Thank the U.S. thread

[Soulchaser]

Ahh flame war!:Q
I think we should just focus on the subject of thanking the US for what they have done like GL originally intended.

 

[shifrbv]

Recently, the US has lost it's way in some respects. But there are other things which this article did not mention which I feel the US has helped around the world and which I am proud of.

Take the Peace Corps, for example. I don't know of any other country which encourages it's college graduates to travel to underdeveloped countries helping their communities to build schools, teach, and set up modern infrastructure.

In addition, although this doesn't fall under the US government and everyone may not agree with me, there are many, many religous organizations in the US that have gone out around the world to help in various ways. Such as in disaster situations which no governments were touching like providing help to survivors of the genocide in Rwanda. While US missionaries have sometimes just tried to "preach" around the world, some have gone on to do much more helping communities by providing schools and health services to people in need. This is another thing I am proud of the US for. Not many other countries have as many people who are as religous as in the US and take it upon themselves to do something to help alleviate others suffering instead of relying upon the government.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

<< The only reason the French came to our aid was so they could help stop the English from becoming too powerful for them. >>



The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

[Linflas]

I cannot let this little comment from kuk pass uncommented upon:

Below quoted from the original Canadian piece:
<< Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts.
The Marshall Plan .. the Truman Policy .. all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now, newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent war-mongering Americans. >>

To which kuk responded:


<< Yes, after millions of deaths and 2 nuclear bombs ... the irony .... >>


Have you ever cracked a history text? The United States along with Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and The Soviet Union all gave many lives to the liberation of Europe in a war begun by Europeans against other Europeans. The sad fact is that the US entered this war late and only after a direct assault from another Axis power, Japan, due to the isolationist sentiments that were popular in the US at that time. Also note that Germany declared war on the US, not vice versa after Pearl Harbor. Name me any other nation that assisted in the rebuilding of a former foes country the way the US did with Germany and Japan after WWII was over. As for the nuclear bombs that was a military decision made in 1945 which you may happen to disagree with from the comfort of 56 years distance. Where is the irony in any of this?

 

[Amused]

<< Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts.
The Marshall Plan .. the Truman Policy .. all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now, newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent war-mongering Americans. >>


<<Yes, after millions of deaths and 2 nuclear bombs ... the irony ....>>

Oh yes, the irony that THEY were the aggressors. The irony that THEY perpetrated the Holocaust, Death March of Batan, the senseless murder of POWs and countless other atrocities.

Oh, and the irony that the simple act of using the atom bomb SAVED over 2 million Japanese lives that would have been lost had a full scale invasion taken place.

 

[kuk]

<< Name me any other nation that assisted in the rebuilding of a former foes country the way the US did with Germany and Japan after WWII was over. >>



For me, that is very ironic. I'm not condeming (sp?) the US for helping rebuild Europe and Japan, but look at this way: for the US, the destruction of europe could be seen in two ways. The first, if the US destroyed their internal economy, these countries would turn to the US to buy what they can't produce, which would strengthen the US economy. But (in my view), the destruction of europe lead to the point that no country could afford to buy anything from the US.

Enter the reconstruction of Europe. Without countries to buy its products, the US had to pump in those billions of dollars. The outcome wouldn't be seen right away, but only after many decades. First you pay to destroy. Then, you pay to rebuild.




<< As for the nuclear bombs that was a military decision made in 1945 which you may happen to disagree with from the comfort of 56 years distance. >>


What I wanted to point out was that behind the war, there are human beigns. Those 2 nuclear bombs lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of people, almost all civilians. How can you ignore those deaths, as long as the US is helping giving money?


OK ... there are lot of ideas in my head, so this may have gotten a little confusing ... what you guys think?

 

[kuk]

My position is still not very clear:

I am not in favor of Germany or Japan here. I think that what the atrocities that they committed were endlessly worse than those committed by the US. I'm just stating my views over this specific incident. I am not justifying or diminishing the acts of the axis.

 

[Amused]

<< Some body stats, here you go. READ IT.
Quoted from &quot;We the People&quot; by Dr. Thomas E Patterson. (My political science book)
&quot;Since WWII, the US has been far and away the leading source of aid to the devolping countries of the world. The US is still a major contributor but is now far down the list in terms of its per capita annual contributions.&quot;
I would also like to say that people should look things up before they spout figures. Chart from same book.
&quot;Foreign aid spent by countries to Devloping countries&quot;
first number is total in billions, 2nd number is dollars per capita

Canada = 2.0, $70
France = 8.4, 143
Germany = 7.5, 115
Great Britain = 3.2, 56
Italy = 1.6, 33
Japan = 14.5, 120
Sweden = 1.7, 185
United States = 7.4, 29

So as you can see, the US doesn't spend the most in foreign aid nor does it spend the most per capita. The big misconception with the US is 'we' think we are spending so much but it makes up for < 1% of our total federal budget.
But, like I said before GL, thanks for the credit.
If you would like more stats, feel free to ask and remember, 93% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
J >>



Your book must be outdated. The 2001 budget had nearly 14 billion in foreign aid. We haven't had a foreign aid package of less than 10 billion in over a decade.

 

[kuk]

AmusedOne:

Take a look at these statistics from 1993 to 1997, made by the Canandian government (I think), comparing foreign aid among several countries. The US is in the bottom of that list ...

Link

Edit: Oh, here's another site ... take a look at the bottom ... Link²
Edit2: Those numbers were correct. The USAID budget for 2001 is $7,506,000,000.