Nelson Mandela on U.S. actions...

[Chinadoll]

Originally posted by Ann
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

ok, so what you're saying is that other countries donations mean more because they donate more of their GNP than the US. Because of this you feel that the US masquerades as a helping country...by donating $$, but not a significant amount of its $$. Correct?

[Paul]

   popcornbird, I believe America really does care. Could it do more of course. I think almost everyone around the world could and should do more.

   If my brother contracted ebola I would go to him even if he was halfway around the world even if he already had the best medical care in the world and all I could do was to be with him as he died and even though it is a contagious disease because I care about him. Somewhere there is an actual person dieing in my home town and another person somewhere halfway around the world. I still say I care about them even though I do not go to them.

   From what I have read about giving aid it is very difficult to do. Even under the best of circumstances just bringing food to famine stricken people is surprisingly difficult to do. I do not think America or anyone else has the knowledge nor the money to keep most people from going hungry. What would you suggest we do to prevent most people from going hungry?

      Paul

[Paul]

   I think if everyone in America joined in the ancient and continuing practice of living in poverty to serve others billions would still go hungry.

   Members of my family and most of my teachers took a vow of poverty to be able to best serve their God and therefore others. I admire their dedication and example. I did not take such a vow. From time to time when I buy something, anything, I think of the vast difference between my life and theirs. I have donated some of my money. I have donated my time to others. I have visited the sick in hospitals and institutions. But my contributions pale in comparison. Does anyone else here own two shirts when there are many with none?

   I think the first place we should look for donations is with ourselves. We need not only to lament what is wrong but to also do something positive. What can we do to help others?

   FYI, I do not assume you who are reading this have not taken a vow of poverty. From time to time I receive emails from those who have and enjoy Pet of the Day.

      Paul

[Paul]

   I have forgotten many, my pet memory is not as good as Karen's, but I remember Molly.

      Paul

[Paul]

   I don't understand. If you wish my real opinion the answer is I do not know. I do not know why you asked the question.

   From what I remember, many Afghans did actually eat the food we gave them while we were at war.

      Paul

[Soledad]

Yes, Paul, I am confused as well.

[RICHARD]

i have not seen anyone comment on his part of the process,
so at the risk of talking out of my hat......

most foreign aid goes to a country to the person/people in charge, governments cannot be trusted to funnel that
aid to the people of the country. Time and time again we have seen morons in a position of power taking a huge chunk of money
earmarked for the poor in that country...

he can critcize the united states all he wants, he does have some
right to speak on anything he likes but it comes down to a basic
sense of jealousy for the world's superpower, us.

we throw away billions of dollars each year to help countries that ask or are offered help and we get it tossed back in our face-sooner or later the ante goes up and everyone wants more.

soon after the miners were taken out of the ground in Pennsylvania i read of an accident in a south african diamond mine where a whole slew of workers were killed. the paper noted that a mine official stated that people were killed in the accident.

that was it.....

how many days did we work on getting 7 people out of the ground?

by the same token how many days did we work on getting 7 people to go around the world in a shuttle?

different endings- but the drive and determination surely separate
us from everyone else on the planet.

we are a strange country, and we like to challenge ourselves
to do the things that are hard...and because we try the hard things we often stumble in the proccess..and when we stumble
we brush off our knees and keep on going. the whole world
sees us stumble, they laugh and point fingers.....

for once i'd like to see some little pissant country try some of the things that we have tried, succeed with them and keep on doing them......

everyone want the big kid on the block to be on their side
when the fight starts.....but they need to remember that
if you want to get along with that same big kid, behave yourself,
play nice and don't be stupid when it comes down to it.

big kids usually are the ones who do the ass kicking.

one last word on people commenting on the u.s. and what a bunch of punks we are.....an "i-wacky" official threatens us with
'thousands' of homicide bombers and an "i-wacky" car mechanic
says the Columbia disaster is 'god punishing' the u.s.

the media does a good job of making us feel like bullies, well, go
talk to a relative of a WTC victim and the thousands of Homicide bombers turn into thousands of GBU's dropped on Iraq, talk to the mechanic in smalltown, USA and he'll tell you that the
impending war is god punishing saddam for being a knucklehead.

it's all a matter of perspective.

sometimes kicking ass and taking names is the only option.

and, god forbid, should a terrorist ever think about pulling another 9/11 on us I hope that the people who are against the
effort to make the world safer take a real long look an the end result of that attack. sure, a war may just increase the possibility of more terrorist shenanigans but ask khadaffi, noriega, saddam, and osama what happens when you jerk the big guys chain.

if you oppose a war in the gulf then you should have no problem
picking up the cost of bio/chem/nuke attack on the United States.
After all, the money we save on bombs should just about cover the cost of burying thousands of smallpox victims, clearing debris
around a suicide bomber or building a fence around an area where a dirty nuke has been set off.

[Soledad]

Since you clearly know so much, please let me know, what does Iraq have to do with 9-11?

