Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We do already have the mechanism. But part of the reason countries are asking for this is because in the past we have pledged support via that mechanism and then failed to honor those pledges.

Why would they expect us to pay up now if we didn't before when we said we would?

Because they want to make it binding via treaty if I am reading it right.

Right, now why would we, and why should we, do that?

Why shouldn't we?

If we pledge $x we should give $x, or we should just keep our mouths should and stop pretending to be Good Guy USA.

Nobody would be forcing us to give any money to anyone we didn't agree to give. It would just be a binding pledge to stop bullshitting the world.

Put your money where your mouth is or say "feth off" from the beginning and refuse to pledge support.

While I agree its good to keep our word, nothing is binding unless its done in a treaty. Charity is just that, its charity. We are not obligated to give any of the very substantial foreign aid we do and it should remain that way. We shouldn't codify our charity work.

 Grey Templar wrote:
While I agree its good to keep our word, nothing is binding unless its done in a treaty. Charity is just that, its charity. We are not obligated to give any of the very substantial foreign aid we do and it should remain that way. We shouldn't codify our charity work.

You should do it because when it is done formally, ahead of the disaster then work can be done to make sure that the right amount is given, and that amount shared fairly among all parties.

When it is done as the disaster is unfolding, with extreme time pressure to get the money together and start flowing resources in to the region, then it is often shambolic and too often driven by the amount of media attention. For instance, the article in the OP mentions Cyclone Pam causing vast devastation among South Pacific islands, but media interest and therefore money disappeared almost overnight as the Tibetan earthquake dominated media coverage.

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We do already have the mechanism. But part of the reason countries are asking for this is because in the past we have pledged support via that mechanism and then failed to honor those pledges.

Why would they expect us to pay up now if we didn't before when we said we would?

Because they want to make it binding via treaty if I am reading it right.

Right, now why would we, and why should we, do that?

Why shouldn't we?

If we pledge $x we should give $x, or we should just keep our mouths should and stop pretending to be Good Guy USA.

Nobody would be forcing us to give any money to anyone we didn't agree to give. It would just be a binding pledge to stop bullshitting the world.

Put your money where your mouth is or say "feth off" from the beginning and refuse to pledge support.

Its easy to spend other people's money isn't it.
I agree. Lets stop the BS. We need to start acting in our interests.

It's apparently even easier to completely ignore how one got said money in the first place.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's apparently even easier to completely ignore how one got said money in the first place.

Yes. After multiple generations, it's legit if, at the same time, you already spend billions on developing countries. Let's cut those in half, all of a sudden, and guess what negative consequences this would have? Zero. Absolutely none. Developing aid is a charity and a gift, not a given.

edit; nvm.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its easy to spend other people's money isn't it.
I agree. Lets stop the BS. We need to start acting in our interests.

International stability is in your best interests.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's apparently even easier to completely ignore how one got said money in the first place.

So whats the statute of limitations on the sins of the father?

Cause I'd like some payouts from the Scandenavian nations for the predations of the Vikings on Europe.

We're still making money on the fact that we're imposing unfair sanctions on the third world. Complaining about "sins of the father" when we're actively screwing people over in the present is ignorant or dishonest, and in either case poor form.

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its easy to spend other people's money isn't it.
I agree. Lets stop the BS. We need to start acting in our interests.

International stability is in your best interests.

Stability is a joke. Never has been, never will be.
Not in our interests if it costs money and more importantly lives. Our efforts post WWII have been hardly successful. My kids have grown to adulthood never having been in a time we weren't shooting at someone.

 Frazzled wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its easy to spend other people's money isn't it.
I agree. Lets stop the BS. We need to start acting in our interests.

International stability is in your best interests.

Stability is a joke. Never has been, never will be.
Not in our interests if it costs money and more importantly lives. Our efforts post WWII have been hardly successful. My kids have grown to adulthood never having been in a time we weren't shooting at someone.

The Marshal Plan is probably the most successful piece US foreign policy ever.

Further, you've been pretty good at shooting people pre-WWII too.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its easy to spend other people's money isn't it.
I agree. Lets stop the BS. We need to start acting in our interests.

International stability is in your best interests.

Stability is a joke. Never has been, never will be.
Not in our interests if it costs money and more importantly lives. Our efforts post WWII have been hardly successful. My kids have grown to adulthood never having been in a time we weren't shooting at someone.

The Marshal Plan is probably the most successful piece US foreign policy ever.

Further, you've been pretty good at shooting people pre-WWII too.

Marshall Plan was when again? Oh yea, right after WWII, and it didn't involve guns or US boys dying.

Yes were better pre WWII. We finished our wars then. Now they just keep going. Thats the problem. We don't use declarations of war and view dropping bombs on a something as not really war.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
We're still making money on the fact that we're imposing unfair sanctions on the third world. Complaining about "sins of the father" when we're actively screwing people over in the present is ignorant or dishonest, and in either case poor form.

What an evasive answer.

I'm not complaining about "the sins of the father", I honestly don't care. History happened and sometimes people get screwed. Demanding money from "rich nations" (meaning Western, NOT "rich") because of past issues such as colonialism or imperialism is absolutely a "sins of the father" argument though, and as such it should be buried under 6 feet of mud.

As for "actively screwing people", you're operating from an ideological or value based perspective. The sheer amount of material and monetary aid flowing from the first to the third world undercuts your comment in inarguable terms. I also don't hear any of those arguments being leveled against India, China, or any of the other neo-industrial powers who truly are damaging people in the here and now. Its pure Marxist idiocy.

So I say again, what is the statute of limitations on the depredations of Scandenavians against Continentals? There's every bit as much validity to that question as to the line of argument you are pursuing.

 Frazzled wrote:
Stability is a joke. Never has been, never will be.
Not in our interests if it costs money and more importantly lives. Our efforts post WWII have been hardly successful. My kids have grown to adulthood never having been in a time we weren't shooting at someone.

You state US foreign policy post WWII has hardly been successful, and when you're offered the Marshall Plan as a direct counter, you say that was just after WWII. ie in the very period of foreign policy you were complaining about. This doesn't give you pause for one second to consider if your claim might actually be wrong. So you're clearly not very interested in thinking about this.

Anyhow, the US has grown rich through trade. Being able to access raw materials, and use those resources to supplement your own resources, to trade with foreign markets, selling your own high end manufactured products in exchange for their more basic manufacturing, is pretty much the best blueprint for building national wealth and a high standard of living.

And the reality is that working in that world means you need to invest some money, and sometimes some blood, in making sure other countries still work as part of that setup. This is how the world is. And it is how it is going to be, no matter how much you might like to complain about. The US won't suddenly decide to stop trading with other countries, and so there is no alternative.

Pay reparations? LOL! No.

That was a well thought out and reasoned post for page 3 of a thread on reparations. Don't spam the forum