Our Challenge, Our Call Remain The Same
WHAT IF AMERICA HAD RESPONDED TO TERRORIST ATTACKS WITH LOVE INSTEAD OF WAR?
Posted: September 11, 2011 at 5:37 a.m.
My friend Fred Burnham recently came to town to talk about his experience of Sept. 11, 2001. If the near tower of the World Trade Center had shifted its direction by 12 feet, he would have been among those buried there. As it was, he and a handful of friends huddled in the dark, smothering in a smoky stairwell, while the successive booms of collapsing floors a few feet away made them believe they were under a military attack.
This story is only available from the archives. Click here to contact the online desk.
Opinion, Pages 14 on 09/11/2011
(Advertisement)
Next Story »
Let’s Reflect On That Day And … Now
This is a day for recollection and reflection. Read »
Comments
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Please read our comment policy.
Grisham: "What if our nation’s response to the attacks of 9/11 had been to lead a global crusade on behalf of the goals? We could have reduced the circumstances of helplessness that tend to breed terrorism. We have a historical precedent. From the ashes of World War II came the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe. Former enemies Germany and Italy are now close friends."
Lowell - are you proposing we do more for humanitarian aid throughout the World while also engaging in a war on terror? The US already contributes more than any other country in the World to the corrupt and biased entity we call the "United Nations". We are one of 193 Nations that participate in the UN, and yet we contribute 22% of the regular budget for the UN.
http://www.eyeontheun.org/facts.asp?p...
Additionally, the US gave $44.9 Billion in foreign aid in 2008.
So you are proposing we do more as a country?
We do more than anyone else in the World by tens of multiples, and yet we are hated by more countries than not. We are giving more than our fair share.
Maybe you should write an article about how other countries should contribute more to your list: "
• Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger,
• Achieve universal primary education,
• Promote gender equality and empower women,
• Reduce child mortality rates,
• Improve maternal health,
• Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases,
• Ensure environmental sustainability, and
• Develop a global partnership for development "
I see that a proposal for other countries to do more is absent from your diatribe..... Are we not spending enough blood and treasure in this fight?.......
Posted by: commonsense96
September 11, 2011 at 5:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Although "Com" made himself irrelevant long ago with his constant stream of errors and distortions, a few of these are worth a kick.
COM: "are you proposing we do more for humanitarian aid throughout the World">>
Yes, and maybe a little less of the blowing things up.
COM: "US already contributes more than any other country in the World to... the "United Nations.">>
This is as it should be. It is based upon GDP and we use the UN greatly for our political purposes. Context: As Secretary of State Madeleine Albright pointed out in '03, the annual core functions of the UN cost about $1.25 billion, "roughly what the Pentagon spends every 32 hours." http://tinyurl.com/tii9
COM: "Additionally, the US gave $44.9 Billion in foreign aid in 2008.">>
Much of that is military pork and tied requirements to buy materials from American sources, and not necessarily at the best prices.
COM: "We do more than anyone else in the World by tens of multiples, and yet we are hated by more countries than not.">>
Could this perhaps be in part because we have a large constituency of thoroughly dishonest rubes like you who have no interest in getting facts straight? Yes, I think so.
***
The Most Generous Countries on Earth
By CATHERINE RAMPELL
The United States is the fifth most-generous country on earth, tied with Switzerland, according to a new ranking from Gallup’s World Giving Index.
Based on this index, Australia and New Zealand are tied as the most generous nations on earth.
The top 21 most generous countries, in order, are:
1. Australia
1. New Zealand
3. Ireland
3. Canada
5. Switzerland
5. United States
7. Netherlands
8. Britain
8. Sri Lanka
10 Austria
http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...
Also:
"On a per citizen basis, our Haiti earthquake aid was less than Austria, Canada, Denmark and Sweden. Of the 22 wealthiest countries in the world, as of 2004 we ranked 21st, committing somewhere between .03% and .16% of our gross national income to foreign and disaster aid."
