BF2S Forums What would the U.S. need to do to gain 'World Opinion'?

Elect Ron Paul for President

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=72978

Its actually 7,000 or so miles from Amarillo in TX to Iraq, not 10,000

As for the US, not much I can think of really, a lot of other countries make mistakes and do bad things but the only reason they're not subjected to as much criticism, is because the US is the only superpower and basically in control of all economics. Yes the US may do something wrong, but so has every other country in the world. On a side note, invading Zimbabwe could be a good one.

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2007-05-20 14:19:45)

RAIMIUS wrote:

CP, what benefit would spending billions on domestic surveillance have?...other than undermine people's rights.

I'm not promoting curtailing the rights of the individual to their privacy. I'm talking about CCTV, putting more effort into monitoring mosques and meeting places, infiltrating activist groups, etc.

I dunno. After WW2 the world was basically split into two with the soviet side and the US side (with vagabond terrorists that were on neither side). Right now US is the only empire. It's a economic empire with many satillites as there are many ppl to keep in power.

Before it was to fight communism but now it's to keep/grow personal wealth.
So basically many ppl are agaist the US in that it's like your local grassroots people that are anti-goverment that wants to keep the govt out of private lives (and out of local govt perhaps).

US is like (if not 'THE') economic govt of the world. It has military everywhere. The thing with thier democracies is that they can be bought, to an extent, some parts of ours are too.

There have been many uprising against forgeign rulers \ policies in many countries since 1948 and it is our free market  policies which they view as evil (as it takes away local decisions).

my opinion.

More consistency and restraint when it comes to invading/bombing countries.  A just intervention will have no rational critics.

As far as this country goes, if the US accepted our anti-nuclear stand and worked with it (rather than against it), anti-american sentiment here would evaporate to a shadow of its former self almost overnight and we could get back to being allies again.

CameronPoe wrote:

Ridir wrote:

So close one of our deepwater ports or just the detainment center?

Just the detainment centre. Charge those you have evidence against, free the rest.

Ok, and this is just hypothetical thing here.  We release them because we have no hard evidence and that turns around and bites us in the ass.  I mean it hasn't happened before, we just happened to have Bin Laden twice between 1992 and 2000 were we could have either easily detained or eliminated him but didn't due to lack of evidence and that didn't come back and bite us in the ass, no sir.

CameronPoe wrote:

Ridir wrote:

Withdrawing from Iraq leads to what? a larger more broad civil war that will more then likely suck in several neighboring countries? Oh and if we had just waited until Saddam had died there was the probability of this happening anyway (the Civil war, civil unrest and daily killings) seems to happen a lot after a facist leaves power, and he had two sons not one, so there would probably have been infighting there as well.

You asked what needed to be done to change opinion, I'm just giving you the newsflash. Are you suggesting remaining in Iraq forever? Because with the US there will NEVER be peace. Just consider that when you blow the overblown trumpet of 'stay the course'. As for what happens next in Iraq: that is a concern for Iraqis not us. Certainly not for a nation that lies 10,000 miles away from Iraq. Civil war is needed and must be allowed to play out naturally. The rest of the world dislikes it when a nation unnecessarily intervenes in other nations affairs. The only time that they condone it is when the mission is seen as almost totally selfless.

I wouldn't suggest staying in Iraq forever, or staying the course or any of the overblown, overused and rather stupid catch phrases out there.  We need to stay there long enough to ensure that a civil war will take place among Iraqis, not through puppets of other nation states that will then use the Iraqi land and oil fields, military (as in numbers and some of the new training and doctrines being introduced) to help destablize the global political and economic scenes.

CameronPoe wrote:

Ridir wrote:

Play fair on Israel? So because you don't like the way things are done it is unfair?  I've read most of the Israel/Palestine/insurgent group post and you support the Palestine/insurgents 100% Israel 0% because it is the way you were brought up and your beliefs are nearly set in stone.  I on the other hand support Israel most of the time but there are some things that I see that could be done better, of course that is from an outside point of view without the suicide bombings, rockets, etc flying at my head.  Just because you think it doesn't make it fair.

