Are Americans Stingy?

[amomof4]

Gosh, John, I really loved & appreciate your post. I get sick of all the complaints about America. I wish u could send it to every US tv network & newspapers. I think they complain the loudest.

In India, they have enough cows to feed the country for 4 years, according to KP Yohannan of Gospel for Asia. But the cow is worshipped & not eaten. So, although they are vegetarians, they still have the expense of meat eating. Rats consume 25% of their grain, but rats are worshipped to, so they're not exterminated. Don't get me wrong, I love India & support a few Indian Missionaries there. They are a starving country, yet they have the resources to take care of their people, but don't. I assume some of the same things happen in other countries.

Mexico is a very poor nation, but that's because their rich government won't do anything about it. They want all the money for themselves, & then complain that America won't allow all their people to move here. If they really cared about their own people, they would do something about the poverty.

Thank you for posting & giving us something to think about.

[JLP]

No, Americans are not stingy. What else can I say?

JLP

[moneyrant]

<b>Well now. I was going to try to avoid controversy on this board, but the opportunity to express myself on this issue is too good to refuse.</b>

Good debate never hurt anyone.

<b>America can never win in the eyes of much of the world, no matter what they do. That's part of being the top dog. When America tries to help countries, it's accused of meddling and arrogance, and when it leaves them alone, it's accused of callousness.</b>

Not true. America thanked for help in Indonesia. Accused when there for self interest and not to help.

<b>There seems to be an assumption that because America is rich, the money they have earned belongs to anyone who might want or need it. How about this for an idea: Those countries that can barely feed themselves might like to address their religious and political systems so that they can stand on their own two feet.</b>

Again, not true. Many of countries are poor due to debts to rich nations. Kind of reminds of credit card companies.

<b>Many countries, including my own, free-load off the security provided by the USA. If America weren't there to address regional security threats, we in NZ might have to have a credible army of our own. Good on the Australians and Brits for helping to free Iraq from despotism. Shame on NZ and continental Europe.</b>

Reason went to war with Iraq was weapons of mass destruction. That was our (US) arugument to UN, not to free of despotism. If despotism is the reason, why aren't we invading many other countries? NZ and Europe were correct.

<b>The American government has the right and the obligation to maintain a large military force to defend the nation. If that capacity can sometimes be used to help the citizens of other countries, all the better. It's not INSTEAD of aid, it's AS WELL AS aid. Perhaps it's even a form of aid.</b>

Right to defend nation, not attack others.

<b>If I were a citizen of Iraq, I'd certainly think so (assuming I weren't a member of the deposed regime).</b>

You're not (nor am I), so what we think means crap.

<b>Still, if you insist that they are related, let me tell you this: If I had to choose between being the victim of a natural disaster and having to fend for myself, or being the victim of a vicious totalitarian dictatorship, I would choose the former without hesitation. If I had to choose for my loved ones between being drowned or being tortured to death in a concrete cell, it would be the former.</b>

Again, your choice. If NZ becomes dictatorship, you can ask US to come.

<b>Disaster victims can either struggle to help themselves, or accept help from other parts of their country or the world. Saddam's victims could do none of those things.</b>

True. So once he was gone, why are we still there?

<b>Another thing I hear all the time that bugs the hell out of me is the saying, "You can't impose democracy". Really? Tell it to the Germans and the Japanese. It's hard to imagine two cultures as different as 1940s America and Japan. Despite having almost all their industry destroyed in WWII, Germany and Japan are now among the richest and most successful countries in the world.</b>

Not comparable. Reason we are hated is because of that. We impose.

<b>Is America stingy? Ask anyone who benefitted from the Marshall plan.</b>

Different era. Marshall Plans in itself means Amerca not stingy?

<b>It irritates me intensely that the US is blamed for every problem in every part of the world. The world went through an era of colonialism. Every major European power was involved in that. They all have blood on their hands, but now they love to tut-tut about America's "arrogance".</b>

Irriatting doesn't mean wrong. If you have previously been wrong, then you are forever wrong?

<b>The Germans I'll give a bit of leeway to, because they've become peacenik in the extreme since the events of the early 20th Century. The despicable French have no excuse.</b>

Why? They don't agree with your opinion?

<b>I don't remember the French crying out in 1944, "No! Please don't invade to liberate us! Innocent people may be hurt in the process." Another thing I don't remember is any rallies or protest marches in France when French government agents sank the Rainbow Warrior (a peaceful protest ship) in Auckland harbour and killed a crew member in the process. Actually, the people who did it were spirited back to France and given military honours. French people shrugged and said, "Well, that's national security."</b>

Not comparable. Occupied by a foreign country. Not the case in Iraq.

