Posts by Jayson

11

Do you really think ? EARTH could be blown up ??? is there enough bombs ???

by run dont walk in

jw
friends

i remember reading many watchtower/awake magazines that stated "there is enough bombs on this planet to blow it up 7 times over.

" (wish i had copies of the quotes/and pictures).. and after watching the scenes in terminator 3 of the earth being desolated by machines.. and after watching the war in afghanistan and iraq and seeing how many bombs the us used in these "small countries" with unreal precision.

i really doubt if it possible to destroy the whole planet, even if they wanted to.

Jayson

Heh... I loved Terminator 3! I thought it was great; up there with Terminator 2 (maybe even a bit better).

yeah, I liked it too, but some of it was a little corny.

11

Do you really think ? EARTH could be blown up ??? is there enough bombs ???

by run dont walk in

jw
friends

i remember reading many watchtower/awake magazines that stated "there is enough bombs on this planet to blow it up 7 times over.

" (wish i had copies of the quotes/and pictures).. and after watching the scenes in terminator 3 of the earth being desolated by machines.. and after watching the war in afghanistan and iraq and seeing how many bombs the us used in these "small countries" with unreal precision.

i really doubt if it possible to destroy the whole planet, even if they wanted to.

Jayson

I have read where as few as six well placed hydrogen bombs in the food belts of the world could cause a world wide famine. The thing is humans are like viruses freaking hard to wipe out.

In the words of Einstine "I don't know what the weapons of WW3 will be fought with but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones."

I just saw T-III. I agree with the mixed reviews. Stupid, but still pretty good for a high budget B movie.

24

To: Reporter

by Amazing in

hi reporter: in your thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/14/55025/1.ashx you made the following comment:#22 is the real kicker.

i always assumed that the u.s. was the most generous, by far.. .

there are two items that make the us the single largest contributor in the world: 1.

Jayson

Realist,

Spoken like a die hard marxist.

24

To: Reporter

by Amazing in

hi reporter: in your thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/14/55025/1.ashx you made the following comment:#22 is the real kicker.

i always assumed that the u.s. was the most generous, by far.. .

there are two items that make the us the single largest contributor in the world: 1.

