Have you heard anything about Obama sponsored legislation that would take .7% of our gnp and use it to fight world poverty? The account I read says it could come to vote in the Senate very soon. I guess he is not satisfied with the 300 billion or so that we now send abroad. We can't afford him in the Senate, much less in the White House!

I'm always amazed at how much ignorance people absorb when they listen to Limbaugh and a few other windbags of talk radio. Do yourself a favor, don't buy into Rush's show openers with the pop-rock music and soundbites because it sound's "patriotic." He's simply entertainment and a paid commentator hoping his audience will do little to no research on anything he says as his staff screens calls to cut off anybody that he knows has the upper hand on his shenanigans. What we can't afford is another Bush type Republican wannabe in office making the US appear to be the stench of the world, that we already are. Vote Obama! :cool:



Obama, Hagel, Cantwell Introduce Bill to Fight Global Poverty | U.S. Senator Barack Obama (http://obama.senate.gov/press/071211-obama_hagel_can/)

"“Eliminating global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges we face, with billions of people around the world forced to live on just dollars a day,” said Senator Obama. “We can – and must – make it a priority of our foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this legislation will not only commit to reducing global poverty, but will also demonstrate our promise and support to those in the developing world. Our commitment to the global economy has to extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing corporate profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere.”

“Poverty, hunger, and disease will be among the most serious challenges confronting the world in the 21st century,” Senator Hagel said. “This legislation provides the President of the United States the framework and resources to help implement a comprehensive policy to reduce global poverty. It is the human condition that has always driven the great events of history. This is a responsibility of all citizens of the world.”

"America needs to do more to help the 1.1 billion men, women and children throughout the world living on less than $1 a day by helping promote sustainable economic growth and development," said Senator Cantwell. "We need to do more to save lives in the poorest countries. The U.S. needs to implement a real plan to combat poverty on a global scale while also addressing the national security risks extreme poverty creates.""




UN Millennium Project © 2005 | Pressroom (http://mirror.undp.org/unmillenniumproject/press/qa4_e.htm)


What is the 0.7 commitment, and where did it come from?



"The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion —or about 0.25% of their collective GNP.



Official Development Assistance in 2004
(source: OECD/DAC 2004)

(*) Indicates countries that have NOT set a timetable for 0.7%.


Country
Aid as % of
GNI Country
Aid as % of
GNI

Australia (*)
0.25
Japan (*)
0.19

Austria
0.24
Luxembourg
0.85

Belgium
0.41
Netherlands
0.74

Canada (*)
0.26
New Zealand (*)
0.23

Denmark
0.84
Norway
0.87

Finland
0.35
Portugal
0.63

France
0.42
Spain
0.26

Germany
0.28
Sweden
0.77

Greece
0.23
Switzerland (*)
0.37

Ireland
0.39
United Kingdom
0.36

Italy
0.15
United States (*)
0.16




Five European countries already devote 0.7% or more of their gross national income to aid. In a historic declaration on 24 May 2005, the European Union announced plans and timetables to reach 0.7 before 2015, which means that 16 of the 22 OECD DAC countries (the EU-15 plus Norway) are on track to meet the commitments they made in Monterrey. The six remaining countries – Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and Switzerland and the United States – have not set out timetables to reach 0.7. If the wealthy nations do now what they have already promised to do, the Millennium Development Goals can be achieved in even the poorest regions."

An $845 Billion earmark... Do you know that this was rushed through Biden's Foreign Relations Committee without so much as a single hearing and no recorded vote(only a voice vote) ?They are rushing it through the Senate so Obama can get a legislative victory on a bill that he is the key sponsor of ;something he has not been able to do to date .By the time this is through the MSM will spin Obama as being the next Bono.

Here are the facts : The U.S makes up only 6% of the world population yet we pay 27% of the worlds peace keeping budget. We pay 22% of the U.N.'s total budget which is, as much as France, Russia, China, Germany, Canada and Italy combined! We donate 60% of the worlds food aid and 40% of the worlds disaster relief aid.In short the U.S. already gives more aid to the world than all other nations on earth combined!

The Millennium Project is a massive marxist transfer of wealth from free countries to countries run by despots and administered by the buffoons at the UN . I for one am not prepared to favor a bill that imposes a global tax on the US or dictates the level of foreign aid we send out and to whom. Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the Millennium Project has written that the only way to raise that kind of money is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

Let's not talk GDP ; this bill commits the US to add $65 billion a year to it's foreign aid ;with the UN deciding where it is to be spent .

Also included in the Millennium project are requirements to banning "small arms and light weapons" and ratifying treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol , and a hand full of other conventions Does Obama plan to introduce separate legislations to compel us to ratify those treaties or is it all inclusive in his bill which mandates compliance with the Millennium goals ?

In short the U.S. already gives more aid to the world than all other nations on earth combined!

Yes, but since we don't also exceed every other nation in "per capita" aid we're just a bunch of miserly, self-absorbed cheapskates.

The Heritage Foundation notes "Since the end of World War II, the United States has provided more foreign aid to the world than any other country, yet recipients are just as poor now as they were then (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/Issues/issuearea/ForeignAid.cfm). Even worse, foreign aid has fostered corruption and irresponsible policymaking."

Some recipients are even worse off now than before our handouts.

"Zambia, for example, has received $1.3 billion (in constant dollars) in U.S. development assistance for four decades, but its real GDP per capita has fallen from $528 in 1960 to $366 in 2004. Haiti’s lot is even worse. Despite U.S development assistant of more than $3.5 billion (in constant dollars) over the past 40 years, Haiti’s real GDP per capita has dropped by almost half, from $788 to $437."

But hey, what's new about the left fighting to expand failed government programs?


Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the Millennium Project has written that the only way to raise that kind of money is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.


These kind of taxes always confuse me. Why do all these geniuses keep imposing and raising taxes on commodities or activities they're trying to eliminate?

Yeah you would think that if the goal is revenue raising they would encourage carbon emissions.

I'd be willing to bet that if you added private donations then our per capita donation numbers would significantly rise .

also consider trade .The US imports some $660 billion in goods from developing countries annually . Trade means jobs and jobs help reduce poverty. Getting back to private donations ;the Hudson Institute, placed the value of total U.S. private assistance in 2004 at approximately $24.2 billion.

yeah you would think that if the goal is revenue raising they would encourage carbon emissions.

I'd be willing to bet that if you added private donations then our per capita donation numbers would significantly rise .

Yep, I've pointed this out before...


Washington — The United States is the single largest donor of foreign economic aid, but, unlike many other developed nations, Americans prefer to donate their money through the private sector, according to a new report published by a Washington research organization.

Of the $122.8 billion of foreign aid provided by Americans in 2005 (the most current data available), $95.5 billion, or 79 percent, came from private foundations, corporations, voluntary organizations, universities, religious organizations and individuals, says the annual Index of Global Philanthropy.

The index was issued May 24 by the Center for Global Prosperity at the Hudson Institute, a Washington-based nonpartisan research organization.

“It isn't like in the 1950s when the Marshall Plan and government flows dominated our economic engagement with the developing world,” said Carol A. Adelman, the director of the Center for Global Prosperity. She spoke May 24 at the launching of the report.

For example, U.S. foundations gave more -- in money, time, goods and expertise -- than 11 of the 22 developed-country governments each gave in 2005, and U.S. private voluntary organizations totaled more than the governments of Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany and France each.

Here's the link (http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/May/20070524165115zjsredna0.2997553.html)

Excuses, excuses, and more excuses. Is Ringling Brothers circus missing a couple of clowns? You guys got to be kidding me. We agreed to help out back in 2000. Would you really damn a man for wanting to help out with poverty, despite these earmarks which by the way has many taxation's included?? And another thing that's not about taking our guns away here in the US, it's about a push to reduce rebels in third world countries. This spenditure is minuscule by comparison of the trillions to be spent on Dubya's wars.



National Priorities Project | Bringing the Federal Budget Home (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home)

Iraq, Afghanistan could cost $2.4 trillion - Oct. 24, 2007 (http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/24/news/economy/cbo_testimony/index.htm)

Yup like I said . We pay a big price for being the cop of the world. Which country would you prefer to take over that job? My biggest objection to the bill is that it gives the spending priorities to the UN . Tell me what program they have administered that wasn't a complete fraud ,scam ,or waste .

Geeze ;libs are all alike . The 2 Dem candidates belly ache about poverty while they both spend a quarter billion dollars on a campaign that will yield no results. Typical liberal spending plan if you ask me.

The libs want to be judged for their intentions, not the results of their 'pie-in-the-sky, by-and-by' schemes. And it is so pathetically funny to hear libs cry about the deficit and national debt, when this is their baby, the New Deal and the Great Society. Barf, barf, barf! In fact, the sorry state of education in America is the result of teachers crawling in bed with politicians; the same happened with medical care years ago, and the results of that fiasco are all around us, and becoming more acute.

