confusion
Question:
TSNW wrote: > Here’s an interesting site which addresses the complexity of some of the > issues raised on this thread via an index called the HDI (Human > Development Index, developed by the United Nations Development > Program).
Oops – forgot the URL: http://berclo.net/page99/99en-idh.html Here’s another URL with newer data than the previous one: http://www.undp.org/hdro/HDI.html 1 Canada 2 Norway 3 United States 4 Japan 5 Belgium 6 Sweden 7 Australia 8 Netherlands 9 Iceland 10 United Kingdom 11 France 12 Switzerland 13 Finland 14 Germany 15 Denmark 16 Austria 17 Luxembourg 18 New Zealand 19 Italy 20 Ireland — Tourette Syndrome – Now What? http://members.home.net/tourettenowwhat
Response:
TSNW wrote: > Blurt Durtwurd wrote: > > IMO, wealthier nations should contribute a higher percentage of their > > money. Surely, you don’t feel that all countries should contribute > > equally, do you? > Nope 
> But since we’re so often criticized, I’d like to see where the other > relatively wealthier nations come out on a %GDP basis. That’s not an > excuse for us to give less, or even a lesser % than other wealthy > countries, but a marketing tool (depending on what the data shows).
Here’s an interesting site which addresses the complexity of some of the issues raised on this thread via an index called the HDI (Human Development Index, developed by the United Nations Development Program). Note: Just because most of the money in Brunei never gets into the hands of the poor doesn’t excuse the rich Sultan from giving! "This sophisticated composite index takes into account the GDP/person but also other factors that contribute to what we call development, the life expectancy at birth, the level of school attendance and the percentage of people who can read and write." "The table below shows how the countries judged by the UN to be the ten most developed are not those who have the highest GNP per person" (ranked in order of HDI). Canada France Norway U. S. A. Iceland Netherlands Japan Finland New Zealand Sweden — Tourette Syndrome – Now What? http://members.home.net/tourettenowwhat
Response:
Blurt Durtwurd wrote: > TSNW wrote: > > I’m not upset, but since I’m a notorious sucker, I do want to see some > > data on a percentage of GDP by country basis. > IMO, wealthier nations should contribute a higher percentage of their > money. Surely, you don’t feel that all countries should contribute > equally, do you?
Nope But since we’re so often criticized, I’d like to see where the other relatively wealthier nations come out on a %GDP basis. That’s not an excuse for us to give less, or even a lesser % than other wealthy countries, but a marketing tool (depending on what the data shows). Thanks for pointing out the starvation facts so little known … lots of people go to bed hungry every night of their lives, while my struggling middle class sister-in-law gets a $50 manicure every week, while she complains about needing two jobs to make ends meet. — Tourette Syndrome – Now What? http://members.home.net/tourettenowwhat
Response:
John Morten Malerbakken wrote:
<snip> > This has turned into a very interesting thread, but we are far from > supporting each other in our daily struggle with TS. Should we go somewhere > else with this? > JMM
Sometimes just interacting with each other about worldly things and little things -is-… support. BradHAWK, who just likes to hang with the Touretters sometimes.
Response:
"TSNW" <tourettenoww…@home.com> wrote in message
news:3BBE480A.B41BF7FD@home.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> John Morten Malerbakken wrote: > > So, I do not have problems with any "packages", I would just like to see > > more of them, from all parts of the "rich" world (not to upset BB2 again) to > > all those who need them so desparately. > I’m not upset, but since I’m a notorious sucker, I do want to see some > data on a percentage of GDP by country basis. Sometimes, the US just > doesn’t do a good enough job of marketing itself. I don’t know what the > data says — maybe we give proportionately way more than other countries > do, and maybe we don’t. > — > Tourette Syndrome – Now What? > http://members.home.net/tourettenowwhat
Since so many of you on a.s.t. seem well conversant on history and world politics/economics etc., I have another question that ties in here. When did the whole idea of aid from "rich" coutries to "poor" countries start? Who started it and in what context? Certainly I never studied about it in the ancient world. Don’t recall anything about it pre-WWI. Why did it ever start, and how did we get to the point today where we assume it should always be happening, that it is the proper response. still inventing. KC – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
Blurt Durtwurd wrote: > http://www.freedonation.com/hunger/hunger_stats.php3 > "One might say that famines and wars cause most of hunger-related deaths > as those events are usually given the most publicity and media-coverage. > But the fact is that only ten percent of hunger deaths result from > famines and wars. The stark truth is that the vast majority of hunger > deaths are not in the news we see and hear. Hunger kills most people > through chronic malnutrition."
