World Military Budget

[werecow]

Andreas...i am an american!!...ummm did i just miss something? :p :p

[Soulreaper]

Well, that depends :)

 

But in regards to my last post, don't worry - Sweden is getting dumber by the day and becoming more and more like a mini-america.

Now also understand that Sweden and Scandinava (Finland, Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Sweden) is very much alike, with slight exceptions for Iceland which means that whatever I say about Sweden pretty much applies for those countries as well - hopefully you know which countries I'm talking about - as I know many people in the US don't have a clue whether it's Sweden or Switzerland or that these countries even exist on the map - again nothing offensive, just a remark.

 

Much of this is just another point for the recent talk regarding education.

 

Now, let's continue with the true purpose of this topic.

 

Check out this link; as it applies to this topic (and some of mine). It may induce further ideas:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html

 

Let my just say that I'll assume that everyone here (tracker/forum) has the ability to think - therefor some of my posts may not be "complete" in that that I don't completely explain my exact train of thought / the mechanics of what I'm saying. I know some people (especially die-hard typichal students) require such explanations and I do understand - however many times I just refuse to insert that simply because 1) I don't want to take away the fun and excitement of self-discovery / awareness-by-thinking-growth / reaching a conclusion on a subject nor do I want to make it too easy. The lack of not reaching a conclusion by one-self also takes away the meaning of conclusions in that that being handed a conclusion will not add-to or change someone's thinking.

2) Sometimes I need preparation in order to fully be able to debate and explain the train-of-thought / process / mechanics of a subject. For me, constantly living with/keeping that in mind is useless since once I've formed thoughts / opinions / understandings of something I simply add that in the ME and I'm content with the experience and the "knowing" itself, besides I need the freed up memory space for new things. It's useless for me to keep all the mechanics in mind just in order to be able to brag and orally / mentally "win" something / be on top on other people - which I by the way, KNOW by experience that many facts-die-hards & typichal students like.

[c0g]

 

What are you talking about? Foreign aid alone amounts to over 300 billion dollars a year.

 

And as to that third world governments aren't corrupt, well read this:

 

 

I agree that debt relief is a huge requirement in foreign aid. But simply relieving their debt is useless. That means they'll just keep taking out more money from the world bank and mismanaging it. They need to be DEVELOPED in order to sustain themselves.

 

What am I talking about? We don’t even spend 30 billion, let alone 300 billion, so WTF are you talking about?

 

If you want to understand US Foreign aid, read this from the Italian US embassy:

 

http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/98-916.pdf

 

TOTAL US Congressional Foreign Operations Appropriations only totaled $38.69 billion with Iraq included.

 

So after subtracting the $23.7 billion for Iraq, and another 4 billion for Israel who is not a “developing third world country†by any stretch. We get about 11 billion left. But no matter how you slice 38.69 billion, you don’t get 300 billion.

 

US mega-agribusiness farm subsidy on the other hand is 190 billion.

 

No really, count on your fingers if you have to…but don’t take my word for it, ask Bu$h himself: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

 

As to corruption, I made no statements about foreign corruption, only pointing out that countries have to send 71% of all funds back to the US for domestic corruption.

 

This only gives the most despicable ruthless and efficient third-world dictator the opportunity to achieve a maximum of 29% corruption of funds. However, I’m sure with the racist prejudice against ignorant third-world dictators, no good American thinks they are smart and efficient enough to graft All 29% of the reaming aid funds. After all, their stupidity and inefficiency is the problem right?

 

As to dept relief leading to new spending, most countries don’t even have the same dictators who borrowed the money in the first place anymore. This is just more racial prejudice to say that stupid brown folk would just get poor again. That’s like keeping your slaves “cuz they would just get caught again if’n you went an freed ‘em.

 

http://www.odiousdebts.org/odiousdebts/index.cfm

 

Total first world “aid†to the third world is only about 55 billion.

Third world dept payments to the first world are over 200 billion.

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp?so=d2003#oda

 

So the poor countries pay us 145 billion more than we pay them.

And you think the problem is THEM? Because it is THEY who are the stupid, greedy, corrupt ones?

 

Wake up.

