George W. Bush is an empty suit

[cb360]

I saw that TechBMW. Hard to believe the media actually reports on that stuff, but it was pretty funny.

[Mag7C]

who cares what other countries think?

I do, and if you have respect for your country you should too.

[mydlyfkryzis]

I have just enlisted in the United States Army. A large part of my decision to do so is based on my confidence that Geroge W. Bush is, in my opinion, one of the finest leaders ever to serve this country.

The above statement is meant simply to represent the diversity among us riders here at TMW. Please resume your previously scheduled Bush-bashing session.

Thank You for your service.

(I Served 1973-76, US Army)

[Iain]

In responce to the comment about the amount of foreign aid governments give based on their GDP, I found these statistics.

This is what the governments give on a daily per person basis for a select few countries.

USA - 13 cents
Australia - 14 cents
Austira - 18 cents
Belgium - 28 cents
Canada - 17 cents
Denmark - 84 cents
Finland - 24 cents
France - 25 cents
Greece - 7 cents
Germany - 18 cents
Ireland - 28 cents
Italy - 11 cents
Japan - 20 cents
Netherlands - 57 cents
New Zealand - 8 cents
Norway - 1.02 Dollars (Don't they put everyone else to shame)
Portugal - 9 cents
Spain - 11 cents
sweden - 61 cents
Switzerland - 25 cents
and the UK - 23 cents

As you can see, the USA clearly does not give more then the majority of those countries. In fact it is rated 6th worse of 21 countries.

Although, of the same list of 21 countries, due to the fact that not only money donated affects the devlopment of poor countries, ranked according to trade, technology, security, enviroment, migration, investment and aid, all lumped together, the USA ranks 7th after Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Australia, UK, and Canada, all in order respectivly.

I'll let you be the judge, but personaly I wouldn't say the government is doing all they could be, or even a small percentage they are able to.

Source: Center for Global Development and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. From “Ranking the Rich,” Foreign Policy, May/June 2004. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms. ... 540&page=0

[sv-wolf]

Interpreting these statistics is very complex, because the traditional purpose of 'Aid' is not to aid other countries but to secure trading and poliical/military/strategic advantage for the donor nation and that is true for all states that give aid. 'Aid' always comes with strings attached and very rarely beneifts the recipient in any significant way - it often does the opposite and destabilises the traditional economy.

I don't know where you get your figures, but in terms of GDP (as opposed to per capita), France for example gives far more in aid than any of these other countries. It is one of the few countries which exceeds the UN rcommendations. It's purposes however are clearly to disseminate French culture and gain trade advantages for France, particularly in its former empire.

U.S.A. aid is often military aid and usually goes to some of the most opressive and barbaric regimes around the world.like Turikey and Indonesia. (Even with its low showing in this list, if you reckon aid in terms of GDP instead of per head of population the U.S.A. comes off far lower.)

Relief funds in disaster areas proudly announced by governments and touted around by the press are another joke. The disaster areas rarely get anything but a tiny fraction of the money pledged. i don't recall the actual figures but after the Iranian earthquake the Iranian people received less than 5% of the money pledged around the world and today they are still living in terrible conditions among the ruins of their homes. This doesn't get into the press, of course.

Even then the money pledged in these circumstances is almost never new money. When the US or UK government pledges say $1million or £1 million for disaster relief they are referring to money already set aside for that region to be paid in future years, or they will take it out of an aid budget for another region which will then receive nothing. As they usually don't honour their pledges this makes very little difference anyway.

These figures are almost always a giant con trick, the purpose being to convince the electorate that 'their country's' intentions are generous and benign. One of the primary roles of the press and of politicians is to convince their national electorates that everything they do comes out of a generous spirit to help others. The American government is particularly good at projecting this image and the U.S. population is particularly gullible in believing it, but it happens everwhere. The truth is usually much more self-serving and its consequences invariably more horrific.

[TechTMW]

The US congress pledged $908 Million in aid for victims of the tsunami.

Which is quite generous ... until you consider that in 2004 alone the US made $1.87 Billion from tariffs on imports from the Tsunami-stricken countries.

We'll have made our aid money back in 6 months time

Shrewd, no?

It must be noted, however, that the US does lead the world in Private donations. Probably not by as much as we should, but we do ...

[sv-wolf]

The US congress pledged $908 Million in aid for victims of the tsunami.

Which is quite generous ... until you consider that in 2004 alone the US made $1.87 Billion from tariffs on imports from the Tsunami-stricken countries.

Good point Tech. It rather puts the whole aid/relief circus into perspective! Pledges like this, though they sound generous, aren't really. And, on my previous point, I'm prepared to bet that of that $908 million only a tiny fraction will ever be donated. The rest will be quietly forgotten - as usual.

[Iain]

It must be noted, however, that the US does lead the world in Private donations. Probably not by as much as we should, but we do ...

Acctually, If you look at the source for my statistics, it shows that although they do rank high in private giving, with 5 cents per person daily, thats still beaten by norway at 24 cents, Switzerland at 7 cents, and Ireland at 6 cents.

I would like to see some hard numbers to back up what you say sv-wolf. Although it may sounds reasonably, I'd like to have proof of exactly what you say, that way we avoid flaming and argueing. You can't argue facts after all. And please people, source your information.

[sv-wolf]

I would like to see some hard numbers to back up what you say sv-wolf. Although it may sounds reasonably, I'd like to have proof of exactly what you say, that way we avoid flaming and argueing. You can't argue facts after all. And please people, source your information.

That's asking a lot of people on a non-academic discussion forum, but I'll see what I can pulll out, Tain. I checked this up about six months ago after I heard Clare Short, an outspoken British Government Minister make this claim on a BBC news programme.

I don't believe everything I hear on the BBC (in fact, I believe very little - the BBC is the prime propaganda channel for the British establishment, not the impartial source it is touted to be) so I looked around for something to substantiate it. There are usually articles about this kind of thing in the left wing press. I found a general statement by an academic writer which corroborated this (on ZNet, I think) and some actual figures for a couple of relief programes including Iran. I might have them hanging around somewhere. I'll try to find them for you.

Unfortunately, you can argue 'facts', because one man's fact is another man's carefully constructed bit of propaganda. What we are asked to take as facts every day of our lives are usually just someone's 'authoratative statement.' Stats can be manipulated and regularly are. Information can be selective and concepts can be chosen for the purpose of misleading. I'll try to find some info, but recommend you do the same

Cheers

[9000white]

the reason the USA cant give more is because of having to support all the welfare bums and crackheads that are entitled to government assistance in our own wonderful democracy.