For the gulf war, military forces from 34 countries had gathered.
This war was done with the approval of more than 180 nations.

Today, after having failed to gain UN support, the USA claim they have a similar suport, with 30 countries backing them. But, in fact, only Australia and UK accepted to send troops. Even Spain refused.
The truth is, that after begging all the nations, the USA only managed to have verbal support from :

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan (post conflict), Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan.

That's all. All the other countries in the world refuse to publicly support the american in this war. And in most of these 30 countries the public opinion disagrees with the government's position, especially in UK, Australia, Spain, Netherlands and Italy.

One year and a half after 9-11, the USA have managed to ruin all sympathy and diplomatic support they could have at that time.

Let us not forget that the frog prince (jacques) has graciously offered to assist should there be a chemical attack. Isn't that just so sweet? After moaning and groaning for months about the uncivilized manners of the US, he now assumes that he can join in and attempt to save face. What balls he has!
Isn't it written somewhere in a history book that the USSR and the Italians pulled similar stunts during WWII?

Atleast America has enough balls to stand up for what is right!!!

As an Aussie I must say that I was more than impressed with the speech that Bush gave yesterday. I don't care whether he wrote it or not, the point he got across couldn't have been delivered any better. This is something that needs to be done and it is, so far, being conducted with brains and compassion. No one wants to see innocent people get hurt, the war isn't against the people of Iraq. I'm proud to be a supporter of what is right and just. Little or no bloodshed and the sooner it's over the better.

Actually, I found Bush's speech to be a poorly disguised attempt to dredge up more support for the war. Be that as it may, I still found it at least a decent speech, by Bush's standards at least. Half of it lies and the other half propoganda, however, makes it a very difficult to listen to speech.

Although the thought of war scares me, I think it has now become inevitable. I have now seen too many images of things Saddam Hussein has done (what is most burned into my mind is the image of a mother lying on the ground dead with her small child after being gassed by Hussein), I have heard upsetting reports of Iraqi people being put into shredders and acid baths (this being reported by a defecting Iraqi). I will fully support our troops and allied troops and hope after this is all over that Hussein is out of power.

Here is a summary of polls from each country showing the extent of public support and opposition for a war on Iraq. Only in Australia and America did most people say their country should support war.

FRANCE
73 percent of French people against a U.S.-led attack on Iraq.

GERMANY
69 percent of Germans wanted the country to vote against any U.N. resolution mandating war against Iraq.

SPAIN
80 percent of Spaniards opposed the U.S. stance towards war in Iraq

ITALY
72.7 percent of Italians disagree with a U.S.-led preventative war against Iraq

DENMARK
79 percent of Danes would oppose a U.S.-led war without a U.N. mandate

CZECH REPUBLIC
67 percent against a war with Iraq ; without a second U.N. resolution the percentage against the war rises to 76 percent.

HUNGARY
82 percent of Hungarians opposed military action under any circumstances.

POLAND
63 percent of Poles opposed sending troops to join any action against Iraq but 52 percent thought the country should give political backing to the United States for any such action.

PORTUGAL
No official polls were available but an informal survey by Diario Digital showed opinion running almost two to one against Portugal supporting any U.S.-led action.

CANADA
52% of Canadians do not approve war.

JAPAN
Nearly 80% of Japanese said they are opposed to a military attack by the United States on Iraq

ARGENTINE
83% against war.

RUSSIA
59 % against war

UK
"Back in November we asked which country people regarded as the greatest threat to world peace. Number one - not surprisingly perhaps - was Iraq. Second the US. Third - Israel. Now, though, Iraq has actually slipped down to third place. Second is North Korea. And the country Britons regard as the biggest threat today - the United States. On this evidence, Tony Blair is losing the Propaganda War."

Source: UK's Channel 4 News
February 11, 2003

Atleast we know who the cowards are

So what are the current statistics on what countries are for/against the war and what support will they give?

I know France and Germany are both against the war, but they are letting US use their airspace and military bases if the need arises. What other countries are willing to provide some support to US even though they are against the war?

The countries that don't approve of the US actions won't scream real loud, they still want to do business with the US. They want their chunk of the almighty dollar.

Astropol - you list all the polls in other countries - what's your point? The US doesn't run it's foreign policy based on opinion polls in other nations. Rather a lot of countries are in support about 1/4 of all the countries in the world have stated support. But even if they didn't - it wouldn't matter.

Trust me - when it's over - France will be crawling in on their bellies trying to get some crumbs & pretending they supported it all along. Ch-iraq is already trying to back away from his position.

