:confused: Does no one have a heart, besides the Australians.
Australia has just committed 1 billion dollars in aid to the countries that were affected by this tsunami, why isn't America or England, or even the European union committing the same (in ratio worth:donation) or more??
If you ask me, if a nation of less than 25 million people can commit that much these other countries can dig a bit deeper into their pockets.

Click Here (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=744539); anything more would constitute a cross-post.

sorry i dont follow.... i'm from france ... i am just saying that australia is a pretty small nation, and as a ratio to worth:donation they have really dug deep....

And how much heart one has nowadays is evaluated by how much money that heart wastes... :rolleyes:
Fucked up little civilization.

no buddy, it is about how much you give, if it is of money value or something else it is still giving, and that is love which i used the word heart for.... you follow or do you want me to explain it differently ??

I am sure America has more money to give than what it has, same with England / U.K. and the European union is rolling in it. it is about as i said above the ratio of
Worth: Donation....
Meaning the ratio of,
How much money a country has: to how much it has given away....
Do you know what a ratio is, nob?

Whatever happened to just wishing good luck and "we hope you get up soon"?
I follow your thought and it sickens me right to the very core of it.

well you must have a weak stomach my friend because all i am saying is that if all the nations dug deep into their pockets the suffering could come to an end quicker, i am not saying strait away, just quicker.

Suffering is a part of life, just like birth, laughter and death.

Give them shitloads of money? Ha! Pretty soon they'll start to ridicule you and design all kinds of sneaky ways to get out more "love".

i am just saying that australia is a pretty small nation, and as a ratio to worth:donation they have really dug deep

Fair 'nuff. Except ... well, that explanation doesn't reconcile very well with either your topic title or its repetition in the topic post:

Does no one have a heart, besides the Australians.

Aid donations should not be a moral competition. As Cohen notes in the article included in the post I referred you to, the alleviation of suffering is not our gift, but our obligation.

One-upping the neighbors shouldn't be part of that.

I follow your thought and it sickens me right to the very core of it.

i will quote you in reply..... thats all

Say "hi" to human nature.

Aid donations should not be a moral competition.
I agree although I think if you can give more why not.. the aussies are obviously not going to make themselves become a 3rd world nation because they are giving this money all i am saying is, that other nations could comfortably give more money

hi human nature...... whats the point?
sorry now i don't follow.

As a tax paying australian I'm disgusted.
They didn't even stop to think that maybe some of us are legitimately morally opposed to helping.
The dispicable sin of criticising mother nature's work will now forever rest on my soul.
Great.

Take the U.S. for example, whose public contribution of $350m ranks fourth at present. While private donations have reached $200m and counting, my question on increasing the public commitment is simple:

From whom should the United States borrow the money?

hi human nature...... whats the point?
sorry now i don't follow.
Big favours make one not thankful, but vengeful.
Nietzsche

go the stars and stripes. you go!

On a side note, the US is cheap.
I think australia recieved a "bill" for the supplies we used while fighting america's war. That's just shameless.

Now I don't follow.. :rolleyes:
Anyways, has anybody thought about that, but... "how much is enough? " (BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4152121.stm))

As a tax paying australian I'm disgusted.
They didn't even stop to think that maybe some of us are legitimately morally opposed to helping.
The dispicable sin of criticising mother nature's work will now forever rest on my soul.
Great.

You paid your taxes, good work, you voted in your gov. there for your taxes are at the disposal of your gov. there for stop wining. Because really if little Johnny gave everyone a call before he want to make a decision Australia would be the one in need of aid.

Typical liberal naivity: "Throw money at it and things will magically get better."

The Australian government doesn't even have a heart godammit. Its all public opinion, beaurocracy, whim and political rivalvry. No opposing politician has the balls to even voice dissent on such touchy issues, so they highball it. (Perhaps even something to do with the importance of south asia on the Australian economy)

Where did the number $1 billion come from? Sounds an awful lot like being topped off to me. Even Canada's 'measly' 80 million will be largely pocketed by contractors and those who don't directly benefit.

'Goodwill money' always has strings attached.

Typical liberal naivity: "Throw money at it and things will magically get better."

The Australian government doesn't even have a heart godammit. Its all public opinion, beaurocracy, whim and political rivalvry. No opposing politician has the balls to even voice dissent on such touchy issues, so they highball it.