I've got news for Republicans we are not the police of the world. We don't do such a good job taking care of our own backyard and certainly not anyone else's. The libs "good intentions" as compared to the "self-anointed" Republican world police force is far less expensive. McCain also speaks on poverty issues, but that wouldn't be belly aching huh? If the DNC doesn't disenfranchise one of the candidate's supporters, the money used during the campaigns will have been well spent to see the Pubs evicted from the White House come November.

Bobby ;you may wish it weren't so but our retreat from the role would create a void to be filled by people of bad intention. Which Navy do you think has the capacity to protect the free flow of goods ?Which nations Navy was able to rapidly deploy to give immediate aid during the 2004 Tsunami ? I am sure we are prepared to respond now when that fool running Myanmar gets his head out of his a** .

Is there a value and cost in those types of activities when we factor in how much aid we give to people in need ?

I've got news for Republicans we are not the police of the world. We don't do such a good job taking care of our own backyard and certainly not anyone else's. The libs "good intentions" as compared to the "self-anointed" Republican world police force is far less expensive. McCain also speaks on poverty issues, but that wouldn't be belly aching huh?! If the DNC doesn't disenfranchise one of the candidate's supporters, the money used during the campaigns will have been well spent to see the Pubs evicted from the White House come November.
I mean, look at it: we can't afford cradle to grave security for the folks in the U.S.; how in the world can we afford 'security' for the rest of the world? Oballary has an answer for that? Oh yeah, spend more money, more programs, more security.

Tom and George,

Spending the money on aid for Katrina at home was a duty and responsibility to our own people, and as for as deploying international aid for the Tsunami in 2004 that was a wonderful act of compassion. So to answer your question "yes" it always has depended on the activity. Involving ourselves as if we are going to raise the American flag someday in Iraq and make it the fifty-first state of the US, was an act of ignorance and head first stubbornness. We can't continue to afford throwing money at useless wars that will send us to the grave broke as well. Dubya early on scapegoated the social security system to favor 401k's "investment plans" that can and has also lost money, but that's another subject that we can discuss if someone cares to start another thread.

Iraq expenditures are not the issue here. It is not either /or ;it is to me a matter of sovereignty .I don't mind foreign aid . What I object to is madates dictated to us from a pseudo-international government that I have no say in electing .

Our total military costs are less than 2% of GDP . And they do a lot more good for the world than all our other foreign aid .
I know that the popular counterpoint is for us to take care of our own and retreat to fortress America. Even when that was possible it was a bad and counterproductive idea. It ended up costing us more later . Just as waiting for OBL to whack us was a bad idea that cost us plenty as a result.

Plenty of money was spent for Katrina relief ;and still is being spent... But ,as is typical of big government, it was not administered well .

Giving the money then to a global unaccountable bureaucracy to administer would be an unmitigated disaster ;as the UN performance has proven over and over .It makes even less sense. This Millennium Project is just feel good pablum. I guarantee you'll hear of UN administrators growing rich off it. Just look to the Oil -for Food scam as an example of how the UN typically manages these programs.

BABRAM says: "...aid for Katrina at home was a duty and responsibility to our own people". Wrong; it is compulsory charity, i.e. taxes; pandering; socialism, fascism, whatever you want to call it. W ambushed by the pandering MSM and Dem/fascists. W tried social security reform, but it will take a national disaster like Katrina or 9/11 to get the statists to stop demagoging the issue.

Tom, what a surpise. We disgaree again. You'd think we shouldn't keep to our commitment of aid in helping fight poverty for approximately one-forth the cost of the GDP by comparson of the percentages as opposed to fighting much more expensive uselss war?! No wonder you don't what that to be the subject. OK so let me trun to another dynamic then... what do you mean to imply hat taking care of someone else's business we take care of our backyard? Really?? Any of a dozen idiots could strap on a bomb and walk into WalMart anytime, anywhere. OBL's probably preparing his next video to be stocked on the shelves of BlockBuster soon.

BABRAM says: "...aid for Katrina at home was a duty and responsibility to our own people". Wrong; it is compulsory charity, i.e., taxes; pandering; socialism, fascism, whatever you want to call it. W ambushed by the pandering MSM and Dem/fascists. W tried social security reform, but it will take a national disaster like Katrina or 9/11 to get the statists to stop demagoging the issue.


OK folks you heard it from George himself. Katrina was not our responsibility to help our fellow Americans. Thank you George. Perfect!

OK folks you heard it from George himself. Katrina was not our responsibility to help our fellow Americans. Thank you George. Perfect!
It is amusing, but tragic, that many volunteers from many groups aid Americans in crisis, Katrina and elsewhere, with little or no recognition; but the tragedy has been terribly demagogued here and elsewhere trying to make political points. And the point that is being made is there is not enough government. Blaming W for Katrina is like blaming Hoover for the Depression. Is that before your time? If so, I'm sorry; but Hoover was the whipping boy for too little government in the national economy, just as Bush is the whipping boy for too little government in a national disaster. I ain't buying a ticket to that play.

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't help our fellow Americans and that our government abandon it's people? Last time I checked the presidents have power to declare natural disasters, is that a problem for you? I'm not blaming Bush for the hurricane itself and I don't think most of the Libs were either. That's a skewed issue of contention for most Republican vs. a few extreme lefties. However many people, like Tom mentioned earlier (and I agree), see a problem in the efficiency of getting that help in a timely manner and the after effect of civil unrest.

Bobby I'm sure you will 'feel good 'about paying your taxes for poverty relief only to find it syphoned off by the next Kojo Annan in the UN or Robert Mugabe.

ABC News: Will More Foreign Aid End Global Poverty? (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=1955664&page=1)

The libs want to be judged for their intentions, not the results of their 'pie-in-the-sky, by-and-by' schemes. And it is so pathetically funny to hear libs cry about the deficit and national debt, when this is their baby, the New Deal and the Great Society. Barf, barf, barf! In fact, the sorry state of education in America is the result of teachers crawling in bed with politicians; the same happened with medical care years ago, and the results of that fiasco are all around us, and becoming more acute.

EXACTLY!

Liberalism is all about "feeling good", and has nothing to do with reality or facts.

FDR wanted to feel good when he created the welfare state, now we have generations of people without any self respect, sense of accomplishment, or personal responsibility. They look to the government to take care of their every need and have no ability or desire to take care of themselves. Boy, we've really helped them haven't we!

The re-distribution of wealth is a liberal policy based on socialistic ideals that I strongly disagree with, as well as raising our taxes so we can "help" other countries become dependent upon the US Government for their existence.

Sure, lets put them in the same position we have our own people, you got to be kidding me!

DOWNLOAD (http://www.musicnewsnashville.com/temp/terrorist.htm)

DOWNLOAD (http://www.musicnewsnashville.com/temp/terrorist.htm)


Great insight! Bingo!

Great insight! Bingo!

Insight? No.

Great Sarcasm? YES!

I could add to his list:

Lets start giving money to the poor people, without any requirement that they do anything to earn it. This way, they will become totally dependent upon us for their survival.

Lets take money from the rich, who have worked hard and earned every cent they have, so we can create this dependent group of people to keep us in control.

Lets work as hard as we can to disarm the public. This way, even when our true motives are finally known, they will be helpless to defend themselves.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

FDR wanted to feel good when he created the welfare state, now we have generations of people without any self respect, sense of accomplishment, or personal responsibility.


Man am I lucky! All in one week I've read implications of Obama being damned for wanting to help the impoverished, that our government should abandon it's people during natural disasters, and now FDR is wrong for helping our nation out of a depression and that farms should go bankrupt and trade schools close. Way to go "McCainites!" Wow!

FDR's initial new deals were great for the country and it was the congress attaching other programs, not the ones needed to help farmers or give our youth a trade, but left alone social security would still be working perfectly today. I'm advocate of the WIC program, but this came later. Other welfare programs are over abused, but that was not FDR.



Franklin D. Roosevelt (http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/roosevelt-franklin.htm)

"With a strong mandate, FDR moved quickly during the first hundred days of his administration to address the problems created by the Great Depression. Under his leadership, Congress passed a series of landmark bills that created a more active role for the federal government in the economy and in people's lives. During the first hundred days of his administration, Congress passed the Emergency Banking Relief Act, which stabilized the nation's ailing bank and reassured depositors, created the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), the National Recovery Administration (NRA), the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA), and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Believing that work programs were better than relief, FDR secured passage of legislation establishing the CCC and the Civil Works Administration (replaced in 1935 by the Works Progress Administration or WPA). He appointed Frances Perkins as secretary of labor, the first woman to become a cabinet member. With strong prodding from Eleanor Roosevelt, FDR appointed more women to federal posts than any president before him and made sure that black Americans were included in federal job programs (although they remained, in most cases, segregated). In 1935, Congress passed the Social Security Act, the most important and enduring piece of New Deal legislation.

