Stingy Americans? Bite me!

[oggbashan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Quote from Reuters:

My point Oggs, has been from the start it was a terribly stupid thing to say. Whether he was adressing nations or peoples or a specific nation or specific people is really not pertinent. It was going to be spun, partially by the media, partially by politics, partially by a perverse wish to be angry I think.

At a time when unity among all people, to help people should have been the goal, this bone head is stirring up a row for what purpose? Perhaps as Lou noted in her thread, just to feed his ego. Perhaps it was just unwise or he didn't realize the possible consequences.

Percentage of GDP is, IMHO, a pretty duplicitous way of looking at statistics. As you noted, exactly how it is calculated can change dramatically the numbers. Deciding what is charitable can do the same. It seems geared to find a way to nit pick the U.S. since they cannot argue we send less. So now it's a smaller percentage of GDP. And if we fix that? Probably our percentage should be bigger because we are richer. Ad infinitum.

It's just my take, but I feel the animosity of officals and member nations in the UN is palpable and it gives me little or no confidence that the body is functioning as it was intended to.

To take the last point first: The UN could never function as it was intended to because of human nature. The animosity of officials and nations in the UN to the US (and its allies including the UK) is merely a reflection of the animosity elsewhere. To that extent the UN mirrors world opinion. I have posted elsewhere about why that animosity exists. I don't like that animosity and overcoming it will be a huge problem. This incident is not helping to reduce the animosity.

The remark was injudicious and undiplomatic. The spin put on it by the media has made a mountain out of a molehill. The retractions and explanations of that remark have not been given the same prominence as the original remark because they are not so newsworthy.

How you count is critical and is open to political spin. Some defense expenditure (All defense expenditure is BAD is often taken as a given) is used to provide support to underdeveloped countries. A US base is a mixed blessing socially and politically but the expenditure in the local economy is usually welcome even if some of it isn't.

A friendly visit by a US task force to a third world port can provide more money than several months tourist spend. Should that be counted as development aid?

I am unhappy about the UN's attitude to the US. I am unhappy about the US's attitude to the UN. Both tell each other things they don't want to hear. That doesn't necessarily help the relationship between them.

More significant in my view is the lack of understanding of why the US and its allies are hated. Until we know why, how can we start to change ourselves and the attitude toward us?

Og

 

[Guest]

Dear Lou....you can be objective and rational enough to think back several months when this forum was overwhelmingly pro Kerry, anti bush, and largely anti american aka capitalism.

Even now, after months, I can think of only a handful that venture even a word in praise of the current administration or America in general.

I purposely take an extreme position and a very one sided one, just to counterbalance the abundance of contravening posts, it may not be very successful, but from the 'ignores' and all the name calling, I think I managed to piss off a few....

If you would like to switch roles for the next few months, I can argue either side.

cheers....the abominable one...

You aren't abominable, dear Amicus, and I can definitely see - and even understand - why you do what you do, and why you say what you say.

Don't go changing, you are fun and keep this place on its toes. You've certainly brightened my day on many an occasion.

Me, however, I can switch, if that's your kink. I prefer not to, but I also aim to please.

Lou - the lascivious one

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Quote from Reuters:

To take the last point first: The UN could never function as it was intended to because of human nature. The animosity of officials and nations in the UN to the US (and its allies including the UK) is merely a reflection of the animosity elsewhere. To that extent the UN mirrors world opinion. I have posted elsewhere about why that animosity exists. I don't like that animosity and overcoming it will be a huge problem. This incident is not helping to reduce the animosity.

The remark was injudicious and undiplomatic. The spin put on it by the media has made a mountain out of a molehill. The retractions and explanations of that remark have not been given the same prominence as the original remark because they are not so newsworthy.

How you count is critical and is open to political spin. Some defense expenditure (All defense expenditure is BAD is often taken as a given) is used to provide support to underdeveloped countries. A US base is a mixed blessing socially and politically but the expenditure in the local economy is usually welcome even if some of it isn't.

A friendly visit by a US task force to a third world port can provide more money than several months tourist spend. Should that be counted as development aid?

I am unhappy about the UN's attitude to the US. I am unhappy about the US's attitude to the UN. Both tell each other things they don't want to hear. That doesn't necessarily help the relationship between them.

More significant in my view is the lack of understanding of why the US and its allies are hated. Until we know why, how can we start to change ourselves and the attitude toward us?

Og

It was very injudicious and undiplomatic. The equivlent of telling rich uncle Rosco he's a tightwad son of a bitch just before you ask him to lend you 800$ to pay the rent this month because you spent the car payment on an emergency apendectomy. Just dumb.

As with all retrations, clarifications and explanations, they get burried on page 45 in print so small you need a scanning electron microscope to read them. The explanation is rarely as incindiary or shocking as the statement was.

He shouldn't have said it. That he did shows an apalling lack of judgement on his part. That people in the U.S. took it personally and are up in arms seems to have many people scratching their heads, but I think it shows just how alienated the average citizen here is when it comes to the U.N. It's easy to spin such an open comment to be anti-american because we EXPECT the UN to be anti-american.

Not a great state of affairs, but in that climate it makes the original statement even more incomprehensible to me.

 

[amicus]

Thanks Lou and gargantuan hugs for the new year, I hope guilt by association does not follow... you lascivious little lump of libido...I remain...


amicus...

 

[Liar]

I purposely take an extreme position and a very one sided one, just to counterbalance the abundance of contravening posts, it may not be very successful, but from the 'ignores' and all the name calling, I think I managed to piss off a few....

See, that is the real problem. Verbal vigilance is not likely to counter anything. it just helps the other side (where I guess I belong, although I'm either socialist or what you over there in the US calls liberal) with the aim. The calm and polite, but resilliant one, is usually the one, if any, that manages to convince the opponent that his points are valid. Lure'em in. Don't bash'em over the head.

Although, it sure is fun this way.

#L

 

[amicus]

Liar...all the best for the New Year...


This is not personal, but in general, I find american Liberals and those of a socialist bent, so intellectually snobbish and righteous within there utopian dreams that it gives me great pleasure to whack on them from time to time.

The vague and unexpressed desires for equality provided by the redistribution of my income and at my sacrifice of rights is humorous to them as they point the gun of taxation at my head.

I do not care a whit that the low countries are socialist and that GB and Canada are nearly so. Let them eat cake.

I have never did like the French anyway.


amicus...

 

[Liar]

This is not personal, but in general, I find american Liberals and those of a socialist bent, so intellectually snobbish and righteous within there utopian dreams that it gives me great pleasure to whack on them from time to time.

The vague and unexpressed desires for equality provided by the redistribution of my income and at my sacrifice of rights is humorous to them as they point the gun of taxation at my head.

Funny how that word can mean so different things. Over here, a liberal is someone who believes in the minimalisation of government and the maximalisation of personal choice.

Anyway, that's all for today. I'm late for a party.