Justice Dept Files Suit Against Arizona.

[MMI]

So basically, you're saying that the American people should feel responsible because the Mexican and Central American governments can't support their own populations? But when we try to do something to help a foreign country regain control of itself we are accused of being modern-day conquistadors, slashing and burning our way through peaceful civilizations.

Maybe I am saying both of those things, but without the connection you are making.
(1) You resent helping those who need your help, but you have more wealth than anyone else and are still accumulating it as fast as you can, while poorer nations fall deeper into poverty.
(2) By regain control of itself, you mean you install a form of democracy or despotism (you don't mind which) on nations you wish to have control over

(I know Britain is just as bad, but at least we don't enact laws that are designed to allow Hispanics to be persecuted in such a way.)

[QUOTE=Thorne;882909]Well maybe the solution is to send all of the illegals entering the US over to England. After all, you'd be more than happy to help them. Wouldn't you?[/QUOTE

Tell you what, I'll take your Hispanics: you take our Anglo-Saxons.

[Thorne]

(1) You resent helping those who need your help, but you have more wealth than anyone else and are still accumulating it as fast as you can, while poorer nations fall deeper into poverty.

Not quite. I resent being forced to help those who commit crimes against me and my country. I resent being forced to help those who demand that help without making any effort to help themselves. I resent being forced to help those who would spit on me because I refuse to learn their language, while they in turn refuse to learn the language of those they seek help from.

(2) By regain control of itself, you mean you install a form of democracy or despotism (you don't mind which) on nations you wish to have control over

Sadly, there has been far too much of that.

(I know Britain is just as bad, but at least we don't enact laws that are designed to allow Hispanics to be persecuted in such a way.)

And yet the law is not specifically aimed at Hispanics, but at ILLEGALS! Of ANY nationality. True, Hispanics make up the vast majority of those illegals, especially along the southern borders, but that's more an accident of geography than any hostility towards Hispanics in general. Are there those who discriminate against Hispanics. Sure there are, and they are wrong. Just as those who discriminate against African-Americans are wrong. Or those who discriminate against Irish, or Scots, or Italians or any other nationality you care to name. Personally, I don't discriminate against anyone. I only ask that those who violate the law be treated as criminals, not as poor unfortunates who don't know any better and deserve more than an actual law-abiding citizen.

Tell you what, I'll take your Hispanics: you take our Anglo-Saxons.

Tempting, tempting, but no, you'll have to take all the Irish as well.

[denuseri]

(1) You resent helping those who need your help, but you have more wealth than anyone else and are still accumulating it as fast as you can, while poorer nations fall deeper into poverty.

Excuse me our Country also does far more than any others to help those same people.

(2) By regain control of itself, you mean you install a form of democracy or despotism (you don't mind which) on nations you wish to have control over.

You mean like we did with England, France, Italy, Germany and Japan...some of which are among the most prosperous nations on earth?

[MMI]

(1) You resent helping those who need your help, but you have more wealth than anyone else and are still accumulating it as fast as you can, while poorer nations fall deeper into poverty.

Excuse me our Country also does far more than any others to help those same people.

It's true that the US provides much more foreign aid than any other country, but it needs to be noted where that aid goes before you claim to be doing more than any other to help poorer nations. By far the greatest part of US foreign aid goes to "front-line" states (according to my out-of-date sources, to Israel and Egypt, mostly, neither of which is a developing country, but I'm sure a significant amount is going to Afghanistan and Iraq, too) to support USA's military and political objectives, while the development needs of countries like India receive relatively miniscule amounts. On the other hand, Nordic countries, which give significantly more per head of population than America gives, although less in dollar terms, channel their aid towards the regions where they believe it will do most good.

It's not for nothing that the richest country in the world is known as a "generous miser," because it is recognised that aid from America is given for the donor's benefit, not the recipient's.

(2) By regain control of itself, you mean you install a form of democracy or despotism (you don't mind which) on nations you wish to have control over.

You mean like we did with England, France, Italy, Germany and Japan...some of which are among the most prosperous nations on earth?

I don't know what you are referring to; the Marshall Plan perhaps? It took us until at least the year 2000 to repay the credit you gave us, so, like I said, when you take into account the profits you made on the goods you supplied to help our recovery, plus the interest you received for the credit extended, then the aid you gave was for your benefit rather than ours.

Whether you did mean the Marshall Plan or not, it is true that the countries you mention are all under your direct influence ... so much so that we in Britain frequently call ourselves the 51st state. However, you did not change our government, nor France's.

Finally, if you add the economies of those five nations together, the total would compare with the size of the American economy, yet you'd probably find that the aid given by those five nations far exceeds the aid given by America (I can only find stats for 2002, where those countries' aid donations were twice those of America).

If I've missed the point, i apologise: please explain.

[denuseri]

It's true that the US provides much more foreign aid than any other country, but it needs to be noted where that aid goes before you claim to be doing more than any other to help poorer nations. By far the greatest part of US foreign aid goes to "front-line" states (according to my out-of-date sources, to Israel and Egypt, mostly, neither of which is a developing country, but I'm sure a significant amount is going to Afghanistan and Iraq, too) to support USA's military and political objectives, while the development needs of countries like India receive relatively miniscule amounts. On the other hand, Nordic countries, which give significantly more per head of population than America gives, although less in dollar terms, channel their aid towards the regions where they believe it will do most good.

Yes not only out of date, but inaccurate, and misleading...look at the scource where you got that information. Isreal has never been the top country to recieve aide from the USA.

It's not for nothing that the richest country in the world is known as a "generous miser," because it is recognised that aid from America is given for the donor's benefit, not the recipient's.

That is simpley not true.


Additionally the generosity of the American people is far more impressive than our governments if you do not count those instances where we take upon ourselves the cost of defending said recipients as was the case with Europe and Japan and South Korea.

Private aid/donation typically through the charity of individual people and organizations can be weighted to certain interests and areas. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give more than twice the US official foreign aid sometimes more at any given time.




I don't know what you are referring to; the Marshall Plan perhaps? It took us until at least the year 2000 to repay the credit you gave us, so, like I said, when you take into account the profits you made on the goods you supplied to help our recovery, plus the interest you received for the credit extended, then the aid you gave was for your benefit rather than ours.

I am refering to the whole kit and kaboodle. Everything from lend lease to actually comming over and sitting there in person with our military for the past century and all the things that come with it and like protecting your borders from the communists after saving you from the fascists. (Gee I wonder how much the USA has spent protecting you and others and how that would look if it were listed as Aide.

Whether you did mean the Marshall Plan or not, it is true that the countries you mention are all under your direct influence ... so much so that we in Britain frequently call ourselves the 51st state. However, you did not change our government, nor France's.

See what nice people we can be if you are cooperative with us.

Finally, if you add the economies of those five nations together, the total would compare with the size of the American economy, yet you'd probably find that the aid given by those five nations far exceeds the aid given by America (I can only find stats for 2002, where those countries' aid donations were twice those of America).

In relationship to their GNDP perhaps on a precentage per capita basis...but not even close in the actual dollar ammount delievered which is still several times more than those countries combined.

If I've missed the point, i apologise: please explain.

My point was...that the United States of America and the Representitive type of Democracy we promote...isn't some evil empire like some would have us made out to be from eaither envy, fear or spite and that we have our Founding Fathers and the legacy they have passed down to we their posterity to thank for that.