On March 12, 1933, shortly after his inauguration, FDR gave the first of his famous “fireside chats.” In these informal, but carefully prepared, radio talks, FDR explained his initiatives in the same language he used in speaking with his rural Hyde Park neighbors. As a result, his listeners felt that he was talking directly to them, understood their problems, and was taking action to address their needs. FDR's ability to connect personally with ordinary people, to communicate his optimism, and project an image of vigorous action was probably as important as all the New Deal legislation combined in helping the nation weather the Great Depression.

Although the depression was far from over, New Deal legislation during FDR's first term in banking, housing, unemployment, work relief, and old age pensions gave people hope and a sense of security they had not enjoyed before. In 1936, FDR won reelection in a landslide even bigger than in 1932, carrying every state except Maine and Vermont.

During his first administration, several key pieces of New Deal Legislation, notably the NRA, had been struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Frustrated that the aging members of the Court were preventing some of his programs from taking effect, and feeling that his 1936 victory gave him an overwhelming mandate for change, FDR proposed expanding the number of justices on the Court. Many Americans, however, saw the "court packing” plan as an assault on one of the nation's sacred institutions. The plan immediately ran into stiff opposition in Congress and was defeated, handing FDR the most embarrassing political setback of his career.

By 1937, the depression had eased somewhat and FDR sought to balance the budget by cutting government spending. But in the fall and winter of 1937-38, conditions worsened again, partly because of these cuts, and FDR had to seek additional funds to meet the crisis. The depression didn't actually end until the beginning of World War II when the defense economy put the unemployed who were not called to military service back to work."

And if that wasn't Beans, Corn Bread and boiled Hog Belly enough fur ye, chew on this fur a spell.

YouTube - Merle Haggard - America First (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jrHPjm4qKM)

YouTube - WELFARE CADILLAC by GUY DRAKE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5WYNiVdpLI)

I will not be diverted from the point that regardless about if you think the promise for the comittment is right or if you argue about the amount ;we should not be delivering our foreign aid through the hopelessly corrupt UN .

Another example of how bad it is has been under-reported in recent days. This one involves the "peace-keeping "force in Congo . The BBC reports :

The BBC has learned that the UN ignored or suppressed evidence that its troops in DR Congo gave arms to militias, and smuggled gold and ivory......


Pakistani peacekeepers in the eastern town of Mongbwalu were involved in the illegal trade in gold with the FNI militia, providing them with weapons to guard the perimeter of the mines.
Indian peacekeepers operating around the town of Goma had direct dealings with the militia responsible for the Rwandan genocide, now living in eastern DR Congo.
The Indians traded gold, bought drugs from the militias and flew a UN helicopter into the Virunga National Park, where they exchanged ammunition for ivory.


BBC NEWS | Africa | UN defends DR Congo investigation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7371615.stm)

Poachers in Congo have slaughtered 14 elephants in Congo's Virunga National Park since the demands from China for ivory have soared and conservationists believe that UN peacekeepers have played a role in the death of those elephants and the ivory trade business .The ivory trade has been banned since 1989.

Instead of holding their peace-keepers accountable the UN is involved in a coverup;much like they did during the Oil-for Food scandal. Last month the head of the UN mission in Congo, Alan Doss, denied any wrongdoing by peacekeepers.

But corruption charges against the UN have more often proven to be true. Many of these cases have involved sexual abuse by UN workers who exploit the vulnerability of the poor and starving .
U.N. Sexual Abuse Alleged in Congo (washingtonpost.com) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3145-2004Dec15.html)

"Sexual exploitation and abuse, particularly prostitution of minors, is widespread and long-standing," says a draft of the internal July report, which has not previously been made public. "Moreover, all of the major contingents appear to be implicated."

Now please note ;all this was happening in only one of the countries where the UN has come to the aid of the people. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

The UN has had similar charges in Burundi, Haiti, Liberia and elsewhere .
Some U.N. officials and outside observers say there have been cases of abuse in almost every U.N. mission, including operations in Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone and Kosovo.

"This is a problem in every mission around the world," said Sarah Martin, an expert on the subject at Refugees International who recently conducted investigations into misconduct by U.N. peacekeepers in Haiti and Liberia.

Peacekeepers in several Liberian communities routinely engage in sex with girls, according to an internal U.N. letter obtained by The Washington Post. In the town of Gbarnga, peacekeepers were seen patronizing a club called Little Lagos, "where girls as young as 12 years of age are engaged in prostitution, forced into sex acts and sometimes photographed by U.N. peacekeepers in exchange for $10 or food or other commodities," according to the letter, which a representative of the U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF) wrote Feb. 8 to the mission's second-ranking official.

The letter also stated that community leaders in the town of Robertsport have accused Namibian peacekeepers there of "using administrative building premises and the surrounding bush to undertake sex acts with girls between the age of 12-17."

U.N. Faces More Accusations of Sexual Misconduct (washingtonpost.com) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30286-2005Mar12.html)

In Haiti, the BBC's Mike Williams spoke to a street girl as young as 11 who had reported sexual abuse by peacekeepers outside the gates of the presidential palace in Port-au-Prince.

A 14-year-old described her abduction and rape inside a UN naval base in the country two years ago.

Despite detailed medical and circumstantial evidence, the allegation was dismissed by the UN for lack of evidence - and the alleged attacker returned to his home country.

In May this year, another BBC investigation discovered systematic abuse in Liberia, involving food being given out to teenage refugees in return for sex.

BBC NEWS | Americas | UN troops face child abuse claims (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6195830.stm)

This is your UN funding at work!! The sad part is that these are the least damaging of the UN failures. The worse of them enable dictators like Saddam Hussein and enrich the pockets of the General Secretary and his family and friends. The worse of them end up in the genocides in Rhwanda and the Sudan.

Screw the UN . I will oppose even an additional dollar of funding to an organization I think should be dismantled .

Screw the UN . I will oppose even an additional dollar of funding to an organization I think should be dismantled .

I agree. It has nothing to do with what Bobby said, "Would you really damn a man for wanting to help out with poverty?" Of course we do, but I for one don't see the sense in not only just throwing more money at every problem, but trusting it in the hands of inefficient, ineffective and corrupt governments and organizations. Sure seems like a no-brainer to me.

Wow! "Alleged sex abuse, poachers, and child abuse claims" is the Republicans newest excuse for backing out of commitment to help the impoverished worldwide. Like that's never happened in the US. What a great week!

Wow! "Alleged sex abuse, poachers, and child abuse claims" is the Republicans newest excuse for backing out of commitment to help the impoverished worldwide. Like that's never happened in the US. What a great week!

Bobby, so you don't mind trusting sexual abusers, poachers, and child abusers with impoverished children?

Doesn't seem to bother McCainites in the US, perhaps we can hang our hat on Iraq being the model 100 years from now. Yeah! Let the children starve in the Congo. Why care?

Years of aid giving to Mugabe's Zimbabwe has only resulted in increased poverty and starvation. It is an endless sieve unless the government where the aid is going to is willing to let it go to the people. But you can wash your hands of that reality by opening your wallet to give more to enable the scam .

Then cut your nose off spite your face. I do think our government should keep it obligations for all the good actions, in which by the way GW Bush actually agrees, in helping the impoverished worldwide as opposed to a few incidents in select countries. I doubt you stopped donating to the Catholic church because of small percentage of child molesting priests.

Then cut your nose off spite your face. I do think our government should keep it obligations for all the good actions, in which by the way GW Bush actually agrees, in helping the impoverished worldwide as opposed to a few incidents in select countries. I doubt you stopped donating to the Catholic church because of small percentage of child molesting priests.

There exists a HUGE difference between "donating" and being "stolen" from.

When I donate, I decide how much and who to give it to.

When the government takes my money, it is legalized theft, period.

Doesn't seem to bother McCainites in the US, perhaps we can hang our hat on Iraq being the model 100 years from now. Yeah! Go ahead and let the children starve in the Congo. Why care?!

Such drama lately - in spite of what you've already been told to the contrary. Of course we care, just as said before. If the aid already given doesn't reach the people, what makes you think it will if we just give more? In Iraq we at least have boots on the ground actively assisting the Iraqis. We're ready to do so in Myanmar, the US Navy is poised to help but the military junta there is too paranoid to even allow air drops, let alone boots on the ground with supplies, equipment and manpower.

I'm all for assistance, but let's find something more effective than what we have now. For example, I support World Vision regularly - 86% of their revenue goes to programs - food, education, agricultural training, crops, medical care, etc. They get outstanding marks for accountability, the aid gets to the people that need the help. Makes more sense than feeding a corrupt, inefficient body that can't keep its own people from abusing the ones they are sent to help.