 

[NiteShdw]

Do you agree that less people would use less energy and thereby less CO2 and pollutants would be generated?

 

Partially, yes. However, that conclusion does not take into consideration the development of new technologies in the future that allow for production with less pollution, or even pollution removal. I realize that's a cop-out answer, but most academic theories take techology process into account.

 

Do you agree that less people would consume fewer manufactured products and thereby require less mining, oil use, etc?

 

Yes. But that also implies that those who remain will have a lower standard of living today, especially in industries that benefit from economies of scale (production becomes cheaper as output increases). Reducing the population will causes prices to rise and the number (variety) of goods produced to drop, thus the standard of living will also decline.

 

Do you agree that less people would use less fresh water, generate less sewage and produce less trash?

 

South Africa and some other nations have implemented water recycling programs in which all waste water is recycled into clean fresh water. That technology reduces the need for new sources of water, and reduces the total waste output.

 

Do you agree that less people would mean a lower population density and thereby lower the spread of infectious disease.

 

No. I believe the spread of disease is negatively correlated with urbanization in general. People are closer together but they also have much better access to health care than in rural areas. Also, the main key to reducing disease is the improvement of medical technology. There are diseases that kill millions in Africa, but rarely if ever kill people in the developed world. People in the middle ages lived in very rural societies, and died from diseases that today can be cured with simple antibiotics in a week.

 

Do you agree that less people would mean less ecosystem destruction as people (particularly South Americans) slash and burn rainforests to create croplands that are temporarily arable. And would that not lead to fewer species driven to extinction.

 

Again, not necessarily. Right now, much of the world's ecosystem is mismanaged, but that doesn't mean there isn't a solution. The poor first have to worry about their physical well-being. Once they become rich enough that they can provide that, they will be able to focus more on self-less goals like improving technologies to reduce the need for ecological destruction.

 

It is all well and good to divide the surface area of the US by the population of the Earth, but can you grow enough food to support yourself on 1/4 of an acre? Who will live in Death Valley, on the steep side of a mountain, in the everglades or in northern Alaska?

 

You are right of course, and I never meant to say that every acre of land is available to be populated. However, have you ever been through the western U.S.? Utah has only 1.5 million people but is half the size of California that has 40 million. Montana is a huge state, but again, only has a few million, same for Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington. Much of the western U.S. is completely uninhabited.

 

And yes, if the population were 1/6 th of what it is now, all other things being equal the size of the world economy would be smaller. But the standard of living would higher; the per capita income would be higher and those people inhabiting the Earth (1 billion people) would be far more likely to die of old age rather than from war, famine and disease. The Earth’s population did not exceed 1 billion until the 1800s.

 

All of the economic models that I've studied over the last 4 years at school (I've taken 5 upper-division Economics courses) say you are wrong. The size of the population is a factor in all economic growth models. If you reduce the growth rate of population, you reduce overall standard of living. The only way to overcome a 0 or negative population growth rate is to increase productivity by a larger amount. However, productivity models suggest that productivity can only increase as population size increases. If we assume that the probability of having a genious born is 1 to 1,000,000, then a population of 10 billion will have about 10,000 geniouses while a population of 100 million will have only 100 geniouses. Which do you think will have the higher level of technology?

 

I’ll end this by asking two questions. What is the optimal number of people on Earth, 6 billion, 12 billion, 40 billion? Is there a point where our civilization will collapse under its own weight?

 

You have stated that there IS an 'optimal' number, but you haven't explained why. I personally don't believe there is an 'optimal' number, because it is impossible to determine the technological advancements that will be made in the future that will allow the world to support more people. Say we invent a food replicator that can take a form of matter and convert it into food. The need for farms is reduced and people can populate those areas, while having a better standard of living than before.

 

I believe what I'm trying to say is that there are more variables involved here than you are considering. A hundred years ago, people thought it would be impossible for the world to have a billion people, and yet, we have over 6 billion. Has the world standard of living declined? No, in fact they continue to rise. In the last 50 years, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and a number of other "East Asian Tigers" have gone from basic agricultural societies to some of the wealthiest in Asia and the world. Before 1950, the situation in Japan was similar to that of China, with a large rural sector mostly involved in agriculture. Today, Japan has 120million people (on a tiny island smaller than California) and is among the wealthiest in the world. In that case, the increase in income is correlated to an increase in population (note, I don't say anything about cause-and-effect, just a correlation).

