| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ilsanman
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Location: Bucheon, Korea
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 5:40 am Post subject: Canada's foreign aid |
 |
|
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20051125/ca_pr_on_na/bono_martin
Apparently, Bono, some washed up star feels Canada should give another 20 billion dollars a year for foreign aid.
I don't see Mr. Rich moneybags offering any of his own money. Not even his country.
I am all for foreign aid too, but to a point.
I guess Canada is not generous enough. You know, we forgave several millions of debt last year to African nations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hypnotist
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 8:06 am Post subject: Re: Canada's foreign aid |
|
|
| Ilsanman wrote: |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20051125/ca_pr_on_na/bono_martin
Apparently, Bono, some washed up star feels Canada should give another 20 billion dollars a year for foreign aid.
I don't see Mr. Rich moneybags offering any of his own money. Not even his country. |
Your mixing of US$ and CAN$ is confusing.
Bono gave 50 thousand euro to Concern Worldwide at some point. I don't know how much he's worth so can't convert that into a percentage.
Ireland gives 0.39% of GDP as aid. Canada gives 0.26%.
| Quote: |
I am all for foreign aid too, but to a point.
I guess Canada is not generous enough. You know, we forgave several millions of debt last year to African nations. |
These nations were hardly managing to keep up with the interest payments - some weren't even able to do that. There was little to no prospect of the money ever being recovered anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Ireland gives 0.39% of GDP as aid. Canada gives 0.26%.
|
Hmmm...The US gives .15%...but also pays for the defense of Canada and Western Europe and Japan and S. Korea. If you are not going to pay to defend yourselves and you are not going to help the poor, just what are you paying for?
Sounds pretty selfish to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hypnotist
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Exactly how does the US pay for the defence of Western Europe these days?! What's it defending against?
The US is actively trying to prevent the formation of a pan-European army. If it's so concerned about paying for the defence of Western Europe, why isn't it welcoming such a move?
Name one US base abroad which exists for altruistic reasons.
And what exactly does this have to do with aid, anyway? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Exactly how does the US pay for the defence of Western Europe these days?! What's it defending against?
The US is actively trying to prevent the formation of a pan-European army. If it's so concerned about paying for the defence of Western Europe, why isn't it welcoming such a move?
Name one US base abroad which exists for altruistic reasons.
And what exactly does this have to do with aid, anyway?
|
Usually you are quite rational. Maybe it's the late hour?
#1. Maintaining troops in Germany so nobody gets too nervous about a united Germany is part of the expense of defending Europe. Otherwise you are quite right. Defending them against who? Good question. I've wondered why they haven't footed the bill for themselves since about 1965 when they recovered from WWII.
I agree with you about opposing the formation of a pan-European army. It would be best for Europe to have it's own modernized military force. I think the US government is stuck in the old way of thinking on this one. Had Europe had one a few years ago, we wouldn't have been begged to go into Bosnia, etc. That was a purely European thing and Europe should have solved it on its own.
| Quote: |
| altruistic reasons |
Other than distraught mothers lifting cars off little kids, name me one altruistic anything.
Too bad alternate historical scenarios can't be run just to see how things 'might have been'. The US is bad for not getting involved in WWII sooner, but is also bad for not leaving Europe in '45 so the Soviets could do whatever they might have planned. I'm not buying it, and I don't think you do either.
[quote] what exactly does this have to do with aid,
| Quote: |
Everything. Aid and defense spending are just different sides of the coin of dealing with other countries. If aid works as planned, the army isn't needed. If the US hadn't paid for the defense of other countries, those countries would have had a much more difficult political choice to make...guns or socialized medicine. While it may be hard to remember how threatening the world seemed in 1948, that threat was seriously considered by the generation that had to make the decisions then. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Isn't the US moving a lot of troops out of Germany? I thought I read that the base at Rammstein is closed now. I think we are going to see a massive realignment of our forces around the globe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Biggest aid giver re:% of country's GDP? Saudi Arabia.
I'll have to remember that fact next time someone on this board whines how muslim countries don't help one another. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hypnotist
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Usually you are quite rational. Maybe it's the late hour? |
 thanks.
| Quote: |
| #1. Maintaining troops in Germany so nobody gets too nervous about a united Germany is part of the expense of defending Europe. |
I don't think anyone in Europe has been nervous about a united Germany since the 60s though. From the time it was clear W Germany had thrown itself into the EEC/EC/EU and partnership with France, the focus has always been the Reds under the bed. And they're not quite as menacing these days.
| Quote: |
| Otherwise you are quite right. Defending them against who? Good question. I've wondered why they haven't footed the bill for themselves since about 1965 when they recovered from WWII. |
Well, see the documents released from Poland explaining how the Warsaw Pact countries would react to a NATO first nuclear strike. Were the Americans not there, it's possible Communism could have reached the Atlantic (although the WP countries' plans were purely defensive, of course...)
| Quote: |
| I agree with you about opposing the formation of a pan-European army. It would be best for Europe to have it's own modernized military force. I think the US government is stuck in the old way of thinking on this one. Had Europe had one a few years ago, we wouldn't have been begged to go into Bosnia, etc. That was a purely European thing and Europe should have solved it on its own. |
I have a lot of respect for Clinton for the fact he was willing to get US troops involved with that - but you're right, it was a disappointment that the EU couldn't do things itself.