More and more, I am convinced that "liberalism" is a contagious form of insanity!

More and more, I am convinced that "liberalism" is a contagious form of insanity!

Well put! Couldn't agree more.

I'm all for assistance, but let's find something more effective than what we have now. For example, I support World Vision regularly - 86% of their revenue goes to programs - food, education, agricultural training, crops, medical care, etc. They get outstanding marks for accountability, the aid gets to the people that need the help. Makes more sense than feeding a corrupt, inefficient body that can't keep its own people from abusing the ones they are sent to help.

So let's reiterate: liberals don't really care about the results, and instead want to be rewarded by their intentions. And then the pols get into the public, in the press, and thump their chests about all the aid they've given... blah, blah, blah; just wasted tax dollars, enriching fellow world travelers and grandstanders. You remember the feds handing out debit cards! Yow! Aren't we goooooooooooood!! (Stealing from Ann to pay Allison).

Red herring and excuses. None of our personal charities represent the government's commitments internationally and besides what you declared is used as write off to non-profit organizations. In the last last seven and half years of recent US history, we have all survived the most insane decisions in recent US history and I'm sure the liberals are no worse the challenge.

Red herring and excuses. None of our personal charities represent the government's commitments internationally and besides what you declared is used as write off to non-profit organizations. In the last last seven and half years of recent US history, we have all survived the most insane decisions in recent US history and I'm sure the liberals are no worse the challenge.

You sure miss the point a lot lately, I don't think any of us object to our government providing assistance to those in need - it's HOW it's done - and doing so through the UN is an exercise in stupidity. You know, that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? World Vision is an example of getting it done (http://worldvision.org/worldvision/comms2.nsf/stable/ar_financials?Open&lid=20032&lpos=lft_txt_arfinancials), of $977 million in expenditures, $839 million of it went to work for those in need. In spite of a few problems of late the American Red Cross is another example of getting it done, 89% of their expenses went to assistance in 2007. As far as I know, there are no charges of sexual or child abuse among either of these organizations. If the UN, could get it done like that it would be a different story.

For Obama, charity really began in the U.S. Senate -- -- chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0704250022apr25,1,1209388.story?page=2)

"From 1997 through 2002, the Obamas reported devoting less than 1 percent of their household income to charity."


"The national average for charitable giving has long hovered at 2.2 percent of household income, according to the Glenview-based Giving USA Foundation, which tracks trends in philanthropy. Obama tax returns dating to 1997 show he fell well below that benchmark until 2005, the year he arrived in Washington"


I thought leaders were to lead by example?

Now we know that Obama wants to charitably donate the TAXPAYORS MONEY, not his, to charity.

This is besides the issues of how effective that money is being spent as per Tom and Speech.


Call me nationalistic or not a "world patriot," but why does not Obama propose ending poverty here in the US? Oh, that has not been accomplished yet.



----------------------------------------------------------------

Whatever happened to teaching someone to fish and not just always providing them the fish?

Teach people to live secure, free, stable. That way investment money comes in. The cause of ending poverty is not helped when a country's infrastructure or government is not secure.

You sure miss the point a lot lately, I don't think any of us object to our government providing assistance to those in need - it's HOW it's done - and doing so through the UN is an exercise in stupidity. You know, that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? World Vision is an example of getting it done (http://worldvision.org/worldvision/comms2.nsf/stable/ar_financials?Open&lid=20032&lpos=lft_txt_arfinancials), of $977 million in expenditures, $839 million of it went to work for those in need. In spite of a few problems of late the American Red Cross is another example of getting it done, 89% of their expenses went to assistance in 2007. As far as I know, there are no charges of sexual or child abuse among either of these organizations. If the UN, could get it done like that it would be a different story.


What you honor as a points, I recognize as exercises in dull mind numbing excuses. With 16 of 22 countries on track to make good on their commitment of 0.7 GNP by 2015, I'd hoped the US would be one of them. Obliviously that doesn't bother you that we might miss that mark, but then again the four or five of dissenting voices on this post have been Republicans and I'm not surprised.

For Obama, charity really began in the U.S. Senate -- -- chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0704250022apr25,1,1209388.story?page=2)

"From 1997 through 2002, the Obamas reported devoting less than 1 percent of their household income to charity."


"The national average for charitable giving has long hovered at 2.2 percent of household income, according to the Glenview-based Giving USA Foundation, which tracks trends in philanthropy. Obama tax returns dating to 1997 show he fell well below that benchmark until 2005, the year he arrived in Washington"


I thought leaders were to lead by example?

Now we know that Obama wants to charitably donate the TAXPAYORS MONEY, not his, to charity.

This is besides the issues of how effective that money is being spent as per Tom and Speech.


Call me nationalistic or not a "world patriot," but why does not Obama propose ending poverty here in the US? Oh, that has not been accomplished yet.



----------------------------------------------------------------

Whatever happened to teaching someone to fish and not just always providing them the fish?

Teach people to live secure, free, stable. That way investment money comes in. The cause of ending poverty is not helped when a country's infrastructure or governement is not secure.


How did your donations compare to Obama's 5.7 percent??

Obama Releases 2007 Tax Return
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2008)
By WebCPA staff

WebCPA - Obama Releases 2007 Tax Return (http://www.webcpa.com/article.cfm?articleid=27516)

"Presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., released the 2007 tax return for himself and his wife Michelle.

The return reported $4.2 million in income, mainly on profits from the senator's best-selling books The Audacity of Hope and Dreams from My Father.

The tax return also revealed that the senator has set up a Simplified Employee Pension Individual Retirement Account, as tax planners recommended after he released his returns for 2000 to 2006 (see Obama Releases Tax Returns).

The 2007 return shows that Obama received a salary of $157,102 from the Senate, while his wife received $103,633 from her salary as vice president of community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Medical Center. The Obamas donated $240,370 to charity."

"For John McCain, doublethink is a part of the family
Submitted by Randall McElroy iii on Sun, 2008-02-03 14:37.
Here's a blast from 2000:

Much has been made of allegations of possible youthful use of
illegal drugs by Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush.
Meanwhile, his chief GOP opponent, Arizona Sen. John McCain, has admitted
that his wife not only illegally used drugs but walked away from criminal
charges. The McCains have worked to make Cindy McCain's addiction into a
political asset--despite the fact that she stole the drugs from a charity
she directed and used them while mothering four young children.

...

Is Mrs. McCain to be judged as a pitiable victim or as a criminal
felon? This debate is at the heart of the discussion of American drug
policy. Should we deal with illicit drug users as victims or as
criminals?

Let's examine Mrs. McCain's position in these terms. She was the
privileged wife of a prominent family and spouse of an important
politician, a person who had her own position of prestige and power.
Should she not be held at least as accountable for her actions as an
uneducated inner-city drug user? After all, she could enter drug
treatment at any time she chose, unlike many drug users who find
themselves in prison.

Moreover, Mrs. McCain was violating a position of trust by stealing
from a charitable organization, using its money and medical expertise to
fuel her drug use. Is this not morally more reprehensible than simply
purchasing drugs illegally?

Finally, Mrs. McCain was the mother of four children at the time she
admits to using drugs--between 1989 and 1992. Her children were born in
1984, 1986, 1988 and 1991. In other words, Cindy McCain was using drugs
while raising small children, one of whom she adopted while she was an
addict. In most states, family services will remove children from a woman
who is known to be an active drug addict, and she would certainly not be
allowed to adopt a child while addicted.

John McCain is a hawk in the drug war. He advocates stricter drug
laws, penalties and enforcement against drug sellers. He has had nothing
to say about redressing our punitive approach toward drug users. Of
course, McCain also supports family values. Yet if John and Cindy McCain
were not well-off and influential, they might not have a family at all.
McCain's lack of concern for street drug users contrasts sharply with the
support and understanding his wife received. It's the old American double
standard. For "straight-shooter" McCain, charity begins at home--and ends
there.

In 2008 as in 2000, John McCain manages to hold some of the most reprehensible political positions in all of DC--no small feat--and still manage to woo independents like nobody's business."

She became addicted to pain killers after she had 2 back surguries. She has also had several miscarriages and a stroke .

After her miscarriages she was able to have 3 children of her own . She also with Sen McCain went to Bangladesh and adopted a daughter who was in serious need of medical care.

Make that period of her life a campaign issue. My bet is that it will be a net positive to the McCain campaign.


but then again the four or five of dissenting voices on this post have been Republicans and I'm not surprised.

I quit the Democrat party in 2003 and never did reregister as a Republican .There was a time when Democrats believed in national sovereignty ;when we acted in our best interests rather than in the interests of gaining the approval of the "international community ."

