isn't the reason that we are listed below than canada because we have a higher population, thus requiring less money per citizen to reach an overall value?

293,589,251 for US
32,507,874 for canada

Last edited by nialsjd on Jun-26-2004 at 23:28

quote:

Originally posted by nialsjd right and wrong? isn't it kind of immoral to kill your own people?

Yes according to our morals, but according to the same morals, isn't it kind of immoral to attack another country on "not that strong grounds"? war is immoral, isn't it? i know it can be justified, but not in this case....

quote:

about the foreign aid, when i google "foreign aid" all i see is websites plastered with United States this and United States that. the only other country i see is "afghanistan" and it talks about united states giving afghanistan foreign aid.

i searshed google for "terrorists" i got several US sites, does that mean US has many terrorists?

obviously that list i just posted shows that you are wrong. US is a bigger country and therefore gives more aid, but not per capita which is what makes sense if you want to compare countries. Looks like only italy are worse than you of the western countries...

quote:

and now it says bush has been the most generous president ever in history to give foreign aid

too bad you still give way less than most other countries...

quote:

Originally posted by nialsjd isn't the reason that we are listed below than canada because we have a higher population, thus requiring less money per citizen to reach an overall value? 293,589,251 for US 32,507,874 for canada

hmm so the more people a country have, the less they have to donor per person?

attack another country? We went there with the intentions of taking out an international threat. We are not against the Iraqi people, but against the governments and associates who have been proven to murder and commit genocide against their own people. give me ur definition of attack and how it relates to what we've done in iraq. All i see is an operation for international security.
We saw the people of iraq getting manhandled, killed, slaughtered by the government. yet it is immoral to help these people because the government officials might get killed themselves? And yes, we tried to talk them out of it months in advance to the first plane leaving its carrier. What else were we supposed to do? If they don't want to listen to us, a country trying to help their people out of a VERY unsafe environment, then its the obvious step is to try more aggressive, and more, and more until we are left with no other choice but to take physical action (which we also warned them of).

if every american donated 50 cents, and every canadian donated $1, which country ends up making the most revenue for the needy?

if i was the leader of a poor country I know i'd rather have $1 billion rather than $1 million.

quote:

Originally posted by Vivid Boy bah fuck it its war..wether u like it or not thats the way things are..its not right but i bet u theres a whole bucnh of other things the states are doing in this war which are not right either...war is not right..while theres war theres gonna be death so u can call them savage all u want but ur own military is not civilized anywyas

Although having said that, there are rules, even in war. The west generally follow those rules, but the middle-east doesn't. Take those photos of Iraqi prisoners being humiliated by the U.S. soldiers. There was public outrage at how badly those prisoners were treated, not just over here but all over the world. It gave the Americans a very bad image. Yet if the situations were reversed, and it was American and UK soldiers being humiliated like that in an Iraqi prison, they would've been in the streets parading around in their Toyota's waving guns in the air cheering about how great it was, not plastering it all over the news saying how unfortunate it was.

So really I think that the original point stands. It is war, but given half a chance, they just go extremes (such as beheadings) whereas the west would never do that.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by nialsjd attack another country? We went there with the intentions of taking out an international threat. We are not against the Iraqi people, but against the governments and associates who have been proven to murder and commit genocide against their own people. give me ur definition of attack and how it relates to what we've done in iraq. All i see is an operation for international security.

-"Saving" the people from saddam.
yes somewhat valid argument, if everything goes okay sure the Iraqi people will have better lives. But as it looks now, it was really more safe there before than it is now... with some bad luck, there may be a worse guy than saddam taking over iraq.

-taking the country to improve international security
bullshit! this war has brought more anger against US than ever before. many arabs hate you, al queda get way easier to recruit people etc. Saddam was no big threat obviously, if you haven't realized yet, i really do feel sorry for you.

quote:

We saw the people of iraq getting manhandled, killed, slaughtered by the government. yet it is immoral to help these people because the government officials might get killed themselves? And yes, we tried to talk them out of it months in advance to the first plane leaving its carrier. What else were we supposed to do? If they don't want to listen to us, a country trying to help their people out of a VERY unsafe environment, then its the obvious step is to try more aggressive, and more, and more until we are left with no other choice but to take physical action (which we also warned them of).

yes it is immoral to invade another country that hasn't invaded you and it is against international law. as it looks now, Saddam did a good job as a ruler, he kept his people in peace. perhaps democracy isn't for everyone? (i don't say it isn't i just say it is immoral to force something upon someones that doesn't want it, a majority of the iraqis don't support democracy)

Saddam was a bad man indeed, but there's much worse in this world, if you want to liberate and improve international security, go to north korea!

you gave iraq a diplomatic chance? yeah right, but as soon as they started to cooperate you gave them an impossible 3 day ultimatum! Bush admin has admited that they decided to go to war in November 2002, that means that they didn't really give it a chance.

quote:

if every american donated 50 cents, and every canadian donated $1, which country ends up making the most revenue for the needy?

the american. but you are really stupid if you think like that. lets say that china gives only 25% of what you gives, does that makes them as good as you? no of course not! they are only 25% as good as you! the only thing that really counts is what you give per capita, that is if you want to compare.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew [quote] -"Saving" the people from saddam. yes somewhat valid argument, if everything goes okay sure the Iraqi people will have better lives. But as it looks now, it was really more safe there before than it is now... with some bad luck, there may be a worse guy than saddam taking over iraq.

story of the United States. The founders fought, bled, but through hard work and years of development, here we are. Yes, and i'm sure there is also some luck that Y2k kicks in and accidently blows up iraq, putting all the US efforts to waste.

quote:

-taking the country to improve international security bullshit! this war has brought more anger against US than ever before. many arabs hate you, al queda get way easier to recruit people etc. Saddam was no big threat obviously, if you haven't realized yet, i really do feel sorry for you.

