Bryn Mawr;794263 wrote: Of course halving the defence budget implies halving the troop count but the money is essential in helping to provide the infrastructure required for a civilised and self sustaining life.
As for insisting that the only way to help the people of a country is to destroy their government first - such a sweeping statement does not even deserve a response.
Not "a" country; those countries we are sending millions in aid that somehow never gets distributed.
My point about the troops is that money is useless in undeveloped areas. What they need is re-training on how to survive, since that part of their rich heritage was apparently lost. They need people, not paper.
Plenty
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Plenty
I can certainly go along with the "training" idea. However, following the training if they have no money for the tools they need to get started then the training is a total waste of time.
I'm reminded of the time some country, and I don't know which one, sent a bunch of tractors over to a country in Africa. The only problem was they had no fuel to run the tractors. Not a very good idea.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I'm reminded of the time some country, and I don't know which one, sent a bunch of tractors over to a country in Africa. The only problem was they had no fuel to run the tractors. Not a very good idea.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Plenty
Ted;795464 wrote: I can certainly go along with the "training" idea. However, following the training if they have no money for the tools they need to get started then the training is a total waste of time.
I'm reminded of the time some country, and I don't know which one, sent a bunch of tractors over to a country in Africa. The only problem was they had no fuel to run the tractors. Not a very good idea.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Tools would come with training, I would think. Hand tools for subsistance farming, not wheat combines. Hoes & such last for years, decades with minimal maintenance. "Money" is the extra chicken or bushel of corn they grow. I'd like to make them independent of charity and interdependent on themselves. That's the way to ensure "plenty".
There's no need to curse them with the pollution and crowding of infrastructure until they want to do it to themselves.
I'm reminded of the time some country, and I don't know which one, sent a bunch of tractors over to a country in Africa. The only problem was they had no fuel to run the tractors. Not a very good idea.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Tools would come with training, I would think. Hand tools for subsistance farming, not wheat combines. Hoes & such last for years, decades with minimal maintenance. "Money" is the extra chicken or bushel of corn they grow. I'd like to make them independent of charity and interdependent on themselves. That's the way to ensure "plenty".
There's no need to curse them with the pollution and crowding of infrastructure until they want to do it to themselves.
Plenty
Another stab at helping feed the hungry..
Tons of Food Aid Rotting in Haiti Ports
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wir ... id=4403186
More government bureaucracy lets food rot in port as citizens starve.
Tons of Food Aid Rotting in Haiti Ports
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wir ... id=4403186
More government bureaucracy lets food rot in port as citizens starve.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Plenty
Exactly!
Plenty
Accountable;795042 wrote: Not "a" country; those countries we are sending millions in aid that somehow never gets distributed.
My point about the troops is that money is useless in undeveloped areas. What they need is re-training on how to survive, since that part of their rich heritage was apparently lost. They need people, not paper.
My response was to what you said. Money is essential in underdeveloped areas - without it you cannot provide the infrastructure that is required to give them the chance to survive. Yes, the training is part of it, but without clean water, seed crops, distribution networks, tools and equipment, viable livestock, etc they have no chance.
My point about the troops is that money is useless in undeveloped areas. What they need is re-training on how to survive, since that part of their rich heritage was apparently lost. They need people, not paper.
My response was to what you said. Money is essential in underdeveloped areas - without it you cannot provide the infrastructure that is required to give them the chance to survive. Yes, the training is part of it, but without clean water, seed crops, distribution networks, tools and equipment, viable livestock, etc they have no chance.
Plenty
Bryn Mawr:-6
That is the only way that such aid would make sense and not be a waste of time.
The man who fell among thieves was hated by the Samaritans. Clearly Jesus is telling us that our neighbour is not just the one next done but anyone, anywhere, who is in need of help. That parable pretty well sums up the whole message of Jesus. We as Christians are duty bound to help those as you have said above.
Shalom
Ted:-6
That is the only way that such aid would make sense and not be a waste of time.
The man who fell among thieves was hated by the Samaritans. Clearly Jesus is telling us that our neighbour is not just the one next done but anyone, anywhere, who is in need of help. That parable pretty well sums up the whole message of Jesus. We as Christians are duty bound to help those as you have said above.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Plenty
Bryn Mawr;798155 wrote: My response was to what you said. Money is essential in underdeveloped areas - without it you cannot provide the infrastructure that is required to give them the chance to survive. Yes, the training is part of it, but without clean water, seed crops, distribution networks, tools and equipment, viable livestock, etc they have no chance.
How many billions?
How many billions?
Plenty
Accountable;798237 wrote: How many billions?
How many do you spend on "defence" - half of that would do.
How many do you spend on "defence" - half of that would do.
Plenty
Personally I would say as many billions as is necessary. We as Christians are duty bound to do whatever is necessary.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Plenty
Ted;801560 wrote: Personally I would say as many billions as is necessary. We as Christians are duty bound to do whatever is necessary.