So supporting the idea of a two state solution is supporting Israel 0%. You might want to take a look at your fucking 'road map' to peace in the middle east. The US has vetoed practically every resolution condemning Israeli human rights abuses since the foundation of the state of Israel. A lot of time the entire world stands in unison against Israeli atrocities at the UN with one glaring exception: USA (Germany usually abstains). Remember the OP question. I'm just explaining why the US is seen as unfair in this regard and is an obstacle to peace between Israel and Palestine. You can support Israeli goals without wholeheartedly endorsing theft/human rights abuses. It is anothe double standard that irks people in 'the outside world'.

You know they've tried this two state thing before and it fails because some radical gets it in his head to go blow up someone, himself or others, and it gives Israel the right and excuse to defend herself.  While the veto in the UN is an absurbed measure there would also be a lot of anti-jewish UN resolutions passed that were bought through oil and trade agreements.

CameronPoe wrote:

Ridir wrote:

Encouraging democracy is a lie in any way shape and form, we're a republic.  Besides the misnaming issue there is the issue of each case is unique and different.  If you expect everything to fall into neat little cookie cutter situations and one "fair & balanced" consistent way would work everytime then you are more niave then you first appeared.

Again - this is a major reason why 'world opinion' is currently anti-US. You spew lies at your press conferences and carry out hypocritical acts and expect people to be like 'Yeah! Go USA!'. France, the UK and Russia are just as big culprits but the US seems to have its grubby hands in more jars than the rest of them combined. People in the outside worlds generally assume the worst about true US intentions on the world stage from the mistrust built up from a) intransigent support for everything Israel does, b) pettiness with Cuba, c) undermining and subverting democracy throughout Latin America, d) turning a blind eye to the human rights abuses of stategic allies (e.g. Saudi Arabia), e) harping on about the Geneva Convention and then publishing photos of inmates at the draconian Gitmo detention centre. I think the duplicitness of recent US administrations have been exposed for all to see and people are now tired of it.

Sorry but the US happens to be on top at the moment, we see ourselves declining in the face of China's rise, but we are currently on top and have the ability to dictate some of the action.  I never expect people to be all pro USA, there are things in my country I would love to change, but what I can't stand is when socialist want to harp all over the United States again and again because of political viewpoint differences. 

The pettiness with Cuba is a relic of the Cold War and I have addressed it farther in the post. "Intransigent" support for our allies happens to be a key thing for us.  UK, Israel, and others. Oh and we have stopped the shipments of weapons to them on several occassions due to their actions.  And what would you have done with Latin America?  Let the drug lords take over or let them default on the loans that the US has given hand over fist to the region?  And don't try and act like the EU hasn't turned a blind eye to humans rights abuses across the globe, they've even made it a point to never say the world genocide in the UN.  The United States Military doesn't, as far as I know, take those pictures.  The AP does, its not controled by the government, you know we're not socialist, communist or facist so we don't dictate the media over here.

CameronPoe wrote:

Ridir wrote:

For us to stop undermining democratically elected governments... well how about let's play fair.  They don't undermine what we try and do and we don't undermine them.  Oh and rigged elections don't count as democratically elected governments either.

Did your goverment tell you such and such election was rigged? All about who you believe. Shouldn't be any of your business anyway - it should be a matter for those in the country in question alone. And who the fuck is undermining the US government?

No the government doesn't tell me if an election is rigged, you just hear of people disappearing, threats against opponents' supporters, etc. and magically the encumbant is still in power.  And having people fall under a dictator's rule shouldn't be someone's business? Then who's should it be? The people that are kept under by restrictive laws in that country were its probably, but this is just a guess, that it is illegal to plan a coup attempt.  So say Canada gets a rigged election, pretty obvious stuff like people turned away from the polls, media is censored, etc. and the canidate that the majority are speaking out against wins, oh and just for fun factor, the canidate is anti-US.  Does the US have to sit there and watch?  I don't think thats going to happen, sorta like why we don't like Cuba.  90 miles to our south and they have repeatedly said they don't like the US or the style of Government.

