OldScho0l: You people really need to study WWII before you start talking about things you don't understand.

Such as real reason USA entered war in Europe, UK paid what could be considered the largest payment for services rendered in history.

Tangible cost to UK included the country's entire gold reserve (quite large built up of billions from British Empire); USA would not accept cash.

Even then USA wanted more and UK paid with its intellectual property too. Therefore intangible costs to UK included transfer of ownership of British invented technology (including radar and computers) and research including atomic bombs and reactors. UK also had to agree not to develop these technologies again in competition to USA.

The UK was still paying Lend Lease debt to USA in 1998.

But what takes the biscuit is that UK is still paying the French government for damages that were done to the country in cause of liberation from Nazis.

In reply to post 87 i think it is, the term used is "Splendid Isolation". It's where a country removes itself entirely from world problems and just concentrates on itself. Britain did it in the 19th century, USA did it in the 20th Century. Only problem is when you're a powerful country, you cant do that. Britain was forced into WW1 due to the treaty France, Britain and Russia (i think it was) had with each other.

The US was forced into WW2 due to mounting pressure from it's population after Pearl Harbour and pressure from Allied countries in Europe. Before Pearl Harbour they were content with selling arms to european countries.

If Splending Isolationism worked, we'd all be doing it. Unfortunately theres always someone who wants to "breach the peace" as it were and fight for one reason or another. I can't remember where i read it, maybe in the book im currently reading, but theres a quote that goes something like "Fighting for freedom is a good quality to defend yourself in war, but not a good reason to start a war". I forget the complete quote, but its something like that.

Anyway, im off topic again. I love my Nokia 6630. Wonderful phone. Back to making themes for it

Does anyone else find it amazing that amidst all the destruction, debris of destroyed houses/shops/other buildings the trees are still standing?

I think we need to take a leaf (buh dum dum tss) from natures book and design houses that can withstand tsunamis and other coastal disasters. Of course how the average poor farmer will afford a house like that im not sure, but it'd be nice to know that we can combat it.

Entaro-adun, the fact that one of my random ramblings has actually discovered a lucid point is amazing enough, but for someone to agree with me is near unique.

Whilst what i write may be biaste and opinionated, its is also passionate and well-meaning. I agree that the US has to pull its weight when it comes to international matters, whether it is global terrorism or global warming. The US is happy to take a forward position when it comes to the defence of it's own people (which is noble enough) but when it comes to an international treaty to lower Global Warming (something that certainly doesnt profit the US) it backs out.

In my opinion the US is very much opitomised by one of it's largest companies...Microsoft. Very eager to promote the idea that they are serving your best interests in whatever they do, but underneath the veil they reveal that they will only pusure a course if it profits them directly. This was also perfectly shown by another poster when he/she said that the amount the US had spent on AIDS in africa was minute compared with the amount that had been spent on ousting Sadam. If an AIDS epidemic (think of the SARS crisis in china) suddenly erupted in the US then the government would react sharply with funds never before seen. But whilst it is on the other side of the globe it is not as important and the US government can spend their money on a defunct missile defence system or whatever else looks shiny and new.

Anyway i'm getting off track... Entaro-adun, your faith in Congress is, i hope, well founded. I hope they do start looking at their toy globes and looking at various middle eastern countries etc and start thinking "what can we do to help" Now is the time, Bush could pass through legislation now regarding foreign aid (because of the global mourning surrounding the earthquake) that normally would get rejected becasue the US taxpayers would rather see their money going back into their own country (understandable). There isnt a member of the House or the Senate that right now would want to be labelled as Anti-ForeignAid, so Bush (if he really cares) needs to fasttrack some bills to help out these people and the people who will be affected in the future.

-Truffle Shuffle
PS i hope to do an Masters Degree in Political Communications in the coming years.

Truffle I agree with you in your rebuttal to my post 100%. I was just using that to make the point that it's a lose/lose situation. Per capita, the US isn't giving nearly as much as it should be but hopefully Congress will change that.

