I love this idea. Why not have other countries follow us with economic help? The U.S. should not have to foot the bill for EVERYTHING that happens in the world. Each of us in this world should contribute to the greater good of mankind. And the president has taken the first step towards it.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/21/bush.address/index.html

Agreed. Let the Europeans, and everyone else come out of their pockets to fund the rehabilitation of the planet's ills.

"The greater good of mankind" means different things for different countries. Canada has made massive contributions to the world, and continues to do so (look at Peace Keeping for example. This comes at a cost of billions), but it's easy to say "You should be doing this, and this, and this, and you should do it this way, with these people... and if you don't, you're not helping.". It's easy to overlook contributions that countries have made and continue to make to the betterment of the world if they don't fit into the specific plan of the person or country.

I know I can often look at the US and be really angry at how it's being run, what's being supported and pressed forward as right. But I also really have to force myself to look at the good things that the US has done, and recognize those efforts.

I think it's awesome that Bush is trying to promote the idea that (in this case) no country's an island. But I also really question his motives (he has an interesting way of disguising ulterior desires). Yes, we need to help each other out, that's granted. I'm just afraid that those who aren't helping the way Bush might want are viewed as not helping at all. Aid doesn't just come in one form.

::coughs on drink::
HOLY SHIT! An intelligent person has walked through the door!

On the topic: No comment. :D

Welcome, Age. Good points.

Just because U.S. picks out some cause to invest its resources in does not make other countries obligated to contribute. That's a one-sided perspective you're presenting. Personally, I wouldn't want to see my country trying to get involved in the African AIDS mess either....not until we've found a cure or vaccine at least. But by providing modern medication we're only prolonging the lives of infected individuals....basically, we're going to aid (no pun intended) the spread of the disease.

I believe the other countries should start helping also. If the countrys that are doing well help the ones that aren't we would probably stop alot of terrorism. One reason there are terrorist is because of jealousy. Take Osamah he knows damn well he could practice his religion without any trouble from the U.S., but the bottom line is that he sees us as having a good life so he figures if he is miserable then everyone else should be also.

Age you bring up a good point "aid comes in different packages", but I think one of the biggest packages would be hunger and medical. If we could help these poor countrys get some type of medical, and food program going that would be a step in the right direction, but once again is it the responsibilty of the U.S. or is it the responsiblity of everyone? And when does the poor country start helping itself? Alot of these countrys are poor because they won't help themselfs. Take Etheopia(sp) they can see there children dying and sick because of food, etc... so what do they do,... have more children.

Originally posted by Leper
Just because U.S. picks out some cause to invest its resources in does not make other countries obligated to contribute. That's a one-sided perspective you're presenting. SOME cause Leper? How about all causes. Why not expect monetary support from these other countries that "participate" in relief efforts? Why are we always expected to pay the bills? Just because we can is not a good answer. What happens when one day we cannot? Do you think there is another country in the entire world who would do so if they were able to?

But you also have to realize that the US chooses to foot the bill in areas that other countries don't wish to be part of. If the US suddenly decides it's going to start supporting a cause, does that mean every other country has to foot the bill for that too? Some causes aren't globally supported, and it can't be assumed that just because the US supports it, the rest of the world will as well.

The US pays huge sums of money in the support of other countries. But in matters such as aids, hunger, education, there isn't one way, just like there isn't one charity for children with leukemia (just an example).

Another example: Canada, every year, sends hundreds (if not thousands) of students across the world to aid where they can. I was scheduled to move to Zimbabwe in my grade 12 year of school, to work in a hospital and school for poor families. I personally think hard human effort is worth as much as donating a certain amount of money. There's only so much raw cash can do.

Other countries ARE matching the US's contribution, they might just not be pooling it the same way, or supporting the same causes. Where one country sends aid in the form of able human bodies, another country sends aid in the form of raw funds. Both are valuble, but if looked at from only one standpoint, neither sees the other as doing anything. The country sending able bodies doesn't see the same contribution from the country sending raw funds, and vice versa.

2 more cents.

Originally posted by Age
But you also have to realize that the US chooses to foot the bill in areas that other countries don't wish to be part of. If the US suddenly decides it's going to start supporting a cause, does that mean every other country has to foot the bill for that too? Some causes aren't globally supported, and it can't be assumed that just because the US supports it, the rest of the world will as well.

The US pays huge sums of money in the support of other countries. But in matters such as aids, hunger, education, there isn't one way, just like there isn't one charity for children with leukemia (just an example).

Another example: Canada, every year, sends hundreds (if not thousands) of students across the world to aid where they can. I was scheduled to move to Zimbabwe in my grade 12 year of school, to work in a hospital and school for poor families. I personally think hard human effort is worth as much as donating a certain amount of money. There's only so much raw cash can do.

Other countries ARE matching the US's contribution, they might just not be pooling it the same way, or supporting the same causes. Where one country sends aid in the form of able human bodies, another country sends aid in the form of raw funds. Both are valuble, but if looked at from only one standpoint, neither sees the other as doing anything. The country sending able bodies doesn't see the same contribution from the country sending raw funds, and vice versa.

2 more cents. You could send everyone in Canada, but without the money to buy material for building, food, medicine,etc. what good would all these people be? None.

Originally posted by HaVoK
You could send everyone in Canada, but without the money to buy material for building, food, medicine,etc. what good would all these people be? None.
And vice versa, you could send all of the US treasury, and without able bodies to put it to use, it'd be useless.

It's what I was saying, it comes in many forms, which is A GOOD THING.

Yes i agree that all forms of help are good things. But you have to understand that we also supply needed manpower towards these causes. I still think that other countries need to help with the financial end of this more than they are doing. That is why i posted the original link in the first place. I am not putting Canada down. Im not putting anyone down. I simply think that there should be more of a global effort financially when it comes to these causes.