 

Can you provide any evidence of a society that has reduced its population and increased the standard of living? It's quite possible, but I don't know of any examples off-hand.

[Soulreaper]

Good one, Nite,

 

Hm which reminds me a little bit of an early episode in DS9 where Sisko and O'brien (or maybe it was someone other than O'brien)

crash on a colony world with EX-starfleet people and the leader is doing everything she can, manipulating (some reasons are ok but not all) to make sure that they will stay on that planat and remain in the state they're in, although true that people partially have become somewhat "lazy" through all advancement - but I never thought the ends justified the means.

 

Nite, have you also noticed how good the Startrek communism is for people - assuming you do understand the true nature of communism?

 

 

[Finner]

 

What are you talking about? Foreign aid alone amounts to over 300 billion dollars a year.

 

And as to that third world governments aren't corrupt, well read this:

 

 

I agree that debt relief is a huge requirement in foreign aid. But simply relieving their debt is useless. That means they'll just keep taking out more money from the world bank and mismanaging it. They need to be DEVELOPED in order to sustain themselves.

 

What am I talking about? We don’t even spend 30 billion, let alone 300 billion, so WTF are you talking about?

 

If you want to understand US Foreign aid, read this from the Italian US embassy:

 

http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/98-916.pdf

 

TOTAL US Congressional Foreign Operations Appropriations only totaled $38.69 billion with Iraq included.

 

So after subtracting the $23.7 billion for Iraq, and another 4 billion for Israel who is not a “developing third world country†by any stretch. We get about 11 billion left. But no matter how you slice 38.69 billion, you don’t get 300 billion.

 

US mega-agribusiness farm subsidy on the other hand is 190 billion.

 

No really, count on your fingers if you have to…but don’t take my word for it, ask Bu$h himself: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

 

As to corruption, I made no statements about foreign corruption, only pointing out that countries have to send 71% of all funds back to the US for domestic corruption.

 

This only gives the most despicable ruthless and efficient third-world dictator the opportunity to achieve a maximum of 29% corruption of funds. However, I’m sure with the racist prejudice against ignorant third-world dictators, no good American thinks they are smart and efficient enough to graft All 29% of the reaming aid funds. After all, their stupidity and inefficiency is the problem right?

 

As to dept relief leading to new spending, most countries don’t even have the same dictators who borrowed the money in the first place anymore. This is just more racial prejudice to say that stupid brown folk would just get poor again. That’s like keeping your slaves “cuz they would just get caught again if’n you went an freed ‘em.

 

http://www.odiousdebts.org/odiousdebts/index.cfm

 

Total first world “aid†to the third world is only about 55 billion.

Third world dept payments to the first world are over 200 billion.

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp?so=d2003#oda

 

So the poor countries pay us 145 billion more than we pay them.

And you think the problem is THEM? Because it is THEY who are the stupid, greedy, corrupt ones?

 

Wake up.

 

Umm, for the record I wasn't talking about total U.S foreign aid, I was talking about total aid provided by the worlds first world countries..and yes that does amount to nearly 300 billion. In fact i don't even LIVE in the US.

 

And as to the fact that I based the fact that their are corrupt african dictators does NOT make me a racist. In fact, it insults me. And the reason their "79%" of aid comes back to the states is not because they're "required" to get it back, but because they are buying products back from the states.

 

So instead of sitting here saying we should throw them free money, how about we start using the money we do send in a far more useful fashion.

[c0g]

Yes. But that also implies that those who remain will have a lower standard of living today' date=' especially in industries that benefit from economies of scale (production becomes cheaper as output increases). [/quote']

 

… but with economies of scale, you have an inverse relationship; as Production decreases, efficiency increases. With products produced locally on a small scale, you also remove the need to transport over long distances. U.S. farms of around 238 acres on average net $56 per acre annually, while a 6,709-acre farm nets only $12 per acre.

 

http://www.landstewardshipproject.org/lsl/lspv17n6.html

 

Economics of scale is a capitalist fallacy based on an unsustainable growth model.