BTW, before anyone makes any assumptions, that was not an endorsement. It was simply one of the many sites stating these facts. Here’s another, which includes a link to a similar ‘click to donate’ site: http://www.superbabyfood.com/hunger.htm "About 24,000 people die every day from hunger or hunger-related causes. Three-fourths of the deaths are children under the age of five. Today 10% of children in developing countries die before the age of five. Famine and wars cause just 10% of hunger deaths, although these tend to be the ones you hear about most often. The majority of hunger deaths are caused by chronic malnutrition. Families simply cannot get enough to eat. This in turn is caused by extreme poverty. Besides death, chronic malnutrition also causes impaired vision, listlessness, stunted growth, and greatly increased susceptibility to disease. It is estimated that some 800 million people in the world suffer from hunger and malnutrition, about 100 times as many as those who actually die from it each year." Blurt
Response:
TSNW wrote: > John Morten Malerbakken wrote: > > So, I do not have problems with any "packages", I would just like to see > > more of them, from all parts of the "rich" world (not to upset BB2 again) to > > all those who need them so desparately. > I’m not upset, but since I’m a notorious sucker, I do want to see some > data on a percentage of GDP by country basis.
IMO, wealthier nations should contribute a higher percentage of their money. Surely, you don’t feel that all countries should contribute equally, do you? Blurt – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Sometimes, the US just > doesn’t do a good enough job of marketing itself. I don’t know what the > data says — maybe we give proportionately way more than other countries > do, and maybe we don’t. > — > Tourette Syndrome – Now What? > http://members.home.net/tourettenowwhat
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -jennybravo wrote: > Randall Bart wrote: > > John Morten Malerbakken wrote: > > > A "MArshall plan" with no strings attached is welcomed. A proposition that > > > all rich countries write off their foreign debts to underdeveloped countries > > > has circulated for some time now. Could be a start. Would cost me some tax. > > > I can take that. > What we need to be wary of is what type of leaders we are giving money to. That is where > the problems come in. Much of the famine in Somalia was created by man. Especially after > Aid began arriving. The warlords took control and the food could not reach the people. > If the country is in the midst of a civil war, and needs assistance, which side do we > give it to? If the stronger side can prevent us from giving it to the weaker side, do we > still give it to the stronger side? If the "good guys" are winning but the "bad guys" > are starving, do we prevent the "bad guys" (including little kids, women and old people) > to starve? If a government decides to use it to enrich themselves at the expense of the > people, do we still give some in hopes maybe a little will reach the poor? Do we give to > countries under the condition that they agree to do this or that? If bordering countries > are at war and one population is starving, is supplying them with food and medicine > going to viewed as backing that country? At what point are we "interfering" with a > nation, and no longer helping them out. It appears to me that the countries which are > having the worst problems are those most divided amongst themselves. Is the division the > cause of the famine?
