Us working on new weapon!

[denoir 0]

About 80% of worldwide food donations come from the US.

That I have a very hard time believing. Africa is the biggest recipient of food donation. 85% of all aid to Africa come from Europe and another 5% from Japan while USA contributes with about 3%. These are UN numbers. I posted the source somewhere in the Liberia thread, I think. I'll try to find it.

[Milkman 1]

About 80% of worldwide food donations come from the US.

That I have a very hard time believing. Africa is the biggest recipient of food donation. 85% of all aid to Africa come from Europe and another 5% from Japan while USA contributes with about 3%. These are UN numbers. I posted the source somewhere in the Liberia thread, I think. I'll try to find it.

80% of all food doesn't mean africa. Plenty goes to southeast asia and south america.

[Mister Frag 0]

Archived versions of the Humanitarian Review in PDF form can be found on their website at http://www.humanitarian-review.org under the "Past Issues" link.

The numbers I quoted were from the "The View from the Top" article in the Winter 2003 issue:

http://www.humanitarian-review.org/issue.asp?id=64

[SpecOp9 0]

Quote[/b] ]I dont think people can be evil, terrorism might be evil but I dont belive that terrorists are. They might be seriously messed up people but not evil. Maybe you should try and talk to them instead of trying to kill them. So far you have been doing more killing and it doesnt seem to end terrorism does it? If the US used theire brains more than theire mussles maybe WTC would never even have happend. You are not much better yourselves.

On Sept 11th terrorists flew airplanes into buildings killing thousands.  Lives, were lost because of this.

Families, friends. Gone.  Childrens lives are broken.

And you want us to ask the people why they did it?  You want the U.S. to try and talk to people who are ready to shoot you? Who are making chemical weapons to give us a slow and horrible death?  

I'm sorry, but we have gone through the evolution process unlike some people.

Your saying we should NOT attack people for what they are doing?

If some punk started messing up your home and burning it down, how would you feel?

If that person was gathering more and more people to help him, to help kill your family, your wife, and your friends, and everybody else you have in your life, would you sit back and let them do it?

I think you need to read my signature.

Unity is what makes us great.  

It's just a damn shame people can't see the truth.

And people don't seem to realize Unity is something they dont have. So they are jealous.

Happy your not an American to be ashamed?

I'm happy I am an American so I don't need to be mentally sadistic in the head and kill everybody I envy most.

[denoir 0]

Archived versions of the Humanitarian Review in PDF form can be found on their website at http://www.humanitarian-review.org under the "Past Issues" link.

The numbers I quoted were from the "The View from the Top" article in the Winter 2003 issue:

http://www.humanitarian-review.org/issue.asp?id=64

Development assistance and humanitarian aid

Quote[/b] ]The EU is the largest provider of official development assistance (ODA) and humanitarian aid in

the world. The EU contributes over half of global ODA, over US$ 26 billion in 2001 (compared to

the United States' US$ 11.4 billion). This represents 0.33% of the EU's Gross National Income

(compared to a figure of 0.11% for the U.S.). Last year EU Member States pledged to increase their

ODA budgets still further, to reach an average of 0.39% of Gross National Income (GNI) by 2006,

or around €9 billion additional annual ODA. As well as ODA, the EU is the world's biggest donor

of humanitarian aid, accounting for 47% of global assistance in 2001 (compared to 36% for the

United States).

SpecOp9:

Quote[/b] ]On Sept 11th terrorists flew airplanes into buildings killing thousands.  Lives, were lost because of this.

Families, friends. Gone.  Childrens lives are broken.

And what about the people in Afghanistan and Iraq? What about their families and friends. Gone. Childrens lives are broken. While Osama and Saddam are sitting and sipping drinks somewhere. How many innocent people are you ready to kill to get your revenge? The wars and consequences of the wars that the US has started the last two years have killed by far more civilians than the number that died in the WTC attacks.

[Mister Frag 0]

Incidentally, I have no trouble believing that the vast majority of private food donations come from countries other than the US.

I have never seen the same level of outpouring of aid from private individuals that I have seen in Europe. There have been numerous collection campaigns that have been very successful in getting aid to victims of natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, or drought.