CameronPoe wrote:

Ridir wrote:

What do you want? Non-military action with kisses, hugs, and a few million dollars for a relief fund through the U.N. Of course it just would not end up like the food donations from the U.N., you know hijacked by the "freedom fighters" of the region and used for their ends not what the United Nations has in mind such as the poor starving people. 
Yea, sure, Iraq had a bad case.  Only evidence and testimonials from the previous adminstration (both Al Gore and Bill Clinton were caught on camera saying that Iraq had and would continue to research, develop, and maintain weapons of mass destruction).  The war against Iraq was an excellent example of military might.  The conflict sense then has been dragged on by outside forces such as terrorist organizations and other nations (Syria and Iran to name two) training and shipping in fighters.  Of all of the terrorist acts last year I believe 47% were in Iraq (according to either MSN or TIME magazine).  These aren't just going to stop if the US leaves, they will continue until either a new fasict regime is in place or Iraq becomes a puppet government for Iran, or part of Iran; much more likely a puppet government for a time until the hate between smoldering factions dies down due to propoganda.

I've posted my tactics several times. Typical pro-war response: 'action with kisses, hugs, and a few million dollars for a relief fund'. This is getting really old.

I've rarely seen anything work that doesn't have a hand of strength behind it, espically when dealing with radicals, freedom fighters, terrorist, or fasicts.

CameronPoe wrote:

1. Seal western borders watertight. Spend billions on border security, airport security, international rail-link security and seaport security. Employ Israeli standards of airport/seaport/border security (I've been subjected to it myself and can declare without reservation that it IS the best in the world) - they live in the midst millions of people who hate their guts and these days suicide bombings, etc. are very very few and far between.

Yes, and Israel's borders are how long?  The United States' borders are how long? Oh and then be accussed of profiling, racism, and a billion other things because of closing them so tight, the government gets sued and world opinion drops.

CameronPoe wrote:

2. Spend billions on domestic and international intelligence gathering and domestic policing/surveillance (within reasonable boundaries).

Yes, and this would put an internationally unacceptable amounts of agents and satelittes around and above the world.  Spying is illegal even during a time of peace.  And truthfully most of the United States citizens would rather have a little insecurity then big brother watching over them.

CameronPoe wrote:

3. Never cede the moral high ground or abandon your principles. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay are draconian and unjust stains on the free world and they do not promote trust or goodwill.

Ok, not to try and pick a bad example but here is one.  Microsoft refused to have lobbist in Washington, D.C. because they felt like it was something they were above.  Then they were sued for being a monopoly and split up, or there was an attempt, not really sure how the outcome came out.  In the end they now have to play dirty and employ at least 40-50 lobbist at all times.

CameronPoe wrote:

4. Face up to the fact that the west overlooks Israeli human rights violations and contravention of international law and address these issues. Boycott Israel and let them fend for themselves.

Extreme situtations require different measures.  They face countless suicide bombing attempts and terrorist attacks.  While they do inprison a lot of people, I blieve the current number is over 9000, they also have had a relatively large drop in suicide bombers lately, even you have mentioned it.