The war would probably have been avoided if it wasn't for France - who destroyed any chance of a UN solution. Now the UN stage is over - France is back to where it belongs - ignored, irrelevant and without a voice.

My point is just to show how this war is unpopular, and that in no way Mr Powell's claim of a worldwide suppport are justified.
He knew it very well when deciding not to present any further resolution in the UN. Even with France and Russia vetoing it, if a majority of countries had voted support to the USA, it would have been a victory for Bush. Just 10 days ago, Bush was still saying he would go to the UN , to make things clearer. But the fact is that the USA and UK did not manage to convince EVEN ONE of the security council's members to change their position, in spite of the huge pressure put on them.

Forget France, an easy scapegoat for the USA's diplomatic failure.
The WHOLE WORLD refuses this war. The USA have no legitimacy to do it.

Maybe you don't give a damn about the rest of the world, but in this case why don't you just say to your boys to come back home and let the other people live in peace ?

Those folks aren't living in peace - that's common knowledge. Someone had to take the lead here, so the USA and the UK stepped up to the plate. The UN demonstrated, as usual, that it has no taste for taking the hard line.

All that France accomplished was to undermine the authority of the UN and cripple existing international law. A new world order is appearing because the US has changed it's approach post 9-11. The spectacle of the last few weeks was France giving the old system the kiss of death. If France's position had not been "veto no matter what" - then the UN vote would have been easily successful. The blame for the destruction of the UN security council lies firmly at the door of France - now France will have to live with the outcomes of it. Arrogance and lack of ability to accept change is the root cause of the French miss-calculation. If you dream for 1 second that France's position had anything to do with Iraq you are fooling yourself - it had NOTHING to do with any care or concern for Iraq. France would happily sell out the Iraqi people.

The UN security council is now a relic of the cold war era. It will be abandoned - how could it not be? it is ineffective & impotent.

How has the world reacted to the US pushing aside the UN after France's actions proving the UN's worthlessness? Markets have soared across the world, the demand for the dollar is up, oil prices went down. It's clear which country the world markets listen to.

Public opinion can change over night - one fact that will not change is the US will get stronger & "old Europe" will get weaker & more marginal for at least the next 20-30 years. France has a hard road of self reflection ahead as the realization sinks in that in the new world they have no role of much significance. This was always the case, but now the smoke and mirrors are being removed.

Negative Views of U.S. Are Increasing in Europe, Poll Finds

(The New York Times)

WASHINGTON, March 19 As the Bush administration drives toward war in Iraq (news - web sites), resentment and hostility are building toward America in general and Mr. Bush in particular, a new poll has found.

Most of America's major European allies and Russia view the United States unfavorably, and overwhelmingly disapprove of the way President Bush is handling United States foreign policy (…)

Every nation surveyed wanted to recast the partnership between the United States and Western Europe to grant Europeans more independence in determining their security and foreign policy. The poll also underscored the extent to which the few governments allied with Washington, particularly Britain and Spain, are bucking the sentiments of their own people.

Mr. Bush came in for special criticism from Europeans. Although his approval ratings have held steady at home, respondents across the Atlantic who viewed American policy negatively mostly blamed Mr. Bush, rather than a "general problem with America."

(…)
The survey demonstrated how anger and dismay toward America have intensified in recent months as the United States, seeking action against Baghdad, has clashed with members of the United Nations Security Council."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=68&ncid=716&e=16&u=/nyt/20030319/ts_nyt/negative_views_of_u_s__are_increasing_in_europe__p oll_finds

Where I am lost is why you think that public opinion in other countries is important. The US is doing this for reasons specific to the US - to imagine that public opinion would influence, or is relevant to US actions is miss-guided.

The moment Sadaam fires a chemical weapon - France, Germany, Russia will all support the US - they have all said that publicly. So, the decision whether or not to use a weapon - which could be made by a 21 year old iraqi flipping a coin on the battlefield could change the opinion of nations? It's weak.

What that statement by France, Russia and Germany means is - "given any chance we would like to back away from our position because we know it's a position leading nowhere"

Who really gives a damn what other countries think? As soon as I start electing them, then I will care what they think and allow them to make decisions on what my country will and won't do.

I don't know if you are interested in what people from other countries think.
I am aware that Bush is not, anyway. In fact I believe he is not interested in what any people think apart from his close advisers.
It is precisely that autistic american position that worries most people in the world.
This guy has the biggest army, he has shown he may declare war to any country that does not please him and he does not give a damn about UN or other countries opinion. Pretty scary.

