Will Obama invade Sudan?

[Noobtastic]

jhjh

 

[palehorse]

This thread is truly... noobtastic!

seriously, you're ridiculous.

You also have no clue what you're talking about when you mention the Global Poverty Act -- which is actually nothing more than a fluffy circle-jerk bill, with no actual spending attached.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic
according to the oh-so-credible world net daily, the Global Poverty Act is real and would remove .7% of our GDP and pour it into a fund that would supposedly aid impoverished nations.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/i...PAGE.view&pageId=56405

They data they provide is pretty specific and can't see any way it could be spun other than the entire thing being wrong:


He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."

Guess impoverished Americans don't count. XD

Here is the legislation. Text

Please point out where it mentions 0.7 percent. As a point of fact, it does not mandate any specific dollar amount.

Worldnet daily advertises itself as being "News with an emphasis on investigative reports and conservative commentary". Before you accept anything negative about a candidate as the truth, you should do your own fact checking.

The claim is a lie, period.

Edit: I went to the front page of worldnetdaily, and found this article. Text This site doesn't even claim to have any journalistic standards. Please never quote that site or any similar site as your main source if you wish to have a serious discussion.

 

[Pabster]

WorldNetDaily is a far-right site. I'll even admit that.

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Noobtastic
according to the oh-so-credible world net daily, the Global Poverty Act is real and would remove .7% of our GDP and pour it into a fund that would supposedly aid impoverished nations.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/i...PAGE.view&pageId=56405

They data they provide is pretty specific and can't see any way it could be spun other than the entire thing being wrong:


He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."

Guess impoverished Americans don't count. XD

Here is the legislation. Text

Please point out where it mentions 0.7 percent. As a point of fact, it does not mandate any specific dollar amount.

Worldnet daily advertises itself as being "News with an emphasis on investigative reports and conservative commentary". Before you accept anything negative about a candidate as the truth, you should do your own fact checking.

The claim is a lie, period.

Edit: I went to the front page of worldnetdaily, and found this article. Text This site doesn't even claim to have any journalistic standards. Please never quote that site or any similar site as your main source if you wish to have a serious discussion.

Ok, if you actually read the article you would have discovered they were merely citing a source...a man Cliff Kincaid who is editor of Accuracy in Media.

http://www.aim.org/press-relea...ented-global-tax-bill/

I don't know much about them either, but I'm almost 100% certain they aren't in worldnetdaily territory. Either way, there is some thing that needs to be addressed with this bill that has yet to be mentioned openly or emphasis to the appropriate degree.

Here, from your link:

(9) At the summit of the Group of Eight (G-8) nations in July 2005, leaders from all eight participating countries committed to increase aid to Africa from the current $25,000,000,000 annually to $50,000,000,000 by 2010, and to cancel 100 percent of the debt obligations owed to the World Bank, African Development Bank, and International Monetary Fund by 18 of the world's poorest nations.

So basically we would be upping the donation. Shocking. But who? We would be responsible for this money, not Europe, not Asia, not Africa...us.

Forcing a global tax on Americans is just bulls**t.

Removing monies from my wallet [50,000,000 dollars] to support non-citizens who offer no benefits is stupid. We cannot afford to do this.

I cannot help but cite the hypocrisy in people's disgust with how the US polices the world yet takes no issue when it comes to this. Partisan politics at its finest.


anyways, I'm just disgusted. Obama passing this off a year before he is a elected....how convenient.

 

[RKDaley]

The U.N. says that "The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion-or about 0.25% of their collective GNP."

regarding the global Poverty Act:

The legislation itself requires the President "to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/...al-up-for-senate-vote/

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Ok, if you actually read the article you would have discovered they were merely citing a source...a man Cliff Kincaid who is editor of Accuracy in Media.

http://www.aim.org/press-relea...ented-global-tax-bill/

I don't know much about them either, but I'm almost 100% certain they aren't in worldnetdaily territory. Either way, there is some thing that needs to be addressed with this bill that has yet to be mentioned openly or emphasis to the appropriate degree.

Here, from your link:

(9) At the summit of the Group of Eight (G-8) nations in July 2005, leaders from all eight participating countries committed to increase aid to Africa from the current $25,000,000,000 annually to $50,000,000,000 by 2010, and to cancel 100 percent of the debt obligations owed to the World Bank, African Development Bank, and International Monetary Fund by 18 of the world's poorest nations.

