|
What countries have the US rebuilt (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Yoepus |
| oh sorry. I didn't notice I was interupting your little flame war here. Sorry, just ignore my previous post, jackasses. :D |
|
|
| rupert |
with regards to the comment about what Australia has done. Well sweet all. But at least Australia hasnt deliberately murdered untold numbers of people in the last 50 years just to protect ruling elites in the USA and the Third World.
| quote: | | Keep in mind that nations aren't as dumb as .... that. If the World Bank, WTF, IMF did worse to nations then they are, nations would simply not use them and go on and try to suffer the economic crisis on there own. Been in fact this has not happened, therefore these countries are gaining many advantages through these institutions they would not have previously, regardless of the costs of heavy reforms and debt relief. |
For s sake. Countries cant get loans for development if they dont comply with the dictates of the IMF. The IMF policies are dictated directly by Washington. The IMF ideology "Chicago school neo -liberalism" isnt about making the life better for the poor people, its about improving profits for multi-nationals, if poor people benefit it is a completely unintended consequence of a structural adjustment policy.
Plenty of evidence indicates that countries that have adopted the IMF policies that seen marked increases in poverty levels whereas countries that have ignored its advice have done well.
The IMF is nothing more than a tool of american imperialism. I forget who said it specifically but an american politician said the IMF were Americas Jesuits. The analogy is quite apt.
When are people going to WAKE UP. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
Sorry I didn't do some research before I posted that about US aid in Afghanistan. But Hamid Karzai did basically say that US aid for Afghanistan is very low. I guess he only tried to get more.
In Kosovo and Bosnia, however, EU is giving more foreing aid than the US. |
|
|
| JudgeJulez |
guess this would be a good time to post this again....
| quote: | Time for the Powell Plan
By Charles Dunbar, The Boston Globe, Op/Ed Section, 3/9/2003
EARLY 56 YEARS AGO, a respected soldier-statesman made a speech that changed history. On June 5, 1947, Secretary of State General George Marshall used a commencement address to announce an initiative that presaged President Truman's request for a multi-year commitment of $17 billion -- 7 percent of the US GDP of the day, $137 billion in 2003 dollars -- to be spent on European recovery. The Marshall Plan is now seen as a key to Western Europe's transformation from devastation into a prosperous base on which a visionary union could be built. Today another esteemed soldier-statesman, General Colin Powell, has Marshall's old job, and the time for announcing the Powell Plan is at hand. Everyone involved in the debate about the war on terrorism and planned attack on Iraq at least pays lip service to the need for the United States to provide massive, long-term support to countries where the fight is or will be most intense, notably Afghanistan and Iraq.
A problem is that the states where the war on terror is or will be waged bear little political or economic resemblance to the countries of Western Europe after World War II. In Europe, the main need was money to permit the rebuilding of war-shattered economies by a work force skilled at all levels and through the agency of governments capable of managing large infusions of cash. In the countries of current concern, workplace skills are lacking, and the governments, who have often stifled development, have a poor track record as honest and efficient conduits for big sums of money.
There is also a larger point. Whatever its worth as an engine of development, aid delivered in a context as dire as that of the war on terrorism must have an immediate, visible impact -- on the people in the countries involved, on the leaders who have thrown in their lot with the United States, on the international community, and on America's adversaries. As in 1947, how the aid effort is perceived is as important as the effort itself.
In many quarters, the war in Afghanistan is seen as lost. The US assertion that $840 million has been spent there since October 2001 is drowned by complaints that the money is going to well-heeled nongovernmental organizations. Congress has reduced an $840 million authorized spending level for next year to $295 million in the House and just $157 million in the Senate. What was supposed to be a bold initiative has become just another aid program with the usual interested parties --pursuing their usual agendas.
This is grim news for Hamid Karzai. The Afghan leader, surrounded by American bodyguards, says he may not run for president. To survive and prosper politically, Karzai must show his countrymen that American support means physical reconstruction -- bricks, mortar and concrete, not lofty words and NGOs. Afghans see him as owing his job to the United States and expect him to deliver the goods.