Where did the number $1 billion come from? Sounds an awful lot like being topped off to me.

sorry i was wrong it is 1 billion strait up and then 0.8 billion over the next 5 years. just look it up in a web search

Well it's kind of in Australia's interest since they're in the same region as where the tsunami hit. I'm sure if something happened in Canada, the U.S. would shell out a lot more due to being neighbors. And besides, how much should be sent? It's not as if inflation and cost of living there is the same as it is here. Sure, $350 million (not even counting private donations as well, mind you) is nothing if a city in the U.S. got demolished, but we're talking shacks and poor housing out there. The money gained so far from all nations is plenty for that region.

It just seems as if some people and countries are having a fit of penis envy trying to see who's is bigger. It's nice to see Australia donating that much, but it should hardly be the norm from all countries for every natural disaster that happens. Do the richer countries always have to be the top money-givers? Heck, I'm glad to actually see other countries donating more than them for once.

- N

Well it's kind of in Australia's interest since they're in the same region as where the tsunami hit.
- N

*cough, cough* September 11, i really wouldn't think Americans would have that shorter memory, a day or two after that happened Australia, John Howard committed it's forces to helping America find who was responsible. Come on don't be one of those stupid Americans that just say we are made everyone else is shit

I agree although I think if you can give more why not.

And what if these countries can't give more?

There is a war. Bush is spending billions of dollars on it. Don't expect him to be able to give more than he has.

Well it's kind of in Australia's interest since they're in the same region as where the tsunami hit. - me

*cough, cough* September 11, i really wouldn't think Americans would have that shorter memory, a day or two after that happened Australia, John Howard committed it's forces to helping America find who was responsible. Come on don't be one of those stupid Americans that just say we are made everyone else is shit - Jolly Rodger (pirates are all about the money :p )

Exactly where do you get that I think that "we are made (?) and everyone else is shit"? The only person saying anyone is shit is you. You're saying that nobody has a heart, only the Australians do because they donated the most aid for people affected by the tsunami. I sure as heck have never called any other country that donates their money to other countries in times of need a cheapskate all because my country happened to have been the top money donator numerous times. I'm glad Australia is giving that much money to help others, but I'm not gonna call others cheepskates and neither should you just because you happened to be the ones to have donated the most this time around. Your high donation doesn't devalue other countries donations.

I say it's in Australia's interest to donate the most money to the people affected by the tsunami because they live in that region themselves. I would expect neighboring countries to be helping out the most, do you not? If something bad happened elsewhere in the world, I would expect the neighboring countries of that area to be helping out a helluva lot as well. It would look bad if a country just turns a blind eye to their neighbors in times of need.

My question still remains though, do you expect the richer nations to always have to be the top money-givers of every disaster that happens? Why can't some other country win the "top aid giver" award too? Who said it earlier, the U.S. is 3rd or something (at least top 5) in the total amount of aid given or somewhere around there. That's not good enough in your eyes? It's not as if the U.S. is saying screw you and winds up being in 30th place or something like that, even during times of war. What a greedy little ass you are. Oh wait no, sorry, we are for keeping our money and not being #1 this time around, again, in the amount of aid given for this disaster. You can't even take pride in knowing that this time around you were the most helpful nation for your neighbors in a time of need, you have to belittle others as if this is somehow a burden for you in that you gave the most aid this time around. Yeah, that REALLY shows you actually care, mmhmm. (sarcasm)

Oh, and the other question, again. Exactly how much aid do you think the people in Southeast Asia should have receieved from other countries? Total it all up and it's a hefty amount. Don't forget to add in the cheap prices down in that region which makes the donated amounts worth even more.

- N

i wish i could go there in those affected areas and do save and love and take care of as many childrens as i can.but i cannot go because i have no way to go there so i only see what the good parts of this worl;d is doing ..mostly US australia germany and othere nations with big heart and souls.may GOD bless them all the way :)

NOTE,, on wedansday the 5 th of jan.2005 CNN in its regular programs was showing a small baby girl of 4 years she was from indonasia (i can not recal her name now )and she lost both here parents and was sitting with a male distant family member.SO pls tell me about that girl name or if any one has her photo saved . then mail me her photo .many thanks . my mail is ...someuse7@yahoo.com

america is donating less then two days cost of the current Iraq war.

I don't think these subjects are comparable. War is war (no matter what reasons, or good or bad) and donating shitload of money to some people on the other side of the world is not necessary.