So basically we would be upping the donation. Shocking. But who? We would be responsible for this money, not Europe, not Asia, not Africa...us.

Forcing a global tax on Americans is just bulls**t.

Removing monies from my wallet [50,000,000 dollars] to support non-citizens who offer no benefits is stupid. We cannot afford to do this.

I cannot help but cite the hypocrisy in people's disgust with how the US polices the world yet takes no issue when it comes to this. Partisan politics at its finest.


anyways, I'm just disgusted. Obama passing this off a year before he is a elected....how convenient.

Accuracy in media describes itself as "Conservative watchdog group for fairness, balance and accuracy in news reporting". So a self described conservative website quotes another self described conservative website, and you think to yourself "no need to check the facts here, this is obviously well supported?" My earlier comment stands. A few clicks showed the statement to be a total lie, and that's not a good starting point for any discussion. If I start a website titled, "The absolute truth, period", will you start believing everything I post there without fact-checking or corroboration? On what basis were you "almost 100%" certain they weren't in worldnet daily territory? I did a google search and had the answer in less than 5 seconds. How could you be certain about something you never researched?

If this happened in July of 2005 and was promised by the leaders of the G-8, who's promise was it exactly? I guess Obama's since he was the leader of the US in 2005..... oh wait. So it was actually Bush and his counterparts that signed off on the pledge. Obama is just pointing out that the pledge was made, he is making no new promises of money. It's actually Bush that wanted to dig into your pockets. Why don't you go ahead and make a new thread and work up your false outrage against the true money-taker, Bush?

The Bill itself makes zero promise of any new money, but simply asks for the President to clarify how the U.S. is going to meet the promises that were made. S 2433 has no power to compel any new dollar amount be spent anywhere. Absolutely $0. Your $50,000,000 is a complete fabrication. I already showed you it was a lie, but you seem unable to let it go. The ONLY thing that this bill compels is that some reports get made by the current/future president about how we're going to specifically attack global poverty.

You know, I don't blame you for not being able to understand exactly what the bill does, and how toothless it is. If you've never seen one before, it can be confusing. I do blame you for getting worked up over something you don't understand, simply because a single person with an admitted bias told you that you should be mad. I did a search on the bill, and after pages of results from other posters like yourself who can read conservative websites, but not bills, I came across this page which has the best summary of what this bill actually does.

What the Global Poverty Act Would Do:

It seeks to eliminate extreme poverty by:

Declaring it official U.S. policy to promote the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the U.N. Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme global poverty in half by 2015.

Requiring the president to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to carry out that policy.

Including guidelines for what the strategy should include ? from aid, trade, and debt relief, to working with the international community, businesses and NGOs, to ensuring environmental sustainability.

Requiring that the president?s strategy include specific and measurable goals, efforts to be undertaken, benchmarks, and timetables.

Requiring the president to report back to Congress annually on progress made in the implementation of the global poverty strategy.

That's all it does.... there's nothing more to it. By the way, the bill passed unanimously, and it hasn't cost you a single thing. At some point, you'll be out the money it takes to prepare some reports.

Edit: By the way, even Bush's pledge at the G-8 is not binding. It's an empty pledge that is in no way enforceable by anyone. They've made pledges and broken them before. In general, aid will definitely increase, but not by any predictable dollar amount. Also, when you said....

So basically we would be upping the donation. Shocking. But who? We would be responsible for this money, not Europe, not Asia, not Africa...us.

that's factually incorrect. The G-8 is made up of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. If more money is donated, it'll be donated by all 8 countries.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic
I think it's a pretty reasonable question.

Please keep juvenile fallacies to yourselves.

Trolling at it`s best.....

 

[yowolabi]

I thought you might also find these links interesting. I'm assuming that you actually care about these issues and that you aren't a partisan troll. This one explains where that .7% number actually came from.

In 2002, the developed nations reaffirmed the pledge they had made in 1970 to allocate 0.7% of their income to official development aid (ODA). Nevertheless, current ODA spending falls far below this level. None of the G8 countries has fulfilled this commitment to date. The United States devotes 0.17% of its income to aiding developing countries, while Italy allocates 0.2%, Japan 0.25%, Canada 0.3%, Germany 0.36%, France 0.47% and the United Kingdom 0.52%.