However, the US government gives huge amounts of aid as part of their foreign policy. Countries that are friendly (or at least not hostile) are rewarded, while those that are not can find themselves subject to isolation -- this is a common way to shape international relations, and is done by every country that can afford to offer foreign aid.

[denoir 0]

Well, as you saw in the link that I posted, official aid from the EU was in 2001 26 billion USD while USA's was 11.4.

Those numbers do not include private donations.

[Mister Frag 0]

Denoir, I think the discrepancy in the figures results from comparing apples and oranges -- the numbers for the EU are for what the document calls Official Development Assistance (ODA), which includes things other than food shipments. Irrigation, health initiatives and educational projects, for instance, are included.

[denoir 0]

You are probably right. USA is the world's largest producer of food, so it would not be surprising that they contribute accordingly.

[Bernadotte 0]

abe lincoln assasinated for stopping slavery

kennedy assasinated for making peace

george bush treated as a god with no brain but still lives

Give him time. Afterall, he was elected in a zero year.

[Harnu 0]

Well, as you saw in the link that I posted, official aid from the EU was in 2001 26 billion USD while USA's was 11.4.

Those numbers do not include private donations.

Maybe it's just me, but USA = 1 country.  EU = Many countries.

So shouldn't the EU be contributing more, since there are more of them?

About the bomb

Quote[/b] ]burst of high-energy gamma rays,

.

Someone should have told him to put down The Hulk comic books when he was a kid

[denoir 0]

Maybe it's just me, but USA = 1 country.  EU = Many countries.

So shouldn't the EU be contributing more, since there are more of them?

Quote[/b] ]This represents 0.33% of the EU's Gross National Income (compared to a figure of 0.11% for the U.S.).

That means that we give 3 times in relative terms. So no. Also the EU is a country in many respects. For instance the international aid is given on EU-level not on state level.

It's like saying that USA is 50 states so that it should pay much much more  

Edit: Or to be fair GNI is a very fuzzy way of measuring economic factors. We can look instead at how much per citizen is given:

EU: $26 bn / 379.0 million citizens = $68.6 /citizen

USA: $11 bn/ 289.0 million citizens = $37.9 /citizen

[FSPilot 0]

denoir

Quote[/b] ]Super power is a very relative term. Russia can still with a push of a button turn the world into a parking lot. China has a considerable nuclear arsenal too and they are getting stronger by the day. Furthermore nuclear weapons are not very difficult to make these days. It's 50 years old technology. Any country with the right motivation can get them today. So when USA comes out with BigBomb 2.0 then other countries are going to compensate by building 10 BigBomb 1.0.

And well stop them like we just stopped Iraq.

If anything I see this as potential for reducing the amount nuclear arms in the world. If we can get rid of the need for "BigBomb 1.0", then we'll probably destroy ours and so will everyone else, hopefully.

Quote[/b] ]They are an enemy just like any else. They are far less of a threat to USA than what the Soviet Union was. Terrorists can kill a couple of thousand people, sure. The USSR could have turned USA into a parking lot, destroying your entire country. So they were a far more potent adversary than assorted terrorist can ever be.

They're still a very real threat. An increasing threat with each passing day.

Quote[/b] ]And no, I'm not saying that you should sit down and discuss with bin Laden. Terrorism is however not something that comes out of thin air. People don't become terrorsit because they're born "evil". Terrorism is a symptom of a deeper problem and the cause of the problem is USA's militant foregin policy. And that problem you are not going to solve by being more militant.

We're not going to solve anything by laying down our arms either. What we need to do is protect ourselves, then deal with the wackos out there.

InqWiper

Quote[/b] ]I dont think people can be evil, terrorism might be evil but I dont belive that terrorists are. They might be seriously messed up people but not evil. Maybe you should try and talk to them instead of trying to kill them. So far you have been doing more killing and it doesnt seem to end terrorism does it? If the US used theire brains more than theire mussles maybe WTC would never even have happend. You are not much better yourselves.

Yeah, let's sit down and talk with the people who want to wipe us off the face of the earth. And you say the US isn't using their brains?