http://www.freedonation.com/hunger/hunger_stats.php3 "One might say that famines and wars cause most of hunger-related deaths as those events are usually given the most publicity and media-coverage. But the fact is that only ten percent of hunger deaths result from famines and wars. The stark truth is that the vast majority of hunger deaths are not in the news we see and hear. Hunger kills most people through chronic malnutrition." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Or is the famine the cause of the division? Should we make value > judgments like that when deciding who to help? I agree we need to do something, but I > think it many times it will be difficult to do something without making somebody angry. > I was actually quite proud of the U.S. when I learned they were and have been the > biggest financial and food contributor to Afghanistan in spite of the fact "they" are > harboring terrorists. > jennybravo > > What about the underdeveloped countries that have been living within their > > means and not running up huge foreign debts. They’ll feel like complete fools > > if we write off the debts of the big spenders. If we’re giving away money, > > let’s give to everyone. > > BTW, Pakistan owes over $40 billion and goes $3 billion deeper in debt each > > year. > — > The thing that impresses me most about America is the way parents obey their children. > Edward VIII, 1957 in Look
Response:
> I would just like to see >more of them, from all parts of the "rich" world (not to upset BB2 again) to >all those who need them so desparately. A new "Marsahall plan" would not be >out of the way either. It is important that the pacages are without strings. >That we have not seen yet.
I’m having some problems with this line of thinking for a couple of reasons. One, while it’s easy for us to point fingers at the ‘rich world’, talking about how they should give more, etc. etc. etc. we need to remember that a lot of countries are in the spot their in BECAUSE of their governments. We in the so-called Western world aren’t the ONLY ones responsible. Are the North Korean people starving because we don’t give them enough aid?? No, they’re starving because of the f%*#ed up politics of their leaders. While I agree that the common person likely has little to do with the politics of their gov’t, at the same time, isn’t giving no-strings-attached aid somewhat akin to enabling an alcoholic or drug user in that it enables these regimes to continue?? Now starving people are a harsh consequence for an uncaring gov’t in that it hurts the innocent FAR MORE than it hurts the people in charge. I am in NO WAY saying that I am proposing that we withdrawel all aid and let the chips fall where they may, but at the same time, we need to realize WHY the charitable governments may be trying to attach strings–it may be of more benefit to the people in the long run than just supplying them with food.
Response:
"jinn85" <jin…@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011005142120.25449.00001042@mb-cg.aol.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > I would just like to see > >more of them, from all parts of the "rich" world (not to upset BB2 again) to > >all those who need them so desparately. A new "Marsahall plan" would not be > >out of the way either. It is important that the pacages are without strings. > >That we have not seen yet. > I’m having some problems with this line of thinking for a couple of reasons. > One, while it’s easy for us to point fingers at the ‘rich world’, talking about > how they should give more, etc. etc. etc. we need to remember that a lot of > countries are in the spot their in BECAUSE of their governments. We in the > so-called Western world aren’t the ONLY ones responsible. Are the North Korean > people starving because we don’t give them enough aid?? No, they’re starving > because of the f%*#ed up politics of their leaders. While I agree that the > common person likely has little to do with the politics of their gov’t, at the > same time, isn’t giving no-strings-attached aid somewhat akin to enabling an > alcoholic or drug user in that it enables these regimes to continue?? > Now starving people are a harsh consequence for an uncaring gov’t in that it > hurts the innocent FAR MORE than it hurts the people in charge. I am in NO WAY > saying that I am proposing that we withdrawel all aid and let the chips fall > where they may, but at the same time, we need to realize WHY the charitable > governments may be trying to attach strings–it may be of more benefit to the > people in the long run than just supplying them with food.
You are right, but there are strings and there are strings. In far too many cases we have seen conditions connected to suppport and aid. Let you give you an example from my own line of business. Druing the last major war in the Balkans, the serbs were backed by the French, after the shooting stopped, the telecom network was rebuilt by Alcatel. The Croats were backed by Germany, so their network was rebuilt by Siemens: The Bosnian muslims got support from Sweden, so I was there rebuilding their telecoms under the name of Ericsson. The countries were not given too many options as far as I see it. It is OK to do business withyour friends, and we all do, but it is in my opinion wrong to "force" economical rules on those who at one point of time were in need of help. That is all too common, and was what I referred to. As for aid to North-Korea, and the government there, I see only two things: One, the totally uncooperative governmetn based on a family tyranny. Second, the enormous suffering from years of famine. I really do not think it defends not helping the starving masses because one does not approve of its government. That government can be removed with one telephone conference between senores Bush and Putin if they could just stop looking at the land as a possible gain on both sides. But, as always, we are humans and have this habit of attaching strings to whatever we do in order to gain something in the end. Darwin rules, but I do not have to like it do I? JMM
Response:
John Morten Malerbakken wrote: > A "MArshall plan" with no strings attached is welcomed. A proposition that > all rich countries write off their foreign debts to underdeveloped countries > has circulated for some time now. Could be a start. Would cost me some tax. > I can take that.