CameronPoe wrote:

5. End economic imperialism and underhanded and opportunistic foreign policy. Adopt isolationism.

And that ladies and gentlemen is the entire D&ST CameronPoe point.  He doesn't like that the United States is on top and wants us to go home and leave our ball with him so he can play. 
Every dog has its turn, right now the US has its and has had it for a while.  When the EU made a run on the dollar a year or two back that was trying to become the forerunner at a weak time for the US.  It didn't work.  And isolationism won't work because that would mean the withdrawl of the United States from NATO and dozens of other treaties.  The United States can survive as an Isolated country and while for the first few years the economy would pause and likely drop a little with proper guidance could easily stablize and support itself.  Drilling Alaska would take place to great displeasure among liberals world wide.  Dozens if not more countries would collapse due to a lack of money from the US and China and the rest of the Far East would suddenly come to a stall, China would recover, maybe Japan, but the rest would fall under the sway of one of those two.  What you ask would lead to more instability and turbulance in the world, not more peace for Europe.  Sure it would finally give European countries a chance to expand their markets, and they would a little, but China being the power it is becoming would use the sudden vaccums and its massive work force to push the EU out and place itself at the top of the ladder.

CameronPoe wrote:

6. Spend billions on researching alternative fuel sources.

I do believe that our private sector is.  GE has windmills, there are turbines being on the East Coast to provide tidal power.  Along with dozens of other companies working on new solutions including ethonal fuels (which would drive up the cost of corn world wide)

Ridir wrote:

Ok, and this is just hypothetical thing here.  We release them because we have no hard evidence and that turns around and bites us in the ass.  I mean it hasn't happened before, we just happened to have Bin Laden twice between 1992 and 2000 were we could have either easily detained or eliminated him but didn't due to lack of evidence and that didn't come back and bite us in the ass, no sir.

If you efficiently searched people boarding planes to the US/within the US for box-cutters then you wouldn't need to care what happens to the freed ones once you dump them back in Afghanistan. Just amke sure they never get back in again. I think you'll find Clinton fired missiles at Osama - I don't think any 'lack of evidence' gave cause for restraint.

Ridir wrote:

I wouldn't suggest staying in Iraq forever, or staying the course or any of the overblown, overused and rather stupid catch phrases out there.  We need to stay there long enough to ensure that a civil war will take place among Iraqis, not through puppets of other nation states that will then use the Iraqi land and oil fields, military (as in numbers and some of the new training and doctrines being introduced) to help destablize the global political and economic scenes.

Why are guys always so concerned about other peoples resources? That's why bottom-up global opinion has turned anti-US.  "..other nation states that will then use the Iraqi land and oil fields". The US is another 'nation state'. The hypocrisy is overwhelming. It's essentially - "It's our oil, not anyone elses". That is one of the core things acting against the US in terms of world opinion - it is seen as the most opportunistic and imperialistic power on earth at the moment: willing to ruthlessly use force to stack the cards of global  free market capitalism in their favour. It's bending the 'rules' of fairplay to well beyond breaking point. That's the difference between you and me: I idealistically would like to see a world where countries defend their own domestic economic interests without resorting to force, each fairly trading with each other as they see fit. For me military might is about DEFENCE, not about expansionism or imperialism. For most of the rest of the world that is the case also - hence global opinion currently being in anti-US mode.

Ridir wrote:

You know they've tried this two state thing before and it fails because some radical gets it in his head to go blow up someone, himself or others, and it gives Israel the right and excuse to defend herself.  While the veto in the UN is an absurbed measure there would also be a lot of anti-jewish UN resolutions passed that were bought through oil and trade agreements.

Or some radical assassinates Yitzhak Rabin. Or some radical war criminal visits the third holiest shrine in Islam. Or some radicals decide to continue building houses on land that does not belong to them under international law. Or some radicals decide to build a wall that does not belong to them under international law. Israel's right to defend itself does not extend to the wholesale slaughter of civilians and the creation of what are essentially large open air concentration camps.

PS It's anti-Israel not anti-Jewish - I struggle to think what impact any of these UN resolutions would have on a Jew living in Coney Island, NY or in Tehran, Iran.

Ridir wrote:

Sorry but the US happens to be on top at the moment, we see ourselves declining in the face of China's rise, but we are currently on top and have the ability to dictate some of the action.  I never expect people to be all pro USA, there are things in my country I would love to change, but what I can't stand is when socialist want to harp all over the United States again and again because of political viewpoint differences.