 

Reducing the population will cause prices to rise and the number (variety) of goods produced to drop, thus the standard of living will also decline.

 

You are falsely connecting standard of living with profit. As you lower scale you INCREASE the variety of products as you replace a single large-scale producer of a single product with multiple small-scale producers each making a variety of different products.

 

All of the economic models that I've studied over the last 4 years at school (I've taken 5 upper-division Economics courses) say you are wrong. The size of the population is a factor in all economic growth models. If you reduce the growth rate of population, you reduce overall standard of living

 

First, in your own words: "that conclusion does not take into consideration the development of new technologies"

 

Second, those models are set in a capitalist framework that fails to distinguish between growth and profits.

Small-scale producers do not need to show growth to investors, and can sustain themselves indefinitely with little or no growth simply by meeting existing local demand.

 

What if you reduce the population growth rate, AND simultaneously reduce the market need for Growth by removing “the asumed need for profit†from the equation? Does your standard of living still drop? I don’t think so. If anything it goes up.

 

However, productivity models suggest that productivity can only increase as population size increases. The only way to overcome a 0 or negative population growth rate is to increase productivity by a larger amount

 

But history teaches us the opposite. The productivity Per Person decreases as population increases. It’s only the overall productivity that shows a gain, not the individual productivity. As you reduce scale, you increase the per capita efficiency. Thus increasing productivity as you reduce population.

 

Has the world standard of living declined?

 

Yes it has…

According to the latest report of the UN Development Program, the wealth of the planet has increased by six times since 1950, while simultaneously the poverty has in-creased in 100 out of 174 investigated countries. The report further states that three richest persons in the world possess the wealth that is greater than the total GDP of 48 poorest Countries. Also, the aggregate wealth of 84 richest individuals exceeds the GDP of China, whose population is 1.2 billion inhabitants. 50% of the world population is living on less than 2 US dollars per day. 20% of the population in the ‘developed’ world consume 86% of the world’s wealth. This means that 80 per cent of the world population have distributed amongst them a paltry 14 per cent of the world’s wealth.

 

http://facta.junis.ni.ac.yu/facta/eao/eao2003/eao2003-02.pdf

 

In the last 50 years, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and a number of other "East Asian Tigers" have gone from basic agricultural societies to some of the wealthiest in Asia and the world.

 

No they have not. The top 2% of those counties have. The other 98% of the populations have had their standard of living drop drastically. Export-led development fueled by foreign capital and based on low wages - is deeply flawed and hurts everyone but the very few at the top. As peasants move away from a traditional self-sufficient sustainable agricultural life into an industrialized one, the standard of living plummets. While the elites of those countries try to make themselves more appealing by enslaving their populations to western markets. If they don’t do it themselves, the IMF or World Bank forces them to with draconian policies.

 

That’s the whole point of “free tradeâ€ÂÂ, to remove local barriers to profits.

Free trade is only deregulation. Deregulation/Free Trade is the flawed idea that: Transnational corporations will do what’s best for people if you don’t require them to.

 

You cannot provide me a single example of a third-world industry or nation that has improved the lives of its entire population as a result of participating in Free Trade, privatization, or Deregulation. You cannot do this, because, quite simply, there are no examples. Free Trade has NEVER EVER worked to improve the lives of the poor. Only the Rich benefit from a lack of restrictions on capital investment. It’s simple logic.

 

Can you provide any evidence of a society that has reduced its population and increased the standard of living? It's quite possible, but I don't know of any examples

 

Not off hand, but I can provide 6 billion examples of how population increase has not raised overall standard of living.

 

[c0g]

Umm' date=' for the record I wasn't talking about total U.S foreign aid, I was talking about total aid provided by the worlds first world countries..and yes that does amount to nearly 300 billion. In fact i don't even LIVE in the US. [/quote']

 

No, it's about 55 billion total first world aid. At least according to the UN.

 

And as to the fact that I based the fact that their are corrupt african dictators does NOT make me a racist. In fact, it insults me.

 

I didn’t say anything about Africa. I was talking about the entire southern hemisphere and most of Asia when I said “third worldâ€ÂÂ. You are the only one limiting corruption to black nations to display your lack of racism.