What about the underdeveloped countries that have been living within their means and not running up huge foreign debts. They’ll feel like complete fools if we write off the debts of the big spenders. If we’re giving away money, let’s give to everyone. BTW, Pakistan owes over $40 billion and goes $3 billion deeper in debt each year.
Response:
John Morten Malerbakken wrote: > So, I do not have problems with any "packages", I would just like to see > more of them, from all parts of the "rich" world (not to upset BB2 again) to > all those who need them so desparately.
I’m not upset, but since I’m a notorious sucker, I do want to see some data on a percentage of GDP by country basis. Sometimes, the US just doesn’t do a good enough job of marketing itself. I don’t know what the data says — maybe we give proportionately way more than other countries do, and maybe we don’t. — Tourette Syndrome – Now What? http://members.home.net/tourettenowwhat
Response:
Randall Bart wrote: > John Morten Malerbakken wrote: > > A "MArshall plan" with no strings attached is welcomed. A proposition that > > all rich countries write off their foreign debts to underdeveloped countries > > has circulated for some time now. Could be a start. Would cost me some tax. > > I can take that.
What we need to be wary of is what type of leaders we are giving money to. That is where the problems come in. Much of the famine in Somalia was created by man. Especially after Aid began arriving. The warlords took control and the food could not reach the people. If the country is in the midst of a civil war, and needs assistance, which side do we give it to? If the stronger side can prevent us from giving it to the weaker side, do we still give it to the stronger side? If the "good guys" are winning but the "bad guys" are starving, do we prevent the "bad guys" (including little kids, women and old people) to starve? If a government decides to use it to enrich themselves at the expense of the people, do we still give some in hopes maybe a little will reach the poor? Do we give to countries under the condition that they agree to do this or that? If bordering countries are at war and one population is starving, is supplying them with food and medicine going to viewed as backing that country? At what point are we "interfering" with a nation, and no longer helping them out. It appears to me that the countries which are having the worst problems are those most divided amongst themselves. Is the division the cause of the famine? Or is the famine the cause of the division? Should we make value judgments like that when deciding who to help? I agree we need to do something, but I think it many times it will be difficult to do something without making somebody angry. I was actually quite proud of the U.S. when I learned they were and have been the biggest financial and food contributor to Afghanistan in spite of the fact "they" are harboring terrorists. jennybravo > What about the underdeveloped countries that have been living within their > means and not running up huge foreign debts. They’ll feel like complete fools > if we write off the debts of the big spenders. If we’re giving away money, > let’s give to everyone. > BTW, Pakistan owes over $40 billion and goes $3 billion deeper in debt each > year.
