Securing our borders

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

While I trend to agree with Lux, she tends to put forth her comments in an elitism blase', and snobby manner - and this is self-professed. She also spins it to point out only the negative. For example, to read her post in a own its own, one would think the world is a horrible place with no good in it whatsoever and America gives very little to the world, all of which it owes. I think that is wrong and a gross overstatment that allows the spin to the negative. Then again, I am an optimist

Note: this is not a slam on Lux - just my perception of how her posts come off to me and i am pretty sure she is aware of that

Thanks for another perspective. Lux's post (this recent one) just seemed true, right, and normal to me. Mary seemed shrill, angry, and wrong. But now we know it can be different to different people.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

Thanks for another perspective. Lux's post (this recent one) just seemed true, right, and normal to me. Mary seemed shrill, angry, and wrong. But now we know it can be different to different people.

Oops - I edited as you quoted - oh well - work in progress

Now - off I go spreading my optimist sunshine all over Atlanta to the chagrain of the naysayers

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by hayley

I'm confused. At what point in this discussion did Lux say anything to you that makes it okay to personally attack her baselessly and unfairly? Her post was nothing but informed and intelligent.

I'll rebut by saying my posts are just as informed an intelligent. I will also refer you to several pages back when Lux said I had not one but TWO screws loose--based entirely on her mistaken interpretation of something I in fact didnt say. Where were all you referees at that point?

If you'll stop and think about it, I gave her good advice. If she feels THAT strongly about something, then she is wasting her time venting in cyberspace, her convictions would serve her better in other, more productive arenas.

When a person feels strongly ENOUGH, then they will DO something besides complain.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

If you'll stop and think about it, I gave her good advice. If she feels THAT strongly about something, then she is wasting her time venting in cyberspace, her convictions would serve her better in other, more productive arenas.

When a person feels strongly ENOUGH, then they will DO something besides complain.

Darling, you don't know what she does about the issues she's obviously passionate about. You shouldn't assume that all she does is complain because you don't know that. She comes across as incredibly intelligent about these things, so I'd find it hard to believe that she does nothing but bitch on this board about such things in order to vent and annoy you. She's not wasting her time any more than you or I or Jason or Goldie are when we discuss these things and her views aren't any less important than any of ours.

[irishgrl]

I am angry (I resent the assumption that America is always the bad guy and gets no credit from the rest of the world for the good we do) but I am not shrill, and sorry, but I am not wrong. once you examine what I said, you will have to admit that my premise was correct: America WAS built by hard work. There may have been other factors (luck, resources etc) but they are useless without EFFORT. Resources alone do not an Empire make. it IS possible to create an Empire without them and conversely, you can have them, and not have an Empire.

There are side issues that come into play (the evils of Colonialism, the respect for Nature some cultures have) but that wasnt the main issue and getting sidetracked to that is non productive.

If this discussion was about those topics I would certainly be counted among the naysayers.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by dissention

Darling, you don't know what she does about the issues she's obviously passionate about. You shouldn't assume that all she does is complain because you don't know that. She comes across as incredibly intelligent about these things, so I'd find it hard to believe that she does nothing but bitch on this board about such things in order to vent and annoy you. She's not wasting her time any more than you or I or Jason or Goldie are when we discuss these things and her views aren't any less important than any of ours.

the reverse holds true. I'd venture to say that if she WERE doing something, we'd all hear about it. After all, she did mention donations she had given to some charity or other. While I dont know what she DOES do, I certainly know when she's NOT doing it (as evidenced by the hours logged in cyberspace).

[dissention]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

the reverse holds true.

I know that and I never told you your views were less important than mine or anyone else's.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Lux

Thankyou

I would have said basically what Diss just said, you don't know me, although you seem to be under the impression you're some horrid aunt of mine who's despised me since she found out I was illegitimate and am disgracing her family through my existence. Your ignorance to my life doesn't deny me the right to post though. For future reference, if I'm to post in a thread about, say Michael Jackson, will I be require to present convincing evidence of my participation in various rallies and petitions related to sex offenses? Just checking so I don't make a fool of myself by thinking I can post (and not be spat at for doing so) on a particular topic.

