West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Jome on July 20, 2004, 12:14:10 AM
-
U.S. military budget 2004: $400 Billion.
U.S. official foreign aid: $13 Billion.
The military budget might (will probably) rise, dunno if it has already happened.
-
just be happy we spend 13 billion on foreign aid b/c we dont have spend shit on it. more than any other country. an it wasnt 13 billion it was more around 16 million.
-
just be happy we spend 13 billion on foreign aid b/c we dont have spend shit on it. more than any other country. an it wasnt 13 billion it was more around 16 million.
Ok, I'm thankful.. (http://www.samarkandsworld.com/html/emoticons/worshippy.gif)
Because we could REALLY need it here in Norway, we're only the richest country in the world, so we sure need more $$$.
Btw: This topic is not about for/against donating aid, (they won't stop just because Tom doesn't feel like sharing), it's about how much should you give compared to the military spending..
-
when countries feel the need to medle in other countries affairs by using force its their responsibilty to also give aid. its also the responsibilty of world powers to give aid to 3rd world countries to help stop the spread of diseases etc. think about if u don't its only gonna come back to you eventually
-
jome u got british figures?
-
U.S. military budget 2004: $400 Billion.
U.S. official foreign aid: $13 Billion.
That's like if a Mass-Murderer, Rapist and Child Abuser thinks he's a good person ppl should look up to because he throws a penny in the hat of a bum.
-
How can you compare foreign aid and military spending. they are two different things.
But you must remember something. Whenever ANY country is in need (militarywise) america is there to aid them.
-
i didnt vote since my option isnt there..
IMO they shouldnt do either.
they should put the money back into its people instead of firittering it away outside the country.
better the education system with better equipped schools etc.. they last longer than bulllets and bombs..
either that, or just turn wild and conquer the rest of the world :D
-
Name one coutnry that spends more on Foreign aid than the US.
-
Name one coutnry that spends more on Foreign aid than the US.
Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, Holland, Belgium, Japan, Ireland, Switzerland, U.K., Finland, Austria, Luxembourg, France, Denmark, Germany.
jome u got british figures?
U.K. military budget: $38.4 Billion.
U.K. foreign aid: $4.6 Billion
That's a 8 to 1 ratio, as compared to U.S. 30 to 1.
How can you compare foreign aid and military spending. they are two different things.
And...... ??
-
Name one coutnry that spends more on Foreign aid than the US.
Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, Holland, Belgium, Japan, Ireland, Switzerland, U.K., Finland, Austria, Luxembourg, France, Denmark, Germany.
So all of those countries each donate more than 13 billion dollars per year?
-
So all of those countries each donate more than 13 billion dollars per year?
I KNOW you're not dumb enough to compare a country with 294 million citizens to countries with 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 milllion etc.
So if U.S. had 2 Billion citizens, would you still compare yourself with "big" countries like Monaco, San Marino, by measuring the total budgets.. ?
These countries ALL donate more money PER CITIZEN than U.S. and that's what counts.
U.S. still get taxes from each citizen right.. ?, like every other country do.
Or maybe you like to think that you give more, since you have 50-100x times more citizens than most of the other countries, and use it as a self esteem boost.. ???
-
I still don't see how money donated per citizen matters?
The bottom line is the total dollar amount.
-
I still don't see how money donated per citizen matters?
The bottom line is the total dollar amount.
You seriously don't.. ???
Ignorance is bliss.
-
Jome, How am I ignorant?
Would you care to explain your reasoning that the individaul dollar amount donated counts "More" than the total dollar amount? I really wanna see your reasoning on this one.
Once again, If you had a job that paid 50 dollars an hour, but you could only work for 5 hours a week, do you REALLY think it would be better than a job where you made 20 dollars an hour and could work 40~50 hour a week?
-
Jome, How am I ignorant?
Would you care to explain your reasoning that the individaul dollar amount donated counts "More" than the total dollar amount? I really wanna see your reasoning on this one.
You CAN NOT compare a country with 294 million people to small countries with 4 mill to 50 mill people!
If you divide the U.S. up in each state, you will have a better perspective.
U.K. + Germany + Italy + France + Holland + Sweden + Denmark + Norway + Ireland = 294 Million people.
Try putting those countries budgets together, and you have a country as big as U.S.