Well said DaveTooner.

I just wonder if France were the ones to have lost thousands on 9/11 if they would be singing a diffirent toon.

Mad dog
You're absolutely right. The USA have been dramatically affected by 9-11. Too bad they came up with the wrong answer to that terrible event.

The French have no voice in how the US handles its' affairs. The French appear to believe that they can rest upon the laurels of their ancestors (like Napoleon), and that their opinons carry weight simply because of that history.

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."
--- General George S. Patton


"We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it."
---- Marge Simpson

"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is French, people."
--Conan O'Brien


"I don't know why people are surprised that France won't
help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France!"


"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag."
--David Letterman

Not much else need be said.

Too bad they came up with the wrong answer to that terrible event.

We go back & forth - but I would be interested in seeing your detailed assessment of the right answer

To address the deep causes of anti-american anger in the Arab world :
Stop supporting Israel's dead-end policy. Really address the Palestinian problem and go back immediately to negociation table with Arafat. This should have been done immediately.
Put the pressure on Russia to stop the conflict in Chechnya and respect human rights.
Fulfill your international duties: sign the Kyoto protocol, the anti-personal landmine treaty, pay your debt to international organisations such as UN ad UNESCO.

To really start working against terrorism : support a vast reform of the world financial system, including the banning of fiscal paradises (is this expression used in the USA ?) and the banning of anonymous funds transfer. This would be the most efficient step against terrorism and organised crime. Any military action is useless as long as financial impunity allows huges sums of money to finance the terrorist movements.

On the long term : invest on education and health in third world rather than on defense (I should rather write "offense"). Develop alternatives energies rather than oil.

And while you're asking me some advice for Bush, I would add : end of death penalty and a much stricter control on personal weapons. That would make you part of the civilized world again.

Oh, yes : and immediately resign.

Take a step back & listen to yourself - you employ a huge double standard. You resist the US but then request that the US does all these things. But - I will address your points

Stop supporting Israel's dead-end policy. Really address the Palestinian problem and go back immediately to negociation table with Arafat. This should have been done immediately.

I agree that the US should take a stronger role in the middle-east conflict. There is a road map & you will have noticed the appointment of a palestinian moderate prime minister. This lays the foundation. Arafat is inept - he has too much baggage and is a terrorist. Now - What is France doing to address that issue? Nothing because they have no influence on either side.

Fulfill your international duties:
The debts to the UN were paid already. The Clinton administration were not paying the bills. One of Bush's 1st actions was to pay the UN debt. Don't forget - the US pays 2/3rd of the UN costs.

support a vast reform of the world financial system
This is already happening

invest on education and health in third world rather than on defense (I should rather write "offense"). Develop alternatives energies rather than oil.
Defense is only 4% of the US GDP - not a high amount. The US is already the biggest donor to third world countries

Develop alternatives energies rather than oil.
Again this is ongoing - it's not an easy one to crack. Also - nothing is stopping France from spearheading this.

So, all in all - a laundry list of stuff that countries like France are incapable of acting on and prefer to talk about. If words were currency - France would be the richest nation on earth.

Spain's government won't been able to keep the present support for George W. Bush's plans during a lot of time. There're autonomic and local polls soon, and government's party is worried because of the protests.

Spain's position is with France long-dated. We've got more links with France than with U.S.A.

Originally posted by EDG
Spain's government won't been able to keep the present support for George W. Bush's plans during a lot of time. There're autonomic and local polls soon, and government's party is worried because of the protests.

Spain's position is with France long-dated. We've got more links with France than with U.S.A. ummmmmmmm.......okay. So what? It's not like your country is actually doing anything other than verbal support anyway.

Originally posted by DrewM
1- Don't forget - the US pays 2/3rd of the UN costs.


2- Defense is only 4% of the US GDP - not a high amount. The US is already the biggest donor to third world countries


1- Where did you get these figures ? Here are the 2002 UN budget biggest contributions (in percent) :
1) USA __22
2) Japan__ 19,669
3) Germany__ 9,845
4) France__ 6,516
5) UK__ 5,579
6) Italy__ 5,104
7) Canada__ 2,579
8) Spain__ 2,539
9) Brasil__ 2,093
10) Korea__ 1,866
11) PNetherlands__ 1,751
12) Australia__ 1,640
13) China__ 1,545

So in fact EU 's contribution is 32%, 10% more than USA.