What you honor as a points, I recognize as exercises in dull mind numbing excuses. With 16 of 22 countries on track to make good on their commitment of 0.7 GNP by 2015, I'd hoped the US would be one of them. Obliviously that doesn't bother you that we might miss that mark, but then again the four or five of dissenting voices on this post have been Republicans and I'm not surprised.

Wow, when it comes to the Iraq war you object to "throwing money at useless wars," but instead of giving effectively to starving children, throwing money at despots and dictators so we can meet our commitment is a "dull mind numbing excuse."

I think I said this before but Myanmar is a perfect example:


Relief supplies from the United Nations arrived in Myanmar Thursday, but U.S. military planes loaded with aid were still denied access by the country's isolationist regime five days after a devastating cyclone...

By rejecting the U.S. offer, the junta is refusing to take advantage of Washington's enormous ability to deliver aid quickly (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5greyFH3qkj9mc9oagSoulgjN4KHgD90HL9LG1), which was evident during the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that killed 230,000 people in a dozen nations.

"We have demonstrated in crises around the world ... our logistical capability to get humanitarian assistance quickly in to the people who need it," said Shari Villarosa, the top U.S. diplomat in Myanmar.

We can get it done, but instead we get this:


Myanmar's junta seized U.N. aid shipments Friday meant for a multitude of hungry and homeless survivors of last week's devastating cyclone, forcing the world body to suspend further help. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MYANMAR_CYCLONE?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

The aid included 38 tons of high-energy biscuits and arrived in Myanmar on Friday on two flights from Bangladesh and the United Arab Emirates.

"All of the food aid and equipment that we managed to get in has been confiscated," U.N. World Food Program spokesman Risley said.

"For the time being, we have no choice but to end further efforts to bring critical needed food aid into Myanmar at this time," he said.

Would you rather meet our commitment or get it done? I say get it done.

Yup tragically that was predictable . But let's make a percent of our GDP a feel good marker. Shouldn't matter at all that the aid provided will be stolen before it reaches those it is intended to help .


BTW

Death toll projections are now at a point that they could potentially exceed all the deaths of the 2004 Tsunami ;and could reach a staggering 500,000 people . The world does not appear to be rallying to extend massive aid yet . Most of the increase is due to the junta blocking needed supplies that are loaded and ready to go .

Yup tragically that was predictable . But let's make a percent of our GDP a feel good marker. Shouldn't matter at all that the aid provided will be stolen before it reaches those it is intended to help .

That keeps coming up again and again lately. While I certainly enjoy a nice "feel good moment" I feel much better knowing something is actually getting done. I guess that's the difference between the left and the right, the left is satisfied by the act and the right is satisfied by positive results.

Wow, when it comes to the Iraq war you object to "throwing money at useless wars," but instead of giving effectively to starving children, throwing money at despots and dictators so we can meet our commitment is a "dull mind numbing excuse."

I think I said this before but Myanmar is a perfect example:



We can get it done, but instead we get this:



Would you rather meet our commitment or get it done? I say get it done.


Steve, you're either having a momentary lapse of reasoning or Limbaugh's using hypnotic radio amplitude modulation. First off consuming bullets is not part of child's nutritional diet, and secondly, the junta effected everyone including the Red Cross, but this is getting resolved.


May 10, 2008
Burmese Junta Seizes Aid and Blocks Foreigners
By SETH MYDANS

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/world/asia/10myanmar.html?bl&ex=1210478400&en=608460cc4e52557a&ei=5087%0A

"BANGKOK — The military leaders of Myanmar seized a shipment of United Nations food aid on Friday intended for victims of a devastating cyclone, declaring that they would accept donations of food and medicine but not the foreign aid workers international groups say are in equally short supply there.

The ruling junta continued to permit a small number of aid deliveries and promised to allow the first air shipment from the Pentagon on Monday, a significant concession because the United States has been Myamar’s leading critic, imposing sanctions and lobbying for a United Nations resolution condemning the nation’s generals for human rights violations.

But the refusal of the country’s iron-fisted rulers to allow doctors and disaster relief experts to enter in large numbers contributed to the growing concern that starvation and epidemic diseases could end up killing people on the same scale as the winds, waves and flooding that destroyed villages across a wide swath of coastal Myanmar nearly a week ago.

The International Red Cross estimated on Friday that the combined efforts of relief agencies and the Myanmar government have distributed aid to only 220,000 of up to 1.9 million people left homeless, injured or subject to disease and hunger after the storm.

"There are problems to get the aid inside, and there are problems to get the aid out to the delta area," the Danish Red Cross director, Anders Ladekarl, told Danish broadcaster DR. "We are simply lacking transportation. There are almost no boats and no helicopters. This is really a nightmare to make this operation run."

As foreign aid groups scurried to deliver relief, the generals who run Myanmar continued to focus on a separate priority: a constitutional referendum scheduled for Saturday.

The junta’s plan to go ahead with the vote while restricting aid deliveries drew widespread criticism and concern that soldiers who could be rescuing survivors were likely to be dispatched to polling places instead.

“It is one of the best examples of the disregard for the people by the military,” said Josef Silverstein an expert on Myanmar at Rutgers University.

Fourteen years in the making, the constitution is formulated to keep power in the hands of military officers, even if they change to civilian clothes. It would guarantee the military 25 percent of the seats in Parliament and control of key cabinet posts, along with the right to suspend democratic freedoms at any time.

But while the state-run newspaper urged people on Friday to approve the constitution, little help was reaching them. To date, Myanmar has allowed 11 airborne deliveries of aid, which experts say is a fraction of the relief needed if the scale of the disaster is even close to what the Burmese government has claimed. And much of that has come from the United Nations World Food Program, which said on Friday that the aid it had delivered — and intended to distribute to hard-hit regions along the coast — had been seized.

“All the food aid and equipment that we managed to get in has been confiscated,” said Paul Risley, a spokesman for the United Nations World Food Program in Bangkok.

After initially saying it would halt deliveries, the agency said later Friday that flights would continue on Saturday while the issue is worked out. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged the Myanmar authorities to let aid into the country “without hindrance” and said the effect of further delay could be “truly catastrophic.”

His spokeswoman, Marie Okabe, said Mr. Ban had been trying for two days without success to get in touch by telephone with Than Shwe, the junta’s senior general. “We have been told that the phone lines are down,” she said.

Myanmar’s military junta said in a statement on Friday that it was willing to receive disaster relief from the outside world but would distribute supplies itself rather than allowing in relief workers. Aid agencies want to coordinate and control their own aid.

Already Myanmar has turned away one fully loaded flight because the supplies were accompanied by disaster experts and press.

“Myanmar is not in a position to receive rescue and information teams from foreign countries at the moment,” said a Foreign Ministry statement. “But at present Myanmar is giving priority to receiving relief aid and distributing them to the storm-hit regions with its own resources.”

Even so, some agencies and nations were delivering supplies successfully. India sent two ships loaded with relief supplies, and the United Nations Children’s Fund said it was not meeting problems with its deliveries of aid.

A spokesman for Unicef, Christopher de Bono, said in an e-mail that millions of water purification tablets had been delivered Thursday, and that although customs clearance could take two days, “as far as we know there has been no indication of any problems so far.”

In a telephone call from Myanmar, an official of the International Red Cross, Michael Annear, said delivery work was proceeding normally in cooperation with other agencies and local businesses.

Doctors Without Borders, which had been running large H.I.V. and malaria programs in Myanmar, has about 80 staff members in the Delta region and is sending more in, said Frank Smithuis, the group’s head of mission. He said the group was distributing food and medicine from the stores it already had in place.

In the worst-affected areas, he said, 95 percent of the people had lost their homes and everything they owned, and were in desperate need of food, water and shelter.

Mr. Smithuis said his group was dispatching teams of six — a doctor, a nurse, a medical assistant, two water and sanitation workers and a food distributor who would hire local people to help distribute food.

The teams are seeing many people injured by the storm who have infected wounds that need to be drained and treated with antibiotics, he said.

“It sounds like we have everything under control and that’s not true,” Mr. Smithuis said. “The area is wide and there’s a lot of people. We don’t see other players, we don’t see other help.” Most relief workers on the ground are local people and would be less likely to encounter the suspicion with which authorities view foreigners."

And do you think additional aid out of our pockets will help this situation? I expect the most needy people in Myanmar will turn out to be the officials. Obama hasn't eliminated poverty in his home state, although he has been in the Senate for a while. You libs want to give him what is basically a blank check to do world wide what he can't do at home. If it dosen't make me physically ill, I'll likely vote for the THIRD Democrat in this race.

Don't sweat it. I suspect that Limbaugh the conservative entertaining clown will attempt to make McCain the Republican saviour before November. Now what additional money is coming our of your pocket?? You sent money?? President Bush hasn't completely eliminated poverty considering the US, but what does that have to do with Myanmar??