Quote[/b] ]According to a very convincing documentary you were the ones who killed him. It said that what the lawyer said to explain how there was only one shooter was to say that one bullet entered in his back, bounced on to his wrist and bounced on to his leg (or something like that), and the bullet wasnt even that messed up. There were also several witnecess talking about people sneaking around in the bushes and stuff and the in the documentary they thought he had been shot from 3 different angles or so.

I dont remember it exacly because it was more than a year ago I saw it but I belive it. Why do I belive it? The evidence seemed good enough and you are the US. You have done dumber things than that.

You may think terrorists are cowards but its theire only way to fight a war, if they had an army they would fight like an army. Now they are just a bunch of mad as hell people who have to think of other ways to attack you.

I dont really see how flying an AC-130 and shooting talibans armed with AKs from 10 miles with big cannons is more brave than hijacking an aircraft and flying it into a tower. You might think its a coward and unfair way to fight a war, its not more fair to bomb them from a distance where they cant hear or see you and they cant hide from you.

Sure it is very stupid to attack the civilian population but its too hard for them to make a good attack against your military since it can defend itself and you have killed way more civilians than terrorists have if Im not a complete idiot.

The best solution is to talk and try to convince them that you arent the big bad devil like they think and that you are actually human beings just like them. You as a big superpower have much more responsability than a country with bad education and no money. Someone has to take the first step in the right direction to end this mess and it has to be you. It would be really embarracing for you if the UN had to step in and solve this conflivt for you in 10 years or something when they might actually have the power to stop a war.

Hating never did anyone any good, try to be understanding and do the right thing, try to be smart and dont try to give back times ten. If one doesnt stop attacking the other this will never end until you have developed a virus that only kills a certain race (wich I have no doubt you would really like to have). I know its not easy to make peace with these kind of people but its probably alot easier than killing all of them and it sure as hell is better for the human race. If you could solve this in a good way for once you would set an example to the rest of the world and the rest of the world would look up to you. Now the world looks at you like an arrogant superpower who just wants to go in and bomb the shit outta everything as soon as there is a problem.

Blah blah blah, off topic insults at me and the US. If you want to talk about JFK conspiracies, make another thread. This is just more evidence on how fundamentally biased you are against the US.

[Harnu 0]

How about we give you guys Texas to compensate?

But, the some members of the EU are the ones that colonized Africa and screwed things up in the first place, shouldn't you guys have the larger responsibility there?

You don't have the amount of money that each country individually contributed do you? I understand it's given away as the EU, but who gave what to the EU to give away?

[denoir 0]

denoir

Quote[/b] ]Super power is a very relative term. Russia can still with a push of a button turn the world into a parking lot. China has a considerable nuclear arsenal too and they are getting stronger by the day. Furthermore nuclear weapons are not very difficult to make these days. It's 50 years old technology. Any country with the right motivation can get them today. So when USA comes out with BigBomb 2.0 then other countries are going to compensate by building 10 BigBomb 1.0.

And well stop them like we just stopped Iraq.

If anything I see this as potential for reducing the amount nuclear arms in the world.  If we can get rid of the need for "BigBomb 1.0", then we'll probably destroy ours and so will everyone else, hopefully.

Havn't you realised yet that you have not stopped anything. Saddam had no weapons while Kim Jong Il has been producing them in peace.

So what's your plan? Attack every country in the world that does not agree with you?

Quote[/b] ]We're not going to solve anything by laying down our arms either. What we need to do is protect ourselves, then deal with the wackos out there.

That's a very healthy view. Just as Bush said: "Let's get them before they get us". You really don't see the insanity in that policy? For every 100 Afganis you kill in your hunt for bin Laden you get 10 new enemies. Terrorism can't be faught with a B52.

[InqWiper 0]

Quote[/b] ]And what about the people in Afghanistan and Iraq? What about their families and friends. Gone. Childrens lives are broken. While Osama and Saddam are sitting and sipping drinks somewhere. How many innocent people are you ready to kill to get your revenge? The wars and consequences of the wars that the US has started the last two years have killed by far more civilians than the number that died in the WTC attacks.

This is exaclty the way I feel.

Quote[/b] ]EU: $26 bn /   379.0 million citizens = $68.6 /citizen

USA: $11 bn/ 289.0 million citizens = $37.9 /citizen

Dont you just love mathematics  

Quote[/b] ]If some punk started messing up your home and burning it down, how would you feel?