Jayson

Foreign Aid

Has the debate on U.S. foreign aid shifted since September 11? Yes. Foreign aid has been unpopular in recent years, but experts say the global campaign against terrorism has reinforced the view among U.S. politicians and the public that economic and military aid to other countries is both a moral obligation and a useful foreign policy tool. After steady cutbacks in the 1990s, the United States is pledging to increase humanitarian and development aid abroad, as well as stepping up economic and military support to new strategic partners in the war on terrorism. But experts still disagree about how best to structure aid packages, and some worry about sending aid to new partners who are known to abuse human rights.
Why does the United States give aid to poor countries? While President Bush has said that “poverty doesn’t cause terrorism,” many experts argue that poor countries with nondemocratic governments could become havens for terrorism. Moreover, the U.S. Agency for International Development maintains that “U.S. foreign assistance has always had the twofold purpose of furthering America’s foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of the citizens of the developing world.” But experts say that the U.S. government has given aid more often to reward political and military partners than to advance social or humanitarian causes abroad.
How much aid does the United States give? Less than 1 percent of the U.S. budget goes to foreign aid. President Bush’s 2003 budget proposes about $11.4 billion in economic assistance and about $4.3 billion for peacekeeping operations and to finance, train, and educate foreign armed forces.
How do U.S. aid levels compare with those of other countries? The U.S. foreign-aid budget as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) ranks last among the world’s wealthiest countries (at about 0.1 percent). In raw dollars, however, the United States is now the world’s top donor of economic aid, although for more than a decade it was second to Japan, which is far smaller and has been beset by economic woes. In 2001, the United States gave $10.9 billion, Japan $9.7 billion, Germany $4.9 billion, the United Kingdom $4.7 billion, and France $4.3 billion. As a percentage of GNP, however, the top donors were Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Sweden. The tiny Netherlands (pop. 5.3 million) gave $3.2 billion in 2001—almost a third of what America contributed.
Do Americans understand how much of the U.S. budget goes to foreign aid? No. A 2001 poll sponsored by the University of Maryland showed that most Americans think the United States spends about 24 percent of its annual budget on foreign aid—more than 24 times the actual figure.
Do Americans support increasing foreign aid? Yes. A University of Maryland poll, which was conducted in July 2002, indicated that 81 percent of Americans support increasing foreign-aid spending to fight terrorism. According to the poll’s findings, the typical American would like to spend $1 on foreign aid for every $3 spent on defense; the real ratio in the proposed budget for fiscal year 2003 is $1 on aid for every $19 spent on defense.
Did America used to give more aid? Yes. During the Cold War, Washington considered foreign aid a critical tool for containing communism. Under the Reagan administration, for instance, U.S. economic and military aid reached $27 billion per year—almost three times the current level. But with the end of the Soviet threat and growing congressional misgivings about foreign aid, U.S. spending dropped dramatically. Skeptics argue that giving aid often means squandering taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars on inefficient programs or corrupt regimes. Some experts also say that other countries should shoulder the foreign-aid burden since U.S. spending on defense during and after the Cold War has protected its allies.
How is U.S. aid administered? The United States gives assistance directly to states through grants and loans and indirectly through funding to international organizations such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The Bush administration has given more preference to grants than to loans, arguing that giving loans to poor states that can’t repay them simply drives them deeper into debt.
Which countries receive the most aid? The top recipient is Israel, which gets about $2.1 billion per year in military aid—used mostly to purchase U.S.-made weapons—and $600 million per year in economic support. The second-largest recipient, Egypt, annually gets around $1.3 billion in military aid and about $615 million for social programs. (In August 2002, the Bush administration said Egypt’s human rights record was so poor that Washington couldn’t support Egyptian requests for additional aid—the first time the United States had linked Egypt’s aid package to its human rights practices.) The embattled government of Colombia, the third-largest beneficiary, gets around $540 million per year to help battle the drug trade and crack down on local terrorist groups. Jordan, a leading U.S. friend in the Arab world, is slated to get about $250 million in economic support and $198 million in military financing in FY 2003—a sharp increase from 2002, due to its increasingly pivotal role in the Middle East. Peru, Ukraine, and Russia each receive about $200 million annually in economic and military aid.
Is the U.S. government giving more aid to Afghanistan and its neighbors? Yes. Since September 11, the United States has increased relief and development aid to several states in the region to help them absorb the economic shocks of war and reward them for providing logistical support in the U.S.-led war on terrorism. Yes. Since September 11, the United States has increased relief and development aid to several states in the region to help them absorb the economic shocks of war and reward them for providing logistical support in the U.S.-led war on terrorism.
Pakistan, which became a key ally in the war in Afghanistan, will get $200 million in economic aid and $50 million in military support. (In the fall of 2001, the United States lifted a ban on aid to Pakistan imposed when General Pervez Musharraf seized power in a 1999 coup.) The United States also arranged for the World Bank and the IMF to forgive about $1 billion in loans to Pakistan.
Turkey, which has provided military support and helped track terrorist financial networks, will receive $17.5 million in military aid. Previously, it had not been receiving any military aid.
Central Asian states that have provided air bases for U.S. operations will also receive military aid: Uzbekistan will get $43 million, and Kyrgyzstan will get $4 million.
Postwar Afghanistan, which is struggling to recover after years of Taliban rule and the U.S.-led war that toppled the Taliban, has already received almost $450 million in humanitarian and reconstruction aid and will also get $140 million in economic and military assistance.
Is the United States increasing aid to weak states that could become havens for terrorism? In some cases, yes. In recent years, the United States has shied away from supporting struggling states, due to disinterest, the lack of a strategic plan, and because aid can sometimes disappear into the personal coffers of corrupt dictators. However, in March 2002, President Bush surprised foreign-aid supporters by pledging to increase U.S. assistance by 50 percent over the next three years—the biggest rise in 45 years, resulting in a $15-billion increase by 2006. Some traditionally antiaid Republicans in Congress are also supporting an increase in foreign assistance; North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms credits Bono, the lead singer of the rock band U2 and a longtime aid advocate, with his conversion. The Bush administration has also changed its aid policy for some states where terrorist networks are known to operate, such as Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Yemen. In July 2002, Congress approved a proposal to let Colombia use some of its U.S. antidrug aid for counterterrorism. Indonesia and the Philippines will each receive more than $50 million in funding to combat terrorism, and Yemen will receive $10 million in U.S. economic support (up from $5 million in the previous year), as well as a new $2-million grant for training and equipment to stop infiltration by terrorist groups linked to al-Qaeda.
Could providing more foreign aid help reduce global terrorism? It’s hard to say. The precise cause-and-effect relationship between terrorism and poverty is unclear. Some experts say that since the small amount of foreign aid available has not profoundly reduced world poverty, its impact on terrorism might also be minimal. Others argue, however, that a well-focused, sustained foreign-aid program that encourages employment, institutional development, public security, and education could help poor states get on their feet—and thereby reduce their risk of becoming havens for terrorism. Some experts say that U.S. generosity might also reduce the anti-Americanism in the Arab and Muslim world that al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups often exploit.
Does U.S. aid play a role in Middle East peacemaking? Yes. The two largest recipients of American aid, Israel and Egypt, got their assistance packages as rewards for concluding the first Arab-Israeli peace treaty in 1979. U.S. aid to Israel and its neighbors has provided incentives for taking often risky moves toward peace. While Yasir Arafat’s Palestinian Authority—which the Bush administration says is tainted by ties to terrorism—doesn’t receive any direct assistance from the United States, Palestinians benefit from $70 million a year in U.S. aid through U.N. refugee assistance programs, as well as about $75 million administered to water, housing, employment, and democracy programs.
Copyright ©2003 Council on Foreign Relations.
All Rights Reserved.