My post was not simply about colonisation. That was an example that was intended to be a metaphor of very simillar qualities to what we were talking about originally. You can't lump what I said in as 'colonisation' and then think it's irrelevant because we're largely talking about a different politcal system. I never assumed you were in support of the treatment of the natives during the colonisation, I was using this example to illustrate the point that when a government creates its wealth on the exploitation of other peoples, it owes those people its aid and any given does not imply that they are a generous government. You said earlier than aid given by the US is simply generosity and that they don't owe it to anyone, I was illustrating the point that it is not a matter of generosity. Like with East Timor, Australia is not generous to East Timor, we are in debt to East Timor. That is the difference I was presenting and I don't know why you assumed I was saying you enjoyed the slaughter of the natives.

Also, don't pretend your posts haven't been as personal as mine. Your posts always seem to contain a personal attack. You better lay down your assumption that your aging mind gives you the power to insult me without being called out on it. You even said that I haven't lived, you basically informed me that I'm inexperienced, I know nothing about the world, I'm a sheltered fool. Does that not seem like a giant assumption to you? Shall we compare notes?

We can if you like.....Ive done nothing to you you havent done first. How does it feel?

and now that I have some time to respond to your vitriol:

Comparing me to some mythical family member of yours is strange to say the least...Im sure I can safely say, I dont think either one of us would relish that notion. I dont care if you post, I was only rebutting your attitude re: America. We are not all bad and our Government is not all bad. Some administrations are worse than others but the pendulum will swing the other way, never fear. As for what we give to other nations, we DO give in a spirit of generosity. As the post on page 16 will show, private Americans give twice as much as the Government does. We are not obligated to do this, we just DO. Who the hell are YOU to take this country OR its people to task?

btw: My statement that you were young was not meant as a dig. it is a FACT that because you are young you havent had the life experience that I have. You may not like it but its true. Your sophmoric indignation at my comment is laughable because I can just imagine what your parents would say if you proclaimed to them that you are on a level with them (of course now Im sure you will bash your parents) regarding life experiences etc. Obviously you are well informed, I never said you werent. But I stand by my earlier statement that your views WILL evolve as YOU evolve. Its one thing to be idealistic, (I was more of an idealist at your age) but as you mature, you realize that the solutions are not so simple or black/white. There are a lot of things going on behind the scenes that (for the most part) we are not aware of. I hope that you ARE putting your money where your mouth is and try to make a difference where you live. If things are as bad in your country as you say, then you must be sorely needed. Its a thought...

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Lux

Like a wet sponge. Don't play victim.

no more than you.
although it suits you better than martyr IMO.

[irishgrl]

Found this while researching US Foreign Aid:

Side note on private contributions

As an aside, it should be emphasized that the above figures are comparing government spending. Such spending has been agreed at international level and is spread over a number of priorities.

Individual/private donations may be targeted in many ways. However, even though the charts above do show US aid to be poor (as a % of GNP--NOT in terms of overall $$) compared to the rest, the generosity of the American people is far more impressive than their government. Private aid/donation has been through charity of individual people and organizations though this of course can be weighted to certain interests and areas. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas — more than twice the US official foreign aid of $15 billion at that time:

* International giving by US foundations: $1.5 billion per year
* Charitable giving by US businesses: $2.8 billion annually
* American NGOs: $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
* Religious overseas ministries: $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.
* US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.3 billion
* Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $18 billion in 2000
* Source: Dr. Carol Adelman, Aid and Comfort, Tech Central Station, 21 August 2002.

While Adelman admits that “there are no complete figures for international private giving” she still says that Americans are “clearly the most generous on earth in public — but especially in private — giving”. Hence these numbers and claims may be taken with caution, but even then, these are high numbers.

As I said before, we in America (thats a GENERAL "WE" David) have nothing to be ashamed of.

here's the link

[NaiveMelody23]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

I am angry (I resent the assumption that America is always the bad guy and gets no credit from the rest of the world for the good we do) but I am not shrill, and sorry, but I am not wrong. once you examine what I said, you will have to admit that my premise was correct: America WAS built by hard work. There may have been other factors (luck, resources etc) but they are useless without EFFORT. Resources alone do not an Empire make. it IS possible to create an Empire without them and conversely, you can have them, and not have an Empire.