Shalom
Ted:-6
And this is one main sticking point for me. "We as Christians are duty bound to do whatever is necessary." Forget that I disagree with this statement; write is off as us having different definitions of "whatever". When we send tax dollars to these poor countries, it is no longer Christians who are doing it. It is a secular government, in our case a government expressly separate from the Church. Does the phrase "whatever is necessary" include forcing non-Christians to participate in our largesse?
Shalom
Ted:-6
And this is one main sticking point for me. "We as Christians are duty bound to do whatever is necessary." Forget that I disagree with this statement; write is off as us having different definitions of "whatever". When we send tax dollars to these poor countries, it is no longer Christians who are doing it. It is a secular government, in our case a government expressly separate from the Church. Does the phrase "whatever is necessary" include forcing non-Christians to participate in our largesse?
-
Omni_Skittles
- Posts: 2613
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am
Plenty
I think people should give from the goodness of their heart. It's between God and them after that. I'm a missions major, and of course automatically i have given everything i ever get to missionaries to do things that i can't do, yet. But not everyone has that mindset and i think that's okay. Sad, but okay.
Smoke signals ftw!
Plenty
Accountable;801722 wrote: And this is one main sticking point for me. "We as Christians are duty bound to do whatever is necessary." Forget that I disagree with this statement; write is off as us having different definitions of "whatever". When we send tax dollars to these poor countries, it is no longer Christians who are doing it. It is a secular government, in our case a government expressly separate from the Church. Does the phrase "whatever is necessary" include forcing non-Christians to participate in our largesse?
OK, call it enlightened self interest.
It is not in our countries interest to have superpoor countries acting as breeding grounds for resentment and recruiting grounds for terrorists - unless we want an external enemy to be the bogeymen
It is not in our countries interests to have people so poor that they fight amongst themselves for the scraps of useful land remaining after the infrastructure's collapsed - unless we see this as an outlet for our arms industry.
It is not in our countries interest to have countries with 80% of the population suffering from HIV / AIDS because they cannot afford the healthcare to prevent it, especially when these same countries hold the majority of the worlds mineral reserves - unless we want to pick up the pieces cheaply afterwards.
The world is a small place. The troubles of one country affect every other country. We should be working for the benefit of all because that is our long term interest - not taking the short term view of feeding ourselves and "the rest" can go to hell in a handbasket.
Why do you talk in terms of force when the question was put in terms of help?
OK, call it enlightened self interest.
It is not in our countries interest to have superpoor countries acting as breeding grounds for resentment and recruiting grounds for terrorists - unless we want an external enemy to be the bogeymen
It is not in our countries interests to have people so poor that they fight amongst themselves for the scraps of useful land remaining after the infrastructure's collapsed - unless we see this as an outlet for our arms industry.
It is not in our countries interest to have countries with 80% of the population suffering from HIV / AIDS because they cannot afford the healthcare to prevent it, especially when these same countries hold the majority of the worlds mineral reserves - unless we want to pick up the pieces cheaply afterwards.
The world is a small place. The troubles of one country affect every other country. We should be working for the benefit of all because that is our long term interest - not taking the short term view of feeding ourselves and "the rest" can go to hell in a handbasket.
Why do you talk in terms of force when the question was put in terms of help?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Plenty
Bryn Mawr;805340 wrote: OK, call it enlightened self interest.
It is not in our countries interest to have superpoor countries acting as breeding grounds for resentment and recruiting grounds for terrorists - unless we want an external enemy to be the bogeymenToday's terrorist is upper middle class and college educated. My Buddy Bryn wrote: It is not in our countries interests to have people so poor that they fight amongst themselves for the scraps of useful land remaining after the infrastructure's collapsed - unless we see this as an outlet for our arms industry.I don't see how it works against our interests, either. It's a terrible thing that needs to be avoided/stopped, and that's enough. I think we can agree on that.My Buddy Bryn wrote: It is not in our countries interest to have countries with 80% of the population suffering from HIV / AIDS because they cannot afford the healthcare to prevent it, especially when these same countries hold the majority of the worlds mineral reserves - unless we want to pick up the pieces cheaply afterwards.Again, our governments send billions in aid to their governments, which don't use it as intended. We're not helping.My Buddy Bryn wrote: The world is a small place. The troubles of one country affect every other country. We should be working for the benefit of all because that is our long term interest - not taking the short term view of feeding ourselves and "the rest" can go to hell in a handbasket.
Why do you talk in terms of force when the question was put in terms of help?I don't think this applies to me specifically. Are you asking me to justify Bush's speeches or something? If you do mean it for me, can you clarify so we can iron this part out?