 

And the reason their "79%" of aid comes back to the states is not because they're "required" to get it back, but because they are buying products back from the states.

 

No, it is REQURED as part of the aid. It MUST be spent not only on US companies, but on SPECIFIC companies that are named in the aid package(s). Often it’s even for Specific items and commodities.

 

So instead of sitting here saying we should throw them free money, how about we start using the money we do send in a far more useful fashion.

 

It’s not free money. It’s money that was extorted from them as a direct result of imperialist first world ownership of third world resources labor and dept. We own them and treat them like shit, and when we throw them a bone, we pull it back with a string before they can eat it.

 

We pledged, and were required by the UN to offer 0.7% of our annual GDP as aid, but have yet to pay more than 0.2%

 

Compare that to the 40% of their GDP that they pay us, and ask yourself who’s getting free money?

 

Then wake up and smell the coffee that was grown on a farm owned by a Transnational corporation somewhere in the third-world that, thanks to deregulation, pays the farmers less than it actually costs them to produce the coffee in the first place.

 

http://www.quakernet.org/Concerns/coffee_statement_of_concern.htm

 

[mcant]

Well despite all our well intended chatter, the majority so far have voted for the space program!

 

Damn shame, I'm pretty certain I could have fixed all the worlds ills in 30 years, so long as I got elected Tyrant! :p) unforunately that looks unlikely :) and as i only trust myself (just) I aint voting for anyone else! so you're all screwed!

 

To all the people who voted something else, I wish you had specified what!

[Finner]

Umm' date=' for the record I wasn't talking about total U.S foreign aid, I was talking about total aid provided by the worlds first world countries..and yes that does amount to nearly 300 billion. In fact i don't even LIVE in the US. [/quote']

 

No, it's about 55 billion total first world aid. At least according to the UN.

 

And as to the fact that I based the fact that their are corrupt african dictators does NOT make me a racist. In fact, it insults me.

 

I didn’t say anything about Africa. I was talking about the entire southern hemisphere and most of Asia when I said “third worldâ€ÂÂ. You are the only one limiting corruption to black nations to display your lack of racism.

 

And the reason their "79%" of aid comes back to the states is not because they're "required" to get it back, but because they are buying products back from the states.

 

No, it is REQURED as part of the aid. It MUST be spent not only on US companies, but on SPECIFIC companies that are named in the aid package(s). Often it’s even for Specific items and commodities.

 

So instead of sitting here saying we should throw them free money, how about we start using the money we do send in a far more useful fashion.

 

It’s not free money. It’s money that was extorted from them as a direct result of imperialist first world ownership of third world resources labor and dept. We own them and treat them like ####, and when we throw them a bone, we pull it back with a string before they can eat it.

 

We pledged, and were required by the UN to offer 0.7% of our annual GDP as aid, but have yet to pay more than 0.2%

 

Compare that to the 40% of their GDP that they pay us, and ask yourself who’s getting free money?

 

Then wake up and smell the coffee that was grown on a farm owned by a Transnational corporation somewhere in the third-world that, thanks to deregulation, pays the farmers less than it actually costs them to produce the coffee in the first place.

 

http://www.quakernet.org/Concerns/coffee_statement_of_concern.htm

 

Look, for the record I agree with you, many first world countries are using third world countries to make extra money. I am simply stating that that the money could be put to better use. I am not saying that any paticualar "culture" is to blame but that we must be......"careful" in how we allocate the funds we send. Is that fair enough for you?....without arguement?

[mrhumpty]

Personally I'd like to keep a large portion of Military Funds in just that. We live in a world of laws and the Military and Police are the means by which we enforce those laws. In many cases simply having a large military and police force saves more lives then the wars fought with them because they are such a deterance.

 

As far as helping third world countries... they need economic reform more than anything else. They need people to trade with those countries and leaders who will not exploit that trade. Money will only do so much, its going to take the people revolting or military action to free much of those countries. Have you ever heard the saying about "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime"?

 

The Space program does need more money. However, they need to quit floating ants round in space and start heading toward plasma drives and interplanetary travel.