Steve, you're either having a momentary lapse of reasoning or Limbaugh's using hypnotic radio amplitude modulation. First off consuming bullets is not part of child's nutritional diet, and secondly, the junta effected everyone including the Red Cross, but this is getting resolved.

Must be that hypnotic radio amplitude modulation because I don't recall this subject from anywhere but here. In the case of Iraq at least the money is going toward trying to establish the kind of freedom and rights the Burmese have no chance at under their military junta. Regardless of how things have gone in Iraq so far it's still too early to tell if it was worth the effort. On the other hand there is no "lapse of reasoning" in bypassing the UN in order to get assistance where it's needed - we already know their long history of failure. And oh, it's not getting done in Myanmar...



Myanmar toll likely to hit 216,000 (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080512.wmyanmarmain12/BNStory/International/home)
UN officials estimate disaster may claim as many or more than those killed by 2004's horrific Indian Ocean tsunamis

GEOFFREY YORK

From Monday's Globe and Mail

May 12, 2008 at 3:22 AM EDT

BANGKOK — The death toll in Myanmar's cyclone disaster could be as high as 216,000 or more, making it as deadly as the tsunamis that devastated much of Asia in 2004, according to new unofficial estimates from United Nations sources.

The latest estimates, dramatically higher than the official toll of about 28,000, suggest that Myanmar's military regime has been deliberately underestimating the number of victims of the catastrophe that hit the country a week ago.

Relief operations suffered a setback yesterday when a boat sank after hitting a submerged tree trunk as it carried a Red Cross shipment of rice and water for more than 1,000 people. It was the first Red Cross shipment to the Irrawaddy River delta, where the cyclone struck hardest. The crew was rescued, but the supplies were lost.

Relief workers warned that 1.5 million homeless survivors are at risk of dying if assistance is not urgently provided. But relief shipments are still relatively slow because of restrictions imposed by the military regime. At the same time, government resources were diverted away from relief efforts on Saturday to carry out a referendum to legitimize the new pro-junta constitution.

At a meeting in Rangoon yesterday, a Myanmar cabinet minister told relief agencies that foreign aid workers are prohibited from entering the disaster zone and must give all of their supplies to the government for distribution.

A few relief agencies have managed to evade those rules, but the minister's statement was a sign that the military regime is determined to maintain a tight grip on the entire relief operation, even though its restrictions have hampered the aid distribution.

Steve I think the death toll will rise dramatically above the numbers cited as medeval pandemics occure because of the lack of a timely response.

Abetting Burma (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/074lflgt.asp)

As anti-Americanism has become the raison d'etre of various U.N. member states, attempts by the United States to ratchet up international pressure against Burma have gone nowhere. China and other human-rights abusers make sure that tough U.N. Security Council resolutions--an arms embargo, for example, or sanctions on banking transactions targeting top leaders--never see the light of day.

The U.N. General Assembly has approved a "responsibility to protect" doctrine, for example, which authorizes states to intervene to protect civilian populations from gross human-rights abuses. Burma--a tiny, corrupt, desperately poor state--is a standing rebuke to the U.N. doctrine and to the notion that the United Nations alone possesses the moral legitimacy to enforce it.

Don't sweat it. I suspect that Limbaugh the conservative entertaining clown will attempt to make McCain the Republican saviour before November. Now what additional money is coming our of your pocket??? You sent money??? President Bush hasn't completely eliminated poverty considering the US, but what does that have to do with Myanmar???
Aren't you pretty far afield? My original question dealt with Obama and his grandiose scheme (yes it's his because he has adopted it) to eliminate poverty world wide. Where do you think the additional money will come from? My pocket? Yours? Our grandchildren?

Aren't you pretty far afield? My original question dealt with Obama and his grandiose scheme (yes it's his because he has adopted it) to eliminate poverty world wide. Where do you think the additional money will come from? My pocket? Yours? Our grandchildren?

Steve brought it up and I had no problem with that. I may disagree with him from time to time, and on this subject, but I respect his shared views. Actually I thought he tied it into the subject rather well. But if that bothers you maybe you should ask him?? Read through the post. Oh! And that grandiose scheme! That would be the same pockets that the inept war-lord "Dubya" is digging deep into. Your pocket, my pocket, and our grand-children's pocket. If someone's going to have a hand in my pocket I'd rather it be for attempting to help feed children.

Must be that hypnotic radio amplitude modulation because I don't recall this subject from anywhere but here. In the case of Iraq at least the money is going toward trying to establish the kind of freedom and rights the Burmese have no chance at under their military junta. Regardless of how things have gone in Iraq so far it's still too early to tell if it was worth the effort. On the other hand there is no "lapse of reasoning" in bypassing the UN in order to get assistance where it's needed - we already know their long history of failure. And oh, it's not getting done in Myanmar...

You are agreeing with what I said already. Is there an echo in here? Yes! Everyone, not just the UN, is/was/is/was having a problem with the junta. That's the nature of the Myanmar beast; rebels. It'll get done with intervention or paying off the rebels. I keep forgetting most Americans haven't been in that kind of environment. Think of it as their mafia, in charge.

You are agreeing with what I said already. Is there an echo in here?! Yes! Everyone, not just the UN, is/was/is/was having a problem with the junta. That's the nature of the Myanmar beast; rebels. It'll get done with intervention or paying off the rebels. I keep forgetting most Americans haven't been in that kind of environment. Think of it as their mafia, in charge.

Echo? You said "this is getting resolved" and I said it wasn't. Doesn't sound like an echo to me :D

It'll get done with intervention or paying off the rebels

The report today said that the junta is confiscating the aid and sending spoiled food to the people instead.

Steve brought it up and I had no problem with that. I may disagree with him from time to time, and on this subject, but I respect his shared views. Actually I thought he tied it into the subject rather well. But if that bothers you maybe you should ask him??? Read through the post. Oh! And that grandiose scheme! That would be the same pockets that the inept war-lord "Dubya" is digging deep into. Your pocket, my pocket, and our grand-children's pocket. If someones going to have a hand in my pocket I'd rather it be for attempting to help feed children.


I brought up Limbaugh and McCain? :D Hey, I'd much rather have someone picking my pocket to feed children, I just think we can do better than attempting to help feed children through the UN.

Steve I think the death toll will rise dramatically above the numbers cited as medeval pandemics occure because of the lack of a timely response.

Absolutely, and as the Standard's article notes that same UN is "stupefied" at the slow response.


Yet the air of self-delusion which the Burmese regime breathes so freely is shared by others, particularly those in the cloistered confines of the United Nations. For years, as the military junta has brutalized and impoverished its population, U.N. officials either have ignored its atrocities or imagined they could be negotiated away.

Indeed, the same U.N. institutions that have accommodated and "engaged" the Burmese government are stupefied by how sluggishly the regime has responded to this disaster.

Even when they do give attention to such atrocities the UN's most effective response is to "deplore" the situation. Unless you're talking Gitmo, the Patriot Act and the U.S. torturing terrorists...

Remember after the Iraq invasion the UN got together and declared they would be proactive in dealing with nations that abuse their citizens ?
The Responsibility to Protect (http://www.iciss.ca/menu-en.asp)

More empty rhetoric. Just like their Millennium Goals are empty gestures

Echo? You said "this is getting resolved" and I said it wasn't. Doesn't sound like an echo to me :D

You implied it was just about the UN. The other day they permited some aid through when at first they would not. They are still welcoming of the aid. That's a fact. However the hold ups are happening to everyone; numerous organizations, UNICEF and Red Cross included. Now the hang-up with the junta is that they will permit aid, but not the workers. That part will also get resolved over the next few months and we just have to see how our government and the world deals with them. ;)

You implied it was just about the UN. The other day they permited some aid through when at first they would not. They are still welcoming of the aid. That's a fact. However the hold ups are happening to everyone; numerous organizations, UNICEF and Red Cross included. Now the hang-up with the junta is that they will permit aid, but not the workers. That part will also get resolved over the next few months and we just have to see how our government and the world deals with them. ;)

LOL, no, my point is that trusting the UN to "get it done" - as in ending world poverty - is as I said, an exercise in stupidity. The situation in Myanmar was just an example. The UN has done nothing about the human rights issues in Myanmar for how long? Now that they have a crisis, thousands are dying unnecessarily thanks in part to the UN's inability and unwillingness to do anything about the situation there over the years.

Sure they're welcoming the aid, and what they aren't giving out that's not rotten or sub par they're using as propaganda.


Myanmar's military regime distributed international aid Saturday but plastered the boxes with the names of top generals (http://www.montereyherald.com/news/ci_9217163) in an apparent effort to turn the relief effort for last week's devastating cyclone into a propaganda exercise.