To add to the World War II timeline already provided, check out the maps which show casualty rates for World Wars II and I. It is unequivocably true that the Soviets simply killed a lot more of the German military than did the U.S. and Great Britain, and graphically, it's a pretty horrific picture. It's also true that the French, despite surrendering, still bled in World War II, but nowhere near the way they did in the First World War:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww1-loss.htm

Would you build a house made of sand on sea level?

You might if you didn't have an (economic) choice. If you lived in a country where you depended on tourism to survive and the tourists stay near the beach .. then yes. If you lived in a country where you fished offshore for many hours each day to survive .. then yes. The western world philosophy of you get what you pay for doesn't work in situations like this.

The man with the villa has a high chance he can return home to his family who (still) lives in a villa. The man living in the hut has a high chance of returning to ... well, nothing.

How does this affect the amount of money that gets donated or the amount of help these people need? Would you donate more money if it were a load of wealthy people losing their homes? Would you say "well u only lost your shack so heres $50, but u lost your house, your cars, and your ornamental fountain so here's $250,000 ?

I don't remeber saying anything about donating money. I said it was a socio-economic question.

It looks to me like you made up something while you were reading my question. Try reading it again.

I think it is great that the US just upped their pledge to 350 million....but will it get there? Can someone find a list of organizations (private businesses) that are donating and how much? I can't find it.

BatmanX - fka Batman
(to match all of my online gaming activites)
This comment was edited on Dec 31, 13:44.

I would like to see a break down of classes that were killed by the Tsunami. In a lot of the pictures and videos from the area now, the live shots and interviews, it looks like shacks and viallges were cut down. What is the socio-economic state of the area, and what is the affect of the area?

How does this affect the amount of money that gets donated or the amount of help these people need? Would you donate more money if it were a load of wealthy people losing their homes? Would you say "well u only lost your shack so heres $50, but u lost your house, your cars, and your ornamental fountain so here's $250,000 ?

Everyone should get the same, if a person wants more becuase they lost more then their just being ignorant because they had more to lose. Its the same as when a person complains about the amount of tax they pay and then they apply for a higher paid job and so pay more tax. The man in the hut has lost everything just as the man in the villa has.

-TruffleShuffle

"Is it nature's way of controlling population?"

I could see that argument being made for epidemics (AIDS, ebola, SARs etc.) but for the movement of tectonic plates? That's kind of like saying nature had an asteroid hit the earth to control the dinosaur population, know what I mean?

Would you build a house made of sand on sea level?


BatmanX - fka Batman
(to match all of my online gaming activites)

"Is it nature's way of controlling population?"

I could see that argument being made for epidemics (AIDS, ebola, SARs etc.) but for the movement of tectonic plates? That's kind of like saying nature had an asteroid hit the earth to control the dinosaur population, know what I mean?

So in the end, seeing how 135+ thousand people have died from these Tsunamis, it's easy to see why 15 million looks like a drop in the bucket to the rest of the world considering our wealth

I was speaking to a co-worker very matter-of-factly. I am not being a jerk, I am thinking about things from economic view, so just work with me for a second.

I would like to see a break down of classes that were killed by the Tsunami. In a lot of the pictures and videos from the area now, the live shots and interviews, it looks like shacks and viallges were cut down. What is the socio-economic state of the area, and what is the affect of the area?

The tourist areas didn't seem to be hit that hard, it appeared to be local areas with not a lot of money. I saw a lot of "villages" or collection of shanties built out of wood and tree branches completley wiped out.

How will this affect their economic state? I am not saying their lives were worthless at all, I am saying, how were these people viewed by others in the area? I am aware that there is not a lot of money there to start with, but was this considered (in civilized terms) low income, middle income, ?

I understand it is a tragedy, and it is unthinkable to have 200,000 people gone. But these conversations must be made also. How will it affect their economy?

Is it nature's way of controlling population?

/please don't flame, I am looking for stimulating conversation.


BatmanX - fka Batman
(to match all of my online gaming activites)

To be fair: breaking news has the US donating $350 million now.

Still, to be cynical: where's the relief we pledged to Iran last year?