I think what some want is the U.S. to donate 150 billion dollars (more than Australia, yay, and to be expensive like the Iraqi war, yahoo) so that each of the 150,000 or so dead people each get 1 million dollars for their families or relatives each in poor countries so that they can live like kings in a poor country. Let's have them live better than people in the donator's own country. I bet the people that suffered from the hurricanes in Florida wish they receieved that much help from their own government. Let's make everyone millionaires! Heck, I'm about to start a flood in my own house to become a millionaire!

Some people have no perspective.

- N

I think what some want is the U.S. to donate 150 billion dollars .......... so that each of the 150,000 or so dead people each get 1 million dollars for their families or relatives each in poor countries so that they can live like kings in a poor country. Let's have them live better than people in the donator's own country.
- N
You really don't know what your talking about buddy, if you have followed this disaster at you would realize a lot has gone wrong besides death, buildings, fishing boats, water supplies and hospitals have all been destroyed, there is so much destruction over there, The money will be going to an array of things, just to mention one of the things money is going to is the construction of a tsunami warning system, which isn’t just a building, it is a big operation with highly sophisticated components placed all over the Indian ocean that beams up messages to a satellite. Not that cheap. If you think all this money is going to the families of people who are dead, I am surprised you know how to use a computer because that is the stupidest thin I have ever heard, besides
I don't think these subjects are comparable. War is war (no matter what reasons, or good or bad) and donating shit load of money to some people on the other side of the world is not necessary.
these aren't just some people over the other side of the world, there are people who are suffering from a natural disaster.
As I said before, what about when the Australians when they were all in, on the war against terrorism. My country France wanted nothing to do with it.... Although Australia all the way on the other side of the world were all in, wanting to help the Americans because of what had happened on sept. 11, there has been no terrorism in Australia they just wanted to Support a nation that had been given a raw deal....

So, I think that's Australia's problem, spending money on other than its' people.
And anyways I think that by donating that money Australia is just ensuring that all those people don't come as refugees to its' coast. OK, we give you money to build a new house, but you stay at your side of the ocean.

So, I think that's Australia's problem, spending money on other than its' people.
And anyways I think that by donating that money Australia is just ensuring that all those people don't come as refugees to its' coast. OK, we give you money to build a new house, but you stay at your side of the ocean.
Yesterday Australia offered to take in many refugees and children who don't have families anymore, without any processing, with housing provided and flights to Australia for free so I don’t know where you are coming from with that statement? Please think or read something before you make off handed comments you might offend an Australian, after all they haven’t done anything wrong, I think you are just reaching now……
Or is it you are just trying to justify why America shouldn’t have to give money by making up stories why Australia had to?? Because if that’s the case, you’re a sick individual. Just except that Australia has given quite a lot of money, I mean I wish France or the European Union would give more but as was said before in this thread America is donating less then two days cost of the current Iraq war.
Don’t give me that “America doesn’t have any money” because that just horseshit.

My statement was what reasons I might have had if I were the government of Australia.

My statement was what reasons I might have had if I were the government of Australia.
It is not a dictatorship.... sorry I don't understand!
which statement?

The fact australia even has a "spare billion" bothers me. They either shouldn't be taxing the citizens so much or they should have used that fucking money already in australia for australians.

And don't so disrespectfully take my moral objection to helping so lightly. No one tells muslims to "get over it" when they're sprayed with pigs blood, and my objection to helping asia has had alot more thought put into than there objection to being sprayed with pigs blood.
Where's the money going? Helping "chan" re-establish his bear bile farm? Or assisting the "li" family in getting their dog restaurant back on it's feet? It makes me sick to think about it.

The only good that could from this is if the mongol hordes take over the world they might remember we gave them a billion dollars. But they probably won't, knowing mongols they'll consider our generosity to be a weakness and they will punish us for it.

I can't say that object to helping, but I can't help but wonder how much money Kuala Lumpur, for example, is getting from this and how much money they spent to build the Petronas Towers for no reason than to state "We have arrived" and to have the bragging rights.
Not just Malaysia, specifically, I wonder if we would be considered callous iof we took into account how much money the different regions had and how much was frivilously spent.
Kinda like that old story abour the squirrel that stored his nuts for the winter.
Would the accusations of being callous be deserved?

Yeah fair call raven, although, it doesn't really make a difference. They should have saved some money for a rainy day, yes, although they didn't, and there is no need to punish them with letting them suffer.
Look how much the public has donated for this cause, these are all people that want to give money, they don't care about these buildings or the money the have spent frivolously all they care about is helping get these people back on there feet. I hope if where I live was ever showered with asteroids or hit by a huge earthquake or tornado and there was as much destruction as there is in that region that the rest of the world would come to help out even if all the Politians were spending money stupidly

I hear ya, Jolly Rodger.