The United Nations sent in three more planes and several trucks loaded with aid, though the junta took over its first two shipments. The government agreed to let a U.S. cargo plane bring in supplies Monday, but foreign disaster experts were still being barred entry.

State-run television continuously ran images of top generals—including the junta leader, Senior Gen. Than Shwe—handing out boxes of aid to survivors at elaborate ceremonies.

One box bore the name of Lt. Gen. Myint Swe, a rising star in the government hierarchy, in bold letters that overshadowed a smaller label reading: "Aid from the Kingdom of Thailand."

"We have already seen regional commanders putting their names on the side of aid shipments from Asia, saying this was a gift from them and then distributing it in their region," said Mark Farmaner, director of Burma Campaign UK, which campaigns for human rights and democracy in the country.

"It is not going to areas where it is most in need," he said in London.

The report today said that the junta is confiscating the aid and sending spoiled food to the people instead.

Or using what they've been given as propaganda:


Myanmar's military regime distributed international aid Saturday but plastered the boxes with the names of top generals in an apparent effort to turn the relief effort for last week's devastating cyclone into a propaganda exercise. (http://www.montereyherald.com/news/ci_9217163)

The United Nations sent in three more planes and several trucks loaded with aid, though the junta took over its first two shipments. The government agreed to let a U.S. cargo plane bring in supplies Monday, but foreign disaster experts were still being barred entry.

State-run television continuously ran images of top generals—including the junta leader, Senior Gen. Than Shwe—handing out boxes of aid to survivors at elaborate ceremonies.

One box bore the name of Lt. Gen. Myint Swe, a rising star in the government hierarchy, in bold letters that overshadowed a smaller label reading: "Aid from the Kingdom of Thailand."

"We have already seen regional commanders putting their names on the side of aid shipments from Asia, saying this was a gift from them and then distributing it in their region," said Mark Farmaner, director of Burma Campaign UK, which campaigns for human rights and democracy in the country.

"It is not going to areas where it is most in need," he said in London.

LOL, no, my point is that trusting the UN to "get it done" - as in ending world poverty - is as I said, an exercise in stupidity. The situation in Myanmar was just an example. The UN has done nothing about the human rights issues in Myanmar for how long? Now that they have a crisis, thousands are dying unnecessarily thanks in part to the UN's inability and unwillingness to do anything about the situation there over the years.

Sure they're welcoming the aid, and what they aren't giving out that's not rotten or sub par they're using as propaganda.


I don't know if I should laugh with you or at you? Your argument is rudimentary flawed. Nobody has been getting it done in Myanmar for a long while. Not the UN, not the US, not Japan, not Australia, not UNICEF, not the Red Cross etc... Blaming the UN for a cyclone is equally idiotic to those that blamed Bush for hurricane Katrina. Most Americans didn't even know Myanmar existed and had it not been for a natural catastrophe would still be going about their everyday affairs. Myanmar is a third world country and although the US is world first class, one could argue that their both controlled by crooks. The junta hoarding for themselves is no surprise, at least not to me. Like I said earlier, let's see how our government and the world deals with them. I'm getting bored now so let me ask you before I fall to sleep... what is it that you think the US should do (or should had been doing)??

THERE is a certain familiarity to the concomitant series of actions and reactions when disaster strikes in the world. The US stands ready, willing and able to offer assistance. It is often the first country to send in millions of dollars, navy strike groups loaded with food and medical supplies, and transport planes, helicopters and floating hospitals to help those devastated by natural disaster.

Then, just as swift and with equal predictability, those wedded to the Great Satan view of the US begin to carp, drawing on a potent mixture of cynicism and conspiracy theories to criticise the last remaining superpower. When the US keeps doing so much of the heavy lifting to alleviate suffering, you'd figure that the anti-Americans might eventually revise their view of the US. But they never do. And coming under constant attack even when helping others, you'd figure that Americans would eventually draw the curtains on world crises. But they haven't. At least not yet.

So it was last week. The US stood ready to help the cyclone-ravaged Burmese people. It did not matter that Burma's ruling junta was no friend of the Americans. With more than 100,000 people feared dead and many more hundreds of thousands left destitute, US Air Force cargo planes loaded with supplies and personnel started arriving in nearby Thailand to begin humanitarian operations in Burma.

A US Navy strike group in the Gulf of Thailand sent helicopters ashore, ready to arrive in Burma within hours. Alas, Burma's military leaders left their people to die for 10 days before finally accepting help from the evil empire. Even if the Yanks are allowed to boost their assistance to Burma, they can expect a groundswell of criticism.

Back in 2004, the Americans - along with the Australians - arrived within hours to help the hundreds of thousands of people left devastated by the Boxing Day tsunami in Asia. A US carrier group steamed towards Indonesia's Aceh province. A second US Marine Corps strike force made its way to Sri Lanka with water, food and medical supplies.

The Pentagon spent millions of dollars sending C-130 transport planes from Dubai to Indonesia with tents, blankets, food and water. A navy chief in charge of co-ordination efforts said the US would deliver "as much help as soon as we can, as long as we're needed".

The resentment that comes from needing the military and economic might of the US translated into the most absurd criticism. Jan Egeland, the former UN boss of humanitarian affairs, cavilled about the stinginess of certain Western nations. His eye was on the US. Former British minister Claire Short was equally miffed, describing the initiative by the US and other countries as "yet another attempt to undermine the UN", which was, according to her, the "only body that has the moral authority" to help.

I love moral authority as much as the next guy, but the UN's moral authority is a mighty hard sell given that the UN club includes the most odious regimes in the world, such as Burma. And notice how the UN's moral authority did not quickly translate into helicopters laden with food and water?

When the UN finally does anything of use, it's propelled in large part by US dollars, with the US contributing more than any other country. Those other giants, China and Russia, are not filling the coffers of the UN's moral authority.

Then came the even more toxic comparisons between Iraq and US humanitarian assistance in Asia. In the anti-American mind, opposition to one US policy means blasting everything the Americans do. Of course, Egypt's Al Akhbar newspaper said the US was helping tsunami victims to "consolidate its hegemony" and had nothing to do with humanitarian and moral principles. But similarly rank reasoning was common. London's The Guardian newspaper columnist George Monbiot was not alone in sneering at US marines who, just a few weeks before saving lives in Sri Lanka, were "murdering civilians, smashing the homes and evicting the entire population of the Iraqi city of Fallujah".

The need to paint Americans as a greedy, selfish, war-mongering superpower cannot be disturbed by facts. It matters not that, in the year before the tsunami, the US provided $2.4 billion in humanitarian relief: 40 per cent of all the relief aid given to the world in 2003. Never mind that development and emergency relief rose from $10 billion during the last year of Bill Clinton's administration to $24 billion under George W. Bush in 2003. Or that, according to a German study, Americans contribute to charities nearly seven times as much a head as Germans do. Or that, adjusted for population, American philanthropy is more than two-thirds more than British giving.

There is a teenaged immaturity about the rest of the world's relationship with the US. Whenever a serious crisis erupts somewhere, our dependence on the US becomes obvious, and many hate the US because of it. That the hatred is irrational is beside the point.

We can denounce the Yanks for being Muslim-hating flouters of international law while demanding the US rescue Bosnian Muslims from Serbia without UN authority. We can be disgusted by crass American materialism and ridiculous stockpiling of worldly goods yet also be the first to demand material help from the US when disaster strikes.

The really unfortunate part about this adolescent love-hate relationship with the US is that, unlike most teenagers, many never seem to grow out of it. Within each new generation is a vicious strain of irrational anti-Americanism. But unlike a parent, the US could just get sick of it all and walk away.

The US has had isolationist periods in the past and it must be enormously tempted sometimes to have another one soon. The consequences of that possibility deserve some serious thought. If the neighbours worry about Russian bullying over oil and gas, just imagine a Russia unfettered by a US military presence in Europe. How long would South Korea, Israel or Taiwan last if the US decided it wanted to spend on itself the money it presently devotes to military spending in the Middle East and Asia?


None of this is to say the US does not deserve loud and frequent criticism. No country has as many or as strident critics - internally and externally - as the US. The US actually promotes such debate. But just occasionally we should moderate that criticism when circumstances demand a dose of fairness.

Indeed, why not break into a standing ovation every now and again? As more US C-130s and helicopters stand waiting on Burma's doorstep, desperate to help a shattered populace and stymied only by an appalling anti-US regime, this is one of those times.

Let's hear it for America.
Credit where it's due | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23693121-7583,00.html)

I don't know if I should laugh with you or at you? Your argument is rudimentary flawed. Nobody has been getting it done in Myanmar for a long while. Not the UN, not the US, not Japan, not Australia, not UNICEF, not the Red Cross etc... Blaming the UN for a cyclone is equally idiotic to those that blamed Bush for hurricane Katrina. Most Americans didn't even know Myanmar existed and had it not been for a natural catastrophe would still be going about their everyday affairs.