Ahh i apologise for my original figure regarding the amount the UK has given to help with the earthquake, i'm afraid i was a little off.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=646911

Highlights:

"The British public has pledged at least 32 million pounds so far in aid... The latest donations on Friday by individuals come on top of 50 million pounds pledged by the British government...When Britain announced its 50 million pound pledge on Thursday it became the single largest bilateral donor"

So that means the british people, Mr and Mrs Smith, are giving twice the amount that the US Government, ruling the most powerful and wealthy nation on earth, is giving. Puts things into perspective a little.

-Truffle Shuffle

Well, America was criticised for a number of reasons. We stil have yet to make good on the money we pledged to victim's of Iran's earthquake last year, and our initial promise of 15 million to the Tsunami victims seemed minute considering the superpower that we are.

A few months ago, America was criticized -- quite rightly in my opinion -- for not contributing more money to the fight against AIDS. We had contributed much more than other countries for sure, however keep in mind that 10% of Africa is now infected with the virus and that number is climbing rapidly. We spent 1 Billion dollars fighting AIDS abroad and what -- 280 Billion or so -- liberating Iraq. Now, which was the bigger threat to our way of life: the spread of AIDS or Saddam Hussein?

We don't need to debate the justification for going to war here, because everyone is steadfast in their opinions on that, but in my mind -- and in the minds of the rest of the world -- that money could have been used to save multitudes of the world's population but it was instead used in a war that the U.S. stands to profit greatly from.

So in the end, seeing how 135+ thousand people have died from these Tsunamis, it's easy to see why 15 million looks like a drop in the bucket to the rest of the world considering our wealth.

Just a small message about the aid thread i just read...

"America may give up to 1 Billion"

Europe already has given 1 Billion (the EU) and the UK is also givng another 10 million individually.

Its the price you pay...

Since America's modern conception it has strived to be independant, to be free and strong. As a result it has become the worlds last super-power. As the most powerful nation it has a certain responsibilty, first and formost this responsibility is restaint. To not just flex it's muscles when it needs something or doesnt get it's way. Secondly it must take a large slice when it comes to being the worlds police force.

"Problems on the other side of the world can stay there" another great idea. But i think after 9/11 its obvious that this thinking is just plain incorrect. It has been America's stand point to not get involved (WW2 is a great example) but then suddenly as a result of ignoring the outside world something happens right on your doorstep that forces a change of heart (Pearl Habour).

Yes America is a reletively young nation, but it is also America's insistance to not require or request help (or even review the mistakes other nations have made in their past) that mean that America are just falling into the same hole that so many other nations have fallen into already, so much so that now this hole has become quite large, has several warning signs, and even a barrier in front of it. Yet America still seems to manage to fall in and then cry " we didnt see the hole".

A very political thread response
-Truffle Shuffle

To see an example of this (double standards), read the news about the recent tsunami in Asia/Africa. Other countries are critisizing us of not sending ENOUGH aid when they can barely offer a substantial amount themselves. Considering the US humanitarian aid process has BARELY begun, they are quick to pounce on the US for "neglecting" the disaster overseas. I understand time is of the essense with such a situation, but this will be the biggest worldwide disaster aid project in our history. I've read projections that the US could possibly give up to 1 billion in aid, but even then the cynics will not be happy.

I agree 100%. Also, out of the UN, what % is directly from the US anyway? I don't have the figure, but the US is the main backer of the UN isn't it?

Secondly, I saw an news piece on how much American businesses are giving. Anyone have that list anywhere? I don't remeber what news station I saw it on. Had one eye open watching the news late last night.


BatmanX - fka Batman
(to match all of my online gaming activites)

To see an example of this (double standards), read the news about the recent tsunami in Asia/Africa. Other countries are critisizing us of not sending ENOUGH aid when they can barely offer a substantial amount themselves. Considering the US humanitarian aid process has BARELY begun, they are quick to pounce on the US for "neglecting" the disaster overseas. I understand time is of the essense with such a situation, but this will be the biggest worldwide disaster aid project in our history. I've read projections that the US could possibly give up to 1 billion in aid, but even then the cynics will not be happy.

On another note, my heart goes out to the victims/famulies who have had to see and deal with such a tremendous loss of life. I'll be donating my share, will you?