2- Totally wrong again. EU countries are far bigger donors. Among rich countries, the USA are the smallest contributor to development, with only 0,1% of their GDP, while countries like France or UK contribute for 0,32 %.

Actually - you are mistaken (yet again). No doubt you did a quick search on google & miss-understood what you were reading.

What you quote above is UN management expenses, but doesn't include many of the UN organizations and missions or peacekeeping costs. You are referring only to the beauracracy costs of the UN.

Within the UN charter there is a cap on the % share that any 1 nation can pay for UN expenses. The max is 22% - The US is the only nation with the max assessment of 22%.

So, your calculation on % GDP is completely meaningless, you are looking at 1 part of UN related costs in area that is capped at a max of 22% for any 1 country. This is only 0.1% of US GDP because the US economy is so much bigger. No matter how big the economy - the max is 22% in terms of assessed contribution. All the other spending (the spending that actually gets to the need) is called voluntary contributions. When you roll this all up - the US share is a lot greater than 22%. So like I said - wrong again. Being constantly wrong must get boring for you?

now - try to get back to answering the questions you never answer & avoid anything involving numbers you don't understand.

fyi - Europe is not a country it is a region.

Spain's government won't been able to keep the present support for George W. Bush's plans during a lot of time. There're autonomic and local polls soon, and government's party is worried because of the protests.

EDG - welcome to allforums, it will be interesting to hear your views coming from Spain.

invest on education and health in third world rather than on defense (I should rather write "offense"). Develop alternatives energies rather than oil.

Excuse me, but shut the hell up you ignorant pinko. The US sends BILLIONS in financial aid all over the world each year. A hell of a lot more than your country's socialist ass sends. The US sends more than anybody, so just shut your yap on that one. Furthermore, defending our homeland is more important than picking up the slack from commies and tyrants who can't support their people. Get real.

The truth is, fools like you just want us to go hold hands with the terrorists and sing Kum Bah Yah. Ain't gonna happen. We'll just blow 'em to hell where they belong, thanks.

Drew
Maybe I have not been clear or maybe you have read my post too far.
0,1% of GDP is not the contribution to UN budget. It is the development aid.

So yes, you and Dave are very very wrong.

The USA are the smallest donor of development aid in OECD country in %, as this is clearly shown here.

http://www.devinit.org/wpe34.gif

In volume, the US aid represents $ 10 884 millions.
EU countries give more than $ 25 000 millions. France and Germany alone give nearly as much as the USA while their combined GPD is much smaller.

http://www.devinit.org/globalaid.htm

Anyway this contribution is very far from the target of 1% of GPD that was set by OECD a few years ago. And this is way under the amount of money third world countries pay every year for their debt - in fact the developing countries give every year more money to the rich countries than they receive from them.

Astropol - now you are changing your story. First you talk about UN budget numbers & get your story totally wrong, now you change it to something else & make false inferences. It's clear numbers are not one of your strengths.

0.11% of the US GDP is far more than 0.34% of France's GDP

2001 GDP Data
US 10,171 Billion x 0.11% = 11.18 Billion
France 1,302 Billion x 0.34% = 4.42 Billion

France and Germany alone give nearly as much as the USA
Like I said - math is not one of your strong points.

Look at Denmark - top of your list but their GDP is so tiny that it only amounts to 1/10th of the US $ amount

Countries don't care about % of GDP - they care about the amount $, The US gives more than double that of France.

Now add in peackeeping and all the other misc items.

Once again - The EU is a region, it is not a country - you can't bundle up a bunch of countries and then compare the total to the US. Also you can't cherry pick your data. You were wrong about the UN so you tried to shift to a different analysis & you're still wrong.

Now - once again I ask you to address the issues you avoid

The problem here is that one of you is focusing on percentage of contribution and the other is focusing on quantity of contribution. I see no error in anyone's math, but simply different evaluations of the data.

While I think % of GDP is a more accurate measurement of a nation's effort and determination to support a cause (as in the widow who gave her last penny to the church), I don't think the U.S. is totally unjustified in contributing a lower %.

First, the UN is an organization that is focused in Europe, despite its reputed goal of worldwide efforts. Meanwhile, the U.S. is in the Americas and, thus, does not benefit from the UN as much as France for example. This is also reflected by the lower contributions by other non-European participants (Side thought: Where's China? Do they not contribute at all?).

Second, the U.S. makes non-monetary contributions to a far greater extent than other nations. Specifically, the U.S. carries most of the military burden of the U.N. While such a burden is not reflected in the chart presented by astropol, a significant portion of our GDP is allocated to this effort.