– The thing that impresses me most about America is the way parents obey their children. Edward VIII, 1957 in Look
Response:
You are right on the dot! The question of the aid is apolitical nightmare. This is why I would still speak of the UN. It is the only functioning political body where we can deal with these questions. You are also clerarly pointing at one of the basics of these problems, i.e. the concept of national borders and the national states. It is my personal oppinion that we will not be able to solve these global problems without giving up the idea of our Nationalities and the governing states. This has taken us to where we are today, and it would be stupid of me not to recognise the development which the organisation inside the states have brought, and that god has come out of it. But, there are too many examples leading me to believe that we are reaching a point where we become so many and the transports are so quick, that we need to re-think the very basic. I have some examples: A number of years ago, it was presented in Swedish media that farmers in the south of Sweden were given government money not to work their land and convert it to gorlf courses as Sweden was producing "too much" agricultural products. 4 hours south of Sweden there was a shortage of potatoes and other agricultural products in Poland. But the Swedes could not send their surplus there because of domestic pricing regulations and the fact that there was a national border with tons of red tape obstacles running accross the Baltic waters. That does not work. When living in Mexico, I went to Texas a couple of times by car. Every night hundreds of deperate people try to cross into the USA in search of work and a future. It is horrible to see the differences between Laredo and Nuevo Laredo. The only reason that the poor people on the south side is denied a better future is because there is an administrative line drawn along the river. The farmers in the north of Guattemala can not sell their goods to the south of Mexico at all due to administrative limitations. However, Gutatemalteco goods are imported to Mexico through Miami. And it is all due to the borderes that we have put up. The refugees seeking shelter from bullets in Afganistan are stopped at the Pakistan border because…………. I rellay do not know why we let children starve to death befor our eyes like we have seen in the Balkans and in Somalia. In the middle of this we persist in maintainig the national borders which is only making things worse. I know this is revolutionary and will be seen as a threat by a lot of people, but I also know that if the millions of Russiand living in Murmansk run out of food (the risk is very clear, they do not produce anything and are totally dependent on an infrastructure which may not hold together for long) they will go west. There is no way we could stop them (that we can live with) from coming en masse accross the Norwegian border in their search for food. Would I like it? Probably not, but can we gun them down at the administrative limit (the border) and claim that this is our food and not yours? I would not do that. This has turned into a very interesting thread, but we are far from supporting each other in our daily struggle with TS. Should we go somewhere else with this? JMM "jennybravo" <jaispl…@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3BBE655C.7CB33C0@worldnet.att.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Randall Bart wrote: > > John Morten Malerbakken wrote: > > > A "MArshall plan" with no strings attached is welcomed. A proposition that > > > all rich countries write off their foreign debts to underdeveloped countries > > > has circulated for some time now. Could be a start. Would cost me some tax. > > > I can take that. > What we need to be wary of is what type of leaders we are giving money to. That is where > the problems come in. Much of the famine in Somalia was created by man. Especially after > Aid began arriving. The warlords took control and the food could not reach the people. > If the country is in the midst of a civil war, and needs assistance, which side do we > give it to? If the stronger side can prevent us from giving it to the weaker side, do we > still give it to the stronger side? If the "good guys" are winning but the "bad guys" > are starving, do we prevent the "bad guys" (including little kids, women and old people) > to starve? If a government decides to use it to enrich themselves at the expense of the > people, do we still give some in hopes maybe a little will reach the poor? Do we give to > countries under the condition that they agree to do this or that? If bordering countries > are at war and one population is starving, is supplying them with food and medicine > going to viewed as backing that country? At what point are we
"interfering" with a – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> nation, and no longer helping them out. It appears to me that the countries which are > having the worst problems are those most divided amongst themselves. Is the division the > cause of the famine? Or is the famine the cause of the division? Should we make value > judgments like that when deciding who to help? I agree we need to do something, but I > think it many times it will be difficult to do something without making somebody angry. > I was actually quite proud of the U.S. when I learned they were and have been the > biggest financial and food contributor to Afghanistan in spite of the fact "they" are > harboring terrorists. > jennybravo > > What about the underdeveloped countries that have been living within their > > means and not running up huge foreign debts. They’ll feel like complete fools > > if we write off the debts of the big spenders. If we’re giving away money, > > let’s give to everyone. > > BTW, Pakistan owes over $40 billion and goes $3 billion deeper in debt each > > year. > — > The thing that impresses me most about America is the way parents obey their children. > Edward VIII, 1957 in Look
Response:
"Randall Bart" <barticus-no-s…@cotse.com> wrote in message
news:YmFydGljdXM=.093d7668e131ccd6250b4a9df9902a48@1002293853.cotse.net… > John Morten Malerbakken wrote: > > The "Northern Alliance" is a very fragmented group, and it is likely that it > > will break apart very quickly if there is some sort of victory over the > > present taliban. > The Northern Alliance is mainly Turks (Tajiks and Uzbeks). They would not be > able to rule the whole country. However, they are fighting for the government > that most of the world still recognizes. > Further complicating matters, Pakistan will have nothing to do with the > Northern Alliance.
