Tsunami appeal at Arnotts

by TheTroll Sun Jan 09, 2005 16:46

You do things the hard way. It is the right way, but the hard way. Bush just added ANOTHER $350000000 US to this years $420000000000 debt future taxpayers will be paying, and he gets great public relations for aiding the suffering people across the Indian Ocean by using other people's money.

You at least send your own money. Bush sends the taxes of future taxpayers who have no votes to protect themselves from "Bush's" aid and Bush's war costs, etc.

by TheTroll Sun Jan 09, 2005 16:51

Don't reward Bush for using other people's money to aid the devastated people. Hell, a good pick pocket in the croud could have donated 80000 euros. ten times as much as was collected. But would the people, who's money the pickpocket used, think of him as being heroic??? Don't let Bush engrandize his rule with OPP.

by Big Irish from the USA Sun Jan 09, 2005 22:27

Another example of the hypocritical selfishness of the antu-american ranters of society. John O'Shea is right about this people - screaming about American hegemony when there are American helicopers picking people out of this mess (in anticipation, screw your comments about helicopters in iraq). Good for you, George W. Well done Colin Powell!

by bigger irish Mon Jan 10, 2005 00:24

why is it unusual to consider the big george w. from the usa a hypocrite after he butchered 100,000 people in iraq, just to try (and fail) to get his hands on their oil. Think of it this way george w. did 33 september the 11ths to the people of iraq. Now try to remember how you felt when 9 11 happened to you. Multiply it by 33 and your an iraqi. And by the way before you say saddam was a dictator remember bin laden used americas past crimes to justify his attacks. So if you believe that george useing saddams crimes to justify his slaughter is okay remember you're not alone.

As for helping the people of asia, why shouldn't america? Aren't you the wealthiest nation in the world (and usually the cheapest when it comes to helping out) And why does the us (like all the rest of the world) sending aid to the victims of the tsami suddenly make the 100,000 murdered iraqi's dissappear?
My only hope is there are no conditions (ie open your markets) attatched to the aid, and it doesn't take the form of either dumping or permanent military bases.

by TheTroll Tue Jan 11, 2005 00:59

Before Bush's invasion of Iraq, "Old Europe" and many others were being accused of betraying the US for not supporting Bush's invasion and the deaths of over 100000 Iraqis. One of the reasons Bush supporters used to atack Europeans who rejected Bush's claim to Godlike uthority, was that the US gives food and medacines to poor peoples around the world, so they should kiss Bush's behind and let him rule as he sees fit, 100000 dead Iraqis and all.

Don't give Bush any support in any more wars, and hundreds of thousands of other dead.

Ever see the allegedly Christian movie, Meggido, about the end days??? Michle York (logans run, the three Musketears) played the anti-Christ, Stone Alexander. Anyway, at 1 pont in the show, Stone Alexander chastised the brown peoples when they rejected his claim to be thier new god, a job which included deciding who gets to live and die, like Bush thinks he has with the slaughter of 100000 Iraqis to proove it. Stone said something like, "I gave you food and medacines, and you betray me." and he brings down lightning bolts on the brown peasants. believe it, these foney Christians didn't like it when I point out how they were saying the same damned thing the anti-Christ said in Meggido.

we know damned well thet Bush and his minions think that giving to poor people aid gives Bush some alleged right to kill 100000 Iraqis. And it isn't even HIS money he uses to aid pooor peoples around the world. If Bush is going to be slaughtering people around the world, it should be brought up that his goood deads (using other people's money) to engrandize himself and slaughter 100000 Iraqis, does NOT make him special and sure as hell doesn't give him any rationalizations for making himself the world's new god, a job wich includes decideing who gets to live, even in thier own homelands.

I have nothing against people giving money to people in need. But poliicians using other people's money for thier own illusion of being magnanimos, is crap. If America's whore politicians are only giving aid so that they can claim a right to invade Iraq, and who ever else they decide is next, them to hell with them.

by Noel Tue Jan 11, 2005 08:50

Those damned Yankees!

Always giving their money away to help others.
It's enough to make some people craaazy.

Take WWII for example.
Sending their troops to Europe to help defeat the Nazis.
Just to look magnanimous.
Then the Marshall plan. Helping rebuild Germany and Japan. Defending Europe from Communism.
All for the photo ops.

by Ali H. Tue Jan 11, 2005 14:15

Bush & Co. have deliberately allowed the dollar to slide in an effort to mask the fact that the US economy is a mess due to both consumer and military overspending.

The US sucks up capital and resources from the rest of the world (including the developing world) to finance their lifestyle and any "aid" they send should be viewed in this context.

As for American "generosity" and the Marshall plan just ask the Brits about when they finish paying off their war loans to the US!? There's no such thing as a free lunch (war, even a cold one) as they say!

by TheTroll Tue Jan 11, 2005 23:12

And you think that winning your argument means your points makes sence. And you couldn't even win your own debate. The US went to war against Germany because Nazis declaired war on the US. Duh! And America aided Europeans with the marshal plan/thier own taxes, to hold back communists who were absorbing more and more lands and gaining followers in many lands yet to become commies. Commies trade with other commies, if they can. And loosing controle of markets is what American industrialists feared. The US could have lost the markets for thier products when they had the most to gain since they had industrial production in tact. Europe's economies had been transformed to serve the Nazi war needs. Very little could be made in many lands. They made parts that were assembled in Germany. Look at how little the industries that were competative with US products were aided. Yep, think about how useless the US industrial might would be if they had few markets for the gooods they produced.

Does Yankees giving "thier" (thier neighbor's grandkid's money) money to people who really need it really make someone crazy. (man, your speling suks).

As I wrote, I have nothing against people giving money to people in need.

But people adding to already crippling debt of chidren and even unborn people with no vote to defend themsleves from the sloath of whore politicians and thier voters does piss me off. That is taxation without representation/servitude.

If it was so damned important to them, Americans would actually give thier own money, instead of making future American generations too poor to aid anybody.

And the Bushite's claim that American aid around the world means that the world "betrayed" the US when they failed to appease Bush's war, is...well, it is dung. It is also anti-Christian (large C) dung.

Aid to the Indian Ocean communities will not give Bush any calling to invade any other countries any more than past aid to poor peoples gave him a right to invade Iraq and slander the people who failed to appease Bush's handlers.