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/policy/foreignaid_print.html

Simon I'm sorry to post the whole page but it shows so much of the meat of what I see as all sides I found it very powerful. It shows the arguments of all of us IMO and some hope that progress will be made and lives will be spared starvation and violence. It's truth I'm after in a debate not the need to be right, but instead the right direction to make things better.

6

Hard Facts of WMDs - The Faces of Children

by Amazing in

critics are continuously demanding to know where the weapons of mass destructions (wmds) are

... and, now the uk parliament and the us congress are both opening investigations.

this is significant because in both countries the leaders, blair and bush, represent the majority party.

Jayson

Simon again for the record you are right no reasonable WMD stockpiles or programs have been found....[yet] That is what scares me.

There is nothing definining what are WMD/UN violations that would justify a preemptive invasion of Iraq by those opposed to the war for that matter. But, I agree with you on principle.

I took the thread as an account as to what has been found. For some of us there is more issues than just WMD. I know it is the issue for you. So far hasn't Blair been exonerated of the accusation of "lying" about the Iraqi "threat." I doubt Mr. Bush will face such an inquiry. But, if he does I'll bring the popcorn.

24

To: Reporter

by Amazing in

hi reporter: in your thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/14/55025/1.ashx you made the following comment:#22 is the real kicker.

i always assumed that the u.s. was the most generous, by far.. .

there are two items that make the us the single largest contributor in the world: 1.

Jayson

Simon I do understand your point. The thing is the $100 & the $250 when donated to the JW's isn't really feeding the poor or helping the inferm. (UN being the JW) Accountability and responsibility. The UN was a great idea in its day but it is outdated. It's funtion was to serve a need who's time is past. Something new, something better should take it's place in due time. Something where there is a standard of human & civil rights that have to be met to join. Dictatorships would be an instant disqualification. And, not submiting to the standard of conduct (the court for example) would mean disqualification. Just this idea of not pretending that dictators are legitimate civilized governship meaning that they can't be exploited by be it the US, France, or anyone else for an agenda would change a lot. It potentially could help people to stand on their own feet and not have to be so dependent for life on the charity of others. Something where humanitarian aide and nation building is it's key funtions. Taking away the protection of International Law to rouge countries would change some things.. Americans maybe more so than Europeans fail to see that there is a class system in America AND they (we) are totally oblivious to reasons for ethnic wars and hatred. We fail to see what damage the export of raw capitalism and democracy has done to the world. These things also make "charity" nearly irrelevent or impossible in many parts of the world.

