From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri Dec 28 2001 - 22:18:03 MST
Brian D Williams wrote:
>
> >From: "Smigrodzki, Rafal" <SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu>
>
> >I agree about the need for supervision of the aid by the grantors
> >(US, charities) but I would object to giving preferences to US
> >contractors - if you help, the funds should be spent in the most
> >efficient way possible, disregarding any nationalistic
> >consideration.
>
> It's time the U.S. started paying more attention to it's national
> interests.
>
> As a U.S. taxpayer I would object to my funds being given to a
> foreign company for this purpose, local workers exempted. If
> companies in other countries want the business/charity work, let
> them convince their governments to shell out the Bucks/Marks.
> Peso's whatever.
What do you think foreign aid is? Do you want us involved
indefinitely in Afghanistan and working to spend US tax money at
US worker prices? That doesn't make a bit of sense to me.
>
> Part of the U.S.'s problem in the world is simple PR. During the
> holidays I was watching TV as a man in Afghanistan was criticizing
> the U.S. with a bag of wheat clearly labeled "USA" slung over his
> shoulder. Had I been standing there I would have "pulled a
> Giuliani", dragged it away from him with an explanation as to why,
> and told him to try eating dirt.
>
Does that bag of wheat mean that the US does nothing wrong to be
criticized for? Of course not. Your logic is empty here and
you come off defensive and angry.
> In marketspeak the U.S needs to push it's brand, and quit catering
> to the prejudices of the rest of the world.
Marketspeak is barely excusable in the "market" much less
applied randomly to other things.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:54 MST