And if the Pakistani government let the country be used as staging area for whatever campaigns into Afgansitan, there is a high risk of a civil uprising and overthrowing of government there. That in its turn could open up for India who will see the possible confusion in Pakistan as a good time to "finally settle" the old dispute over land with Pakistan. Both those countries have nuclear potential. This is not an easy game. It will be very difficult for anyone to ever claim a victory of anything in the area. Only loosers again I believe, and the people living there will pay the price in lives and suffering as usual. > > What the world need is a "New Deal" (T.Roosevelt). > The New Deal was Franklin Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt had the Square Deal. > (Harry Truman had the Fair Deal.)
Thanks Randall, I know too little about this anyway, but should have been able to to name Franklin D. Sorry about that. JMM
Response:
Randall said: >> Have atheists ever started a war? >Yes. The Soviet Union was an atheist state. In 1979, they invaded >Afghanistan and started the chain of events that brought us to where >we are now.
Ah yes, I thought of that, but I don’t think they invaded in the name of atheism to convert the populace? My knowledge of history is so poor that I don’t know why they invaded in the first place. Does anyone know?? Oh, and is the Northern Alliance a bunch of Really Good Guys, or they are a bunch of kooks that are just different from the Taliban kooks? The US (not alone) has a history of supporting some real dingbats. Derek
Response:
Derek Wills wrote: > Oh, and is the Northern Alliance a bunch of Really Good Guys, or > they are a bunch of kooks that are just different from the Taliban > kooks? The US (not alone) has a history of supporting some real > dingbats. > Derek
Thank you Derek. Good question. We do have a very long track record of backing the "enemy of my enemy" and we never seem to learn from it. Maryann
Response:
The "Northern Alliance" is a very fragmented group, and it is likely that it will break apart very quickly if there is some sort of victory over the present taliban. The word "taliban" means "student" by the way. The original talibans received schooling in Pakistan and in refugee camps. There were no, or very few, women there, and therefore they did not know how to treat them and decided to more or less wipe them out of the way in the society they wanted to create. There is some talk that one will try to reinstate the old king, and that he can be a stabilising element. He is an old man, so there is no telling for how long he can be a symbol. The only thing which could help the region is long term foreing aid in order to rebuild decent housing, provide clean water (which is a source of more local conflicts anyway), healt care, schools and infrastructure. The country is already shot back to the dark ages. An alternative strategy for the western world would be to first pay off all debts to the UN and make that organisation able to to carry out what it was created for, and then use some of the enormous resourses now spent on making war on development projects in Afganistan. The ariline "rescue package" alone would provide food and medicare for most of the refugees for a long period of time. That will remove the sociological base for gureilla and terrorist activity permanently. As long as the only way that hungry young men can have food is to carry a Kalashnikov, there will be terror. The source of the terror is not in religions, but in the social misery. Support for the "Northern alliance" with the limited target of removing the present taliban regime will not solve the problem. To solve the problem permanently will cost. And the costs are enormous. Are we ready for that? You can easily add other regions which need the same development (Chiapas, Peru (Sendero Luminoso), Colombia (FARC), Sri Lanka (Tamil Tigers)). What the world need is a "New Deal" (T.Roosevelt). The bill for that must be paid by those who have the resourses and the ability. There will be little gratitude to get from that, but we might see better conditions for lasting peace. True peace is not created by removing one man plus the present regime in Afganistan, but by giving people a chance of a decent life. John Morten "Derek Wills" <o…@astro.as.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:9pim5u$cg4$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Randall said: > >> Have atheists ever started a war? > >Yes. The Soviet Union was an atheist state. In 1979, they invaded > >Afghanistan and started the chain of events that brought us to where > >we are now. > Ah yes, I thought of that, but I don’t think they invaded in the > name of atheism to convert the populace? My knowledge of history > is so poor that I don’t know why they invaded in the first place. > Does anyone know?? > Oh, and is the Northern Alliance a bunch of Really Good Guys, or > they are a bunch of kooks that are just different from the Taliban > kooks? The US (not alone) has a history of supporting some real > dingbats. > Derek