There are side issues that come into play (the evils of Colonialism, the respect for Nature some cultures have) but that wasnt the main issue and getting sidetracked to that is non productive.

If this discussion was about those topics I would certainly be counted among the naysayers.

Not to be rude by any means Irishgirl, but I do beelive every country was bulit by hardwork. Even if they fell at least they tried to create something and you never know American could possibly fall like other countries. I mean a ship might sail and all, but you know the titanic did sink

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by NaiveMelody23

Not to be rude by any means Irishgirl, but I do beelive every country was bulit by hardwork. Even if they fell at least they tried to create something and you never know American could possibly fall like other countries. I mean a ship might sail and all, but you know the titanic did sink

true. I was only pointing out that America wasnt BORN a world power, in response to what another poster said.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Don't forget the Spanish here in America

Jason, it took me a day, but I just realized what you were saying

and MILITARY FORTS DO NOT A MISSION MAKE!!! back atcha!

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by amber

I fear you are a bit misinformed. But that's ok. Why do you think England didn't have natural resources...

England, to my knowledge, had tin, and coal mines and at one time vast stands of oak with which they built their navy. The lumber was never replaced, I dont believe, and the coal was used domestically. I think they exported their tin but Im not sure there is much of a market for it, especially since aluminum came along.

I was speaking of England's resources in relation to America's. England, as a small island nation, had very limited resources contrasted with America's bounty. I neglected to clarify that, my apologies. However, England's rise to prominence was more a result of what they procured from other places, as Lux pointed out.

Again, I am not applauding Colonialism, but it happened. I believe the wealthier nations HAVE tried to atone for their past wrongs, but IMO, the reparation is not infinite, though some obviously think it should be. That is where the dichotomy between the IDEAL and the REAL comes into play.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Lux

The GNP is the benchmark used by the UN when calculating percentages given in aid. The percentage was pledged by the 22 participating nations, only five have reached it.

Lux, your statement is misleading. The .07 mark you refer to is NOT a UN figure for AID to other countries, it is a figure at which nations agreed to implement "sustainable development" of poorer countries. It was part of Agenda 21, which is NOT law. It is NOT binding. to wit:

Agenda 21 is not a legally binding document but a "work plan," or "agenda for action," with a political commitment to pursue a set of goals. It may become "soft law," if, as is likely, the UN General Assembly adopts it as a resolution this fall. Agenda 21 includes estimates of the annual costs of its programs in developing countries from 1993 to 2000, of which about $125 billion per year will come from the industrialized countries. Although it may be only soft law, the contentious negotiation of many parts of Agenda 21 underscores its importance to the signatories. Most of the text of Agenda 21 was finalized at the last PrepCom meeting in April. The remaining text was left to be negotiated at UNCED by eight informal "contact groups" that addressed the most contentious issues: atmosphere, biodiversity and biotechnology, finance, forests, freshwater resources, institutions, legal instruments, and technology transfer.

again:

Chapter 33: Financial Resources and Mechanisms. Negotiations for this chapter were the most difficult of the conference. The three major issues discussed are a target and deadline for an increase in total official development assistance (ODA); the level of replenishment of the concessionary branch of the World Bank, the International Development Agency (IDA); and the governance of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). The question of total ODA was resolved by the statement that industrialized nations "reaffirm" their commitment to the UN target of ODA equal to 0.7 percent of donor gross national product. Thus, no new obligation is imposed on those industrialized countries that never "affirmed" the UN goal. The level of IDA replenishment was not resolved during discussions at UNCED, and additional donor funding for an explicit "Earth increment" to the fund was not instituted. World Bank President Lewis Preston proposed that the next scheduled IDA replenishment should maintain the present level in real terms, which would require funding of about $17.5 billion over the period 1993 to 1995. He also suggested that the bank allocate an additional $1.2 billion from its interest income. Furthermore, the UNCED delegations recommended changing the structure of GEF to give developing countries more power.

Although the US representative signed it, I seem to recall that the US Government was not in favor of this document.

here is the link