-
Isn't that what you were trying to do?
I'm telling you that $333 per citizen is A LOT MORE than $46 per citizen.
Try comparing yourselves with Monaco or San Marino, I bet that will give Americans a real self esteem boost.. :) (At least until you divide down the numbers to make the comparison fair)
And U.S. does NOT rank high on the "Rich country responsibilities: Aid" statistics.
They might give the most totally, but if you divide it with "per capita", it's sad reading.. :-X
U.S.A. uses $46 per citizen for aid..
The top 5 aid contribution countries are:
1. Norway - $333 per citizen
2. Luxembourg - $316 per citizen
3. Denmark - $286 per citizen
4. Sweden - $207 per citizen
5. Netherlands - $196 per citizen
...
18. U.S. - $46 per citizen
U.S. is one of very few countries who actually use LESS money on Aid in 2002 than in 1990.. that should say something.
But some of you will rather use the money on war, instead of helping homeless and starving people with medications, food, etc. right.. ?
U.S. give $13.140 mill. to aid.
Norway give $1.517 mill. to aid.
U.S. have 65 times more citizens than Norway, yet U.S. only use 8,6 times more money on aid.
This means that Norway use 7.2 times more aid than U.S. per citizen.
Get it.. ?
-
I officially give up on you Engel.
It's like me comparing Europes 727 million people with U.S. 294 million people,.. YAY we have more money!! Woo-hoo!! :-X
-
I officially give up on you Engel.
It's like me comparing Europes 727 million people with U.S. 294 million people,.. YAY we have more money!! Woo-hoo!! :-X
How are you going to compare Europe with the United States?
In Europe there are how many different languages spoken? And it makes up how many countries?
-
How are you going to compare Europe with the United States?
In Europe there are how many different languages spoken? And it makes up how many countries?
And how many languages in the States.. ?
English will get you a long way in 95% Europe, just like in U.S.
And U.S. makes up how many states (with different laws).. ?
I'm using fair comparisons, something you're not obviously not interested in.
-
How can you compare foreign aid and military spending. they are two different things.
Yup
-
U.S. military budget 2004: $400 Billion.
U.S. official foreign aid: $13 Billion.
The military budget might (will probably) rise, dunno if it has already happened.
america can do whatever the fuck it wants...unless you live there..dont complain
-
america can do whatever the fuck it wants...unless you live there..dont complain
Hmm.. I obviously hit a sore point..
I'm asking if you as a American think it's right to use $400 billion on war and $13 bill. on aid, but it seems like I struck a nerve..
Just don't answer if you don't have a opinion on it, or don't wish to explain.
-
Engel if a millionaire has gives $20 dollars to a charity, and someone earning minimum wage gives $10 dollars, then while the figure may be more, the poorer person is giving more. The US gives fuck all for what it earns.
-
Engel if a millionaire has gives $20 dollars to a charity, and someone earning minimum wage gives $10 dollars, then while the figure may be more, the poorer person is giving more.
But the millionare gave more didn't he?
Does the person on the recieving end of the charity really care how much the person that donated the money makes?
The US gives fuck all for what it earns.
Yeah?
http://www.aafrc.org/press_releases/trustreleases/americansgive.html
"American individuals, estates, foundations, and corporations gave an estimated $240.72 billion to charitable causes in 2003, according to Giving USA 2004, a study released by Giving USA Foundation."
-
Does the person on the recieving end of the charity really care how much the person that donated the money makes?
Yes, believe you me!
I seen homeless spit on politicians giving them $100 for clothes/food in front of the press to make themselves look nice.
But if a shabby looking dude with regular cheap clothes give them a $5, they're eternally thankful.
It's a pride issue.
-
I don't believe in governmental foreign aid. But I also don't believe in spending that much fucking money on the military at this time. Is it really needed? We really shouldn't be over there at his point.
-
I wouldn't be complaining about any amount of aid given or donated because it's better than nothing.
-
LOOK HERE IS HOW IT GOES RELATIVELY LESS MONEY IN FOREIGN AID THEN EUROPE AND THE REST OF THE DEVELOPED WORLD AND SPENDS RELATIVELY MORE ON THE MILITARY
-
so we give the most money total and we have the best military. we can help countries adequatly on both fronts, don't see the problem with that
-
so we give the most money total and we have the best military. we can help countries adequatly on both fronts, don't see the problem with that
talking about helping countries with bombing and killing them, I could choke every time I hear retarded shit like this.