 

And finally I would only want that aid to go as an act of the people not the Governments. Aid organisations love the Government to give because they only have to convince a few people that both their cause is just and the money is being spent wisely. They just hate having to be troubled to get the people behind it. Our Government (US) doesn't have the Consitutional authority to be paying welfare checks to other nations, but our people are more than capable to donate to NGO's. And they do to the tune of 2B+ a year.

[VonHelton]

This is insane...........

 

We now know that cows & other vegitarian animals cause more polution & damage to the ozone than cars ever will, but have we removed the crap from the cars? No......

 

Have we installed pollution control devices on cows? No.....

 

Maybe we should, as consumers, demand excellence in a product, whether it costs 5p or thousands of dollars.

 

:stare:

 

 

[c0g]

In many cases simply having a large military and police force saves more lives then the wars fought with them because they are such a deterance.

 

I would agree wholeheartedly if it were only true. I would be in favor of keeping a strong military force provided it NEVER EVER left our borders under ANY circumstances of ANY KIND what so ever, and we had NO foreign Bases. Say maybe 15% of our budget instead of the 60% we spend now would cover this?

 

As far as helping third world countries... they need economic reform more than anything else. They need people to trade with those countries and leaders who will not exploit that trade. Money will only do so much, its going to take the people revolting or military action to free much of those countries.

 

But it took Military action to put them where they are now, and to put down the Revolts that would have led to positive change.

 

US military action is used to put down new/existing Governments in favor of (re)installing brutal dictators.

 

This has happened many times.

The US had to kill 600,000 Pilipino’s to put down their peasant government, not to mention invading Guam, Cuba, and Porto Rico at the same time.

 

We overthrew Hawaii's Queen Liliuokalani and enslaved her people to Dole and Del Monte.

 

Between 1898 and 1934 the US Marines invaded:

Cuba 4 times

Nicaragua 5 times

Honduras 7 times

The Dominican Republic 4 times

Haiti 2 times

Guatemala once

Panama 2 times

Mexico 3 times

Columbia 4 times

 

Each of those invasions was to Secure US financial interests against the wishes of the populations and governments of those countries. We left behind both troops and brutal puppet dictators whose only goal was to safeguard US company profits against the local people.

 

Am I wrong? Was a SINGLE one of those countries better off after our Troops went in? How about today, did our invasions help the people in the long run? Or are they still occupied by Brutal Régimes that safeguard US Financial interests?

 

At the same time, we were sending troops to North Africa, Russia, China, etc with the same goals. How are those places doing these days?

 

I don’t have time to get into post world war invasions, but don’t worry; the reasons and results are always the same.

 

Have you ever heard the saying about "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime"?

 

Or how about:

“Teach a man to grow fruit and he starves for many generations while Brutal puppet dictators force him to work at substandard wages for American Fruit companies who make billions.â€ÂÂ

 

This would not happen if we did not have a "Strong military" in place to force them.

 

 

[c0g]

Have we installed pollution control devices on cows? No.....Maybe we should' date=' as consumers, demand excellence in a product, whether it costs 5p or thousands of dollars.[/quote']

 

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Von on this one.

 

Here’s my design. Send the noble prize money directly to my Swiss bank account please.

 

[hendo001]

interesting device?

 

whats it do?

[czernyman]

I find it humerous that the US aid numbers were from an Italian site...

 

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP is already lowest of any industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically in the last three years, their dollar amount has been the highest.

Look at this:

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp?so=d2003#oda

 

Yeah, the US is full of assholes who don't help anybody. Sure. Right.

 

I'm about sick of the America bashing. We're not the worst country on the planet, and we have a lot of people with big hearts. We have problems, but so does everybody else.

 

You try running a country as big and see if you do better.

 

In case you ever wonder why Americans in general don't care about the rest of the world, it's because people are assholes to us, stick their noses up at us, and treat us like shit. We're sick of it, and just starting ignoring all the assholes wo don't seem to want us around anyway.

 

I, personally, think the US should withdraw ALL of it's international assets and see what happens. See who's complaining about us then.

 

[werecow]

This is insane...........

 

We now know that cows & other vegitarian animals cause more polution & damage to the ozone than cars ever will, but have we removed the crap from the cars? No......

 

Have we installed pollution control devices on cows? No.....