All good points by Leper.

I was going to say what everyone else has already said, so I'll leave it at that for now. Never let it be said that the United States does not help out around the world.

I never said the USA never help out. I say that the US should have drastically changed their foreign aid policy as a lesson of 9-11.

quotes from
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/policy/foreignaid.html

"
The U.S. foreign-aid budget as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) ranks last among the world’s wealthiest countries (at about 0.1 percent). In raw dollars, however, the United States is now the world’s top donor of economic aid, although for more than a decade it was second to Japan, which is far smaller and has been beset by economic woes. In 2001, the United States gave $10.9 billion, Japan $9.7 billion, Germany $4.9 billion, the United Kingdom $4.7 billion, and France $4.3 billion. As a percentage of GNP, however, the top donors were Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Sweden. The tiny Netherlands (pop. 5.3 million) gave $3.2 billion in 2001—almost a third of what America contributed."

And about the USE of this aid, a lot could be done too. Is it to build schools ? To vaccinate kids ? To help the poorest countries ? No, it is not !

"The top recipient is Israel, which gets about $2.1 billion per year in military aid—used mostly to purchase U.S.-made weapons—and $600 million per year in economic support. The second-largest recipient, Egypt, annually gets around $1.3 billion in military aid and about $615 million for social programs. "

You keep on changing your story as an attempt to back away from your incorrect analysis. Probably you should just give up on this - first of all you say France gives almost as much as the US and then you take it back. Bottom line - the US gives more than any other country.

No matter how much the US gave - it would never be enough for people who hold your myopic views.

EXACTLY, Drew.

This may have already been stated, but you also have to keep in mind that the American dollar is worth more than most... isn't that correct? I'm not 100% sure.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US does not decide where the money goes after we give it to the UN. Our foreign aid budget is ON TOP of what we give to the UN. So basically we give more money to the UN than any other country and we spend more money on foreign aid then any other country. Now that sounds damn nice of the US to me.

Sucellus
These figures are not about the US contribution to the UN. They are the foreign bilateral aid.
The fact is that the USA foreign aid is mostly military aid, and the biggest part goes to Israel.

Drew
I never changed my story once !
I said previously that what France + Germany give is almost as much as US, which is confirmed by the last figures I posted. And I saif that the European Union gives much more, which is confirmed in the same way.
It makes much more sense to compare the USA with the EU than with single European countries since they are much similar in population and economic power.

Originally posted by HaVoK
ummmmmmmm.......okay. So what? It's not like your country is actually doing anything other than verbal support anyway.
Actually, my country's send 1100 militaries, 6 fighter-bombers (to defend Turkey) and 3 ships, to the conflict area. Spain's government affirms that Spain isn't in war with Iraq and that this troop's got a "humanitarian" mission, so they're participating in rearguard.

Spain's also letting allies use its military bases and its airspace over the bilateral military agreement between Spain and The United States. And the verbal support of Spain is important because Spain's got a vote in The Security Council of the United Nations actually.

The Government of Spain's position in this crisis has been support unconditionally The United States' war plans, even against the people's opinion, against our other allies' position and against the international law, what has caused that Spanish people's very angry with his government (I can't remember protests so intense than these).

I think my government isn't being democratic because he doesn't obey our will.

Astropol - let me remind you what you said

"France and Germany alone give nearly as much as the USA"

the key word here is ALONE - i.e "France and Germany both give as much as the USA"

Now - you are changing it to France + Germany combined.

You've taken % GDP's as examples of the US being the lowest giver - when the $ amount is the highest.

Give up ! You have no position at all - The US gives the most, a lot more than France. All you are trying to say is the US doesn't give enough by using the size of the US economy as logic that the US should give a lot more.

And like I said - no matter how much the US gave it would never be enough for you because you want the US to carry your share, lead the world in everything but when the US does you don't like it.

Drew, astrapol is probably a socialist too, so her argument would make sense. TYou know, the kind of people who think rich folks should pay 70% taxes, while lower income people pay none.

Dave - I am a man, not a woman !

Drew - Sorry for my english not being perfect. I thought that "France and Germany alone" meant "only France+Germany " (by opposition to the whole EU).

And, yes, it makes much more sense to consider one country's contribution in % than in $ when you analyze a countr'ys policy and budget. It is the only way of evaluating the country's real priorities.

