Printable View
I have heard about Nelson Mandela's speech from several US sources. The only strange thing to me is not to see a full trasncript or a video online.
My random search seems to indicate the media is covering it. Although, I do think there should be more coverage.
ABC,
CBS,
CNN,
Fox,
New York Times,
UPI,
Chicago Tribune,
Washington Post,
San Francisco Chronicle,
Orlando Sentinel
Paul
Yep, all I can find is excerpts too. I just got an email from my friend who lives in Johannesburg and she said she is absolutely appalled by what he said in his speech...that coming from a woman who holds Mandela as one of her heroes. I'll see if I can't get something from her...maybe we can get a different spin.
I think it is absurd to say Americans do not care about other people. For hundreds of millions of Americans the most important thing they can do to help others is to pray for them. I imagine hundreds of millions of Americans are praying for peace.
I can not imagine how anyone could reliably calculate the amount of money Americans give.
What is the value of a human life? To determine whether a country "really" cares what kind of formula would you use? Perhaps you could quantify the number of prayers, the direct financial aid, direct food aid, direct medical aid, technological assistance, clothing, and the number of hours of donated time. But how would you value the human lives lost? Would the "care value" be different if it were a uniformed soldier guarding food in Somalia who gave his life or a missionary?
Paul
Excellent points Paul. One life does not mean more than any other. A death is a death, whether it's a soldier or a missionary, or a kid on the street corner...one is not worth more than the other...they are all tragic.
I have emailed the Sunday Times in Johannesburg about getting a transcript of his speech.
quote....8. Why was it ok to go into Bosnia and get rid of Milosovich, but not ok to go into Iraq and rid their people of a rotten, evil dictator? Perhaps because it was Clinton who went into Bosnia and it's Bush who is going into Iraq? Hmmmmm....
molly, i think this point is a bit of a stretch. there was quite a bit of opposition to any american involvement in bosnia, several current congressional leaders were not willing to support the clinton administration. sadly,many european governments then weren't willing or able to stop the carnage and genocide in southeastern europe. many of those same countries are still expressing similar hesitations again about iraqi involvement.
in bosnia, mr clinton wasn't part of the issue,his administration ignored and deferred to the europeans too long. mr. bush hasn't been able to make the iraqi issue non-personalized; his recorded statements saying that sadaam tried to kill his father were not helpful in keeping him uninvolved. his and mr cheneys' not publically presenting incontrovertable evidence much earlier has not helped this administrations efforts to build a collation, here or abroad. news media in bosnia were able to widely, graphically, and clearly make the case for american involvement by publicising the rape and death camps in bosnia.
and i AM interested in your opinion, i can and do and will learn from as many sources as i can., there is always new things to learn.
kindest regards, joyce in columbus
I found your stats interesting, so I had to take a further look into them. From what I have found, yes, in 2001 the US's aid in relation to their GNP was the lowest...But, in terms of raw US dollars(not sure how it translates into other countries) the US donated the most $$. ODA=Official Development AssistanceQuote:
Originally posted by Ann
"The USA often tries masquerading as a helpful country; always ready to aid poor and needy countries with it's wealth. However, the USA's aid (in terms of percentage to their GDP) is the lowest of any industrialized nation in the world! For example, Denmark was the country that gave the most money to poor countries in 2001. Denmark gave a whooping 1,01% of their GNP while the USA only gave 0,11%."
http://www.globalissues.org/images/NetODA2001.jpg
So yes, the US donated only .11 of their GNP lower than the UN target of .7, but that .11 was the highest in raw dollar amounts donated at 10.88 billion USD. So, shouldn't that read Denmark gave the most of its money, not the most money in 2001?
My point...none really, just had this urge to clarify the stats. I found the site interesting...of course, I'm not very good at unerstanding stats..this is just my basic grasp of it. Here's the site if you'd like to take a look.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
:)
Tiff,
Stats are able to be skewed any way way the person doing the quoting wants to skew them, so don't worry about it. I put little to no faith in statistics.
Joyce,
I respect your opinion, and I do agree that Bush made a major fubar when he made the statement that Saddam had tried to kill his father. Way too personal at that point. My point was that for most, going into Bosnia wasn't that big of a deal (although the conservatives didn't like it here in the States), but when Bush wants to go into Iraq, suddenly the liberals are all over him for it when they praised Clinton for Bosnia...I guess my point is, that it's going to be a problem for what ever side isn't in control, be it conservative or liberal. I'm just glad I'm a moderate. ;) :)
My point remains that there is far more to caring than money. It is absurd to say the US does not care.
However, from the web page you site it says: "ODA is basically aid from the governments of the wealthy nations, but doesn't include private contributions or private capital flows and investments."
So these numbers are only relevant to a discussion about ODA money. They are irrelevant to US giving in general. It's even hard to see how they would account for all US contributions to the UN. One US citizen alone, Ted Turner, pledged to give $1,000,000,000 to the UN. Why not count his private contribution? How many billions of dollars are unaccounted for?
I wonder if the US contribution to the UN is only a tiny fraction of total US giving.
Paul
Well said again Paul!! Good and valid points. Not only that how much money does it cost the U.S. to "house" the U.N? And what about the private Americans who go to other countries like China and Russia, etc to adopt their unwanted, unloved children...at their own expense, I might add. Along with untold private donations from individuals and corporations and churches etc going to aid the poor countries. What about the Americans who serve in the Peace Corps (and go to the African countries that Mandela is so close to) and live in total poverty in places unfamiliar to them? Ok...there are just a few examples of U.S. generosity. AND I'm NOT saying that other countries don't give, I'm just saying that the Americans ARE a giving and caring people.
You make a very interesting point Paul. So true. I was just trying to clarify the stats that she gave...so I only found official stats. There could be tons of money from the US as well as other countries given in aid that is unaccounted for...private contributions etc..
I think his points were aimed at the government, not individual American citizens and that has to be remembered. Most foreigners that have "anti-american" views do differentiate.
Saying that Bush isn't a racist because he hired Colin Powell is extremely flawed logic. That proves nothing.
And I found the suggestion that Mandela "played the race card" both hilarious and perplexing. Mandela "playing the race card"?
I found that perplexing too, but he did make the statement that the U.S. wasn't playing fair with the U.N. because it was run by a black man....and in my eyes that (for what it's worth) is playing the race card. And I found that extremely distressing.
I commented on the reports only to show why I believe the transcript is needed.
Colin Powell proves that George Bush is not a racist that would not put someone in a position of power based solely on his skin color. I believe that all people deserve a good measure of respect. The presumption should be that George Bush or anyone else is not a racist. Hopefully Nelson Mandela's speech gave compelling evidence to merit such an incendiary charge and was not reprehensible name calling. From George Bush's words and deeds I think it is clear he is not a racist. However, I am willing to hear the speech.
Paul
I'll let you know if either of my attempts pans out.
There is no way to find out if Bush is a racist. But one does not cease to be racist because they employ a black person. No matter what rank or position they might employ them in.