resources by the United States and $300 million by the United Kingdom to respond to humanitarian emergencies in Africa."

USA pop. = 300 million
UK pop. = 50 million

674/300 = $2.24 per person in the US
300/50 = $6 per person in the UK

6/2.24 = UK per person is giving 2.6 times the amount extra, of the US excellent point we must be the cnuts

To put it in perspective, 0.7% of the US GDP would be roughly $70,000,000,000.00. ($70 Billion). THis is not a pissing contest, but it sounds like some want the US to up their contribution by 100 fold, while at the same time we hear daily incessant bitching about the U.S. budget deficit.

Re: Re: Re: Bush opposes UK Africa plan (aka Bush is a twat)

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish To use your own source... USA pop. = 300 million UK pop. = 50 million

Actually you're wrong.

UK pop. = 60.5 million (source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...ok/geos/uk.html)

Therefore

300/60.5 = $5 per person.

Look, obviously you mean to nitpick but if you nitpick do so wisely. At least know the population of your cnuts for freakin sake

quote:

6/2.24 = UK per person is giving 2.6 times the amount extra, of the US excellent point we must be the cnuts

Right and therefore it would seem that UK people are 2.6 times stupider than their US counterparts. So?

Plus I don't understand how a total sum effects the contribution to Africa. This is not some interal metric (say health care spending per citizen) but an external metric. If you want to see the real result you must look at it as spending per African pop. or spedning per effected African nation pop.

Its just like saying if I make $1 a month and I give that $1 to chairty every month it means I am donating 100% to charity which sounds nice, but in reality I'm donating one worthless dollar that will not solve anything and I might as well of kept it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush opposes UK Africa plan (aka Bush is a twat)

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Look, obviously you mean to nitpick but if you nitpick do so wisely. At least know the population of your cnuts for freakin sake Plus I don't understand how a total sum effects the contribution to Africa. This is not some interal metric (say health care spending per citizen) but an external metric. If you want to see the real result you must look at it as spending per African pop. or spedning per effected African nation pop.

Wellllll if you want to take the nitpicking to another level it is actually only the increase in aid not the amount of aid. So the US could have been giving more in the first place.

But given that:

quote:

1. Luxembourg $352.30 per person 2. Norway $307.95 per person 3. Denmark $302.72 per person 4. Netherlands $216.71 per person 5. Sweden $191.48 per person 6. Switzerland $150.30 per person 7. France $104.68 per person 8. United Kingdom $74.88 per person 9. Belgium $74.25 per person 10. Finland $73.01 per person 11. Ireland $72.11 per person 12. Japan $71.53 per person 13. Germany $67.96 per person 14. Austria $50.07 per person 15. Australia $45.30 per person 16. Canada $40.36 per person 17. Spain $33.07 per person 18. Portugal $26.82 per person 19. New Zealand $25.23 per person 20. United States $23.76 per person 21. Italy $17.24 per person 22. Lesotho $0 per person 23. Saudi Arabia $0 per person 24. Korea, South $0 per person

quote:

Definition: The net official development assistance (ODA) from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations to developing countries and multilateral organizations. ODA is defined as financial assistance that is concessional in character, has the main objective to promote economic development and welfare of the less developed countries (LDCs), and contains a grant element of at least 25%. The entry does not cover other official flows (OOF) or private flows. Per capita figures expressed per 1 population.

>LINK<

gives you an idea who gives the most, the situation is possibly worse than it first appears given the previous source. And the US is not very high on the list. So whinging about how much the US does for the rest of the world is alot of wank.

EDIT:
Personally I think the UK should look at itself for people to help with 17% of people below the poverty line.

93. Sri Lanka 22% (1997 est.)

102. United Kingdom 17%

not too different eh? And we are ment to be a developed nation. Bit shit ain't it?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush opposes UK Africa plan (aka Bush is a twat)

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish gives you an idea who gives the most, the situation is possibly worse than it first appears given the previous source. And the US is not very high on the list. So whinging about how much the US does for the rest of the world is alot of wank.

