President Bush's response to tsunami disaster criticised

[Dr. Shane]

Actually I have stated in the past that I consider all the military aid we give around the world to be forgien aid. One of the reasons many other countries can afford to give as much as they do is because they do not maintain a military like the US does and when they need help they know the US will step up to the plate.

Consider how much is spent each year to have our troops in Germany, South Korea, Japan and the Phillipians. Why are we there? It would be cheaper for us to build more air craft carriors and nuclear submarines and accomplish the same purpose if we wanted to have a military presence around the world. The reason we are there is because those countries want us there and we charge them nothing.

[Neil D]

I don't know if you guys are reading up on this Tsumoni aid, but Rueters is now reporting the fear that the Core donors, Japan, Austrailia, US, India, are "outbidding each other as a beauty contest". Total giving among this group- Austrailia with "Australia's $765 million pledge over five years for Indonesian reconstruction and development", "The United States has promised $350 million in aid and deployed navy ships and military aircraft to help", There was talk of Japan increasing it's aid to $500K. "The Indian government held an emergency session to fast-track aid funding of around $A150 million. " [This estimate is from 12/29/04].

It is of interest to me that the US is still more interested in blowing up Iraq/Afganistan than in rebuilding a portion of the muslim world. Or at least 49% of us feel this way...

[Bravus]

The total aid promised is now over 3 billion dollars, so at this point I'm just going to give praise for that. I've given up on the possibility of our brothers on the right ever having the grace to say 'OK, we were mistaken on an issue of fact'. (I've done that here in the past when I've been wrong.)

Point is, the need was there, and the world responded. Praise the Lord.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

It is of interest to me that the US is still more interested in blowing up Iraq/Afganistan than in rebuilding a portion of the muslim world.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

That speaks volumes about who you are. And our interest is in rebuilding Iraq - the insurgents are the ones interested in blowing it up. Another example of SPIN. You can thank me for the straight talk. Fact is, if the insurgents quit trying to blow the place up we would get out of there.

Another example of someone trying to take a thread <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/129933-offtopic2.gif" alt="" />

[Dr. Shane]

Brother Bravus, I may be right of you but that doesn't mean I am "on the right". I am closer to the middle than the right. Although our good brother Ron may be "on the right" and there is nothing wrong with that, BTW.

[Bravus]

Hehe - OK, fair point, I mis-spoke. If I change it to 'on my right', will you admit that the US is not the most generous donor of government international development aid on a per capita or per economy basis? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Ron Lambert]

Will you, Bravus, admit that the contention I made from the beginning, that the U.S. has given more than any other nation to humanitarian aid, is correct, and will you apologize for accusing me of lying because I said this? I did prove it, as you can see from my previous posts. You are the one who tried to bring in various qualifiers, like "per capita" and per "economic base," and some hare-brained reckoning of "results" of aid. But I am not accountable to anything you tried to impose on the discussion. I am only accountable for what I said.

Shane, while I appreciate the reasonable and fair points you make, I think it is pointless to engage in discussion any further people so pathological and unreasoning that they would even use the tsunami disaster as an excuse to indulge their hatred of President Bush. I for one am tired of engaging second rate, immature minds that cannot or will not think rationally or honestly about anything. Their whole agenda is wild emotionalism and rigid partisanship, with no real intellectual discipline whatsoever. They really have nothing to say. Let them go scream and rant by themselves. They are not worthy of my time or attention, and I will give them no more.

[Bravus]

I'm feeling much the same about the discussion as you, Ron (hey, a point of agreement! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />) - no-one is going to change his mind here, so it's probably a waste of all our energy.

I will readily and happily concede that the US gives the most in raw dollar terms. But that's not exactly what your first claims were. Here they are to remind you:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I mean, come on already. Are you trying to suggest that the U.S. is not generous? Has our history shown us to be ungenerous? Where do people get this presumption that somehow the U.S. is stingy?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

If you choose to define 'generous' as giving a far smaller proportion out of its bounty, I guess you can sustain this one. That is, as I've said, the raw number is bigger, but the proportion is far smaller.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

What is wrong with stating the simple fact that in actual, objective amount of financial aid given to international relief efforts, America is the role model, exceeding the entire rest of the world combined? What is the real agenda of you people who are trying to dispute this? (my emphasis)

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

On this one, you're plain wrong. Look at your own figures:

United States 1165

Netherlands 366

United Kingdom 344

All other DAC donors 337

Sweden 265

Norway 204

Canada 201

Germany 178

France 159

Switzerland 146

Denmark 124

Japan 85

366+344+337+265 = 1312 The US gives a little less than the total of the top 4 other nations. That's definitely a very decent amount of aid, and I never claimed it wasn't, but it's also very clearly not 'exceeding the entire rest of the world combined'.