-
....not really the time to bring up we help people military argument, when we've bombed about 15,000 iraqi civillians.
but it is true....if you take out the iraqi "freedom" part. We have gone in and helped many many countries from a military standpoint and with the exception of iraq, i think we have done a good job.
7even before you put down our military think of it this way. What if a country were to attack another. One country being evil and the other being helpless like most countries are. What if yet again a dictator were to try and take over parts of the world.
Now please tell me, which countries would have a strong enough military to actually help defend countries if these scenarios were to happen. I will guarantee you America would be the very first military force to help out, and they would be sending massive numbers of troops and supplies.
But take america out of the picture and tell me what other countries have such a strong military presence that they could actually help.
-
^^ U.K., France, Japan., Australia, probably more.
So you defend using $400 bill on war, that's your standpoint. ?
-
^^ U.K., France, Japan., Australia, probably more.
So you defend using $400 bill on war, that's your standpoint. ?
I dont know about you but i would much rather have america defend my country (if i lived somewhere else) then those countries you listed. And i do defend the money that my country spends on our military. From where i stand, i believe in having a powerful military. And in having a strong military there are obligations to having it, like defending countries that may need defending. What i dont defend is when they use our military power for the wrong reasons like the war in iraq.
-
so we give the most money total and we have the best military. we can help countries adequatly on both fronts, don't see the problem with that
damn ur talkin shit
-
....not really the time to bring up we help people military argument, when we've bombed about 15,000 iraqi civillians.
but it is true....if you take out the iraqi "freedom" part. We have gone in and helped many many countries from a military standpoint and with the exception of iraq, i think we have done a good job.
7even before you put down our military think of it this way. What if a country were to attack another. One country being evil and the other being helpless like most countries are. What if yet again a dictator were to try and take over parts of the world.
Now please tell me, which countries would have a strong enough military to actually help defend countries if these scenarios were to happen. I will guarantee you America would be the very first military force to help out, and they would be sending massive numbers of troops and supplies.
But take america out of the picture and tell me what other countries have such a strong military presence that they could actually help.
shame is, that actually right now the USA is the "evil country" and Iraq the "helpless" one.
-
thats why i said before the iraq war ;D
-
so we give the most money total and we have the best military. we can help countries adequatly on both fronts, don't see the problem with that
talking about helping countries with bombing and killing them, I could choke every time I hear retarded shit like this.
so where does all of america's aid go since we just bomb countries?
-
^^ U.K., France, Japan., Australia, probably more.
So you defend using $400 bill on war, that's your standpoint. ?
japan doesn't have full control over it's military....it has to answer to the united states ;D
and send france over to help the "evil army" maybe surrendering would catch on ;D
-
japan doesn't have full control over it's military....it has to answer to the united states ;D
and send france over to help the "evil army" maybe surrendering would catch on ;D
Only in Iraq.. everybody has to answer to U.S. in Iraq because they're in charge of the war, and a bunch of U.N. nations help them out..
-
japan doesn't have full control over it's military....it has to answer to the united states ;D
and send france over to help the "evil army" maybe surrendering would catch on ;D
Only in Iraq.. everybody has to answer to U.S. in Iraq because they're in charge of the war, and a bunch of U.N. nations help them out..
no being stationed in Japan i know all of the japanese messages go through us. they have to let the U.S. know whenever they plan anything with their military
-
Oh, scratch Japan off the list then..
The point is though, that many countries have strong or decent militaries, but most of them never need to show it off..
-
Oh, scratch Japan off the list then..
The point is though, that many countries have strong or decent militaries, but most of them never need to show it off..
but when your ass is in trouble, you'll most likely call out for Batman rather than Robin or Batgirl ;D
-
Oh, scratch Japan off the list then..
The point is though, that many countries have strong or decent militaries, but most of them never need to show it off..
Show it off?
What does that even mean?
You are quickly moving into territory you don't know about jome...
I guess the six nuclear tests in 1995 that the French conducted in the South Pacific weren't Showing off?
I guess the fact that russia had one of it's largest military drills in 15 years last august isn't showing off?
What about the German troops in Afghanistan?
