Nelson Mandela on U.S. actions...

Racist in that it involves race. Racist in that it is intended to be a hurtful statement that limits the actions of others, no. It is no more racist than saying more blacks vote Democrat.

It's the reality, Mugsy. Black Americans are VERY skeptical about the war. The numbers are huge about this, and Bush still polls extremely low in the black community. Now, I'm willing to bet you that if you polled people's responses to Mandela's statements blacks would be more likely to be in agreement with him, while the white response would be one of shock and anger.

I am surprised that you have such a simplistic notion of racism.

I guess I don't see how it's simplistic. There are many layers of racism. To me an over generalization of a particular race can be construed as hurtful or offending. For example, I am offended being lumped into a category simply because I'm white, by any person of color so, therefore doesn't that constitute racism.

Well, it's a reality whether we like it or not. We're always going to be labeled and lumped, but it does not mean that there aren't exceptions or variations to the norm.

Perhaps as a white person in America, it is hard to understand how much race can effect your life since you are considered "the norm". It's all very complicated.

You are correct that I am white and I do live in the U.S. and I guess I'm considered the "norm", although, if you ask my students they would disagree with that statement.;) That doesn't mean that I can't be empathetic to other cultures. I guess I don't see that me fitting into the "norm" doesn't allow a person of color to be a racist, but, like you said, it is a complicated subject. I also will not feel guilty because I am white and live in America. Both of which I don't have a lot of control over (being that I don't even have a passport because I don't like to fly! lol).

You don't have to feel guilty about who you are. No one chooses which body they get. But I think what people of color would like is for you to realise that because you are white you have an automatic advantage in some cases. That the world is not a level playing field, and some are forced to work harder just because of their race/ethnicity/gender/disability. That's all. Not that you should mourn your colouring and correct all the suffering in the world.

PB, I agree that many people will turn this into a religious thing. However, that being said, I don't think that the intent is a war against ALL Muslims. I will say though, that it was RADICAL Muslims that caused this whole war anyway. Unfortunately, many people associate Muslims with those radicals. It's like the Catholics in Northern Ireland. Most people identify them only by the IRA. While I do not hold a lot of the beliefs of Islam, I respect anyone's right to belong to that religion. My problem has always been the radicals on any side, mostly because they are unwilling to even attempt to understand people who do not hold the same beliefs.

PB: You bring up a very interesting point about the terrorists being labled as Islamic. I beleive that for almost all religions that no one so deeply committed to their religion would ever justify killing innocents. As far as the war on terrorism, you bring up a good point about North Korea. I to have questioned why their threats have not been given more consideration. Personally, I think that part of it has to do with oil and it being personal because of Bush's father and what happenned about a decade ago than I would ever think that it has something to do with religion and the war being against Muslims.

Quote:

---

No one ever called followers of Hitler "Christian" terrorists

---

I don't believe any followers of Hitler were Christian....in fact I think he even persecuted Catholics. But, history was never my best subject and my memory is a little foggy.

Like I said before, Mike's area of expertise was Iraq and North Korea and he said we need to be much more worried about Iraq, but that's all he's allowed to say.

Nazism was affiliated with Christianity, but of the Protestant persuasion, which is why they killed Catholics.

I do find "War on Terrorism" to be a bit of a joke. I don't see us sending money to Ireland to fight terrorism or to any other non-Muslim terrorist ridden country. How do you define a terrorist? It's like they say, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Can we ask ourselves why we continue to arm terrorists in other countries such as Latin America. Who are we to fight a global war on terrorism, alone, with little or no support world wide?

And let me ask this again. If we're fighting the war on terrorism why are we not still after Al Qaeda?? What happened to that? There has been no links between the two and the public's short attention span has ever so fluidly gone just the way the administration had hoped it would.

I have no trust in this administration, and I certainly don't believe that most intelligence communities have a reason to trust that they're getting information that hasn't been tampered with.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mugsy
You really needn't bother, I don't really care, but if you want to go ahead. Your opinion means as much to me as mine does to you.

---

I'm sorry to hear that. Your opinion actually does matter to me, as does everyone elses. I'm sorry to see mine means so little to you, and hence I won't bother you with the rest of my comments.

Chinadoll: I'm well aware of that. But I don't think the actual amount really shows anything. See, to a poor country one dollar might mean the same as hundred dollars in the USA. That is why I feel the stats I used are more meaningful then just looking at it shallowly. Know what I mean?