[mugsy]

Soledad, there has been a lot of speculation that Saddam was part of the supply of money and goods for the 9/11 murderers and that he funneled through sources in Saudi Ararbia with Al Quaida connections.

[mugsy]

Gee Richard....how un-PC of you! But, put very succinctly. You sound like you've been listening to our buddy Toby Keith! I REALLY love that song! hehehe

[Soledad]

Yes, and Tobey Keith is a real wizard. It might feel good and "un-p.c.", but how much thought went into this? I feel sorry for anyone who looks to Tobey Keith for policy advice.

And speculation is not enough to launch a war against a leader when a ringleader of a terrorist organisation runs free. Sorry. You have to have something called proof.

You can go on with your blind American pride and put up a defence so large that you can't see reason, but it's going to hit us in the face one of these days. I just hope not too much blood has to be shed.

The rest of the world doesn't hate us cause we drive nice cars and have fast food, they hate us because our government goes into countries, removes leaders and establishes new regimes without so much a mention in the US daily papers.

[jackiesdaisy1935]

Thank You Richard for your comments from a fellow Californian, I completely agree with you.
jackiesdaisy1935

[Ann]

Originally posted by popcornbird
I think she means that other poorer countries donated what was an awful lot of money for them, while the US, being such a rich country, donated a very small amount of money compared to their wealth.

Thank you! I'm glad someone finally understood (or accepted) what I meant.

I think I'm going to drop this whole donation thing now. It's taken out of context and twisted so I really don't see the point.

Originally posted by RICHARD
he can critcize the united states all he wants, he does have some right to speak on anything he likes but it comes down to a basic sense of jealousy for the world's superpower, us.

Are you talking about me? If you are; I'm a she.

And trust me, I am not jealous of the USA. I lived close to Los Angeles for almost two years, and the things I saw and experienced are not worthy of envy. Homeless people on the streets sleeping under cardboard boxes or begging, always having to lock the doors when driving through gand neighborhoods and fearing getting shot... I really could go on forever but it's too depressing. I do not envy the USA. Instead of being in a patriotic fever and thinking that everyone who dislikes your country only does so out of envy, you should just open your eyes and ears.

And Richard, how come I can't critize your country without getting a lot of anger in return, but you can sit there and every other country in the world "little pissants"?! Seriously...

I am guessing that all your comments about "kicking ass" and so on does come from that song by Toby Keith? I remember when I read about that song online. When I read the lyrics I just wanted to puke. That sickened me just as much as knowing the rubble from September 11 were to be used for a warship.

Originally posted by mugsy
there has been a lot of speculation that Saddam was part of the supply of money and goods for the 9/11 murderers and that he funneled through sources in Saudi Ararbia with Al Quaida connections.

I too would love to see some proof, for once.

Also, instead of thinking Saddam Hussein was funding Bin Laden, take a look at reality (and yes, it's been proved): During the Afghan war, CIA funded and trained several "freedom fighters", including Bin Laden. USA's government gave over 6 billion dollars (and this was back in the 1980's) to pay for their training, weapons and so on. To quote an article I once read about this: "Who is the greater terrorist? The person who pulls the trigger? Or the superpower that recruits him, pays him, trains him, arms him to the teeth and builds him the finest state-of-the-art training camp with room for 'terrorists from all over the world?'"

[Nomilynn]

Actually I think the "he" Richard was talking about was Mandella - that's how I read it anyway.

[joycenalex]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by popcornbird
[B]Well said Ann. I totally agree on what you said about the CIA training the Taliban. That has been proved long time ago. Does anyone know exactly WHY they trained them???

Why didn't anyone answer my question? I believe its because no one has an answer.

dear ann, i wasn't on list last night, pardon my delay in responding to your question. this is a very short reply. the answer lies in cold war politics and proxy fights. in many regions of the world, the USSR and US (and to a small extent China and Cuba) were supporting opposing groups in an effort to gain friendly nations and tie up troops,so that there were fewer troops able to be stationed on the european mainland. if troops could be tied up in long, financially and materially draining wars outside of europe, there were less available be stationed on the european mainland directly threating europe &NATO . the soviet union had invaded afghanistan in the very late 1970s.(remember carter declining the invitation for american athletes to go to moscow for their olympics as a measure of public censure for the afghan invasion?)in a much greater level, the reagan administration supplied the afghan freedom fighters, mujahadeen(maybe misspelled) to keep the soviet troops tied up in a long bloody draining war. it worked quite well as a proxy fight; the afghan soldier is a fierce, hard dangerous fighter, and the soviets weren't able to subdue that country sufficiently to impose control. when the soviets finally left, after heavily land mining the country, the power vacuum allowed the deeply traditional conservative islamic taliban to gain control in the early 1990s, and establish their domain. ben lauden provided a great deal of currency to the taliban and was able to 'rent' (my word) that country for training camps for his plans.
i hope this helps, joyce