You have to admit though, when Americans say on the one hand "look buddy, we pay all this for your defence" but on the other "don't you dare marginalise NATO and form your own army" it's hard to take seriously.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| altruistic reasons |
Other than distraught mothers lifting cars off little kids, name me one altruistic anything. |
Don't you think aid is a leeeetle more altruistic than military bases?
| Quote: |
| Too bad alternate historical scenarios can't be run just to see how things 'might have been'. The US is bad for not getting involved in WWII sooner, but is also bad for not leaving Europe in '45 so the Soviets could do whatever they might have planned. I'm not buying it, and I don't think you do either. |
Sure, but we're not talking 1945. Your question was along the lines of "we spend all this money today on defending the entire developed world - why should we spend money on the developing world too?". In fact I wouldn't jump to criticise America's %GDP on aid, since although it is outrageously low in comparison, private donations are particularly high. That said, I do think America 'ties' its aid far too much.
Many Europeans are, despite appearances, grateful to the US for the protection during the Cold War. It's just that the Cold War was won in 1989, more or less, and (as you hint above) a lot of American thinking doesn't seem to have moved on.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| what exactly does this have to do with aid, |
Everything. Aid and defense spending are just different sides of the coin of dealing with other countries. If aid works as planned, the army isn't needed. If the US hadn't paid for the defense of other countries, those countries would have had a much more difficult political choice to make...guns or socialized medicine. While it may be hard to remember how threatening the world seemed in 1948, that threat was seriously considered by the generation that had to make the decisions then. |
Of course, I'm not disagreeing with the state of the world during the Cold War - but again, what exactly does this have to do with today's aid budget? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Hmmm...The US gives .15%...but also pays for the defense of Canada and Western Europe and Japan and S. Korea. If you are not going to pay to defend yourselves and you are not going to help the poor, just what are you paying for?
Sounds pretty selfish to me. |
Ah yes because America would just LOVE a nuclear armed Canada run by a socialist government and a Japan with a blue water navy and a need for oil...
Trust me, America gets every penny worth it spends on defense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Foreign aid is NOT charity..
Examine any country and its 'aid'.. and you'll see immense profits going back to the home country in one or many various forms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
to the op...didn't want 20 bil.
| Quote: |
| Apparently, Bono, some washed up star feels Canada should give another 20 billion dollars a year for foreign aid. |
| Quote: |
| He wants Canada to increase foreign contributions to 0.7 per cent of its gross domestic product. That would more than triple the $3 billion Canada currently spends on foreign aid each year. |
perhaps your counting needs a bit of help.
Canada does poorly period.
Every country does poorly, BUT, as the article notes:
| Quote: |
| Speaking in support of the Make Poverty History project, Bono said Canada could easily increase Third World aid because it's the only major industrialized country in a surplus position. |
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_aid_as_of_gdp&int=-1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinglejangle
Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Location: Far far far away.
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
Biggest aid giver re:% of country's GDP? Saudi Arabia.
I'll have to remember that fact next time someone on this board whines how muslim countries don't help one another. |
Biggest recipient of US defense funding? Saudi Arabia. For decades now.
Then they turn around and give it to Pakistan, which funnels it into various even more shady governments and groups which openly threaten US citizens.
I suppose it's not really SA's fault though. We give plenty to the Pakistanis directly too.
Anyway, now back on subject, yeah, none of the industrialized nations gives enough. But then, almost none of what we do give actually makes it into the hands of the common people anyway, so it seems to me that rather than railing about what we don't give, certain rock stars might complain about what happens to what we do give. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I also fail to see just what the US is defending Canada, Western Europe and Japan against. It's sort of like the sqeegie kid wiping a perfectly clean windshield and then expecting a buck or two.
As for Canada's foreign aid, about the only positive thing that can be said about it is that it's less pathetic than America's. It's also largely 'strings-attached' aid. Both nations should be embarrassed by the giving of many ohter countries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moldy Rutabaga
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Without the umbrella of American defence, Canada would have been at risk of attack from the Soviets, or from any nation with a superior armed forces, such as French Guyana.
Calculating a nation's generosity on the basis of its GDP doesn't tell all of the story. Saudi Arabia may not really have that large of a GDP if its only significant income is from oil, but I don't know so I'll be quiet. And certainly, there's no excuse for the paltry amounts most western governments give. If only we baked more bread and built fewer bombs..
Bono's haranguing of governments to give more reminds me of Phil Collins, who preached to audiences at Live-Aid to give to Africa while crossing the Atlantic in his private jet to appear at both concerts. Maybe Bono could do a little to help personally. Everyone hates Bill Gates, but he's more generous than any of these people by far.
Ken:> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moldy Rutabaga wrote: |
| Without the umbrella of American defence, Canada would have been at risk of attack from the Soviets, or from any nation with a superior armed forces, such as French Guyana. .... |
Why do you think the Soviets would have wanted to attack Canada? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