It is urgent that rich countries start raising their 3rd world aid budget. While the world is looking at Bagdad, much more important issues were at stake in Kyoto during the congress about water.

http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,915139,00.html

"The World Bank predicts that by 2025, four billion people - half the world's population - will live under conditions of severe water stress. In a report published last month, the World Bank concluded: 'Tensions over water rights are increasing at the level of the village, city and basin. Some of these disputes are spilling over to international river basins.'

There is £19bn (about $30 bn) currently spent on water services in developing countries. This needs to double. International agreements to increase overseas aid to 0.39 per cent of GDP are still insufficient."

Just to put things in perspective, Bush asked for $75bn more for his war in Iraq.

Technology is constantly changing. Currently the cost to produce fresh water from either salt water or from condensation is very high. The use of condensation is not very costly in running time, but you can't produce that much water, especially in dry climates. The process of converting saltwater is energy intensive and most of these small underdeveolped areas can't produce the power to convert water by the current means.

Even now new technology is being created that will bring both power and fresh water to a lot of these poorer areas. Japanese scientists have found a way to make fresh water and energy from temperature differences in ocean water.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/international/asia/23WATE.html

Granted, this will only help areas near an ocean, but technologically its a big step. As this issue becomes a greater and greater concern more time, money, and brain power will turn towards the problem. Rather then bankrupting themselves by spending all their excess resources on underdeveloped areas, water purification companies should be spending more on research to try and find a way to purify water by less costly means. This will be better in the long run.

Dave - I am a man, not a woman !


I coulda sworn one time you told me you were a she not a he... must be getting you confused with someone else.

I disagree about the % deal. That does not necessarily indicate priorities. However, in this case I CAN guarantee that the United States's #1 priority is NOT pumping billions of dollars over to other countries. The #1 priority is the American people, as it should be.

Sucellus
Sure technology can help. But the world, for many crucial development issues, is not waiting for scientific answers since low-tech solutions are usually available and cheap. They mostly need political will - which is lacking.

Dave
Of course your govt priority must be the american people.
Let me remind you the beginning of this debate : Drew asked what I thought would have been the right answer to 9-11.
I believe that spending only 10% of what is this war is going to cost, in education, health, and economic development, in 3rd world countries, would be far more effective to fight the roots of terrorism than making a war that will only produce more anger towards USA.
This, and solving the Israeli conflict, is the only solution to put an end to terrorism.
You can defeat Saddam, arrest Ben Laden, make 10 other wars, as long as the gap between the rich countries and the poor will be so big, there will be anger and violence.

You were just speaking of clean water issues. Not general issues. There aren't any low-tech solutions that will provide clean water on the scale that you are speaking of. There are plenty of solutions for personal use that are inexpensive, but they don't carry over into low mantenance large scale models. The cost to provide one of these solutions would be astronomical. The point is that there isn't a cheap low-tech solution for water purification. Yes its a problem, but spending astronomical amounts of money on solutions that don't do that much good is a giant waste.

astrapol - So basically you just want to appease the terrorists.

Lookit - OBVIOUSLY we're doing things that the terrorists don't like. The answer is NOT to change our policies and thus change their opinions. The answer is to continue doing what we feel is right. If they want to fight over it, then we'll give 'em hell. We'll spend our money how WE feel fit. Our job is not to take care of 3rd world countries. What they get they should feel grateful for... not entitled to. That's the whole problem with this world... everyone thinks they are "entitled" to someone else's stuff.

Originally posted by Sucellus
You were just speaking of clean water issues. Not general issues. There aren't any low-tech solutions that will provide clean water on the scale that you are speaking of. There are plenty of solutions for personal use that are inexpensive, but they don't carry over into low mantenance large scale models. The cost to provide one of these solutions would be astronomical. The point is that there isn't a cheap low-tech solution for water purification. Yes its a problem, but spending astronomical amounts of money on solutions that don't do that much good is a giant waste.

You're wrong. There are plenty of low-tech solutions that provide drinking water (with a few exceptions such as desert areas). The biggest one to start with is water conservation. This can be accomplished on a very large scale basis (Particularly in the U.S., which I hope I don't need to elaborate on) and is very low-tech. Another example, a lot of third world countries are fairly inept at managing basic water functions like sewage. The fixes to this problem come in many varieties and certainly are low-tech. There's more, but I don't have time to write a well-researched discourse on this.

Water is a huge issue, virtually world wide. Water conservation is the easiest and cheapest, as well as something each & every one of us can participate in. Stop buying all that bottled water! It's more expensive than gasoline, and in a great many parts of the US, the containers aren't even recycled! Water your lawns after 8 PM and before 7 AM. It's not rocket science, simply common sense.