So a police officer should never arrest a gang member, considering that his gang friends MIGHT try and harm the cop at a later time? Is your military afraid to break a nail or something? O rite, it would be immoral to seek these gang members because they MIGHT not be like the original gang member, who just happened to be a murderer.

quote:

yes it is immoral to invade another country that hasn't invaded you and it is against international law. as it looks now, Saddam did a good job as a ruler, he kept his people in peace. perhaps democracy isn't for everyone? (i don't say it isn't i just say it is immoral to force something upon someones that doesn't want it, a majority of the iraqis don't support democracy)

yes, and i'm sure humans INVADED the moon. all we've done is put our feet down on their soil, eliminated their PROVEN homicidal/genocidal government, and here we are, a year later, ready to pass the torch to them as we'd always planned, and hopefully, they'll learn the joys of democracy and have a better relationship with the international community, thus boosting morale and economic partnerships. invaded?

quote:

Saddam was a bad man indeed, but there's much worse in this world, if you want to liberate and improve international security, go to north korea!

and if we did, we can always rely on our northern friends to viciously critique, yet give us an invisible solution.

quote:

you gave iraq a diplomatic chance? yeah right, but as soon as they started to cooperate you gave them an impossible 3 day ultimatum! Bush admin has admited that they decided to go to war in November 2002, that means that they didn't really give it a chance.

them? who exactly is them? as i've stated before, we are not against the iraqi people, but against their government. are you trying to protect their tyranny? I mean, how many times has iraq proven to try to buy time when it comes to things like the ALMIGHTY United Nations inspections? It was about time someone stop the kindergarden hand slaps. "don't do it again. don't do it again. this is the last time. don't do it again. really, this time i mean it. don't do it again..."

quote:

the american. but you are really stupid if you think like that. lets say that china gives only 25% of what you gives, does that makes them as good as you? no of course not! they are only 25% as good as you! the only thing that really counts is what you give per capita, that is if you want to compare.

i think we have to come to a stalemate on this one. The US gives more total money, but Canada gives more money per head.

quote:

Originally posted by Streakfury Although having said that, there are rules, even in war. The west generally follow those rules, but the middle-east doesn't. Take those photos of Iraqi prisoners being humiliated by the U.S. soldiers. There was public outrage at how badly those prisoners were treated, not just over here but all over the world. It gave the Americans a very bad image. Yet if the situations were reversed, and it was American and UK soldiers being humiliated like that in an Iraqi prison, they would've been in the streets parading around in their Toyota's waving guns in the air cheering about how great it was, not plastering it all over the news saying how unfortunate it was. So really I think that the original point stands. It is war, but given half a chance, they just go extremes (such as beheadings) whereas the west would never do that.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


looks like mustard

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by nialsjd So a police officer should never arrest a gang member, considering that his gang friends MIGHT try and harm the cop at a later time? Is your military afraid to break a nail or something? O rite, it would be immoral to seek these gang members because they MIGHT not be like the original gang member, who just happened to be a murderer.

So basicly the UN can now rally all the other nations in the world in the fight agains america on the grounds that it can be a future threat to international security. Youve already proven that you couldnt care less of other nations opinions and do whatever you want to do even if nobody agrees with you, basicly like s spoiled child that needs an ass whoopin to know that he crossed the line

quote:

Originally posted by nialsjd yes, and i'm sure humans INVADED the moon. all we've done is put our feet down on their soil, eliminated their PROVEN homicidal/genocidal government, and here we are, a year later, ready to pass the torch to them as we'd always planned, and hopefully, they'll learn the joys of democracy and have a better relationship with the international community, thus boosting morale and economic partnerships. invaded?

Last time i checked the moon wasnt a sovereign nation when people landed up there.

quote:

Originally posted by nialsjd them? who exactly is them? as i've stated before, we are not against the iraqi people, but against their government. are you trying to protect their tyranny? I mean, how many times has iraq proven to try to buy time when it comes to things like the ALMIGHTY United Nations inspections? It was about time someone stop the kindergarden hand slaps. "don't do it again. don't do it again. this is the last time. don't do it again. really, this time i mean it. don't do it again..."

I thought that they agreed to let them in, however the almighty americans decided that they will just go ahead and bomb them anyway becouse they were so sure that the inspector will find WMDs anyway. But try as i might, i havent heard of a single WMD discovered since the war ended. One would think that those threats to international security that saddam was hiding were bound to show up after all this time.

___________________