If that person was gathering more and more people to help him, to help kill your family, your wife, and your friends, and everybody else you have in your life, would you sit back and let them do it?

Well, ofcourse there are some people who are better dead than alive but you cant say all terrorists or the people amoung them are like that guy. And also I humped the guys wife  

But seriously. If I was in the situation that the terrorists are in I cant say for sure that I would not act like them. I cant say that if I was in your situation I wouldnt act like you. All I can say is that I think it is not the right way and I am convinced I am right. And by "situation" I mean every little bit of the life you or a terrorist has lived. Not just my country suddenly being attacked by terrorist or bombarded by a big bad devil.

If the area I live in was just bombed by a terrorist I might not want to go down and kill them all, but if I was living in the US I might. It is all about how you grow up and what you are tought.

[lpdotcom 0]

I'm sorry i've only skimread and someone may have ppinted this out, but if 50 times more energy is released in gamma rays than put in. I know that gamma rays are not the easiest photons to harness the energy of for the production of electricity, but it could serve a purpose.

[denoir 0]

How about we give you guys Texas to compensate?  

But, the some members of the EU are the ones that colonized Africa and screwed things up in the first place, shouldn't you guys have the larger responsibility there?

These were world statistics. We give  85% of the aid to Africa. So yes, we do take a larger responsibility there.

Quote[/b] ]You don't have the amount of money that each country individually contributed do you?  I understand it's given away as the EU, but who gave what to the EU to give away?

Here's some statistics.

Quote[/b] ]

EU countries increased their ODA in 2002 by 2.8% in real terms, representing 0.34% of their combined GNI. Prior to Monterrey, EU Members committed to collectively increase their ODA to 0.39% of GNI by 2006. Features of EU aid included:

ODA rose in Belgium to 0.42% of its GNI; in Finland to 0.35% of GNI; in France to 0.36% of GNI; and in Ireland to 0.41% of GNI, reflecting progress towards the individual commitments made by these countries in addition to the collective target.

ODA rose significantly in Greece (by 34.2% in real terms)-mainly due to higher contributions to multilateral agencies, especially the EC; and in Italy (by 31.5% in real terms)-reflecting a major increase in bilateral aid, including debt relief operations in the context of the Heavily Indebted Poor Country initiative, as well as contributions to the EC and Global Funds.

There were minor changes in ODA from the following EU countries: a slight increase for Germany (0.4%); and decreases for Denmark (-6.4%), Luxembourg (-3.5%), the Netherlands (-2.2%), Portugal

(-4.6%), Sweden (-2.3%), and the United Kingdom (-3.5% due to a delay in finalising the replenishment of the World Bank's International Development Association (IDA), which meant deferring its contribution from 2002 to 2003).

ODA fell markedly in Austria (by -16.5%) and Spain (by -15.7%) compared to their 2001 levels which had been boosted by exceptional debt relief operations.

Basically, the EU sets a target and then an agreement is made how each member state has to give to reach the target.

[ralphwiggum 6]

please do not drift offtopic about international assistance, although it is a good debate.

please focus on weapons and keep politics out of it, since it seems to be getting ugly.

[InqWiper 0]

Quote[/b] ]Blah blah blah, off topic insults at me and the US.  If you want to talk about JFK conspiracies, make another thread.  This is just more evidence on how fundamentally biased you are against the US.

I thought this was about US and theire way of dealing with problems. If you want to criticise me I suggest you come up with something a bit better than

Quote[/b] ]Blah blah blah

Quote[/b] ]That's a very healthy view. Just as Bush said: "Let's get them before they get us".   You really don't see the insanity in that policy? For every 100 Afganis you kill in your hunt for bin Laden you get 10 new enemies. Terrorism can't be faught with a B52.

I sure would be mad as hell if alot if civilians in Sweden were killed becuase US decided to come and bomb a taliban hideout.

If you want to go kill the terrorists make sure the terrorist percent amoung the dead is very high. If you kill alot of civilians you will just create new terrorists just like Denoir says.

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

If some punk started messing up your home and burning it down, how would you feel?