What about the UK troops in Iraq?
-
Show it off?
What does that even mean?
You are quickly moving into territory you don't know about jome...
I guess the six nuclear tests in 1995 that the French conducted in the South Pacific weren't Showing off?
I guess the fact that russia had one of it's largest military drills in 15 years last august isn't showing off?
What about the German troops in Afghanistan?
What about the UK troops in Iraq?
Or "need to use it", however you'd like to put it..
Lol at using tests/drills as a example..
Boy, do I know about this..
Russia is in war with Tsjetsjenian forces/guerilla, Germany have troops in Iraq, Australia have troops in Iraq, U.K. have troops in Iraq, Norway had troops in Iraq, Spain had troops in Iraq, etc.
It's not like ANY of these countries are using their full or even half of their military forces.. it's more like companies/troops.
But they send forces to help out U.S. when requested by U.N., without these countries in Iraq, U.S. would have been in deeper horse shit than they are in Iraq now, even though it's not looking good at all.
but when your ass is in trouble, you'll most likely call out for Batman rather than Robin or Batgirl ;D
;D :laugh:
-
Show it off?
What does that even mean?
You are quickly moving into territory you don't know about jome...
I guess the six nuclear tests in 1995 that the French conducted in the South Pacific weren't Showing off?
I guess the fact that russia had one of it's largest military drills in 15 years last august isn't showing off?
What about the German troops in Afghanistan?
What about the UK troops in Iraq?
Or "need to use it", however you'd like to put it..
Lol at using tests/drills as a example..
Boy, do I know about this..
Russia is in war with Tsjetsjenian forces/guerilla, Germany have troops in Iraq, Australia have troops in Iraq, U.K. have troops in Iraq, Norway had troops in Iraq, Spain had troops in Iraq, etc.
It's not like ANY of these countries are using their full or even half of their military forces.. it's more like companies/troops.
But they send forces to help out U.S. when requested by U.N., without these countries in Iraq, U.S. would have been in deeper horse shit than they are in Iraq now, even though it's not looking good at all.
but when your ass is in trouble, you'll most likely call out for Batman rather than Robin or Batgirl ;D
;D :laugh:
So first you say: "We didn't send shit."
Then you say: "You need us there."
I don't get it.
-
So first you say: "We didn't send shit."
Then you say: "You need us there."
I don't get it.
I didn't say "we didn't send shit", and I didn't quite say "you need us there".
All I'm saying is that a all-American war/invasion of Iraq without any countries helping you out, you'd be far worse off.
There would be more havoc, more American hostages taken, more Americans killed, and there would be more American-hate..
U.N. and it's countries adds legitimacy to the invasion/operation.
-
Bush said it himself that WE NEED THE HELP OF OTHER COUNTRIES. There's nothing to argue about. The U.S. thought it could handle the situation, it obviously couldn't, so after going in there as the lone ranger, the U.S. calls for help after being fucked.
Yes, I know the U.S. has the ability to take over any country it pleases, but keeping the country under control is another thing. LoL @ people (example: O'Reilly) who said that there would be barely any American casualties.
-
Bush said it himself that WE NEED THE HELP OF OTHER COUNTRIES. There's nothing to argue about. The U.S. thought it could handle the situation, it obviously couldn't, so after going in there as the lone ranger, the U.S. calls for help after being fucked.
Yes, I know the U.S. has the ability to take over any country it pleases, but keeping the country under control is another thing. LoL @ people (example: O'Reilly) who said that there would be barely any American casualties.
bush more than likely said it to get heat off of america, terrorists bombed spain and not the US, terrorists are kidnapping more foreign people and not the US...
-
Bush said it himself that WE NEED THE HELP OF OTHER COUNTRIES. There's nothing to argue about. The U.S. thought it could handle the situation, it obviously couldn't, so after going in there as the lone ranger, the U.S. calls for help after being fucked.
Yes, I know the U.S. has the ability to take over any country it pleases, but keeping the country under control is another thing. LoL @ people (example: O'Reilly) who said that there would be barely any American casualties.
bush more than likely said it to get heat off of america, terrorists bombed spain and not the US, terrorists are kidnapping more foreign people and not the US...
Please tell me you really aren't that stupid. Is that you Rampant, or did Smear-my-ass aka Smerlus come back after being made to look like the idiot that he is?
