your stature? helping niger through a famine would not have affected america.
your stature? helping niger through a famine would not have affected america.
Please let me remind you that by "our" I meant western civilization in general, not just America.Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
And technically, it wouldn't, unless you support widescale looting.
eh? i'm conffuzled by that statement.
Private charities (i.e. the people) can help niger, if only temporarily, through food drives and practical measures such as that. To try to rip away money from people in the name of other people isn't cool. That's called stealing.
Earlier, I said that our stature (that of the entire western cvilization) is not based on Niger's need. It does not become our responsibility the moment they ask for help. What will we do when they come and ask for one-third of our property? Or half of our money? Or half of our lives? Need isn't a claim on life.
your government actually has a reserve for times like these. and our stature should be based on all people's needs. we cannot ignore niger. to watch people die should not be a choice left up to individual morals. these people have nothing while we have so much. they are not asking for a third of your property. they are asking for enough food to survive. the grand cost of this? a mere 22 million dollars. it may seem alot but it's not. it's pennies in the scheme of western economy.
the money which they are asking for is not life or death for us. it is for them. it is not a claim. it is a requirement. a requirement that we have the power to meet. just not the morals.
This is the same thing.
1) And the US', UK's, France's, Japan's food stocks are for... oh, hey, lookit that. The US, UK, France, and Japan respectively.
2) Yes it should.
no these countries have reserves for not feeding their already overweight population but to aid other countries in times of disaster.
is this it? the argument? "it's mine and i don't care about anyone else"? i'm sorry but that's pathetic.
OH NOES!!!1 NOT PROSPERITY!
Seriously, the food stocks are there in case something happens which stops those countries from bring able to produce sufficient quantities. Exactly what logic thinks these stocks are to be given to other groups - which would directly counter their entire point, because then there wouldn't BE any stocks in case of disaster.
Nope, the argument is that "It's mine and therefore my choice to care about anyone else.". "It's mine, here you go government, do whatever the hell you like whether I agree with your beliefs and methods or not." is what we call 'tyranny'.is this it? the argument? "it's mine and i don't care about anyone else"? i'm sorry but that's pathetic.
the food stocks aren't for chairty. a secrion of tax money is. it goes into a lovely little reserve fo helping things like the asian tsunami and should have been used in october for niger.
does prosperiety = the fattest country in the world? if so bring on the mediocre economy without the chance of dying at 40 from a heart attack.
"It's mine and therefore my choice to care about anyone else." it was not our choice to care about the jews in germany. it is not our choice to care about africa. humanity is not an option.
The food stocks in England ARE IN CASE DISASTER STRIKES ENGLAND. I doubt I shall ever feel clean for having to use caps, but I don't think it has a chance to get through otherwise. I'd rather have a one in a million shot than none at all.
At least eight nations in Europe have higher obesity rates than the US, which is what I assume you were referring to. And wishing mediocrity on sixty million people because you like railing against the US is the most disgusting abomination I have come across in as long as I can remember.does prosperiety = the fattest country in the world? if so bring on the mediocre economy without the chance of dying at 40 from a heart attack.
Yeah, it was our choice. We could have let the Jews die. Hell, we did. We entered the war to defend the places in Europe which Hitler's armies were invading, not to help the Jews, we didn't even know about much of that until much, much later on."It's mine and therefore my choice to care about anyone else." it was not our choice to care about the jews in germany. it is not our choice to care about africa. humanity is not an option.
My stance on African countries is that we should stay out of their government system. Eventually if it doesnt work out it will collapse in time. Theres no need to enforce anything and bother them, let them do things they need to do themselves when they can. I feel that the Western mentality of having to meddle in Africa, are too nosey in that sense.
That and i agree with MILF, there is no obligation for any country to help anyone, especially when it doesnt benefit themself. So should any Western country want to keep their foods supplies for themselves, damn straight they could if they want to keep their own stuff. I have a PS2, and the next door neighbor guy doesnt, does that mean i have to give mine away now? Makes no sense IMO.
On an offtopic note i do not feel America has made good trade progress even, at least with China because they view them as a threat, they turned their heads on any deals China offered and if they persist they are going to look at other countries for trade deals. So the case that they handled the situation i dont feel their trade progress is really good, its better, but i cant say its really good.
Alex de Waal, president of the human rights group, Africa Rights, concludes that foreign aid is "structurally bad because it undermines the incentive to take responsibility. The more aid a country receives, the less the government of that country has to answer to the people."
aid must come in two forms. short term disaster aid like the kind we gave in asia after boxing day and the kind we gave to ethiopia and the kind we should give to niger. people shouldn't live on this.
thre is long term aid which is schools and hospitals and wells and farming equipment to get things up and running.
but with all this must come one thing. reform. not their reform. ours. debt, subisidies and tarriffs if these are left in place even without disaster and famine these places don't stand a chance as long as we continue to destroy their farms, businesses and economy.
"The food stocks in England ARE IN CASE DISASTER STRIKES ENGLAND." this is because i was refering not to food stocks but to the aid allowances which come in the form of money not food which is then converted into food or whatever is needed. it;'s what we donated to asia. and it comes out of 0.7% of the country's income.
find me any country with higher levels of obesity than america. i think you will find you are wrong.
and my point about medicority was in reply to "no these countries have reserves for not feeding their already overweight population but to aid other countries in times of disaster.
OH NOES!!!1 NOT PROSPERITY!" which seemed to me to link prosperiety with the growing waist lines of western countries.
milf you forget that we are obliged to end genocide when it occours. starvation was genocide in warsaw. it is genocide in africa. the difference is is that we are causing it.
lionx we are not talking about surrendering possesions we are talking about saving millions from starvation. something which our governments have money set aside for. money which even if it went over that we have plenty of. it would not bother us to save these people. it is our human duty to help these people. it is no mans right to watch another starve to death. failure to help is co-operation in death and suffering.
Posting Permissions
