NameSilo

US stingy?

SpaceshipSpaceship
Namecheap AuctionsNamecheap Auctions
Namecheap AuctionsNamecheap Auctions
Watch

ZuraX

Established Member
Impact
42
Ok the UN says the US is being stingy and should raise taxes to give more money and AID to other countries. I say screw that stop giving them AID and start giving it to the homeless in the US of A.

The ONLY countries we should help is the ones who dont have an anti-US attitude and the ones who have stuck behind us in this war on terror.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Unstoppable Domains โ€” AI StorefrontUnstoppable Domains โ€” AI Storefront
Namepros

BUy Sell Discuss Domain names..

OK lets have a break..

10NP$ contest.. what day did Namepros start..first one to answer gets 10NP$..
 
0
•••
Reuters, 02.02.04, 9:00 AM ET

By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush is planning to put the first weapons in space despite broad international opposition, budget papers sent to Congress on Monday showed.

Bush's spending plans for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1 include an unspecified sum for developing and testing "advanced, lightweight, space-based (missile) interceptor components," the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said.

In its budget overview, the agency said it was seeking $47 million to start "technology development" of such weapons and others that could be phased into a multi-layered U.S. missile shield starting in January 2012.

In the two years thereafter, the Pentagon aims to base a handful of missile interceptors in orbit for testing, the agency said.

Any such setup, whether space-based lasers or interceptor rockets in orbit, could give the United States the means to attack enemy satellites as well as incoming warheads.

China, an emerging space power, has voiced strong objections to such "weaponization" of space as have Russia and some U.S. European allies.

Although the heavens are already home to spy satellites and other military and intelligence sensors that help weapons work, no offensive or defensive arms are known to be in orbit yet.

Last year, the Missile Defense Agency obtained an initial $14 million for research on a space-based interceptor "test bed," but no decision has been made yet to deploy it.

The fiscal 2005 budget is the first to set aside funds to start developing the kind of weapons President Ronald Reagan had in mind when he called for a space-based Strategic Defense Initiative on March 23, 1983. Critics decried Reagan's vision as "Star Wars" for fear it would launch an arms race in space.

GROUND-BASED MISSILE SHIELD

By Sept. 30 of this year, Bush is set to put on alert several ground-based interceptor missiles at Fort Greely, Alaska, for an initial shield against limited ballistic missile attacks from countries like North Korea.

By December 2005, this bulwark will consist of up to 20 ground-based interceptors in Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, up to 10 based on U.S. warships at sea plus upgraded radar stations and communications links.

The initial system is optimized to knock down any long-range North Korean missiles that could carry nuclear, chemical or biological warheads, though critics doubt the system -- such as it is -- could thwart a surprise attack.

Overall, Bush is seeking to boost funding for missile defense by 13 percent to $10.2 billion next year, including funds for the Army's Patriot Advanced Capability-3 short-range missile interceptor program.

Boeing Co. (nyse: BA - news - people) is the prime contractor for the ground-based leg of missile defense. Northrop Grumman Corp. (nyse: BA - news - people) is building the system's battle command, control and communications system. Raytheon Co. (nyse: BA - news - people) builds the interceptor's "kill vehicle" designed to obliterate its target by slamming into it. Lockheed Martin Corp. (nyse: BA - news - people) and Orbital Sciences Corp. (nyse: BA - news - people) are building booster rockets.

Missile defense is the Pentagon's costliest weapons program. The new budget projects $53.1 billion in related spending for the next five fiscal years, up more than $3 billion for the five-year period projected a year ago.

In addition, billions of dollars that had been earmarked for spending from 2006 to 2010 are now due to be spent sooner -- a sign critics said showed the program was behind schedule and over budget.

"What they're doing now are the simplest efforts," said Philip Coyle, who stepped down in January 2001 as the Pentagon's top weapons evaluator. "The later years aren't going to be any less expensive (than forecast last year) -- and that's especially true because the system has become more complex," he said in a telephone interview.

Copyright 2004, Reuters News Service
 
0
•••
Optimist you are right Break
 
0
•••
Well I still don't know enough about it so I won't make any further comments on that till I find out more about it.

@ optimist, it was first called domainviews.com do you mean when it changed to namepros.com or when domainviews.com was started?
 
0
•••
The day namepros was started Qwert.. all this heavy discussion needed a break.
 
0
•••
agreed if I ever come to another political thread I will send you all my Np $ optimist.
 
0
•••
The Dems blocked it in congress. They can do they if they have the majority.

Yes Russia doesnt know where a lot of its nukes are so this is why we really need this now. Who is to say OBL wont get his hands on one?
 
0
•••
It wouldent be the bumb complaining in this case thow, it would be the people who give them 5% of there cash vs the people who give them 2%

I see that the usa has dubbeled the amount they are sending now aswell (y)
 
0
•••
QBert said:
It wouldent be the bumb complaining in this case thow, it would be the people who give them 5% of there cash vs the people who give them 2%

I see that the usa has dubbeled the amount they are sending now aswell (y)


No it would be the ones that gave 2% complainign that the ones that gave 5% didnt give enough.
 