I think what some want is the U.S. to donate 150 billion dollars .......... so that each of the 150,000 or so dead people each get 1 million dollars for their families or relatives each in poor countries so that they can live like kings in a poor country. Let's have them live better than people in the donator's own country.
- N

If you think all this money is going to the families of people who are dead, I am surprised you know how to use a computer because that is the stupidest thin I have ever heard, besides - JR

I know the money isn't going to families. My point is that how much money is enough? How much do you think should be given? When does it become too much? You basically call other countries that don't toss in a billion dollars to be cheapskates and that we're not helping enough. It's like other countries donations won't be good enough until each freakin Indonesian person is a millionaire over there (after buildings are reconstructed and all that).

- N

I haven't confirmed this, but I was told that the Red Cross has reached their goal and is no longer accepting donations because they can't spend it elsewhere in good faith, and they have as much as they need (at least for now).

I just checked the Red Cross website and it looks like they are still accepting donations.
I'm not sure what her source was, but it looks incorrect.

"legitimately morally opposed to helping"

What sort of morals are you talking about that opposes assisting the survivors of a Tsunami?

My sort of morals. Are you now mocking my moral code? Jesus christ...
It is immoral to try and "correct" nature. I have nothing against wildebeest but it would be immoral in my view to build a bridge over the nile just so they could cross without getting eaten by crocodiles.
I don't believe there was anything "wrong" about the tsunami so nothing needs to be made "right". It doesn't need "fixing" and it's insulting how we humans are always criticising natures work as though we know better.

Dr. Lou Natic,
Hypothetical Question:
So, you are with your grandmother walking through a park, a tree branch happens to fall on her, if she does not get out from underneath it and rushed to a hospital she will die. She does not have the strength to lift it off herself, although you do and there is a public phone across the street.
Would you
A. Say "oh well granny that’s natures works, bye bye" and keep going on your merry way
OR.
B. Lift it off her, run across the street and call for help?

How's that relevent?
My grandmother is a part of me, we're social animals so our family unit is akin to ourselves, we are instinctually inspired to preserve the strength of our family.
Not so with people from another country and so unrelated that they actually have a different phenotype. Humans have been confused by the collapse of family and so they throw their instincts at anything thats close enough, like an orphaned monkey clinging onto a stuffed bear.

They can help eachother.
I'm not against a father swimming over to save his son, that's supposed to happen.
Each family can struggle to survive this natural event. Some families will pull through, other's won't. Those that make it will have earned it and they'll provide quality stock for future generations.
Helping has it's place within social units, not beyond that.

Lou, You make some valid points, as usual, but to be fair, you did miss his poiunt about the telephone and the hospital.

I just checked the Red Cross website and it looks like they are still accepting donations.
I'm not sure what her source was, but it looks incorrect.
I think you were confusing the Red Cross with Medicin sans Frontieres, who have declared they have sufficient funds now to deal with this crisis and that potential donors should give to other charities .

OR
If it was entirely up to me there wouldn't be hospitals or telephones.
I would take my grandmother home to the family and they would use the telephone to call the ambulance. Because thats what they're like.
Even if I would love to use the telephone and take my grandmother to the hospital, I would prefer it if I didn't have that option. And even if I took my grandmother to the hospital and had her saved by doctors I would still be saying "this is wrong" in my head. It would just be exhibitting my overwhelming family preservation instinct. I'm just an animal, I can't be held responsible for my actions.
I'm not always going to be correct or right. Just because I might want to use a telephone to save my injured grandmother doesn't effect my argument, what I'm saying is if I did that I'd be wrong. Well really it's a tough one, a good social animal should do what they can to save the life of a tribe member. Like I said, I shouldn't have that option.

These counters to my statements are always so predictable and ultimately irrelevent.
"oh yeah, well how would you like it if blah blah blah", maybe I wouldn't like it, tough shit for me.
How are my little feelings going to sway the unshakeable code of the universe?

These counters to my statements are always so predictable and ultimately irrelevent.
Pretty much like the statements themselves then.

: confused : Does no one have a heart, besides the Australians.