<b>But when there's a chance to stick it to the US, watch the protest crowds swell and demand that Saddam and Uday be allowed to continue raping and murdering and gassing their people.</b>

People protesting US going in on made-up grounds. That doesn't mean support for Iraq dictator.

<b>As for the oil in Iraq, I don't know and don't care whether that was a consideration. Had I been living under constant threat of arrest and torture in Iraq I would have signed over my "share" of the oil reserves to any country willing to come and rescue me. A small price to pay, I would have thought.</b>

You weren't and you didn't. Not for you to decide.

<b>Too bad the people in North Korea still have to eat the bark off trees and wait at night for the knock on the door.</b>

Why isn't America there if we're so against despotism? No oil maybe?

<b>How does America help the world?

First by being a refuge for many persecuted people from all over. Next by being the driving engine behind the global economy - almost every useful tool in my house, including the computer on which I'm typing this, was either invented or developed in America, or at the very least made viable and affordable by purchasing power of the huge American market.</b>

No argument there.

<b>Next, by direct investment and involvement in many other countries. Even when they're "sweatshops" (by some people's judgements), the alternative is usually begging or starvation.</b>

If we wouldn't tolerate it here, why should we in other countries? People are people, right?

<b>Lastly, by being an example to the world.</b>

Isn't setting an example to say you're sorry when you're wrong? Or don't we teach that any more?

<b>I think that instead of whining about what meanies the Americans are, the poorer parts of the world need to get their acts together and develop free enterprise and capitalism, instead of scorning it while proffering the begging bowl.</b>

Again the whining. And of course there was none of that in your post...

[moneyrant]

Originally Posted by amomof4

They are a starving country, yet they have the resources to take care of their people, but don't. I assume some of the same things happen in other countries.

Mexico is a very poor nation, but that's because their rich government won't do anything about it. They want all the money for themselves, & then complain that America won't allow all their people to move here. If they really cared about their own people, they would do something about the poverty.

And what is America's excuse for poverty and not helping their own? We have resources (India example) and rich government (Mexico example) and kids still go to bed hungry here. That mean we don't care, either?

[PrincessPerky]

Originally Posted by moneyrant

Reason went to war with Iraq was weapons of mass destruction. That was our (US) arugument to UN, not to free of despotism. If despotism is the reason, why aren't we invading many other countries? NZ and Europe were correct.

'Cause we havn't found a good excuse yet.

<b>If I were a citizen of Iraq, I'd certainly think so (assuming I weren't a member of the deposed regime).</b> You're not (nor am I), so what we think means crap. ...Again, your choice. If NZ becomes dictatorship, you can ask US to come.

Well even though many Iraq asked for help, we still had to wait around for the excuse of WMD, not saying it was right, just saying we didn't care what the Iraq people wanted either way.

True. So once he was gone, why are we still there?

To try and prevent another of his ilk from taking over, leaving the lives lost with nothing to show for it. Agian not saying we should have been there in the first place, but we can't leave now.

People protesting US going in on made-up grounds. That doesn't mean support for Iraq dictator.

So if we went in to take down a dictator there wouldn't be protesting?

<b>Lastly, by being an example to the world.</b>

Isn't setting an example to say you're sorry when you're wrong? Or don't we teach that any more?

I think you might want to take a second look at the American schools, we teach that no child is ahead or behind, honor student might hurt the pride of those left behind. we teach that it is ok to not learn so long as you sit still. It is more important to turn in work and walk in straight lines than to grasp concepts or knowledge. I believe sorry is reserved for bad grades. "I'm sorry that test was hard jr, we'll make it easier next time" But that is a whole 'nother debate.

[PrincessPerky]

Originally Posted by moneyrant

That mean we don't care, either?

Means we havn't figured out how to offer fishing lessons, just hand out fish. Or we just don't care

Many of countries are poor due to debts to rich nations. Kind of reminds of credit card companies.
Don't borrow if you can't repay. Either "the people" approve of the borrowing, in which case it's their choice, or they don't, in which case they need to get themselves better governments. Many "rich" countries, including mine, have huge debts, which they are able to service thanks to their political and economic systems. In addition they lend money to developing nations which is supposed to be used for infrastructure and development. If the borrower blows it on consumption, as many credit card borrowers do, they reap the consequences. And many credit card holders then cry about how mean the CC companies are. Take responsibility for your actions. Pay your debts.

You're not (nor am I), so what we think means crap.
[and]
You weren't and you didn't [live in Iraq under tyranny]. Not for you to decide.
Okay, so if I see someone being beaten and mugged on the street, I won't go to his aid. I can't be ABSOLUTELY SURE that he's not enjoying it, and after all, it's not for me to decide.

If NZ becomes dictatorship, you can ask US to come.
I can, but if my government is repressive and powerful, the US will have to enter by force, i.e. invade. Many, many Iraqis asked the US to come. Others had a bit of trouble getting their messages out before they were killed.