Here is a better source that really explains many opinions and perspective and then the reality on international aid:

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRe...id.asp?so=d2002

It cites many interesting studies there. The conclusion I draw out that it really matters more the quality of the aid then the quantity of the aid and that private aid is superior to government aid.


Also the USA looks good in at least this part:

quote:

Side note on private contributions As an aside, it should be emphasized that the above figures are comparing government spending. Such spending has been agreed at international level and is spread over a number of priorities. Individual/private donations may be targeted in many ways. However, even though the charts above do show US aid to be poor (in percentage terms) compared to the rest, the generosity of the American people is far more impressive than their government. Private aid/donation has been through charity of individual people and organizations though this of course can be weighted to certain interests and areas. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas � more than twice the US official foreign aid of $15 billion at that time: * International giving by US foundations: $1.5 billion per year * Charitable giving by US businesses: $2.8 billion annually * American NGOs: $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers. * Religious overseas ministries: $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development. * US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.3 billion * Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $18 billion in 2000 * Source: Dr. Carol Adelman, Aid and Comfort, Tech Central Station, 21 August 2002. (link at source) While Adelman admits that �there are no complete figures for international private giving� she still says that Americans are �clearly the most generous on earth in public � but especially in private � giving�. Hence these numbers and claims may be taken with caution, but even then, these are high numbers.

quote:

EDIT: Personally I think the UK should look at itself for people to help with 17% of people below the poverty line. 93. Sri Lanka 22% (1997 est.) 102. United Kingdom 17% not too different eh? And we are ment to be a developed nation. Bit shit ain't it?

I agree, I think by creating a more powerful economic entity you will indeed benifit the world more then throwing that money away into a third world nation directly.

Its like saying, if you had $100 billion dollar and you wanted to make $500 billion dollars out of it in 10 years, would you invest it in a African developing nation where you'd probably never see a gain, or would you rather invest it in your nation's infastructure which would create new jobs, new business, new employment, and generate a lot of new wealth - which in turn would probably supply trade with Africa or other developing nation with business on a concurring basis of more then $100 billion...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush opposes UK Africa plan (aka Bush is a twat)

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Right and therefore it would seem that UK people are 2.6 times stupider than their US counterparts. So?

How is that possible...you guys elected bush as your President...TWICE!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush opposes UK Africa plan (aka Bush is a twat)

quote:

Originally posted by Jackson How is that possible...you guys elected bush as your President...TWICE!

On the recent revelation that Kerry had slightly worse grades than Bush at Yale....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush opposes UK Africa plan (aka Bush is a twat)

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka On the recent revelation that Kerry had slightly worse grades than Bush at Yale....

How recent? Before or after the election?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush opposes UK Africa plan (aka Bush is a twat)

quote:

Originally posted by Jackson How recent? Before or after the election?

Yesterday.

quote:

C Man in the Navy By JAMES TARANTO June 8, 2005; Page A14 On Jan. 30, John Kerry told NBC's Tim Russert that he would release his full military records to the public, something he had refused to do during last year's campaign. It took 128 days, but yesterday the Boston Globe reported that he had done so. The records revealed what many of us had suspected: Mr. Kerry served in Vietnam. But according to the Globe, "the lack of any substantive new material about Kerry's military career in the documents raises the question of why Kerry refused for so long to waive privacy restrictions." A second Globe story, however, answered that question. Included in Mr. Kerry's military files were his transcripts from Yale, which were part of his application for officer training. Mr. Kerry, it turns out, had a 76 average for his years at Yale -- the equivalent of a C and one point below George W. Bush's 77 average. Mr. Kerry had a difficult freshman year, scoring four D's, though he did manage a C in French. * * * So Mr. Kerry was almost as distinguished a scholar as the schoolmate who went on to become president of the United States. That doesn't seem so bad -- but for candidate Kerry, it would have been devastating. After all, much of Mr. Kerry's appeal, such as it was, rested on intellectual snobbery. His supporters described him, in the words of a March 2004 New York Times report, as "an intellectual who grasps the subtleties of issues, inhabits their nuances and revels in the deliberative process." In this view, Mr. Kerry's nose for nuance contrasted favorably with Mr. Bush's simplisme. But what if Mr. Kerry simply lacked the ability to express himself clearly? Consider his answer when asked in a September 2003 debate to reconcile his vote for Iraq's liberation with his subsequent opposition: "The vote is the vote. I voted to authorize. It was the right vote, and the reason I mentioned the threat is that we gave the -- we had to give life to the threat. If there wasn't a legitimate threat, Saddam Hussein was not going to allow inspectors in. Now, let me make two points if I may. . . ." He went on in this vein for 248 words, and only someone with a superior intellect and too much time on his hands could possibly have made sense of his answer. "People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can't understand," IQ expert Linda Gottfredson told the Times' John Tierney last year. The revelation that Mr. Kerry was no better a student than Mr. Bush suggests that this is just what happened. Mr. Kerry's appeal to intellectual vanity was in any case a politically dubious one. The last egghead to win the White House was Woodrow Wilson, and he was a genuinely accomplished scholar. In 1956, a supporter is said to have told Adlai Stevenson, "You have the support of every thinking person." He replied: "That's not enough. I need a majority." Still, let's not sell Mr. Kerry short. He is, after all, a United States senator -- which isn't bad for a C student. At least no one will ever again call him an underachiever.

From today's WSJ...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush opposes UK Africa plan (aka Bush is a twat)

quote:

Originally posted by Jackson How recent? Before or after the election?

Yes, indeed, Shakka's argument would tesitfy to the argument that US Voters are more adapt to pick the smarter president.

Then again nobody running for President is going to be that smart...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Right because the proposal is to use IMF gold as a means to reduce debt which was has always been rejected by the US for reasons outlined by my link. If you want debt relief use the World Bank imo.

My point was that BadBadNeil keeps insisting we can achieve this without America which we cant (just like we cant improve environmental situation unless USA plays ball over Kyoto) Its a globalised world and everything is interlinked. You cant play the isolationsist over third world misfortune and then play interventionalist when it suits your views! The neocons want to mould the world into the American image. The neocons criticised previous policies of not toppling Saddam or doing business with dictators and their number one foreign policy principle is that where possible, the US should be acting to transform regimes into liberal democracies...well how is this for a great oppertunity to do just that?! They criticised the policy of allowing dictators do what they want to their populations and claimed this led to 9/11...well who's to say something just as nasty wont emerge out of the slums and shanty towns of Africa?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush opposes UK Africa plan (aka Bush is a twat)

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka On the recent revelation that Kerry had slightly worse grades than Bush at Yale....

My flat mate has better A-Level grades than me but she is thick as pig shit and it would not be possible for her to even comprehend how much more intelligent I am!

Re: Re: Bush opposes UK Africa plan (aka Bush is a twat)

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Well if Bush is a "fucking cnut" its not because he doesn't send millions of dollars in aid to Africa: "[Bush] pledges approximately $674 million of additional resources by the United States [sic] to respond to humanitarian emergencies in Africa": http://washingtontimes.com/upi-brea...60845-1997r.htm Looks like someone else looks like a fucking cnut now. Eh Georgey?!

I'll tell ya who's a **** shall I?!

Anyway, America always comes out lookin good for giving away foreign aid until you realise most of it goes to an advanced western country!

Re: Re: Re: Bush opposes UK Africa plan (aka Bush is a twat)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I'll tell ya who's a **** shall I?! Anyway, America always comes out lookin good for giving away foreign aid until you realise most of it goes to an advanced western country!

Hey Egypt is not that advanced

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush opposes UK Africa plan (aka Bush is a twat)

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Hey Egypt is not that advanced

Saudi Arabia?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.