 

Maybe we should, as consumers, demand excellence in a product, whether it costs 5p or thousands of dollars.

 

:stare:

 

NOW WAIT A MINUTE!!!! i dont know if im that responsible for greenhouse gases or not...maybe if i have had mexican the night before.......

[werecow]

Have we installed pollution control devices on cows? No.....Maybe we should' date=' as consumers, demand excellence in a product, whether it costs 5p or thousands of dollars.[/quote']

 

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Von on this one.

 

Here’s my design. Send the noble prize money directly to my Swiss bank account please.

 

 

if you think im gonna wear one of those you have stripped a cog!!!!!

[Hellsfury]

This may be a slight moot point soon enough-

 

Through all of our raging and pointing fingers the very sad "fact" is that as a collective, humanity needs to be locked up for a few eons in a planet-sized safehouse until it grows up. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have the luxury so to bite back at any American who feels slighted by the constant anti-American feeling from the rest of the world, why don't you fight back? The US is probably the most recognised, most revered nation on Earth- it's media, economy and government influence the entire world as does the world influence it. If America takes stock and finally grows up in the next 5-10 years, (remember the US has only had 2-300 years of experimentation while the older countries altogether have had eons) becoming a caring country, (no, Iraq isn't caring- let's be honest at least about that situation) perhaps the world will notice.

 

No, I'm not saying "USA rule the world!" I'm saying be a damned figurehead for the rest of us. Take the myriad improvements from the better educated or longer-living populations, stop bullying everyone back and for the sake of 6-7 billion humans, elect someone worthwhile!

 

argh...any idea how hard it was for an Irishman to say all that ? :p

 

Oh and this counts for Australia, the UK, The EU, China, Russia, Japan too- I used America because we're all probably a bit more familiar with it ^_^ !

 

Humanity most likely won't suddenly sit up in bed and go "Doh!" Figureheads, a scrubbed clean slate and some old-fashioned care for others...that's the way... (otherwise it's the "Grey Goo" scenario for everyone!)

 

:cyclops: :p :cyclops:

[c0g]

I find it humerous that the US aid numbers were from an Italian site...

 

Indeed, says allot about our “free†press doesn’t it.

 

Yeah, the US is full of assholes who don't help anybody. Sure. Right.

 

No, that’s just the top 5%, the rest are just a product of it’s education system, and hence mostly ignorant of the true history of their nation, and ignorant of the true nature of it’s foreign policy.

 

I'm about sick of the America bashing. We're not the worst country on the planet, and we have a lot of people with big hearts.

 

I totally agree. It is a tribute to the humanity of ordinary Americans that horrible acts of US state Terrorism must be camouflaged with words like “securityâ€ÂÂ, “peaceâ€ÂÂ, “freedomâ€ÂÂ, â€ÂÂdemocracyâ€ÂÂ, and that we must have the true history and actions of our nation hidden from us.

 

In case you ever wonder why Americans in general don't care about the rest of the world, it's because people are assholes to us, stick their noses up at us, and treat us like ####.

 

Given the fact that the US is the only Nation in history that has ever been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism, do you think just maybe our foreign policy may play a part in how others view us?

 

I believe I already gave some pre world war examples; here are some of the countries that the US has bombed since the end of World War II:

 

China: 1945-46

Korea: 1950-53

China: 1950-53

Guatemala: 1954

Indonesia: 1958

Cuba: 1959-60

Guatemala: 1960

Congo: 1964

Peru: 1965

Laos: 1964-73

Vietnam: 1961-73

Cambodia: 1969-70

Guatemala: 1967-69

Grenada: 1983

Libya: 1986

El Salvador: 1980s

Nicaragua: 1980s

Panama: 1989

Iraq: 1991-99

Sudan: 1998

Afghanistan: 1998

Yugoslavia: 1999

 

How many of these counties are now peaceful democracies full of happy people, thanks to our “spreading freedom and democracy�? (I’ll give you a hint; it’s a number totaling less than one)

 

I, personally, think the US should withdraw ALL of it's international assets and see what happens. See who's complaining about us then.

 

I couldn’t possibly agree more. You are right when you say no one would complain if we just kept our assets here at home.