The comparison in my opinion would be better served to say that the whole church (meaning a group) donated "350" and while 250 was donated by the entire collective it was one "guy" who donated 100. That "guy" equals nearly one third of all that is given to the coffer. And the guarding & police are basicly also paid for by the "guy." Which his and the groups protection costs another 250, in fact as high as 400 because of a chosen "issue" this year. Could he give more, yes, and are the other members appreciated for their donation, yes. But sometimes the "guy" gets tired of the lack of appreciation for what he does. The "guy" is thinking maybe he should find another church where he is respected for all that he does. The problem with statistics is that they can be made to favor whom ever is the desired good guy and then dis the desired bad guy. That is why I put up a link that shows every country and what it recieved in US aide in 2002. Not just a blanket percentage to "charity" but the exact number of dollars given. (It's not peanuts.) I understand that what I am saying is much deeper than your point on GNP (which is not wasted on me) I just see all these issues as tied together. Individualism is a big deal to me after all I am a bloody American (It's why I'd make a crappy JW) and it also clashes with neo-marxism ideology I.e. wealth redistribution. I know that some redistribution is nessesary but when it starts getting to a scale, not of exact required needs to meet, but a blanket status card to meet others perceived expectations of "a giving guy" as you say, "rubbish."

24

To: Reporter

by Amazing in

hi reporter: in your thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/14/55025/1.ashx you made the following comment:#22 is the real kicker.

i always assumed that the u.s. was the most generous, by far.. .

there are two items that make the us the single largest contributor in the world: 1.

Jayson

Realist you who don't even think people are able to have choice over their actions are lecturing me? HA!

I said thank you.

I took your posts statistical accuarcy on your good name as fact without even autheticating them.

I also said that I would read your link in spite of it's anti American theme (Which the site admits to fyi) Saying I would read it is far more fairness than you have ever shown me. Parasitic ideology is very fair when talking about "wealth redistribution." Maybe "suckle" ideology is better sounding but it gives to much merit to the idea that the State has a right much less obligation to rob from one citizen to dole as it sees fit to another.

6

Hard Facts of WMDs - The Faces of Children

by Amazing in

critics are continuously demanding to know where the weapons of mass destructions (wmds) are

... and, now the uk parliament and the us congress are both opening investigations.

this is significant because in both countries the leaders, blair and bush, represent the majority party.

Jayson

Thanks for posting your thread Amazing. t'is hard to refute the truth

24

To: Reporter

by Amazing in

hi reporter: in your thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/14/55025/1.ashx you made the following comment:#22 is the real kicker.

i always assumed that the u.s. was the most generous, by far.. .

there are two items that make the us the single largest contributor in the world: 1.

Jayson

Realist, I said that I don't want to talk to you anymore because either you are insane or just like to debate for debates sake. You were someone who put up facts so I said thank you. But debating you is a waste of time. I do find it very selfish that a country with no GNP to speak of turns to a nations with a massive amount of GNP that puts out awsome numbers (in dollars) of aide is so disrespected. If the US agreed to match all of Europe the same people would take every opportunity to dis America. It's not about "anti-americanism" or "bush" or "war" or "poor" it is about jealousy. It's about wanting to sack the person in the castle because they are there and you are not. It is impossible to make you understand how much more productive it is to decide to become that person in your own castle yourself. I did. I started with nothing and built a series businesses. While my friends were off getting laid in college, or smoking pot, or doing whatever I worked very hard. I studied, I tried, and it worked. I know what it is to be poor. I know what it is to work your way out of it. Government can't do it for you if it wanted to. Only you can do it for yourself. It's the same with dictatorships and famine/war torn countries. They have to want to fix it. Many just can't want to want to. And again realist everything about you represents a person who will never understand me. It's a waste of time to explain it. You promote parasitic ideology imo.

Edit to add- I will take the time to read your link. It is in-depth or at least l-o-n-g. But so far I'd have to say communist ideology & writing by any other name is still communism pipe dreams.

You should read "World on Fire" by Chua

24

To: Reporter

by Amazing in

hi reporter: in your thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/14/55025/1.ashx you made the following comment:#22 is the real kicker.

i always assumed that the u.s. was the most generous, by far.. .

there are two items that make the us the single largest contributor in the world: 1.

Jayson

Thank you realist, now to the point of the straw. One country gives 13 billion while "if you combine dozens of nations in Europe you get 30 billion. I did not know that Europe was a nation. Thanks for the update. Of course add UN & nato defense costs and it is the same program. Add dozens of different nations together and ignore that the US is one nation to get to the desired goal that America does nothing for the world and Europe (The fictious nation) is the mother of the globe. Thanks again.