As you can see, it was Bush who actually reaffirmed the pledge in 2002. As you can also see, that number is an empty pledge. The U.S. contributes less as a percentage than any of the G8 countries.

The following link details how Bush has been far more giving with your money than anyone before him. I actually think that's one of the few good things about him. I'm interested if you'll act as furious with him as you were with Obama when you thought he was the culprit giving your money away. Of course you can fake it on here, but in your own mind you'll know whether you're a partisan hack or you truly care about these issues.

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...-president-783387.html

When President Bush came to power in 2001, the US spent $1.4bn a year on humanitarian and development aid in Africa. By 2006, the figure had quadrupled to $5.6bn a year. And it is likely to get bigger. The centrepiece of Mr Bush's aid to Africa is the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (Pepfar), a five-year, $15bn Aids prevention and treatment programme launched in 2003. His most recent budget proposes doubling the funding to $30bn over the next five years.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

I think he wouldn't storm in there like a loose cannon (e.g. like Bush). China has a lot of ties to Sudan, and starting a war with China might not be the best idea. He would however most likely put presure on China to do more about it.

Note that China already has increased efforts to end the problems in Darfur, as they want to look their best for the Olympics, and not doing anything about Darfur would look bad. So they have put presure on the government and send some troops there too as far as I know.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Originally posted by: beyoku
What kind of troops and what for?

Ending whatever crap is going on in Darfur.

Bush is pledging money but hasn't gone so far as to offer military support. Obama is offering to pledge even more money....

What do you think? I'm not really familiar Obama's foreign policy other than he is advocating a bill that would send a conservative estimate of $50,000,000+ to Africa. [0.7% of GDP is 100bill+]

Well there are a few things going on in Sudan.
1. Chad vs. Sudan. You also have the North/South issue that could soon cause ANOTHER civil war and or even MORE genocide.
See Here
Then you have the Darfur issue in the west that is currently Genocide. These 3 issues can be helped from the outside. If you understand why their is fighting in western Sudan, you can easily predict the future of southern Sudan. It wouldn't really make sense to go in and do half the job. Anyone that would promote real action with troops on the ground needs to probably address the issues in South Sudan NOW, while they drum up support for actions in the west. Sudan also has tribal madness that they somehow have to take care of themselves like similar African countries. No one can help them take care of their Ethnic issues. There is infighting between "Arabs" and "Blacks" but in reality are both black themselves.***[Ethnic history] Anyone that has seen pictures of Janjaweed or even a picture of Bashir himself knows what i mean.

On one hand you can SAY that the issues in Sudan started in 2003, or maybe specifically starting in the 70's!. In reality though they stem from a much larger problem in South Sudan that has been going on since the 50's. The North and the South had their first civil war in 1955, and the second war officially ended in the CURRENT Bush Term. So not only is their Genocide going on there is also a big picture that a lot of people don't see. You would have to know a tad bit about Sudanese history to understand whats going on, and i am far from an expert. To break it down, the Southern issue is mainly political and monetary in nature but also has ethnic and religious undertones. The Genocide in the west is fueled by older ethnic issues but also has a political and monetary undertone that is linked with Southern Sudan. Although the the loss of human life escalates one of the problems, we are making a mistake by totally disconnecting the 2. Hope that helps.

***It is important to distinguish the Sudanese Arab from other Arabs of the Middle East. Sudanese Arabs are descended primarily from the
Ancient Nubians. In terms of racial origin, it is not clear what specific racial or ethnic group the Nubians originated from. Over a period of centuries, Arab immigration into the Sudan, intermarriage among Nubians and Arabs, and the introduction of Islam and the Arabic language, Arabised the Nubians into the Sudanese Arab of today. In appearance, the Nubians are similar to some Ethiopians and Eritreans; at one point, they shared a common history with the latter (See ancient Kush, and Axum). The Sudanese Arabs are further divided into many different tribes of Nubian or Arab origin, and some Sudanese speak a Nubian language as a mother tongue, and Arabic as a second language. This process of Arabisation was repeated throughout North Africa and the Middle East. - Wiki