-
so what you're trying to say is the US has the most powerful military in the world...but it NEEDS other countries to send a small fraction of their troops or else all hell breaks lose. yep sounds like the thoughts of a person that spends too much time behind their computer
-
but america like to use things like blanket and cluster bombs which are totally indescriminate in who they target considering the area they cover. although having said this there have been mixed reports about weather the uk have used some aswell the official line is we havn't used them in iraq but there were reports we used them on tanks in the desert at one point. but americas bombs are notorious for killing way more civillans than the intended targets when they bomb places.
-
so what you're trying to say is the US has the most powerful military in the world...but it NEEDS other countries to send a small fraction of their troops or else all hell breaks lose. yep sounds like the thoughts of a person that spends too much time behind their computer
All hell would break loose regardless; it doesn't matter how many countries send their troops. A lot of those people don't want to be occupied, no people do.
Your logic, of which very little exists, has caused you to make some very irrelevant connections; how does what I said in any way say that I spend too much time behind my computer? LOL, you morons who get sonned and come back under new identities make me laugh. I bet you're one of my students, and class seems to be in session again. What do you want me to school you on today, my little special ed student?
-
you haven't sonned me yet puppet
a. can you prove that your reason is the only reason bush asked for help?
no
b. all hell hasn't broken lose, 15,000 to 900 is great considering we wiped out one army and now our battling guerilla fighters...
so where have you proven me wrong in this thread?
-
america needs other foreign troops
1 because most iraqi's hate americans
2 becease they are heavy handed, the softer british approach has lead to a relatively more peaceful southern region
3 to make it look less like an american conquest
4 america isn't any good at maintaining peace or law and order when europeans have alot more experience in this area as we usually clear up after the americans. and british troops in particular have learnt lots of lessons from northen ireland which applied to iraq
-
Well while it is nice help to have other countries with us in iraq, america doesnt need the help.
Wait....Philipines just pulled out their 54 troops from iraq. I dont know what were going to do anymore without their help. ::)
-
america needs other foreign troops
1 because most iraqi's hate americans
2 becease they are heavy handed, the softer british approach has lead to a relatively more peaceful southern region
3 to make it look less like an american conquest
4 america isn't any good at maintaining peace or law and order when europeans have alot more experience in this area as we usually clear up after the americans. and british troops in particular have learnt lots of lessons from northen ireland which applied to iraq
that's what i said....but the "teacher" says in one post that bush needed other troops to control the situation then went on to say that no one can control the situation even if they tried... he thinks that he's smarter than the president and all the advisors around him....he's such a dilusional little girl
-
you haven't sonned me yet puppet
a. can you prove that your reason is the only reason bush asked for help?
no
b. all hell hasn't broken lose, 15,000 to 900 is great considering we wiped out one army and now our battling guerilla fighters...
so where have you proven me wrong in this thread?
A. I guess Bush just wanted some Germans to grill his soldiers some Bratwurst, the French to bring some wine, some Italians for some spaghetti, etc. Why the fuck do you think Bush asked for HELP? LOL, IF YOU CAN'T FIGURE THIS OUT THEN I SUGGEST YOU SEE A PSYCHOLOGIST BECAUSE I CAN ONLY HELP YOU UNDERSTAND BETTER TO A CERTAIN EXTENT.
B. What army? Did they even put up a fight? U.S. soldiers admitted the "Iraqi army" didn't do shit. If you really believe that we're winning because we killed more people, then you need to use some fuckin logic. You think we're the winners because we killed thousands of civilians? The number of U.S. soldiers who have died is a lot greater than expected. I think 900 lives lost in Iraq for an unjust war is 900 too many. You might see these dead people as "worth it", but I don't. I value the human life too much to say something like that.
-
here's your answer to A again...
america needs other foreign troops
1 because most iraqi's hate americans
2 becease they are heavy handed, the softer british approach has lead to a relatively more peaceful southern region
3 to make it look less like an american conquest
4 america isn't any good at maintaining peace or law and order when europeans have alot more experience in this area as we usually clear up after the americans. and british troops in particular have learnt lots of lessons from northen ireland which applied to iraq
and as for B. they did have an army, it's not our fault that they got wiped out so quick...and as i said 900 deaths isn't bad at all