OK, I will happily, joyfully, approvingly and positively agree that the US gives the greatest raw dollar amount of international aid. I don't think I've ever denied it, but here I'm saying it without even qualification. It's a fact.

Will you now concede, even grudgingly, that on per capita or per economy measures (your choice which), the US gives less than a number of other countries. That too is a clear and simple fact. Can you acknowledge it?

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

will you admit that the US is not the most generous donor of government international development aid on a per capita or per economy basis?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I would like to see the numbers once we add the amount we spend on our military stationed in other countries - even excluding Iraq and Afghanistan. I think many would be shocked to see how much the US spends to defend the world. One would also need to add the private donations done through charities and churches.

Another example of me being in the middle. Democrats and Republicans agree with having troops stationed in other countries (Japan, Germany, etc.) but Libertarians do not. I agree with the Libertarians on that point. I think we should bring all our troops home, except those in combat or on humanitarian missions, or charge the countries where they are stationed for their defense.

[Bravus]

Shane - that's why I specified 'government international development aid', because I recognise and accept your earlier points about both military aid and civilian donations. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Dang, I'm getting to be like a lawyer. With you I will shake hands now and declare it a draw - we both know what we think and what we know.

I still hope to draw Ron to give a straight answer. Ron, if I said you lied when you said that the US gives the most, I unreservedly withdraw and apologise for that. I never intended to say that.

[Ron Lambert]

Thank you, Bravus, I appreciate that.

Let me point out that the table I provided was for the year 2000. It did show that the U.S. giving to humanitarian aid vastly exceeded that of any other nation. My original statement that the U.S. gave more than all other nations combined LAST YEAR was taken from a newspaper article published a few days ago. The official figures are probably available somewhere on the Internet, but why beat a dead horse? The horse is compost at this point.

By the way, you keep insisting that money given for defense of other nations be excluded in any of these considerations--but that then means you are saying the money that financed the rebuilding of power plants, water distribution systems, schools, and hospitals in Iraq should not be counted. We wish to see democracy and liberty take root in the Islamic Middle East, and money spent combating insurgents attempting to derail this by blowing up things and mainly killing Iraquis is surely worthwhile. The bottom line is that even much of our defense spending is unselfish giving by the U.S. that benefits other nations.

As for per capita giving, there are undoubtedly other countries that give more to humanitarian aid on that basis. The semi-socialist governments of Scandinavia can give money without the consent of the people easily, and it can seem like a great amount proportionately since their total budgets are very small, they have very tiny defense budgets (which in fact are supplemented by U.S. aid to its NATO allies).

[Bravus]

OK, fair enough, we'll leave it there.

I'd still like to have seen you be able to just speak one plain, simple sentence: "The United States gives the greatest amount of international aid funding in absolute terms, but does not give the greatest amount of international aid funding in relative terms when population or wealth are taken into account".

I was willing and able to accept the first part of the sentence, and did so, but you have never managed to just simply state your acceptance of the second part. I'm not sure how that fits with your contention that people on this side of the table "cannot or will not think rationally or honestly about anything".

[Neil D]

Luke 21

The Widow's Offering

1As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 3“I tell you the truth,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”

No one has said that the generous donation was not appreciated. But when Jesus says that a poor widow gives more with her meger donation than all the wealth of the others, well, I suspect that Jesus has given His opinion. I think enough has been said.

[Ron Lambert]

There have been times when I came to the weekend and only had a few dollars left in my wallet, nothing in my savings account, and gave all my remaining dollars to the church offering. I have never felt that I was being terribly generous merely because I was giving virtually all I had at that point.

The comparison of the U.S. to the rich of Jesus' day is a faulty one. The rich thought they were righteous because of what they gave, and they gave just so they could boast about it. We in the U.S. give generously because we want to. We are actually concerned about the welfare of others, and want to help those in need. This is what America is about, and it is one of the things that most distinquishes us from other nations historically. Because of the politics game and media critics, all giving winds up being trumpeted everywhere. But that is not our primary motive for giving.

[Bravus]

Still waiting...

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

The comparison of the U.S. to the rich of Jesus' day is a faulty one. The rich thought they were righteous because of what they gave, and they gave just so they could boast about it. We in the U.S. give generously because we want to.

---

And, using your non-american bias, just what have you been doing, except boasting? It has been over 25 years since I spend a year overseas, but I still see American arrogance when it rears it's ugly head. It's comments like yours Ron, that degrade the value of our giving. Rule Number #1 in the rules of giving- The giver never refers to how much he gives nor how much better his gift is over others. Go back to your posts, Ron. See the arrogance thru new eyes....