Response:
>The "Northern Alliance" is a very fragmented group, and it is likely that
it will break apart very quickly if there is some sort of victory over the present taliban. The word "taliban" means "student" by the way. The original talibans received schooling in Pakistan and in refugee camps. There were no, or very few, women there, and therefore they did not know how to treat them and decided to more or less wipe them out of the way in the society they wanted to create. There is some talk that one will try to reinstate the old king, and that he can be a stabilising element. He is an old man, so there is no telling for how long he can be a symbol. The only thing which could help the region is long term foreing aid in order to rebuild decent housing, provide clean water (which is a source of more local conflicts anyway), healt care, schools and infrastructure. The country is already shot back to the dark ages. An alternative strategy for the western world would be to first pay off all debts to the UN and make that organisation able to to carry out what it was created for, and then use some of the enormous resourses now spent on making war on development projects in Afganistan. The ariline "rescue package" alone would provide food and medicare for most of the refugees for a long period of time. That will remove the sociological base for gureilla and terrorist activity permanently. As long as the only way that hungry young men can have food is to carry a Kalashnikov, there will be terror. The source of the terror is not in religions, but in the social misery. Support for the "Northern alliance" with the limited target of removing the present taliban regime will not solve the problem. To solve the problem permanently will cost. And the costs are enormous. Are we ready for that? You can easily add other regions which need the same development (Chiapas, Peru (Sendero Luminoso), Colombia (FARC), Sri Lanka (Tamil Tigers)). What the world need is a "New Deal" (T.Roosevelt). The bill for that must be paid by those who have the resourses and the ability. There will be little gratitude to get from that, but we might see better conditions for lasting peace. True peace is not created by removing one man plus the present regime in Afganistan, but by giving people a chance of a decent life. John Morten< Yo! John Morten! You are a wise and sagacious man! Of course you are: I agree with you 100%! There was something the USA cooperated with after one of the WWs, called the Marshall Plan. It seems the same thing is in order here and now. In a world where so few have so much and so many have so little, there is bound to be unrest and unease. Thank you for your wise words, O wonderful John Morten! Hugs and appreciation, Benita
Response:
"TSNW" <tourettenoww…@home.com> wrote in message
news:3BBD9EAB.3D6230F9@home.com… > John Morten Malerbakken wrote: > > An alternative strategy for the western world > Why only the western world?
I agree with you in the fact that there are more countries that have resources, besides the term "western world" is unqualified, so point taken. On the other hand, those present here are mostly representatives of countries in what is often described as the "Western hemisphere" (equally unqualified, I know), and you therefore understand that I had the group of ordinary readers of AST in mind when I wrote this. As far back as I can remember, we have not seen anyone from the Arab world or from Africa (was there someone from South-Africa?), so I was taking it into consideration who the readers are. > There’s some Saudi royalty who could easily afford to give up half of > their assets, for example.
I agree, and could throw some more persons in there too, but will not quite follow you into this line of argumentation. In essence you are pointing at the same thing that I did, and which Benita expresssed so accurately: "In a world where so few have so much and so many have so little, there is bound to be unrest and unease". I feel anyway that it is wrong to start pointing fingers at whom has the most to give up will not lead anywhere. This is just as much a question of a mentality. > Anyone have any data on how much OPEC countries contribute to relief > efforts in their own backyard? > > would be to first pay off all > > debts to the UN and make that organisation able to to carry out what it was > > created for, and then use some of the enormous resourses now spent on making > > war on development projects in Afganistan. The ariline "rescue package" > > alone would provide food and medicare for most of the refugees for a long > > period of time. > Agreed, but not sure the UN is the most efficient means of directing > international relief.