Another example, a lot of third world countries are fairly inept at managing basic water functions like sewage.

Thats true, and education programs need to be put in place to teach people to not contaminate their current water supplies. But this does not produce more water for them to use.

Conservation is also not an issue in this regard. Lets say that everyone in the US conservers water; what benefit is there to the underdeveloped areas? None. Excess water isnt going to be shipped overseas. How do you propose we use that extra water that is conserved in the states?

Bottle water in the states is like any other unessential good. People like it better so they are willing to pay for it. It is simple supply and demand. Have you read current statistics on how much energy it takes to produce computer equipment, but I see that we are both still using that equipment for something non-essential. People don't need gameboys and xbox's and playstations and all the other useless crap that we buy. We don't need postcards or artwork or miniture representations of the eiffel tower. All these things take energy and raw materials to produce, but there is a demand for them. People are willing to pay money for these things and companies are willing to produce them.

In any area where a raw material is abundant it will be cheap. In an area where it is not abundant it is expensive. Its as simple as that. The united states does not have a general water crisis and therefore would have very little benefit from water conservation. There are times when there are droughts, and during these times people do conserve. Its simple applied economics.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
astrapol - So basically you just want to appease the terrorists.

Lookit - OBVIOUSLY we're doing things that the terrorists don't like. The answer is NOT to change our policies and thus change their opinions.

I don't want to appease "the terrorists". I want to have the problems of this world fixed so that terrorism won't make sense anymore.
Terrorism is not born by chance. it is nor religion that creates terrorists. It is not ignorance. It is anger.
You (we) live on a small island of obscene wealth while most people in the world do not have access to basic things such as water, food, education, and most of all, justice. As long as this situation is not changed, you can spend as much money as you want on propaganda, you won't change the people's opinions.
I am not supporting this aid policy just for moral reasons. There is no other choice.

Sucellus....try telling the fine folks that live in south Texas that there' s no water problems. Talk to your own County Extension Agent and make yourself smart about the true water situation here in the US before making such ludicrous statements. Water conservation is essential.

I Said:

The united states does not have a general water crisis and therefore would have very little benefit from water conservation. There are times when there are droughts, and during these times people do conserve.

i.e. General Water Crisis

There are times when there are droughts, and during these times people do conserve.

Originally posted by astrapol2
I don't want to appease "the terrorists". I want to have the problems of this world fixed so that terrorism won't make sense anymore.
Terrorism is not born by chance. it is nor religion that creates terrorists. It is not ignorance. It is anger.
You (we) live on a small island of obscene wealth while most people in the world do not have access to basic things such as water, food, education, and most of all, justice. As long as this situation is not changed, you can spend as much money as you want on propaganda, you won't change the people's opinions.
I am not supporting this aid policy just for moral reasons. There is no other choice.

You may not want to appease terrorists, but that is what you're doing if you stop doing what makes them angry!

And in typical socialist fashion you show your hatred for people/countries with wealth. Go jump off a bridge please.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
You may not want to appease terrorists, but that is what you're doing if you stop doing what makes them angry!


Do you mean the international community should not try to improve health and education because "that would make the terrorists happy" ?
What is exactly your point ?

I'm saying that your point of "just stop making them mad" is foolhardy. It makes it sound like you side with the damn terrorists... which wouldn't surprise me a whole hell of a lot.

I don't want to appease "the terrorists". I want to have the problems of this world fixed so that terrorism won't make sense anymore.

Astropol - helping other countries in developing areas may well be a good idea - but it needs a world focus. No western country is truly a champion for that.

But, what I strongly disagree with is the false concept that by pumping money into poor nations that somehow we will find a solution to terriorism. Not only is that just fanciful thinking - it's simplistic & very dangerous. Your solutions always revolve around UTOPIA - it's a dangerous joke. It's like somebody saying "I would be a perfectly actualized happy person if only I could win the lottery"

These terrorists are intent on domination & are fed by religious fundamentalism - they are also supported by states. Spending more on poor people is absolutely not the way to address any issue with terrorism. You seem to think that the worst part of human nature responds to aid spending. Crazy.

What you describe is APPEASEMENT (and hope for the best..). It doesn't work!!! How many times does history have to repeat itself for you to figure that out. Instead you focus on "pretty thinking" and "lofty ideals".

These people want to see us dead and destroyed - The only credible action is to wipe them off the face of the earth, destroy their roots & support.