No offense my friend but I think I should be the one chuckling, you can't seem to keep from addressing things I haven't said - like blaming the UN for a cyclone. LOL, I haven't gone off the deep end enough to imply such nonsense.

You're right that Myanmar has probably been off the radar for most Americans, but the reasons for that are another discussion. Surely you do remember though the pro-democracy protests that were all over the news last year (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14715135). There was also the "8-8-88" protests of 1988 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7012158.stm) during which thousands were killed or vanished.

Now here's the thing, the UN is that global body of nations with the "shared responsibility" to secure rights, peace and freedom - not Japan, not the U.S. not Australia, not the Red Cross. Isn't that what everyone has been saying since we invaded Iraq? We should have let the UN do their job? They didn't do their job in Iraq. They haven't done their job in Burma. The best they can come up with is to be "graveley concerned" about the situation. The UN "notes with concern," "regrets," "stresses," "urges" and ultimately "deplores the continued violations of human rights in Myanmar." That was from a 1994 resolution. In 2002 (http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/6ec822f6b02cc602c1256c9f0057b7d3?Opendocument), the UN's decision was to endorse "the Commission's decision to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, as contained in Commission resolution 1992/58 of 3 March 1992**, for a further year, and to request the Special Rapporteur to submit an interim report to the General Assembly at its fifty-seventh session and to report to the Commission at its fifty-ninth session, and to keep a gender perspective in mind when seeking and analysing information."

How does a report that keeps "a gender perspective in mind" improve the "Situation of human rights in Myanmar?" It doesn't, it's as useless as being "gravely concerned" over the situation for 20 years.


Myanmar is a third world country and although the US is world first class, one could argue that their both controlled by crooks. The junta hoarding for themselves is no surprise, at least not to me. Like I said earlier, let's see how our government and the world deals with them. I'm getting bored now so let me ask you before I fall to sleep... what is it that you think the US should do (or should had been doing)??

You finally conceded the point. "The junta hoarding for themselves is no surprise" is the problem with trusting the UN to end world poverty. What should the U.S. do? I don't know, but to continue feeding a toothless, incompetent and corrupt UN that is increasingly anti-American isn't the answer.

No offense my friend but I think I should be the one chuckling, you can't seem to keep from addressing things I haven't said - like blaming the UN for a cyclone. LOL, I haven't gone off the deep end enough to imply such nonsense.

None taken. I don't mind swimming over to visit you guys on the shallow end.


[QUOTE=speechlesstx]
You're right that Myanmar has probably been off the radar for most Americans, but the reasons for that are another discussion. Surely you do remember though the pro-democracy protests that were all over the news last year (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14715135). There was also the "8-8-88" protests of 1988 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7012158.stm) during which thousands were killed or vanished.


I'm also correct about the original posted data that we, the USA, made a commitment on world poverty as part of other countries worldwide. But since then I've been chasing Republican ghost images with the word "excuse" written across Casper's forehead.



Now here's the thing, the UN is that global body of nations with the "shared responsibility" to secure rights, peace and freedom - not Japan, not the U.S. not Australia, not the Red Cross. Isn't that what everyone has been saying since we invaded Iraq? We should have let the UN do their job? They didn't do their job in Iraq. They haven't done their job in Burma. The best they can come up with is to be "graveley concerned" about the situation. The UN "notes with concern," "regrets," "stresses," "urges" and ultimately "deplores the continued violations of human rights in Myanmar." That was from a 1994 resolution. In 2002 (http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/6ec822f6b02cc602c1256c9f0057b7d3?Opendocument), the UN's decision was to endorse "the Commission's decision to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, as contained in Commission resolution 1992/58 of 3 March 1992**, for a further year, and to request the Special Rapporteur to submit an interim report to the General Assembly at its fifty-seventh session and to report to the Commission at its fifty-ninth session, and to keep a gender perspective in mind when seeking and analysing information."


How does a report that keeps "a gender perspective in mind" improve the "Situation of human rights in Myanmar?" It doesn't, it's as useless as being "gravely concerned" over the situation for 20 years.

We declared war on Iraq and we "invaded Iraq." One, which was just stupid, and two, we didn't get enough full support and the countries that did initially backed off later. Why do you think that was?? I'll take time to refresh everyone memories on what I said from the beginning concerning our invasion: bomb them (Iraqi military installations and government buildings) until the hills are flat and make them go after their ruthless dictator. Don't be involved long it will only distract us from our pursuit of Osama Bin Laden. Iraq is not becoming the 51st state of the US.




You finally conceded the point. "The junta hoarding for themselves is no surprise" is the problem with trusting the UN to end world poverty. What should the U.S. do? I don't know, but to continue feeding a toothless, incompetent and corrupt UN that is increasingly anti-American isn't the answer.


Did you do the Vulcan mind-meld with Sky?? You're seriously starting to sound alike. I wrote everyone in these threads that I have a second home the SE Asia. To some degree, by experience, I understand the rebel mentality. I know what it's like to be staring down the end of a barrel. They run their country like the mafia. I told you that it is getting worked out. One day they (the junta) don't permit any aid into the country, next they allow some aid, but declared no aid workers are welcomed. They play games, hoard it and let some rot and go to waste. That's not blaming the US. It's unconventional to most Americans how we have to deal with their actions. I've stated twice before (to quote myself), "let's see how our government and the world deals with them." At least you admit not knowing. Now ripping the UN for their constant belligerence toward Israel, or the incidents in Africa when women and young girls were raped, and you'll have my knowledge of support. But don't beat on them when they are attempting to do good.


This has become repetitive and I don't see any reason to continue a thread that goes over everyone's views again and again. My wife wants to start applying for work so I need to free up the computer for her. She's been a homemaker and a good one, but we could use the second income. Catch everyone later. :)

I've stated twice before (to quote myself), "let's see how our government and the world deals with them." At least you admit not knowing. Now ripping the UN for their constant belligerence toward Israel, or the incidents in Africa when women and young girls were raped, and you'll have my knowledge of support. But don't beat on them when they are attempting to do good.

I'm waiting, I'm watching, and your next to last line here indicates you agree with me more than you'll admit :D

FYI, I'm not beating on them for trying to help in this disaster, I'm beating on them for decades of "attempting to do good" and getting nothing done.

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200805.htm



What was the UN’s founding goal? World peace: to have nations work out their differences by diplomacy rather than war. There is arguably no war since its founding that the UN has successfully prevented, and oftentimes, it has made things worse.
The same goes for its “humanitarian” causes. The world has known about the Sudan genocide for years; millions have died, and the UN has done worse than nothing: reports of UN workers raping the people they were sent to help have been scandalous. UN workers also stood idly by or fled during the Rwandan genocide. The UN was irrelevant in Cambodia, or in Iraq, or in any communist or radical-Islamic country you can name. The first relief workers on the ground after a disaster are usually privately funded Christian ministries like World Vision. The UN is so inefficient with relief, it sends supplies locals cannot use (condoms to families who are starving), or the food rots on the tarmac, or it is delivered into the hands of corrupt dictators. Imagine the craziness of sending relief to the Sudanese government, which uses it to buy weapons to attack Darfur! Millions of Africans die from malaria but the UN opposes spraying to kill the mosquitos that carry it. Millions die from AIDS but the UN opposes teaching people about the most effective prevention: abstinence.
As for diplomacy, UN General Assembly meetings become soap boxes for the most radical countries to denounce the West. Since there are so many of small-country dictatorships, any voices of reason from democratic countries are often drowned out. The Security Council can never oppose totalitarian atrocities because one of the worst perpetrators, China, has veto power, as did communist Russia throughout the Cold War. The UN’s inability to act is legendary. Regardless of what you think about the Iraq war, President Bush’s coalition waited and waited for the UN to act on its own resolutions which mandated a military response to Saddam Hussein’s violations of UN rules. Coalition leaders pleaded with the UN to act on its own promises. The UN did nothing.
Meanwhile, the magnitude of the scandals at the UN – oil-for-food being one of the worst in history – is breathtaking. Does anything change? Kofi Annan brought in Paul Volcker to investigate and propose reforms. Volcker found that oil-for-food was not unique, but endemic to the UN’s practices. He proposed sweeping reforms, including opportunities for outside audits. None of them were passed. After months of negotiations, the reforms were rejected by a margin of two to one! Endemic corruption has thus been validated as official UN policy.
The world is now teetering under the threat of a nuclear Iran and North Korea, but the UN is essentially irrelevant, if not obstructionist in countering the threat. In sum, the greatest threat to world peace is now arguably the very institution chartered to safeguard it.