Australia has just committed 1 billion dollars in aid to the countries that were affected by this tsunami, why isn't America or ...3 things of note:

1) Australia is in the neighborhood
2) they just missed getting hit
3) no one is required to give

it should be from the heart, gov's can say anything, pledge any amount, let those that want to give, give as their hearts tell them to, not as someone says they have to.

And I'm not sure that giving to muslim nations, just so that they will like us, is a good enough reason, it should be because they are human just like us,

common humanity, common suffering, common response

I would love to see how much of the donated money actually gets to the people who need it.

We all know how much trickles down to the needy after the buisnesses, the politicians, and the corrupt charity administrators are done.

I hope you're right sarge.
But I fear a large portion of the money will actually be used to help needy people.

A curious thing is happening on the American front: I hear more from conservatives about criticism of the U.S. than I do actual criticism. Last night I caught an episode of Dennis Miller, and he was still harping on the $35m bit. It was a sad spectacle.

Dr. Lou:

Your "morals" are sadly misplaced. You appear to have read somwhere that we are "all just animals" and taken a simplistic view of interspecies kin relationships and based a whole sad life philosophy around that. I imagine that you are very young, or you have a terrible bitterness locked away somwhere, or both. Natural disasters are niether good or bad in an absolute sense. That's obvious. But how we react toward fellow humans, and even other species that are suffering, is hardwired into us by evolution (species-altruism is just as natural as inter-tribal altruism). You need to examine your theory and self reflect a little (actually a lot).

I would love to see how much of the donated money actually gets to the people who need it.

We all know how much trickles down to the needy after the buisnesses, the politicians, and the corrupt charity administrators are done.

Yeah, good point, sarge. How many more politicians/generals/local bigwigs are going to become significantly richer all of a sudden because the whole region is now drowning in cash instead of waves? Wild Nature (capital N) can knock you around, but if you really what to be f'd over, you have to rely on your fellow Humans. :rolleyes: :bugeye:

Australia has just committed 1 billion dollars in aid to the countries that were affected by this tsunami, why isn't America or England, or even the European union committing the same (in ratio worth:donation) or more??
The US has given SO MUCH money. How can you be so ungrateful as to think that the US is so stingy?

You know what? We didn't have to give anything! It is not our problem. Yet the US went beyond its call of duty, and donated a LOT OF MONEY. It's more than you have.

Quite frankly, if you want to bitch about how little the US contributed, GO OUT AND GIVE THEM YOUR OWN DAMN MONEY!!!! Until you give millions of dollars in aide, I stand by my opinion.

I have a heart.....

it pumps all the time.....

if it stops i would die, surely.

jolly roger is nobby

But how we react toward fellow humans, and even other species that are suffering, is hardwired into us by evolution (species-altruism is just as natural as inter-tribal altruism). You need to examine your theory and self reflect a little (actually a lot).

Partially correct.

Altruism is hard-wired into us when it benefits the individuals genetic material (eg. Parents helping offspring, brother helping sister, uncle helping cousin).

Helping out strangers thousands of kilometres away, who will never help us spread our genetic material, is NOT hard wired into us.

:confused: Does no one have a heart, besides the Australians.
Australia has just committed 1 billion dollars in aid to the countries that were affected by this tsunami, why isn't America or England, or even the European union committing the same (in ratio worth:donation) or more??
If you ask me, if a nation of less than 25 million people can commit that much these other countries can dig a bit deeper into their pockets.


well jolly, because we in the states are donating billions a day towards a war. any more questions that make a person want to pull their hair out because its so damned screwed up beyond compreshenshun? (not you or your question, but of course the answer) the people in charge are highly highly misguided my friend. it will come back to haunt us.

It is very scarey i know! just go to the islands when that happens

It should be noted that the Bush administration intends to give over $950 million for tsunami aid. See ... oh, try this link (http://www.tdg.ch/tghome/tgnews.detailcateg.YWZwLmNvbToyMDA1MDIxMTowNTAyMTE wMTQ2NTIuN2c3aXdpcGQ6MQ==.1.0.html). (Why not?)

America is already in debt. So it cannot grant as much as money. Anyways the countries devastated by the tsunami have sufficient money to get back to their old economic standing. We shouldnt worry about the money. But rather the pshycological impact on them which money cannot fix.

People alwayscomplain about George Bush adding to the deficit. Now they are complaining about him not adding more. How does this work?

Oh, yeah, I remember: liberalism is a mental disorder not rooted in logic. When a chance to spend money on something that doesn't really concern us (or might not even be necessary), they jump at the oppurtunity. But when it comes to protecting the US citezens, and national security, they all complain and protest.