Addressing issues such as support to developing nations is a separate issue & of course deserves attention also. Nobody said that the 2 are mutually exclusive. Your logic of "if we only spent x% of the military spending on Y we'd be in better shape.." is insanity.

But when the USA pretend they are doing this war for the sake of international justice and human rights, it is time to remind people that with the amount of money spent for military bugdet, much more could be done for justice and human rights peacefully.
The UN just annouced it is trying to collect the biggest amount of money ever for humanitarian needs in Iraq : 2 billions $.
It is a huge sum of money.
Now compare it to the 73 billions asked by Bush for his war.

Originally posted by astrapol2
But when the USA pretend they are doing this war for the sake of international justice and human rights, it is time to remind people that with the amount of money spent for military bugdet, much more could be done for justice and human rights peacefully.
The UN just annouced it is trying to collect the biggest amount of money ever for humanitarian needs in Iraq : 2 billions $.
It is a huge sum of money.
Now compare it to the 73 billions asked by Bush for his war.

Ah. Finally someone recognizes my financially-based contension. That's my primary argument espousing why we shouldn't be involved in this war. If we spent an equal amount of money on non-violent means of fighting terrorism, I believe we would be more effective in our goals than trying to wage a military war.

Oh btw, I think most of us can admit that the proclaimed goal of "international justice and human rights" is mostly propaganda. I believe the primary concern of the U.S. is security.

But this is a flawed argument - everything should be judged on its own merits not in comparison to something else. By that logic you could say - the NASA budget should be spent on something else, etc etc etc.

The US military spending is at a low - 4% of GDP. In the 60's it was 4 times higher as a % of GDP

You are all left wing FOOLS. Pumping money into other nations does not remove Saddam Hussein. As Trav says, please go crawl back under your rock.

Originally posted by DrewM
But this is a flawed argument - everything should be judged on its own merits not in comparison to something else.


Everything is relative Drew. If you can't compare, then there is no way to measure, or in other words there would be no way to tell whether the operation is worthwhile.

By that logic you could say - the NASA budget should be spent on something else, etc etc etc.

I disagree, because NASA has proven its worth many times over.

Thats some ridiculous thinking you've got going on there! - You don't justify something like a war in reference to spending on something else. The 2 items are not mutually exclusive. You don't address national security to the degree by which is fits the budget or measures up to a million other things you could potentially spend the money on.

You justify a war using reasons specific to that war and thats it.

The NASA analogy is entirely appropriate & your response only further serves to prove exactly how appropriate the analogy was.

Originally posted by Leper
Ah. Finally someone recognizes my financially-based contension. That's my primary argument espousing why we shouldn't be involved in this war. If we spent an equal amount of money on non-violent means of fighting terrorism, I believe we would be more effective in our goals than trying to wage a military war.

Sorry Leper, I still think your "financially-based contension" is wrong, or to be more precise that is not always relevant (as I discussed in another thread about the value of human life).
But when it comes to the budget of a nation, yes, I think we can compare most expenses to assess priorities.
And, for Drew, yes, I think the NASA budget should go to much more important programs to make life in the USA better.

So..you don't approve of NASA either? Your blatant anti-Americanism is becomining repetively boring.

And, for Drew, yes, I think the NASA budget should go to much more important programs to make life in the USA better.

Damn. What the hell do you think NASA does? Go float around for the fun of it? No, they make life better in the USA as well as pinko socialist countries like yours, but since you hate America so bad, you will never admit to this. More technological advances have been made as a result of space exploration than you would like to admit. Not to mention the fact that they work to find cures for diseases by doing experiments that can only be performed on the space station. Geez. And, hey, I know you left wingers are so angry about the US being the biggest threat to the environment (one of the five big lies, by the way), so you will be happy to know this: NASA is exploring the possibility of setting up equipment on asteroids in order to mine for natural gas, so we wouldn't have to do it here on earth. Plus there are other similar resources that we could get from Mars as well. But, hell, we should just nix the whole space program, right? Who cares about going to Mars? You anti American pinkos are a hoot.

"I think the NASA budget should go to much more important programs to make life in the USA better."

Life in the US is made better by 1 thing - Hard Work & innovation, not by government spending. This simple fact is why the US is the strongest economy on the face of the earth. The idea of re-directing NASA spending to social spending is exactly the type of reason why "socialist" countries are so weak.

There is this insane logic that any spending if it doesn't involve handouts is somehow unjustified.

Life in the US is made better by 1 thing - Hard Work & innovation, not by government spending.

EXACTLY. Why can the left not understand this?