0
•••
GT Web said:
I am ashamed for the United States because there seem to be plenty of members who dont give a rats ass how many billion people are living on less than $1 per day while they ride around in their Land Rovers and BMWs.

Where is your morality? Your compassion?

You disgust me

Your ashamed for the United States? Hmm, curious...

No one yet has named a country that has done more than the U.S.... Canada included. So, once Canada fixes its own internal issues and surpasses the contributions of other nations to the world stageโ€ฆ then Canada can be that beacon of light for the rest of us lowly countries to follow.

Lyte
 
0
•••
how can you compare Canada's contribution to the USA's?

America is 10 times bigger than Canada in terms of population, I dont even know the most up to date stats, but in a month or so once everything is added up I bet the USA will not have given 10 times as much as Canada has.
 
0
•••
Yes we, the USA are and should be STINGY. Why you say, well because this country we live in, is well, BROKE. Bush has done more harm to this countrys budget than a drunk gambler in vegas. He gives everyone a tax break, WERE DID THAT MONEY COME FROM, oh yeah, he made it up. No he is sending $35 Million dollars to the tsunami victims in Asia. WERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM. Every state in this nation is broke, dead broke. Our country is in so much debt, and our econemy is sliped so far, that our dollor has lost its luster. Why on earth would a U.N. offical call us one of the wealthist countries. Just because some of the people who live in this country are wealthy, doesn't persay mean the entire country is wealthy. As for people being ashamed of us, well, take a look at your country first, and if you cant find something to be ashamed about, let me know, I bet I can find something for you, because no one is perfect, but atleast some of us try.
 
0
•••
It shouldn't matter who "Gives or Does" what in a time like this folks ... Just that you do Help in some way ~ If you don't have money or useful items to give - Donate some links on a website to the Charity Organizations that can Help .... Donate PPC listings/earnings etc ... to these sites ....

Just Please STOP this petty Argueing ~ :)
 
0
•••
Yeah only give what you can like France did. They only gave $135,000 LMAO
 
0
•••
GT Web said:
I dont even know the most up to date stats,

Ahh... so without any hard data you'll use terms as disgusted and ashamed to discribe a country that's not your own.

GT Web said:
... but in a month or so....

So not only do you not have hard data to validate your rediculous and offensive comments, you'll also make your judgement based on what could... possibly... maybe... might happen!

GT Web said:
... the US will not have given 10 times as much as Canada has.

What are you smoking and did you bring enough for everyone?! :lol: Let me help you out since you have "up to date stats"...

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=40128

U.S. - $35 million and 12 ships

Australia - $26 million

Canada - $1 million... other links say $4 million so we'll give you the benefit of the doubt... $4 million.

United Arab Emirates - $2 million.


Let's see, the pop. of Canada is 32 million (http://www.canadainfolink.ca/canmap.htm#pop) and population of the UAE 2.3 million (http://www.arab.de/arabinfo/uae.htm). Someone help me with the math... Canada has a population how many times larger than the UAE but they are only giving twice as much??? Is that like 14 times bigger? Tsk...tsk...

Again, maybe you should go take care of what's going on in your own backyard before you criticize your neighbor.

Lyte
 
Last edited:
0
•••
all4cost said:
Just Please STOP this petty Argueing ~ :)

That is a wonderful idea! :tu:

Unfortunately, I have a very hard time letting hypocrisy go unchallanged. Ughh... I shouldn't have asked the Lord for patience! :lol:

Lyte
 
0
•••
I say in a month or so because nations will keep increasing their donations as the scope of the disaster becomes known.

We have given $4 million, that is a fact, the USA has given $35 million, that makes us pretty much equal in terms of money donated per citizen.

I wasn't disgusted with Americas donation, I was disgusted with Zurax's view that they should not donate anything to the victims.
 
0
•••
GT Web said:
We have given $4 million, that is a fact, the USA has given $35 million, that makes us pretty much equal in terms of money donated per citizen.

Gimme a break... do you think people in need give a rats bottom who gives what based on population?! Do you think Canada's $4M will go farther or accomplish more than the U.S. $35M?!

And, what 'bout Canada's $4M (32M population) to the UAE's $2M (3.2M population)... if population is your guide... where's your outrage?! D-:

Lyte

EDIT: Oh, I forgot... the population of Austrialia is at 20M and as previously posted they are giving $26M in relief. Umm... how does that stack up against $4M from a population of 32 million?? :|
 
Last edited:
0
•••
All this because a pompass ass of a UN diplomat made a ignorant remark.

The US already has people on the ground, air and sea helping. Private donations from US citizens will be more then most goverments send.

Step away from the TV... It's not news it's propaganda.
 
0
•••
GtWeb, Please show me where Lee or myself ever said no one should send any aid. What I did say, and I stand by, is that I'm tired of people bitching out both sides of their mouths. They bitch and whine when we do help and they bitch and whine when we don't. I'm proud of what the US has done in the past to help with disaster relief. I have no doubt we will continue to help.

As Zurax has said, if people want to whine about someone, try France.
 
0
•••
Dynadot โ€” .com TransferDynadot โ€” .com Transfer
Appraise.net
Escrow.com
Spaceship
Domain Recover
CryptoExchange.com
Catchy
DomDB
NameFit
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the pageโ€™s height.
Back