What the fuck does socialism have to do with this?

Ridir wrote:

The pettiness with Cuba is a relic of the Cold War and I have addressed it farther in the post. "Intransigent" support for our allies happens to be a key thing for us.  UK, Israel, and others. Oh and we have stopped the shipments of weapons to them on several occassions due to their actions.  And what would you have done with Latin America?  Let the drug lords take over or let them default on the loans that the US has given hand over fist to the region?  And don't try and act like the EU hasn't turned a blind eye to humans rights abuses across the globe, they've even made it a point to never say the world genocide in the UN.  The United States Military doesn't, as far as I know, take those pictures.  The AP does, its not controled by the government, you know we're not socialist, communist or facist so we don't dictate the media over here.

I think you need to read up about socialism. Europe is socialist and has 100% press freedom, exactly like the US. I wouldn't have done anything with Latin America. Why? BECAUSE IT'S NONE OF MY FUCKING BUSINESS. You see I'm an idealistic true democrat. I believe people should determine the nature of their government/nation without external interference. We in Ireland suffered at the hands of British interference for many centuries, which might explain my ardour for true and actual democracy.

Why when someone explains why the US is not well like across the globe at the moment must you try to turn this into a criticism of the EU, as if two wrongs make a right? I'm well aware of EU flaws. But we're not talking about the EU are we??? Do you think everyone in the world loves the EU? Hell no. Are you aware of the kind of atrocities the French, Brits, Belgians and Spanish are responsible for over the years?

Someone sanctioned taking those photos on MILITARY PROPERTY (generally adorned everywhere with 'No Photography' signs). Those pictures were meant to get into the public eye by the powers above to 'strike fear' or whatever into the 'enemies of the US'. It's a shame now because when footage of imprisoned Americans gets broadcast people are less sympathetic as a result.

Ridir wrote:

No the government doesn't tell me if an election is rigged, you just hear of people disappearing, threats against opponents' supporters, etc. and magically the encumbant is still in power.  And having people fall under a dictator's rule shouldn't be someone's business? Then who's should it be? The people that are kept under by restrictive laws in that country were its probably, but this is just a guess, that it is illegal to plan a coup attempt.  So say Canada gets a rigged election, pretty obvious stuff like people turned away from the polls, media is censored, etc. and the canidate that the majority are speaking out against wins, oh and just for fun factor, the canidate is anti-US.  Does the US have to sit there and watch?  I don't think thats going to happen, sorta like why we don't like Cuba.  90 miles to our south and they have repeatedly said they don't like the US or the style of Government.

It is not the business of external parties to subvert the political process in another country unless that regime is a very real, meaningful and imminent threat to the homeland. One can facilitate change by exercising your right not to trade with them or by funding NGOs in a principled and not in an underhanded manner. That is it as far as I'm concerned. It is the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY of those living under a dictatorship or rigged regime to agitate for political change. Not anyone else. Ukrainians came out in their thousands to protest rigged elections there and affected change. When the CIA plotted a coup against the democratically elected leader of Venezuela the people turned out in their millions to demand justice and duly received it. Do you think that any Latin American country can possibly trust US motives given its unbridled desire to undermine left wing regimes there - regimes chosen by the people for the people in free and open elections? It's a case of 'chicken and egg, which came first' - the anti-US rhetoric or the CIA-plotted coups/exploitation by external parties. If and when Chavez actually does away with democracy I fully expect the people of Venezuela to rise up in disgust. Interventionism generally always draw ire and suspicion - hence global opinion being now firmly anti-US.

Ridir wrote:

I've rarely seen anything work that doesn't have a hand of strength behind it, espically when dealing with radicals, freedom fighters, terrorist, or fasicts.

Northern Ireland peace process. Battle for independence in India. Egypt-Jordan-Israel peace agreement. Hand of strength works against a conventional army. Against terrorism it doesn't work and all I need do is direct you towards literature on the past 30 years in Northern Ireland to enlighten you.