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2676
Com's cluelessness is not uncommon:
"Most of the public thinks that foreign aid is at least 25 percent of the federal budget and should be more like 10 percent, not realizing the 1 percent that it is."
http://tinyurl.com/44hmfqj
Posted by: fayfreethinker
September 12, 2011 at 1:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Thanks, Reverend Grisham.
"We could have responded with love, not war."
Our response with war has cost nearly 4 trillion dollars so far.
Winning hearts and minds is simply not effectively accomplished with guns and bombs. That's a lesson the USA as a "Christian nation" has yet to learn.
Posted by: FrankLloydLeft
September 12, 2011 at 2:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
A useful interactive chart of the stats can be viewed here:
"The Dead, the Dollars, the Drones: 9/11 Era by the Numbers"
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/...
Posted by: fayfreethinker
September 12, 2011 at 4:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
FFT: "Could this perhaps be in part because we have a large constituency of thoroughly dishonest rubes like you who have no interest in getting facts straight? Yes, I think so."
I wish you would think.....
You throw this dart with no backing. FFT is typically critical of inaccurate facts with graphs and charts and references, but yet there are no direct points to counter the data i presented. Just blanket statements that have no substance. I would expect nothing less....
" Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household "
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/arti...
So if you want to complain about the lack of giving, look to the liberals in our society. They are mostly good at giving away other people's money....
Posted by: commonsense96
September 13, 2011 at 6:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--
RE "You throw this dart with no backing. "
You said, "So you are proposing we do more as a country? ¶ We do more than anyone else in the World by tens of multiples, and yet we are hated by more countries than not. We are giving more than our fair share."
Your assertion apparently had to do with national giving, not individual giving. fft showed that assertion to be wrong.
RE your link
You might take a quick look at how data selection and analysis probably skewed the results Mr. Will discusses in the article you cite: http://volokh.com/posts/1164012942.shtml
Posted by: AlphaCat
September 13, 2011 at 7:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
COM: " there are no direct points to counter the data i presented.">>
As usual, I addressed, and refuted your claim directly. I am sorry if you don't understand the need to adjust for per capita in such a calculation (Texas gave more than Arkansas, oh my!).
Regarding your George Will article and the notion that conservatives give more, I responded to that false claim the last time you floated it. That was back on April 11, when you were still calling yourself "SFA." Alpha Cat has already provided a specific roast of Mr. Will's source material. Here's the one you got in April:
***
SFA: " the generosity and non-selfishness of Republicans vs. Democrats:">>
Your new canard is debunked in the very comment thread of your own article. Learn:
"This analysis suffers from the ecological fallacy. You cannot connect a states voting pattern to state charity donation data and say anything meaningful about liberal or conservative philanthropy. You may be able to say that people in Mississippi are, on average, more generous than people in Wisconsin. But you can’t say why with any certainty.
Consider a scenario in which a state’s minority ‘liberals’ make a majority of the donations and donate heavily. The state would have both a high ‘Generosity Index’ and be red but you would know nothing about liberal vs. conservative giving patterns."
The analysis is bogus and based upon the ecological fallacy. Learn about this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecologic...
Further, we have no end of examples of your conservative friends setting up "charitable foundations" for the explicit purpose of avoiding taxes, hiding wealth while looking pious. They sweep excess profits into the foundation and then use its expense accounts to underwrite trips, junkets, travel expenses, and speaking engagements. It's very popular.
Let me know if you would like to be buried in examples. Oh look here comes one now:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...
And a more through roast of your claim I posted 3 and half years ago:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...
***
Posted by: fayfreethinker
September 14, 2011 at 12:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lowell, thank you for your continued willingness to be a 'voice crying in the wilderness' as you call out for compassion, mercy and peace.
I am also so very grateful for Mr. Henschell's authentic pursuit of truth and statistical relevance. I generally don't post because my sentiments are more than adequately presented by you two gentlemen.
So, thanks, Lowell and Darrel. Please keep up the good work of justice, grace and compassion.
Posted by: Jim_Huffman
September 16, 2011 at 2:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Registration is required to make comments. Click here to LOGIN.
You can register for FREE to post comments and receive alerts.