So Jolly Rodger, have you donated any of your money yet? No? Well the US has!!!! Stop complaining.

Good, point America freed Iraq, why did that concern you? I mean there were no W.M.D's and it has been proven that, there was no real connection with terrorism. So why did that concern you Americans. What oil?
I have donated money to many different charities in my life, because after all a little bit of my money is a lot for someone else, I donate monthly to three different organizations and donated 3/4 of my wages when the disaster happened.
I am not complaining buddy, all i was saying was Australia has donated a shit load more than anyone else.

I am not complaining buddy, all i was saying was Australia has donated a shit load more than anyone else.

Per capita, that is. Just thought I'd nitpick.


People alwayscomplain about George Bush adding to the deficit. Now they are complaining about him not adding more. How does this work?

We find it ridiculous that he spends money on illegal wars, instead of helping needy, homeless people.

[QUOTE=mountainhare]Per capita, that is. Just thought I'd nitpick.

Are you sure, hey i might be wrong although i am pretty sure they donated the most.

Are you sure, hey i might be wrong although i am pretty sure they donated the most.

I know that America rivals Australia in donations.

However, what really matters is 'per capita'. It is like a poor man giving 1 dollar, and a billionaire giving 1 dollar. Who has made the greater sacrifice?

why does america have to give anything, it is thier fault any way let them sleep in the bed they made

I remember when the tsunami hit. I was starting to get pretty drunk, i walked to a room where people were watching television. At that time i yelled them to 'shut that fucking thing off', but they shushed me and i decided to check what was so important that people would try and concentrate after ingesting all that liquid gold.

When I was on top of the situation and knew what that TV googling was all about, i thought to myself: 'great.. now these pussies are going to get the mood down and express feelings of grievance' so i hit the bar.

Anyway, the only dissatisfying thing about this tragedy is that it was centered on the Indian region. I would have rather seen multiple ethnicities go down. Thank god for tourists though.

I dont mind the money that's being sent to the catastrophy area, it is after all, a nice tourist attraction. And the prices are very low at the moment.

What pisses me is all these smarmy little cocks doing all these humanitarian aid rock concerts. People who own their private jet's are making use of their 'talents' to help those touched by misfortune.
I dont know.. but if they truly are so concerned about humanbeigns, stop the torture and shut the fuck up. Pack few million goodies in a box and mail it to where it's needed.

you sound like a really nice person!

Ohh well. Anyways. The purpose of the U.S. is not to keep countries running, to save lives(other than their own), to waste money. Now, if we were to fix this whole tsunami region, what would we have to gain from it?

That rock guy, are you talking of Bono? It sounds like Bono to me.

Now, I have a proposal that would save lots, and I mean lots of lives. LET THEM USE DDT. SPRAY THE DDT FOR THEM!!! If you have lost the meaning of DDT in all of the environmentalist rantings, it is to kill bugs. Now, let's look at a common bug throughout indonesia, and one that would especially flourish with nice wet water stagnating everywhere, not to mention with dead bodies in them. What bug might that be? Why, it's the mosquito!!!! I'll stop acting like that. Now, if they were allowed to spray DDT, these mosquitos would die. No mosquito's, much, much less Malaria. less malaria, more life! Now, do you know why we don't do this? We have more heart for the bald eagle and the trees and whatnot than we have for all these people dieing in Indonesia. Do not argue that DDT causes cancer, it doesn't. Mice(mice!)when exposed to nearly one thousand times as much as human would, in a much, much shorter period of time, will develop fatty tumors. Fatty tumors can be removed, and are not cancerous(will not spread(maybe a little, but no organ leaping as bad cases of cancers tend to do)).

Wow. People whine when the US gets involved in something their countries have interests in, and people whine when the US doesn't fork up more than their country has in a charitable cause. They also whine when the US gives at all ("They're just trying to buy the support of the people with money, that's so disgusting").

Sometimes I think many non-Americans out there are as fucked up as, if not more than, many Americans.

non-americans from the middle of Congo - probably
non-americans from France - I think not

What's wrong with trying to buy support from the people with money? I thought that was the only reason for giving(No sarcasm. I know there are others, but that is the most sensible). Even for those of you that believe in giving for the sake of A)giving B)burning a whole in your pocket, what's wrong if it is done because of a motive? It's still being done, and I figure that would be the ultimate in your decisions. I still vote that we let them spray DDT.