Ridir wrote:

Yes, and Israel's borders are how long?  The United States' borders are how long? Oh and then be accussed of profiling, racism, and a billion other things because of closing them so tight, the government gets sued and world opinion drops.

OK then just give up on border security....

I wouldn't care about global opinion when it comes to domestic affairs - I'm an isolationist remember? The rest of the world could go fuck itself as far as I'm concerned. Most of the enlightened world believes in strong borders - something the US seems to pay a woeful lack of attention to. This is about taking the tough decisions to ensure real and meaningful security.

Ridir wrote:

Yes, and this would put an internationally unacceptable amounts of agents and satelittes around and above the world.  Spying is illegal even during a time of peace.  And truthfully most of the United States citizens would rather have a little insecurity then big brother watching over them.

Illegal? If so then I don't agree with that. The fact of the matter is that one cannot ensure security from terrorism through military might so it's up to you: infiltrate or prepare to get blown up.

Ridir wrote:

Ok, not to try and pick a bad example but here is one.  Microsoft refused to have lobbist in Washington, D.C. because they felt like it was something they were above.  Then they were sued for being a monopoly and split up, or there was an attempt, not really sure how the outcome came out.  In the end they now have to play dirty and employ at least 40-50 lobbist at all times.

I don't see the relevance of your example in the context of global opinion. If someone sees the US acting underhandedly that will shade their opinion. Simple as.

Ridir wrote:

Extreme situtations require different measures.  They face countless suicide bombing attempts and terrorist attacks.  While they do inprison a lot of people, I blieve the current number is over 9000, they also have had a relatively large drop in suicide bombers lately, even you have mentioned it.

Suicide bombings/terrorist attacks cannot be prevented by conventional military force or occupation of a foreign culture and land. When the enemy doesn't wear a uniform an army is about as much use as a used piece of toilet paper. The reason the suicide bombings have dropped to nearly nil is because they have built a ruddy great wall to hem the Palestinians in: border security. Their greatest military efforts haven't managed to dent the onslaught of mortar attacks in the least.

Ridir wrote:

And that ladies and gentlemen is the entire D&ST CameronPoe point.  He doesn't like that the United States is on top and wants us to go home and leave our ball with him so he can play. 
Every dog has its turn, right now the US has its and has had it for a while.  When the EU made a run on the dollar a year or two back that was trying to become the forerunner at a weak time for the US.  It didn't work.  And isolationism won't work because that would mean the withdrawl of the United States from NATO and dozens of other treaties.  The United States can survive as an Isolated country and while for the first few years the economy would pause and likely drop a little with proper guidance could easily stablize and support itself.  Drilling Alaska would take place to great displeasure among liberals world wide.  Dozens if not more countries would collapse due to a lack of money from the US and China and the rest of the Far East would suddenly come to a stall, China would recover, maybe Japan, but the rest would fall under the sway of one of those two.  What you ask would lead to more instability and turbulance in the world, not more peace for Europe.  Sure it would finally give European countries a chance to expand their markets, and they would a little, but China being the power it is becoming would use the sudden vaccums and its massive work force to push the EU out and place itself at the top of the ladder.

I come from Ireland. We don't have a military. We're a militarily neutral country, as defined in our constitution. We have no capacity or desire to exercise our influence on the people of another country where their will has little or no impact on us. When I was young I admired the US greatly, almost everyone I knew did. The American flag was looked on favourably and in admiration then. Many of my fellow countrymen emigrated there and even joined the US navy.

Something changed somewhere along the line though. On September 11th 2001 the US suffered an horrific tragedy and the whole world came together in sympathy. But strangely the following years exposed the rest of the world to things they had long turned a blind eye to when it came to America. The Bush administration started to take actions that were not what the rest of the world would associate with 'American Values'. The American dream was shattered for many of us spectators in this whole 'war on terror' fiasco.