It is not in our countries interest to have superpoor countries acting as breeding grounds for resentment and recruiting grounds for terrorists - unless we want an external enemy to be the bogeymenToday's terrorist is upper middle class and college educated. My Buddy Bryn wrote: It is not in our countries interests to have people so poor that they fight amongst themselves for the scraps of useful land remaining after the infrastructure's collapsed - unless we see this as an outlet for our arms industry.I don't see how it works against our interests, either. It's a terrible thing that needs to be avoided/stopped, and that's enough. I think we can agree on that.My Buddy Bryn wrote: It is not in our countries interest to have countries with 80% of the population suffering from HIV / AIDS because they cannot afford the healthcare to prevent it, especially when these same countries hold the majority of the worlds mineral reserves - unless we want to pick up the pieces cheaply afterwards.Again, our governments send billions in aid to their governments, which don't use it as intended. We're not helping.My Buddy Bryn wrote: The world is a small place. The troubles of one country affect every other country. We should be working for the benefit of all because that is our long term interest - not taking the short term view of feeding ourselves and "the rest" can go to hell in a handbasket.
Why do you talk in terms of force when the question was put in terms of help?I don't think this applies to me specifically. Are you asking me to justify Bush's speeches or something? If you do mean it for me, can you clarify so we can iron this part out?
Plenty
Accountable;805368 wrote: Today's terrorist is upper middle class and college educated.
Some maybe, but by no means all. In truth I was thinking more of those who support the terrorists, give them shelter and supplies and do theri best to prevent their capture.
Accountable;805368 wrote: I don't see how it works against our interests, either. It's a terrible thing that needs to be avoided/stopped, and that's enough. I think we can agree on that.
I find we agree on more than we disagree on - just more fun to discuss the latter :p
Accountable;805368 wrote: Again, our governments send billions in aid to their governments, which don't use it as intended. We're not helping.
There are ways and means - giving billions to the government and saying "that should help" doesn't. Spending millions on training and infrastructure improvements in the villages and townships, setting up microcredit facilities to provide a start up, providing tools, equipment and seed crops directly to the people needing the help can and does.
Accountable;805368 wrote: I don't think this applies to me specifically. Are you asking me to justify Bush's speeches or something? If you do mean it for me, can you clarify so we can iron this part out?
The first part was a general comment, the second was in response to "Does the phrase "whatever is necessary" include forcing non-Christians to participate in our largesse?".
I truly believe that we should be helping those in impoverished countries - both at a personal and at a governmental level. I recognise that there are difficulties, often caused by the governments of those that we are trying to help, but that should not stop us from trying.
Some maybe, but by no means all. In truth I was thinking more of those who support the terrorists, give them shelter and supplies and do theri best to prevent their capture.
Accountable;805368 wrote: I don't see how it works against our interests, either. It's a terrible thing that needs to be avoided/stopped, and that's enough. I think we can agree on that.
I find we agree on more than we disagree on - just more fun to discuss the latter :p
Accountable;805368 wrote: Again, our governments send billions in aid to their governments, which don't use it as intended. We're not helping.
There are ways and means - giving billions to the government and saying "that should help" doesn't. Spending millions on training and infrastructure improvements in the villages and townships, setting up microcredit facilities to provide a start up, providing tools, equipment and seed crops directly to the people needing the help can and does.
Accountable;805368 wrote: I don't think this applies to me specifically. Are you asking me to justify Bush's speeches or something? If you do mean it for me, can you clarify so we can iron this part out?
The first part was a general comment, the second was in response to "Does the phrase "whatever is necessary" include forcing non-Christians to participate in our largesse?".
I truly believe that we should be helping those in impoverished countries - both at a personal and at a governmental level. I recognise that there are difficulties, often caused by the governments of those that we are trying to help, but that should not stop us from trying.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Plenty
Bryn Mawr;805445 wrote: There are ways and means - giving billions to the government and saying "that should help" doesn't. Spending millions on training and infrastructure improvements in the villages and townships, setting up microcredit facilities to provide a start up, providing tools, equipment and seed crops directly to the people needing the help can and does.Take the 50% of the defense budget. Give it back to the taxpayers. Allow those who wish to help, help. I think you will be amazed at what people will do on their own without being compelled by law.
Bryn Mawr wrote: The first part was a general comment, the second was in response to "Does the phrase "whatever is necessary" include forcing non-Christians to participate in our largesse?".Politicians think short-term. Don't try to get them to do things against their nature.
Bryn Mawr wrote: I truly believe that we should be helping those in impoverished countries - both at a personal and at a governmental level. I recognise that there are difficulties, often caused by the governments of those that we are trying to help, but that should not stop us from trying.Isn't the definition of insanity to continually do the same thing over and over expecting different results? Forget the government when it comes to charitable endeavors. Let the experts handle it.
Bryn Mawr wrote: The first part was a general comment, the second was in response to "Does the phrase "whatever is necessary" include forcing non-Christians to participate in our largesse?".Politicians think short-term. Don't try to get them to do things against their nature.
