billvon 2,991 #101 February 15, 2007 >What if that food was never donated, and 5 people were to suffer >and die of starvation? That would be sad. Tens of thousands of people die every day of starvation; that's sadder still. We do what we can. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #102 February 15, 2007 Quote Cuz they ain't got nothing to trade with, that would amount to more than a few pennies, when compared to the dollars of stuff we give them . Jesus, what a crap. What an arrogant statement, I'm lost (JohnRich, you'll love it!) again... How about pulling your nose out of your a** and having a look into the world outside?? Do you even know that Africa is a continent? Full of sources you only can dream of?!?!? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #103 February 15, 2007 >How about pulling your nose out of your a** . . . Your one warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gontleman 0 #104 February 15, 2007 Quote Cuz they ain't got nothing to trade with, that would amount to more than a few pennies, when compared to the dollars of stuff we give them . *Ahem* This diamond ring doesn't shine like it did before... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #105 February 15, 2007 QuoteI know you hate American and like trolling about it, but there's no doubt that Germany's empire would have lasted much much longer without the aid provided to England as it was the last holdout in the west, and the Soviets wouldn't have held up to a one front Nazi war machine. The Russians were begging for D Day as soon as possible, and it certainly seems that FDR stalled on that one. In the bigger picture, sure, the empire would have likely have fallen to resistance elements. That was too much land to cover and the chain of command to Hitler had a bad tendency to gross over any bad news. I agree with that interpretation of WWII, but you can see that is a vastly different tone than what was originally posted... About the hating Amrican and trolling part...oh well, think what you will. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #106 February 16, 2007 QuoteAfrica lacks resources to support life? I am not saying all of Africa, but definately parts of Africa. QuoteAfrica lacks the fair prices demanded of it's trade! All the minerals they export? Bought for peanuts. Absolute peanuts. Because of us - because of the West. Because of our control of the prices. I'm not saying it's ALL our fault. But a very significant large element of fault lies with us. Would you blame the public (who are paying high prices for diamonds and minerals) or the companies (De Beers) for this? QuoteFuck the donations - they're a drop in the ocean. So I should stop giving time and money to http://www.fmsc.org/? Quotep.s. how come people live quite happily in desert regions such as Saudi Arabia? Or the UAE? Because they export large quantities of oil. Quotep.p.s. If the West can buy African trade for ridiculously low prices, why not sell our drugs and medicines for similiar prices? I don't know, why not?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #107 February 16, 2007 Quote<> That's a joke, right? I thought it was ignorance but it could be hyperbole for the purpose of sarcasm. Africa has about 30% of the planet's mineral reserves, including 40% of gold, 60% of the cobalt and 90% of the world's platinum group metal reserves. And then there are diamonds.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #108 February 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOne thing for sure, the pussies in the European Union sure as hell won't do anything to quell tyranical dictators around the world. And, which tyranical dictators has the US taken care off? How many tyranical dictators has the US supported? Ever heard of Hitler? Yes, he committed suicide in his bunker just before it was overrun by RUSSIAN troops. The US supported Somoza, Marcos, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, and the Shah, among others. WW 2 would have been lost without the US. So don't try to feed me the bull. If the US didn't get involved we would all most likely be living in a very different world run by Nazi Germany. The US put tons of pressure on Hitler and therefore couldn't have enough forces to carry out a sound attack on Russia (they performed a very stupid attack on them instead). . What EXACTLY was the "tons of pressure" the US was putting on Russia at the time of Operation Barbarossa in mid 1941? Trading obsolete destroyers to Britain in exchange for British bases? Yup, that sure would have affected Hitler's eastern front campaign a whole lot.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #109 February 16, 2007 Quote>My point was that we do offer assistance (w/out bombing) but people >tend not to focus on this assistance. Right, that's the nature of the business. If you help out a church food drive, you'll get kudos for that. But if you help out a church food drive and then get drunk and kill someone with your car, guess which one is going to get the attention? We do a lot of good for people throughout the world, but one dead son easily swamps out 100 donated meals for your family.In my world that's "all them atta boys get canceled by one OH SHIT"I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #110 February 16, 2007 QuoteQuote<> That's a joke, right? I thought it was ignorance but it could be hyperbole for the purpose of sarcasm. Africa has about 30% of the planet's mineral reserves, including 40% of gold, 60% of the cobalt and 90% of the world's platinum group metal reserves. And then there are diamonds.And who controls all that wealth?I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #111 February 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's only a matter of time. Story> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1386812.ece Hmmm... Perhaps. But what I think the article misses is that India & China's economies are tied to serving the demands of North America & Europe. In effect these economies are being fed from the first-world fat. Can North America and Europe survive without offshore call centres, cheap clothing, textiles & consumer goods? I think the answer wold be a slightly uncomfortable Yes. Can India & China continue to thrive as they have without "First World" trade surpluses? I think that's a very definite No. Mike. This is a great point! In the media we here about people/countries complaining about the US and our power and influence in the rest of the world, but we could end the globalization idea and do everything within our own borders and survive while still maintaining our military and worldwide superiority. Then what would the rest of the world be saying? "Please come back and SAVE us" or "The US left us with our thumbs up our butts" People can complain all they want about the US, but in the end, you all need us and we don't NEED you. (but eventually the US will topple, but not yet....) PS. The UK will always be our brothers and is there for the long haul I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. I think it's long past time for the USA to step aside, and let the other powers do as they will. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nick 0 #112 February 16, 2007 Quotewithout the aid provided to England The aid that (before Pearl Harbour) England has only just finished paying for through Lease Lend (total value of £1,075 million (in 1941)). Nick Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #113 February 16, 2007 I'd be interested to know the level of debt, caused by WW22, for any of the other nations invlovled. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nick 0 #114 February 16, 2007 From what I understand from wiki (for what it's worth) at todays prices: Total of $50.1 billion worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France $1.6 billion to China Reverse Lend Lease comprised services (like rent on air bases) that went to the U.S. It totalled $7.8 billion, of which $6.8 billion came from the Britain and the Commonwealth. Apart from that, there were no repayments of supplies that arrived before the termination date. (Supplies after that date were sold to Britain at a 75% discount, or $650 million, using long-term loans from the U.S.) No lend lease money went to Canada, which operated a similar program that sent $4.7 billion in supplies to Britain and Soviet Union. Nick Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #115 February 16, 2007 QuoteQuote<> That's a joke, right? I thought it was ignorance but it could be hyperbole for the purpose of sarcasm. Africa has about 30% of the planet's mineral reserves, including 40% of gold, 60% of the cobalt and 90% of the world's platinum group metal reserves. And then there are diamonds. I'm glad my post was such a hit with so many of you. The mineral resources are in the hands of a few and are purchased at the going rate. Gold is $670.00/oz. Platinum is $1215.00/oz. Revenue from these resources has little bearing on most people on the continent. Vortexring, You keep talking about fair trade. What exactly are you talking about? How is Africa being prevented from trading with other countries? What obstacles exist for countries, that are not due to their own particular systems? What changes could be made so they could provide themselves with the same benefit they get from donations? Please enlighten me. About Africa in general, particularly sub-Saharan Africa - the place is a mess. Is there any region that hasn't had major civil strife in the last 50 years? When peace does come, it seems temporary. Saying the donations would be unnecessary if we just conducted fair trade with a continent that is in a perpetual state of chaos seems unrealistic. And to everyone who chimed in with "The most stupid comment I've heard yet." "What an arrogant statement" "How about pulling your nose out of your a**" Sorry if I stuck a knife in one of your sacred cows. I guess I could have clarified it a bit like: By and large, the vast majority of Africans produce little in the way of exports. The Sub-saharan population is over 10% of the world total, but their exports are only 1.2% of the worldwide total. It is unrealistic to think people of Africa could provide for themselves the food and drugs that are now free, if only the rest of the world would exercise new fair trade practices with them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #116 February 16, 2007 QuoteApparently my "bullshit" is working on you, because you keep replying! Is your goal just to get feathers raised and get replies that you'll ignore in part and nitpick? Sounds like trolling, but hey, you're the man here. QuoteI know you probably don't care much about the subject at hand, but here's a recap: Don't need your recap, Bill, I can read. Apparently my mentioning the hypothetical fall of the US as the only superpower and having the reigns taken over by China is not relevant in your opinion. However, the discussions about WW2 going on don't seem to draw your same ire about sticking to a subject. Weird. QuoteBeijing. It's not an example of Chinese imperialism, so it had nothing to do with the discussion. So from now on we'll ignore it. No, I won't ignore it. This is the second time I've brought it up. If a country rules it's OWN people in a manner that China does, what would living in a world dominated by those people be like? It IS relevant to those who think the US should step aside, as an example of one possible alternative that I'm PRETTY sure no one would like. QuoteTaiwan. Also not a very good example of Chinese imperialism. Taiwan is a good example of how one country is living under the constant threat of annihilation if they don't do what China asks. Good example of foreign policy that we'd have to look forward to with China on top. Relevant. QuoteYou did not deny aka's assertion that the US had imperialist tendencies, but rather compared them to China's and said people would get sick of them more rapidly. (Indeed, you suggested the US was "the devil they knew.") I think people are getting sick of BOTH countries' imperialist attitudes, and the idea that "our imperialism is better than theirs" is a non-starter to me. In the frame of the discussion, yeah, I went with the "imperialistic US" BS. Sometimes it's easier to argue a point without going after the entire premise of "evil US". Whether you like it or not, someone WILL be the dominant country in world politics. My position is that the world is better with the US on top. You disagree? Okay. QuoteChina shouldn't be oppressing Tibet the way they are. We shouldn't be occupying Iraq the way we are. The world will benefit if both countries stop their respective imperial pursuits, and will suffer if both countries increase their efforts to control other areas under the flag "but we're saving the world from THEM." By and large, people want to be left alone, whether the outside imperial influence is the US, China, or (for other posters in this thread) Hitler. It will NEVER stop, Bill, so how about we talk in realistic terms. When has the world ever NOT had someone acting as the instigator? At the very lowest level, I'd rather be on the side that is in charge.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #117 February 16, 2007 You've spent some google time understanding the folly of your earlier statement. Good for you - spend some more time and you'll find the answer's to the questions your asking me. Try asking something along the lines of; 'Why is Africa poor?' to begin with, then; 'What is Fair Trade?' You'll of course find numerous answers - collate your data and decide for youself what the key points are. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #118 February 16, 2007 How generous of you to put the onus on me. Perhaps you can elaborate what you meant by trading "with the Africans for a fair and competitive rate for their goods" and selling them "the drugs and medicines they need for a fair and competitive rate"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #119 February 16, 2007 No - can't be arsed. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beerlight 0 #120 February 17, 2007 I read the entire article. And THOSE are the three.....gulp......"giants" that are trying to enact a change. I actually like India. I sometimes need computer tech support. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