So once he was gone, why are we still there?
Same reason 'we' stayed in Germany and Japan for decades - the tyrants will return unless you introduce stability and an alternative system.

Not comparable [the rehabilitation of wartime Germany/Japan]
Yes it is. Totalitarian governments ruling entirely by force. Mistreating minorities or political opponents. Many of their citizens supporting them, many not. Posing a threat to their neighbours and regional stability.
I guess in the 1940s, you would have been one of the isolationists arguing that the US should "stay out of the war" as it's "none of our business".

No argument there.
Boy, you really tore my argument apart with incisive logic and wit. I'm chastened.

If you have previously been wrong, then you are forever wrong?
No. Not at all. America was wrong in the past not to oppose repressive regimes. Now it is putting that right. A welcome change of policy.

Why isn't America there [in North Korea] if we're so against despotism? No oil maybe?
In a way, they are there. I don't have the figures to hand, but I believe there have been one or two US troops stationed on the border to protect S. Korea since the Korean war. I wonder what the cost of that protection (and the K. war itself) has been to the US taxpayer. I wonder how much oil has been received in return.
As for why they didn't invade: 1. Different (wrong) policy earlier, 2. Threats have to be addressed one at a time, 3. Global outrage (over Iraq) makes further liberations far more difficult politically, 4. N. Korea claims to have nukes, which means far more risk.

Isn't setting an example to say you're sorry when you're wrong? Or don't we teach that any more?
They weren't wrong. No need for an apology. By the way, I saw some pretty profuse apologies and some quick action over the Abu Ghraib abuses. And rightly so.

Reason went to war with Iraq was weapons of mass destruction.
That was certainly a primary reason, though not the only one expressed. Saddam behaved as if he were hiding WMDs. Months of obstruction of UN inspectors preceded the invasion. Silly Saddam, he should have opened the cupboard wide, could have saved him his position.

That was our (US) arugument to UN, not to free of despotism. If despotism is the reason, why aren't we invading many other countries?
See my explanation of why no invasion of N. Korea (above).

If we wouldn't tolerate it [sweatshops] here, why should we in other countries? People are people, right?
'We' did tolerate it here. Talk to anyone old enough to remember the early 20th Century. The "sweat" from sweatshops was part of what built the wealth of the Western nations. It's a stage of early industrialisation. Poverty means working long hours for little return in order to get ahead. Pre-industrialisation means general national poverty.
Perhaps you think an uneducated person living a subsistence existence in a third-world nation ought to be offerred a $100k salary, company Mercedes, and stock options - after all, that's what some "people" get in the West, and people are people, right?
You have to walk before you can run. If people in developing nations find the offers of factories and jobs are on unacceptable terms, they can retain their existing mode of existence. They generally choose not to. Remember when Hong Kong was a low-wage producer of cheap goods? How about Malaysia, or Taiwan?

Again the whining. And of course there was none of that in your post...
Nice try, but no dice. I'm complaining about the whining. I'm not whining, because I'm not demanding something for nothing. I'm expressing an opinion. You might as well say that your response to my posts was "whining".

Good debate never hurt anyone.
Oh, wait a minute ... am I allowed to "whine" or not? Does my opinion mean crap, or not? Please clarify.

Some more good things about the USA

I left some important things out of my first post. Mentioning Taiwan just now reminded me of the role the US plays in their (Taiwan's) prosperity and security. Quite a few people from Asia settle in NZ, and I've made a few friends from Taiwan and learned a bit about it.

Note that in my first post I said much of the world is critical of the US. I didn't say all the world. The Taiwanese people certainly know how good a friend the US is to them. If it weren't for America, The communist Chinese authorities would have snuffed out Taiwan long ago. It's only America's military might, plus the weapons they sell to the Taiwanese, that makes a free Taiwan viable. And where do they get the money to pay for that hardware (and their high standard of living)? Well, Taiwan makes nearly all the brands of computer motherboards available, as well as most of the graphics cards. Thanks to the huge American and international market for such technology, the Taiwanese can make a living.

Maybe the Americans are hoping to find oil there.

The other thing the whole world should thank America for is medical, and especially drug technology.

The "multi-national drug companies" are a favourite whipping boy for most America-haters. Why? Because they want payment for what they produce. Actually, the payment they ask is trivial in comparison with the cost of developing the drugs/techniques. The people who pay the bulk of the development cost are the rich consumers in America and Europe. Everyone else in the world gets the benefits cheap. But not cheap enough to stop some governments licensing their own factories to violate the patents.

If it weren't for those "obscenely" wealthy American consumers and the rich drug companies, the life-saving and sanity-saving drugs would never have existed and would not be available at any price to those who need them.

John.