Bryn Mawr wrote: I truly believe that we should be helping those in impoverished countries - both at a personal and at a governmental level. I recognise that there are difficulties, often caused by the governments of those that we are trying to help, but that should not stop us from trying.Isn't the definition of insanity to continually do the same thing over and over expecting different results? Forget the government when it comes to charitable endeavors. Let the experts handle it.
Plenty
Accountable;805606 wrote: Take the 50% of the defense budget. Give it back to the taxpayers. Allow those who wish to help, help. I think you will be amazed at what people will do on their own without being compelled by law.
Politicians think short-term. Don't try to get them to do things against their nature.
Isn't the definition of insanity to continually do the same thing over and over expecting different results? Forget the government when it comes to charitable endeavors. Let the experts handle it.
The only problem with this is that individuals can only give help in byte sized chunks, even the big charities have their limitations. Some changes need policy changes at governmental level if they are to succeed - changes to trade agreements, dropping the third world debt burden, etc.
Politicians think short-term. Don't try to get them to do things against their nature.
Isn't the definition of insanity to continually do the same thing over and over expecting different results? Forget the government when it comes to charitable endeavors. Let the experts handle it.
The only problem with this is that individuals can only give help in byte sized chunks, even the big charities have their limitations. Some changes need policy changes at governmental level if they are to succeed - changes to trade agreements, dropping the third world debt burden, etc.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Plenty
Bryn Mawr;805690 wrote: The only problem with this is that individuals can only give help in byte sized chunks, even the big charities have their limitations. Some changes need policy changes at governmental level if they are to succeed - changes to trade agreements, dropping the third world debt burden, etc.
That doesn't cost a dime in taxes, save for the air fare for diplomatic meetings. See? We all win!
That doesn't cost a dime in taxes, save for the air fare for diplomatic meetings. See? We all win!
Plenty
Accountable;805694 wrote: That doesn't cost a dime in taxes, save for the air fare for diplomatic meetings. See? We all win!
Of course it does - writing off a debt casts in both loss of principle and loss of income, settling for a poorer trade deal than you could have forced costs in balance of trade ......
Maybe not cash out of the here and now but a cost to the country nevertheless.
Of course it does - writing off a debt casts in both loss of principle and loss of income, settling for a poorer trade deal than you could have forced costs in balance of trade ......
Maybe not cash out of the here and now but a cost to the country nevertheless.
Plenty
Bryn Mawr:-6
I am in agreement with you.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I am in agreement with you.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Plenty
Acc:-6
I will repeat what I said. All Christians are duty bound to assist in whatever way possible. I think the "golden rule" spells it out perfectly as does the great commandment in Matt. 22.
If man is suffering and we do nothing about it we are both in error and less for it. In fact according to Matt. 25 if we have not done it to the least of these we have not done it to Jesus. As with the story of the good Samaratin even those we hate, count.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I will repeat what I said. All Christians are duty bound to assist in whatever way possible. I think the "golden rule" spells it out perfectly as does the great commandment in Matt. 22.
If man is suffering and we do nothing about it we are both in error and less for it. In fact according to Matt. 25 if we have not done it to the least of these we have not done it to Jesus. As with the story of the good Samaratin even those we hate, count.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Plenty
Ted;805839 wrote: Acc:-6
I will repeat what I said. All Christians are duty bound to assist in whatever way possible. I think the "golden rule" spells it out perfectly as does the great commandment in Matt. 22.
If man is suffering and we do nothing about it we are both in error and less for it. In fact according to Matt. 25 if we have not done it to the least of these we have not done it to Jesus. As with the story of the good Samaratin even those we hate, count.
Shalom
Ted:-6I never suggesting to do nothing. I'm uncomfortable forcing Christian behavior on unwilling participants. We come to the Father; we're not dragged there kicking and screaming. To use government coersion to force our values on others is wrong.
Besides, governments use up the majority of aid money in red tape bureaucracy. They muck up more than they fix.
I will repeat what I said. All Christians are duty bound to assist in whatever way possible. I think the "golden rule" spells it out perfectly as does the great commandment in Matt. 22.
If man is suffering and we do nothing about it we are both in error and less for it. In fact according to Matt. 25 if we have not done it to the least of these we have not done it to Jesus. As with the story of the good Samaratin even those we hate, count.
Shalom
Ted:-6I never suggesting to do nothing. I'm uncomfortable forcing Christian behavior on unwilling participants. We come to the Father; we're not dragged there kicking and screaming. To use government coersion to force our values on others is wrong.
Besides, governments use up the majority of aid money in red tape bureaucracy. They muck up more than they fix.
Plenty
Acc:-6
I can agree with you on that.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I can agree with you on that.
Shalom
Ted:-6