[Ron Lambert]

Bravus, I never let anyone put words in my mouth. I have answered your question completely, in my terms.

[Bravus]

OK. You cannot bring yourself to speak the truth. I'll stop expecting it.

[Ron Lambert]

So truth can only be spoken using your words, is that it, Bravus? Quit being so controlling. There is no reason why I have to use your choice of words for anything. I answered your question, perhaps more thoroughly than you wanted.

[Nicodema]

Gee Ron I'm wounded to the core. I thought your whole little soft-shoe routine about "being controlling" was specially reserved for me, but now I see you're just willing to wh*re it out to anyone who disagrees with you. No wonder no one takes you seriously.

Do let us know when you've pulled your head away from the mirror and can see (and converse with) something other than your own reflection, OK?

[Bravus]

Nope, you don't have to use my words. I was just trying to be helpful. It is a clear fact, using numbers from impeccable sources (OECD and CIA), that America is not the most generous in relative terms. Yet you have never, ever been willing to acknowledge that clear fact (as I acknowledged the fact that America gives the most in absolute terms). I'm just intrigued by why you feel it is necessary to deny reality.

[Dr. Shane]

Glen Beck has a list of the private organizations to donate to How to Help Tsunami Disaster Victims

ADRA is one of those listed and normally ranks above the Salvation Army for the percentage of the dollar spent on relief. ADRA spends 92.3% and the Salavation Army normally spends around 85% however for this drive the Salvation Army is directing 100% to relief.

Private donations are rolling in from Americans. Americans raise $200 million for charities.

[Ron Lambert]

Bravus, I have not acknowledged the fact you allege--that the U.S. is not the most generous nation--because it is not a fact, in relative or any other terms. You are entirely too selective in the factors you will consider when you rush to judgment on the generosity of the U.S.

Perhaps you failed to notice the point I made that some nations, such as the Scandinavian nations, can give more per capita because they have very little need for spending on defense--thanks to the U.S. Perhaps you failed to note my previous point that a large part of the billions that have been spent on Iraq went to build things like schools, hospitals, electrical generating plants and the distribution grid, water treatment plants and water lines, and so on.

You also wish to discount the willingness of the U.S. to use its military for the benefit of other nations--from preventing the takeover of Western Europe by the Soviet Union to sending troops to stop the "ethnic cleansing" violence in the former Yugoslavia, to toppling the Taliban tyranny in Afghanistan and enabling their people to have free elections, to toppling the Saddam Hussein tyranny in Iraq and fighting insurgents attempting to harm the Iraqui people, and on and on. Waging war against dictators is an unselfish humanitarian act as well, an act of true generosity, paid not just in money but in blood.

I just read in the newspaper today that in 2003 the U.S. gave $3 billion in aid to help the largely Muslim populations in and around Kosovo recover from the effects of the war there.

That particular editorial writer, by the way, made the interesting point that the U.S. has repeatedly come to the substantial aid of Muslim populations in the world, despite being labeled as "the Great Satan" by the Islamo-fascists such as Al Qaeda. And while the U.S. is pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars to aid the victims of the tsunami disaster, using its military assets in the greatest military operation to aid civilians in 30 years, where are the rich Muslim countries? How much aid has Al Qaeda given to the victims of the Tsunami disaster? Osama bin Laden has not even publicly expressed sympathy for the hundreds of thousands of Muslim victims of this disaster. And yet I heard today on the radio that in some places, U.S. relief workers have been asked to remove labels that prominently identify aid packages as coming from America, lest it provoke violence.

I truly cannot understand what could motivate anyone to try to minimize the repeatedly demonstrated generosity of the U.S., unparalled in the history of mankind. How can anyone be that ignorant, or that determined to filter out facts so that only the negative appearance they want remains? What agenda could they possibly be serving?

[Jeannieb43]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I truly cannot understand what could motivate anyone to try to minimize the repeatedly demonstrated generosity of the U.S., unparalled in the history of mankind.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Maybe it's because we in the U.S. are being "tapped out" by all this beneficence. Our budget has been busted. We're mortgaging our grandchildren's futures just to pay for our profligacy. We'll never be able to pay off this national debt if we live to be 200 years old.

And yet we spend another $40 million for the inauguration festivities -- in spite of all the devastation in the South Pacific and elsewhere.

This could possibly appear uncaring and selfish.

[Dr. Shane]

Sister Jeannie, I didn't know you were a fiscal conservative. I wish more Democrats would be. It is their best chance at rebuilding their party.