If that person was gathering more and more people to help him, to help kill your family, your wife, and your friends, and everybody else you have in your life, would you sit back and let them do it?

Remember though, your brother was camping in their front yard, so that makes it understandable  

edit: didnt see your post ralf

Are these weapons similar to the one they made that can shoot down artillery shells in midflight? or is it something completely different

[InqWiper 0]

Quote[/b] ]please do not drift offtopic about international assistance, although it is a good debate.

please focus on weapons and keep politics out of it, since it seems to be getting ugly.

Aw, man! I am just getting warmed up!  

I think this is a very interresting and educating descussion and to me noone seemes to have crossed a line yet. If we can all keep calm can we please continue ?  

I hope I did not break the rule about criticising the way the forum is being run because that was not my intention. It was simply a request and if it is turned down I will respect that.

[Jester983 0]

why not just make a new thread about it? I believe that fits into politics?

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]please do not drift offtopic about international assistance, although it is a good debate.

please focus on weapons and keep politics out of it, since it seems to be getting ugly.

Aw, man! I am just getting warmed up!  

I think this is a very interresting and educating descussion and to me noone seemes to have crossed a line yet. If we can all keep calm can we please continue ?  

I hope I did not break the rule about criticising the way the forum is being run because that was not my intention. It was simply a request and if it is turned down I will respect that.

actually, the whole thread started going into discussion of politics, thus offtopic.

and your comment would be better off as a PM than as a post in this thread. please take a note of this for next time.

if people want to discuss the politics of weapons race, please start another thread.

[FSPilot 0]

denoir

Quote[/b] ]Havn't you realised yet that you have not stopped anything. Saddam had no weapons while Kim Jong Il has been producing them in peace.

So what's your plan? Attack every country in the world that does not agree with you?

Saddam had weapons, he wouldn't listen to any diplomacy for 12 years, so we stopped him.  Kim Jong Il has weapons, so we're trying diplomacy with him.  The US is going to do what it needs to do to keep weapons out of those that would use them on us or our allies.  We didn't attack France because they didn't agree with us, you know.

Quote[/b] ]That's a very healthy view. Just as Bush said: "Let's get them before they get us".   You really don't see the insanity in that policy? For every 100 Afganis you kill in your hunt for bin Laden you get 10 new enemies. Terrorism can't be faught with a B52.

You're always telling us how wrong we are.  How about telling us what we should do?  You're the expert on the subject aren't you?  So tell us, we've got people selling SAMs to shoot down our planes in our own country.  What should we do?

InqWiper

Quote[/b] ]I thought this was about US and theire way of dealing with problems. If you want to criticise me I suggest you come up with something a bit better than

No, this is not about the US and their way of dealing with problems.  This is about the US developing a new weapon.  It just turned into criticising US policy because 40% of the people on this board want to kill president Bush.  Either way, trying to stir up arguments about JFK conspiracies and terrorists being more couragous than US soldiers is not what this thread is about.  If you want, make another thread about how much you hate Ameirca and love terrorists.

Quote[/b] ]I sure would be mad as hell if alot if civilians in Sweden were killed becuase US decided to come and bomb a taliban hideout.  If you want to go kill the terrorists make sure the terrorist percent amoung the dead is very high. If you kill alot of civilians you will just create new terrorists just like Denoir says.

And of course, letting terrorists have free reign on hunting US citizens is the perfect way to do this.  Here's something you're both missing: these terrorists are trying to kill civilians.  Not only that, they're actually using civilians as a weapon.  The US is trying to kill the guilty and protect the innocent, you just don't hear about it.  You don't know much about the missions that get cancelled for risk of civilian casualties.  The BBC isn't interested in that, they're interested in how many civilians died in the latest bombing.  You're buying into the idea that the US is the great satan because that's all you hear.  The sad part is that this is what everyone else is hearing too.

Think about it.  You never see any news reports about the food we drop on Afghanistan every day.  You only hear about it until we accidentally hit someone's house with a canister.

You never see the thousands of missions that go flawlessly and make the terrorist's job a little harder, you hear about the one that ends up hurting a civilian who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  This is why people hate the US, they only hear the bad things.