Is France "stingy"?

You haven't the least notion of how i react to criticism of my nation--you only have your biased opinion of what my political views are.

As you also make no distinction between what the Shrub and his unthinking followers want to believe about themselves and what actually constitutes America, this is understandable. You've become so partisan that you define America and Americans in terms of your political views. Apparently, those who are not white, middle-class, conservative (and often fanatically religious) members of the community don't get taken into consideration when you think of America and Americans--although this is going to make your world narrower and narrower as time goes on, because the white middle class is shrinking. The bible belt is currently able to weild a considerable political influence, but minority political tyrranies are nothing new in our history, and this too shall pass.

You throw the term "double standard" around as though the use of it were a talisman to absolve you of making your case.

If you are going to accuse me of "diversionary" tactics, you ought at least have the wherewithal to demonstrate that, as well.

And I still think it a pity that any such threads were opened.

Whuttinhell does it say about folks who feel some sorta need to play "Mine's bigger than yours" with a deal like this tsunami disaster? Nobody ... NOBODY ... caused it (unless ya wanna lay gods' wroth on the victims), for all sortsa reasons there was no effective regional warning system in place, and as events progress, the nations of the world are marshalling resources and effecting aid - the largest humanitarian effort in humankind's history is underway, and mere days following the event is having beneficial impact.

This isn't about my team is better than your team; its about what can be done, most efficiently and effectively, to help those truly in need. Wranglin' over who oughtta do how much doesn't do a damned thing to get anything that matters done.

Playin' politics with somethin' like this is about as cheap, low, and self-servin' as it gets. There's a job to be done here, not an argument to be won.

In Berlin, the biggest New Year's Eve party at all, were now fireworks, like in Paris or many, many other places.

The four biggest tv programs had changed their programs and their live gala broadcasts into charities: more than 12 milion Euros collected.´


A lot of money, btw, collected in other countries goes to the USA: when you spent at amazon, you don't spend for a national organisation but for the US Red Cross.
So German amazon customers have spend more than 200,000 for the US Red Cross already.

U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims
Thursday December 30, 2004
By: David Holcberg

Our money is not the government's to give.

As the death toll mounts in the areas hit by Sunday's tsunami in southern Asia, private organizations and individuals are scrambling to send out money and goods to help the victims. Such help may be entirely proper, especially considering that most of those affected by this tragedy are suffering through no fault of their own.

The United States government, however, should not give any money to help the tsunami victims. Why? Because the money is not the government's to give.

Every cent the government spends comes from taxation. Every dollar the government hands out as foreign aid has to be extorted from an American taxpayer first. Year after year, for decades, the government has forced American taxpayers to provide foreign aid to every type of natural or man-made disaster on the face of the earth: from the Marshall Plan to reconstruct a war-ravaged Europe to the $15 billion recently promised to fight AIDS in Africa to the countless amounts spent to help the victims of earthquakes, fires and floods--from South America to Asia. Even the enemies of the United States were given money extorted from American taxpayers: from the billions given away by Clinton to help the starving North Koreans to the billions given away by Bush to help the blood-thirsty Palestinians under Arafat's murderous regime.

The question no one asks about our politicians' "generosity" towards the world's needy is: By what right? By what right do they take our hard-earned money and give it away?

The reason politicians can get away with doling out money that they have no right to and that does not belong to them is that they have the morality of altruism on their side. According to altruism--the morality that most Americans accept and that politicians exploit for all it's worth--those who have more have the moral obligation to help those who have less. This is why Americans--the wealthiest people on earth--are expected to sacrifice (voluntarily or by force) the wealth they have earned to provide for the needs of those who did not earn it. It is Americans' acceptance of altruism that renders them morally impotent to protest against the confiscation and distribution of their wealth. It is past time to question--and to reject--such a vicious morality that demands that we sacrifice our values instead of holding on to them.

Next time a politician gives away money taken from you to show what a good, compassionate altruist he is, ask yourself: By what right?

David Holcberg is a research associate at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

The information campaign -- or as some still would have it, "the war of ideas," or the struggle for "hearts and minds" -- is important to every war effort. In this war it is an essential objective, because the larger goals of U.S. strategy depend on separating the vast majority of non-violent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists. But American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.

(Oh...they also had to modify the flight deck because the initial design was found to be too short to accommodate the Northrop Grumman E-2C Hawkeye. That's right -- they built the deck too short to take-off and land the planes! Vive La France!)

Bashing the US over the initial amount was plain stupid. I still can't understand the utter ingratitude of criticising someone who generously gives when they don't have to.

And, anyone who takes France bashing seriously is humourless--or trying to score political points of their own.

It is a hobby.

And, anyone who takes France bashing seriously is humourless--or trying to score political points of their own.

Those here who are familiar with my France Stance may be surprised to discover I think bashin' France over this issue is just plain silly.

Hmmmm - anyone who objects to France bashing is humourless and trying to score political points - anyone who bashes the US is stupid, utterly lacking in gratitude........hmmmmm -

Can this be a joke?