------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - An official in British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government failed to win the backing of the Bush administration in an effort to launch a new Marshall Plan to help the world's poorest nations. Gordon Brown, Britain's chancellor of the exchequer, discussed the proposal in a meeting Monday with Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill in O'Neill's office. In a statement, the U.S. Treasury said that O'Neill and Brown both shared a deep concern over the plight of the world's poor. O'Neill, however, "would like to see evidence of what works before making new commitments" on the part of the United States, the statement said. Brown wants rich countries including the United States and Britain double the aid they give the world's poor nations to $100 billion annually as part of an effort to cut world poverty in half by 2015. Brown has said the program is modeled after the U.S. Marshall Plan, the successful plan advanced by George C. Marshall, secretary of state in the Truman administration, to provide American assistance to help rebuild Europe following World War II. Brown's effort is intended to address the growing gap between wealthy and poor countries, a disparity that many feel is fueling political tensions and terrorism. Brown first raised his proposal during meetings sponsored by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in Ottawa, Canada, last month. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Our government prattles on about "fighting terrorism" but apparently that just means pounding on desperately poor countries. A plan such as the one the British are proposing would be a better weapon against terrorism than all the weapons systems, intelligence networks, and missile defenses combined. It's almost a cliché to say that men like Osama bin Laden gain support not only because they're spouting anti-American rhetoric -- radical Muslim clerics have been doing that since the Iranian revolution, if not before -- it's because they come in and use their own money to build roads, found schools and build clinics. That's what gets you the kind of following where people will die for you. If we spent $100 billion a year to help countries like Afghanistan build the sort of infrastructure that we take for granted, we would deny future Osama bin Ladens of their most potent weapon -- the loyalty of desperate people who have been helped. But the current administration apparently won't do anymore than absolutely necessary to help anyone that didn't contribute to the GOP. I think America's portion of the $100 billion would be an acceptable outlay to help prevent poverty, and by extension, terrorism, war and genocide. We must do a better job, however, at getting the funds to the people that need it rather than to a corrupt hierarchy that always seems to funnel obscene amounts into their off shore accounts. Where would the money come from? If the program were successful, it seems to me that a missile shield would be redundant and ultimately, defense could be pared down commensurate with lowered international threats. Naturally, this wouldn't play well with the military/industrial folks who would be receiving a much smaller helping at the federal trough. And since it appears that these are the very people who are molding all of our nation's programs right now, Mr. Brown will most likely be politely told to "go pound sand."
goofyfish ... Is Mr. Brown, and Britain, too poor to 'pound salt'? Welcome back. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
about that urine thing Thanks for the welcome... I like the signature tag. If you're interested, that was said by Russell Schweickart, the Lunar Module pilot on the Apollo 9 mission that first tested the moon-landing vehicle in space.
Chagur Is Mr. Brown, and Britain, too poor to 'pound salt'? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Well yes it is really. America came out of WWII richer than when it went in. Why,because it made Britain pay for it! We are really still broke from trying to pay them back. If America demanded their money + interest back now,they would have to take the whole country & it would still owe them. The French said they should not pay anything as they had suffered enough.So was let off. By the way,this is not anti American,just what happened. One of the problems is that the British Gov likes to pretend that is a big World power,& gives money to everyone instead of looking after its home first.
Didn't I read last year or the year before that you guys (well, your government) was going to waive £1.9 billion that was owed relating to the Export Credit Guarantee?? That seems like a nice chunk of change, and I am certain contributes to financial dificulty. Please understand that I don't mean this as a slap, I applaud the British committment to helping the world's poor. Now if Japan, Germany, France and others could be persuaded to do the same we might truly be on the beginning of change...
Odin, Goofyfish ... Thank you both. And. I feel so much better being able to attribute what I consider to be one of the better comments of the space age. Nothing more irritating than to have a comment, or a poem, stick with you and not remember who said or wrote it. Take care. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