The difference between you and me is that I believe in principles, in maintaining the moral high ground, in minding my own business unless threatened in a real and meaningful manner and in free market capitalism played by the rules with fair trade (protectionism) not free trade.

I would prefer not to see the EU exert influence outside its borders by military means under any circumstance. So to suggest that I'm 'jealous' or whatever of some 'top dog' status enjoyed by the US which is maintained through military endeavour is fatuous.

fadedsteve wrote:

Spark wrote:

Giving a tad more than 0.2% aid would be nice.

EXCUSE ME!!

Do you honestly want to go there. . . .??

The USA gives the most foreign aid than any other country in the fucking world! STFU!

It documented, its known, end the assault. . . .The USA is THE most generous country in the world PERIOD! Overly generous in my opinion!!! We go out of our way to help people, and get constantly shit on!!

Overly generous towards Israel , I'll give you that!

CameronPoe wrote:

Braddock wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

EXCUSE ME!!

Do you honestly want to go there. . . .??

The USA gives the most foreign aid than any other country in the fucking world! STFU!

It documented, its known, end the assault. . . .The USA is THE most generous country in the world PERIOD! Overly generous in my opinion!!! We go out of our way to help people, and get constantly shit on!!

Overly generous towards Israel , I'll give you that!

LOL

I couldnt agree more!!! We give them way too much funding!!!

Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-05-21 03:57:01)

Bertster7 wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

Spark wrote:

Giving a tad more than 0.2% aid would be nice.

EXCUSE ME!!

Do you honestly want to go there. . . .??

The USA gives the most foreign aid than any other country in the fucking world! STFU!

It documented, its known, end the assault. . . .The USA is THE most generous country in the world PERIOD! Overly generous in my opinion!!! We go out of our way to help people, and get constantly shit on!!

Actually, how generous a country is with aid is measured as a percentage of GDP. The US gives hardly any aid (as a pecentage of GDP) and the bulk of that goes to Israel. A really rich nation obviously gives more than a really poor nation, because they have more money to donate from. But is the country with a $10 trillion GDP, who gives $1 billion in aid, more generous than the country with a $10 billion GDP who give $250 million in aid - of course not. That's how it is with the US, they give a lot, but proportionally it's not a big deal and is certainly nothing to brag about. The US does give the most aid, that doesn't make them generous.

Measuring foreign aid in relation to GDP does not include all assistance (direct, indirect, military, multilateral) and does not measure effectiveness (Just throwing money at a problem).

The MAJORITY of the foreign aid Americans contribute abroad comes from private donations (Three times as much). It is private funds that truly make a difference in poor countries. Gauging national generosity solely by government giving is a little narrow.

ODA does not reflect the full measure of U.S. commitment, because it does not include private capital flows. The US government aid has been displaced by a rising tide of private giving with significantly lower transaction costs, more client-directed services, and more willingness to cede ownership to recipients.

I don't really know anyone who harps on in the least about US aid to other countries. The primary reason for anti-US sentiment worldwide is the 'perceived' imperialism of the US and their unwillingness to mind their own business.

The Cold War has a lot to do with it. Back then you had two superpowers fighting for global supremacy, the perceived 'good' one being the US - a kind of father figure holding back the USSR who would take over everything if left to their own devices. When the cold war ended that should have been it - happy ever after, everybody minds their own business. Unfortunatley it appears as though the 'father figure' has turned bad (in the minds of non-Americans) doing the same things and exerting the same influences over the rest of the world that the US swore to protect the 'free world' from during the Cold War: an external superpower dabbling in another nations affairs.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-21 09:51:25)

To gain popularity?

1. Remove all their retarded American Idol shows.
2. Remove the troops from Iraq.

usmarine2005 wrote:

Ryan wrote:

1. Remove all their retarded American Idol shows.

It was made by a Brit.

Make it British Idol then.