So let us make it better. It is still the only truly international oraganisation which has the highest politically recognition i the world. All big organisations can improve and make better use of their resources. I do not see that we could do if we should write off the UN. All the small and weak nations feel that they have a say there. Some of the mroe powerful feel that they have too little say there, but in my opinion it is the best we have. JMM
Response:
No, I do not have a problem with this package or any other "packages" for that matter. (I am still a bit confused that it was possible to find traces of attack in what I wrote), I was merly pointing out that there are many ways to spend money, and that they would have a different effect spent on other things. I am fully aware that without these support packages, there would be an even more dramatic drop in the US economy which would spill over to the rest of the world, leaving even less to those in need of emergency help. So, I do not have problems with any "packages", I would just like to see more of them, from all parts of the "rich" world (not to upset BB2 again) to all those who need them so desparately. A new "Marsahall plan" would not be out of the way either. It is important that the pacages are without strings. That we have not seen yet. John Morten "inventing" <strac…@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:zbiv7.41$c_6.1882@eagle.america.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "John Morten Malerbakken" <John.Mor…@malerbakken.com> wrote in message > news:lHcv7.3033$Ad3.11170@nntpserver.swip.net… > . The ariline "rescue package" > > alone would provide food and medicare for most of the refugees for a long > > period of time. > > John Morten > Do you have a problem with the airline "rescue package"? If so, with > "rescue packages" in general, or specifically with the airlines? > I could give you even more choices, (I did already, but I editied them out) > but I realized I am sounding very defensive, and I don’t mean to. Just > sounded like a criticism I have heard so many times from out-of-country > friends and aquaintences when the US spends money on its own first. > KC, sounding, I hope, only a little defensive.
Response:
"BENITA M WINSLOW" <Ben…@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:P9hv7.51747$jn7.4281221294@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com… > There was something the USA cooperated with after one of the WWs, called the > Marshall Plan. It seems the same thing is in order here and now. > In a world where so few have so much and so many have so little, there is > bound to be unrest and unease.
A "MArshall plan" with no strings attached is welcomed. A proposition that all rich countries write off their foreign debts to underdeveloped countries has circulated for some time now. Could be a start. Would cost me some tax. I can take that. JMM
Response:
John Morten Malerbakken wrote: > The "Northern Alliance" is a very fragmented group, and it is likely that it > will break apart very quickly if there is some sort of victory over the > present taliban.
The Northern Alliance is mainly Turks (Tajiks and Uzbeks). They would not be able to rule the whole country. However, they are fighting for the government that most of the world still recognizes. Further complicating matters, Pakistan will have nothing to do with the Northern Alliance. > What the world need is a "New Deal" (T.Roosevelt).
The New Deal was Franklin Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt had the Square Deal. (Harry Truman had the Fair Deal.)
Response:
"John Morten Malerbakken" <John.Mor…@malerbakken.com> wrote in message news:lHcv7.3033$Ad3.11170@nntpserver.swip.net… . The ariline "rescue package" > alone would provide food and medicare for most of the refugees for a long > period of time. > John Morten
Do you have a problem with the airline "rescue package"? If so, with "rescue packages" in general, or specifically with the airlines? I could give you even more choices, (I did already, but I editied them out) but I realized I am sounding very defensive, and I don’t mean to. Just sounded like a criticism I have heard so many times from out-of-country friends and aquaintences when the US spends money on its own first. KC, sounding, I hope, only a little defensive.
Response:
John Morten Malerbakken wrote: > An alternative strategy for the western world
Why only the western world? There’s some Saudi royalty who could easily afford to give up half of their assets, for example. Anyone have any data on how much OPEC countries contribute to relief efforts in their own backyard? > would be to first pay off all > debts to the UN and make that organisation able to to carry out what it was > created for, and then use some of the enormous resourses now spent on making > war on development projects in Afganistan. The ariline "rescue package" > alone would provide food and medicare for most of the refugees for a long > period of time.
Agreed, but not sure the UN is the most efficient means of directing international relief. — Tourette Syndrome – Now What? http://members.home.net/tourettenowwhat