Paul, Mugsy & Chinadoll: Like Soledad said, I differentiate between the government and personal donaters. It's not as if I sat there and calculated how much both the government and personal donates gave in Denmark but only counted the government in the USA. Personal donaters hold no meaning really nor was it relevant to my point. I was talking about the government, not the civilians. I also never said that Americans don't care; I said that the government give the least out of any industialized country in the world. That is all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul
There are racists who will not employ some people based on skin color alone. This proves that Bush is not one of them without a doubt.

---

Somehow I find it hard to belive that Bush would have the time (between his wars and golfing and all) to personally sit there and employ people. Besides, I don't really think that proves anything even if he had. He knows the whole world is watching his actions so of course he'll do his best to be careful. Just take what he said to the Swedish prime minister when he thought the cameras were off for example :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

by Ann:
Chinadoll: I'm well aware of that. But I don't think the actual amount really shows anything. See, to a poor country one dollar might mean the same as hundred dollars in the USA. That is why I feel the stats I used are more meaningful then just looking at it shallowly. Know what I mean?

---

Maybe I'm just half asleep this Monday morning, but I'm still not following. If one of our US dollars might mean the same as 100 dollars to a poor country then doesn't the fact that the US donated more $$ than any other country even if it is just an extremly small percentage of our GNP mean something? Or are you trying to say that if the US would have donated at least the UN's goal of .7% of a country's GNP that more of a difference to poorer countries could have been made?

Your original quote: "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! " While yes, our aid is the lowest in relation to our GNP...how can we be, as you say, "masquerading as a helpful country" when in terms of raw dollars the US gave the most?

Maybe this is one of those times to agree to disagree. I guess I'm just not getting where you're coming from. :)

I guess at this point, even though I dislike Bush intensely, I am going to have to discount what some people are saying simply because it has become ever so abundantly clear that whatever the man does is deemed awful or evil simply because it's George W. Bush. While I don't like most of his policies, I do not make a blanket judgement based on who the person is.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chinadoll
Maybe I'm just half asleep this Monday morning, but I'm still not following. If one of our US dollars might mean the same as 100 dollars to a poor country then doesn't the fact that the US donated more $$ than any other country even if it is just an extremly small percentage of our GNP mean something? Or are you trying to say that if the US would have donated at least the UN's goal of .7% of a country's GNP that more of a difference to poorer countries could have been made?

Your original quote: "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! " While yes, our aid is the lowest in relation to our GNP...how can we be, as you say, "masquerading as a helpful country" when in terms of raw dollars the US gave the most?

Maybe this is one of those times to agree to disagree. I guess I'm just not getting where you're coming from. :)

---

Hmm... How can I explain this...

Ok, let's take this example. Some organization is going around knocking on doors to collect money for their cause. They knock on the door to a poor family and the family makes a donation of 10 dollars. Then the organization goes to a rich family's door and get a donation of 100 dollars. But, the 10 dollars from the poor family was worth more to them than the rich family who had tons of money. Now, replace "rich family" with the USA and "poor family" by the other countries and you hopefully will understand what I mean. If not, I'll try to explain again :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mugsy
I guess at this point, even though I dislike Bush intensely, I am going to have to discount what some people are saying simply because it has become ever so abundantly clear that whatever the man does is deemed awful or evil simply because it's George W. Bush. While I don't like most of his policies, I do not make a blanket judgement based on who the person is.

---

When he does something that deserves recognition, respect and thanks; I will be one of the first people to acknowledge it. But until then I will not sugar-coat anything.

Yes, we all know how very separate intelligence communities are from the government. Like how Bush Sr. was the head of the CIA. Nope, no connection at all.

As for Bush-hating, I must say he seems like a nice guy, but he's an awful politician. I disagree with almost everything he stands for and can't help but see him as a privileged rich boy with little understanding of others' lives. But I had my problems with Clinton as well. So, I don't really see myself as having some sort of blind hatred of the man. He's a politician, and I'm a voter, so I'm allowed to criticize and voice my dislike of his policies.

Paul, Mugsy & Chinadoll: Like Soledad said, I differentiate between the government and personal donaters. It's not as if I sat there and calculated how much both the government and personal donates gave in Denmark but only counted the government in the USA. Personal donaters hold no meaning really nor was it relevant to my point. I was talking about the government, not the civilians. I also never said that Americans don't care; I said that the government give the least out of any industialized country in the world. That is all.

   Ann, I do not think it is right to differentiate between the government and its people when you say we are "masquerading as a helpful country." Even so, why do think the US Government has given less in foreign aid even on a per capita of GDP basis? You said it is a proven fact but the ODA numbers do not show this. What is the total amount of US Government aid to the world? Not just the UN's ODA fund, not just to grand total given to all UN funds, but the actual total.

   You say "Personal donaters hold no meaning." How much money is given in private donations from the US?

      Paul