It is even worse news for the United States. Many Europeans, whether old or new, see America as a greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein and are scornful of US claims that the planned occupation of Iraq will benefit Iraqis. The opinion of Muslims is equally negative, and propaganda about a new crusade falls on fertile ground.
The Powell Plan should make three points. The first is a call for ''serious'' money: a current-dollar request of $137 billion -- now just 1.3 percent of GDP -- for reconstruction in states whose governments face opposition in their fight against terrorism. The second is that the effort will focus on quick restoration of physical infrastructure -- the shattered road system in Afghanistan, new schools in Pakistan to supplant the madrasas; deep wells and irrigation systems in the lawless areas of Yemen where Al Qaeda has implanted itself.
Third, Powell should say that former President Jimmy Carter has agreed to lead the effort. America's latest Nobel Peace laureate needs no introduction at home and to a doubting international audience. The Carter Center and Habitat for Humanity give him impeccable credentials for the job. Most important, the bi-partisan gesture his appointment would represent would put the Powell Plan above the bureaucratic fray.
With the occupation of Iraq looming, Washington must be convincing about seriousness of purpose and show immediate, tangible results on the ground. So far, it has done neither. Powell should not wait until commencement time to make his speech.
Charles Dunbar, professor of political science at Simmons College, is former US ambassador to Yemen and former charge d'affaires in Afghanistan. |
|
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Sorry I didn't do some research before I posted that about US aid in Afghanistan. But Hamid Karzai did basically say that US aid for Afghanistan is very low. I guess he only tried to get more.
In Kosovo and Bosnia, however, EU is giving more foreing aid than the US. |
Which wouldn't be surprising in any way whatsoever since Kosovo and Bosnia is IN Europe, the conflict was a NATO and hence all of western Europe/US issue, and therefore western Europe has just as much of an obligation to give aid as the US. Should the US necessarily give more foreign aid than any other country to EVERY single country? Perhaps priorities change over time and the next year we feel that Africa deserves a larger share of foreign aid. I just don't understand why there's so much resentment with regards to this issue. The fact that the US abandons a country after it's affected a change in the government has been proven false. Has anybody ever heard of the saying don't look the gift horse in the mouth? |
|
|
| quddha |
the point of this thread is ridiculous. just because i paid you a dollar doesn't mean you have to help me kill someone.
people think france owe the states for helping out after ww2, maybe... but france also has every right to disagree to this war. they're not obligated to support a war just because the states aided them half a century ago.
and then comes the childish anti-french ideas of renaming fries and toast. :P People like to use the argument of the US helping France during WW2, but they never mention that it was France that helped the US break away from Britain and become a nation of their own in the first place... where do u think the statue of liberty came from? |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by quddha
the point of this thread is ridiculous. just because i paid you a dollar doesn't mean you have to help me kill someone.
people think france owe the states for helping out after ww2, maybe... but france also has every right to disagree to this war. they're not obligated to support a war just because the states aided them half a century ago.
and then comes the childish anti-french ideas of renaming fries and toast. :P People like to use the argument of the US helping France during WW2, but they never mention that it was France that helped the US break away from Britain and become a nation of their own in the first place... where do u think the statue of liberty came from? |
take the Staute of Liberty back...its ugly anyway....frig France....they wouldnt even let us use their airspace to bomb Libya after they bombed Americans....wimps that they are.... |
|
|
| Eisbaer |
who are you to criticize bush's intelligence.
bush being dumb is just some more frequently posted you heard on the news or radio....
you dont know anything about bush. i suspect this man is powerful... |
|
|
| Eisbaer |
only powerful because we dont know that much about him.
the most powerful humans we know absolutely nothing about, not even what to call them. |
|
|
| DJAhmet |
| quote: | Originally posted by Eisbaer
the most powerful humans we know absolutely nothing about, not even what to call them. |
ROFL! ill pitch one 2 ya, how about umm... "WANKER" :D |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJAhmet
ROFL! ill pitch one 2 ya, how about umm... "WANKER" :D |
I always wondered what the W stood for. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Busy Child
I wonder how many nations the United States have rebuilt . . . . .France, Germany, MEXICO . . .just to name a few. . . and we all know what their stance on supporting the US is |
Could you tell me how the US helped rebuild Mexico??!?!:conf: |
|
|
|
|
