Do u guys agree that bush should be spending 350 million dollars for tsunami aid? If Not, why not?
- Yes
- No
0
voters
Take a look at the poll
From Private Eye:
Number Crunching:
[size=150]50 Million Pounds[/size]: Aid money British government has pledged to Indian Ocean countries including Indonesia.
[size=150]650 Million Pounds[/size]: Export credit guarantee money British government has paid out in last six years for failed arms deals to Indonesia.
It means that Indonesia couldnt pay for the arms we sold them, so the british tax payer footed the bill (and indonesia got its arms - which they happily used to kill between 2000-3000 people (civilians and ‘terrorists’) in the instigation of martial law in 2003.
So there we go. We’re happy to dish out 650 million for arms sales, which WE the BRITISH TAX PAYER pay for.
Now the question, ‘should we be paying 350 million?’ looks kinda funny in relation to the fact that we’re quite happy to spend 650 million on weapons used to subdue a populace to the rules of martial law. In fact, as it stands we’re only pledging a rather parsimonious 50 million.
The point would be, if we pay 650 million pounds in charity to the poor downtrodden arms manufacturers so that they can coninue to build more arms and send them to more unstable regimes, then im see no reason why we shouldnt send 350 million to the poor downtrodden as well.
well your not an american, though! 
At anyrate, I’m not against sending money to help the victims, but I do think 350 million is a tad too much…especialy when we are trying to fund a war in Iraq at the same time. 
but as powell recently had the temerity to say:
newsday.com/news/nationworld … on-big-pix
So its never an either/or - Cf. The battle for hearts and minds et al. Its the less obvious second (and probably more effective) front in the war on terror.
Hmmmmm, I believe that $350m is equivalent to 1.5 days military spending on the occupation of Iraq. Now that says something about priorities…