I would like to point out that despite all the talk about USA providing foreign aid that roughly equals Canada’s national income, the fact is that this aid seems to be ‘invisible’. For example, the 150 million $ that the USA is supposedly helping India with, never finds its way to the masses. It’s given to the government, which doesn’t even mention it in its budgetary allocations.
This is similar to Bill Gates donation to India, which was routed to the Health Ministry, which is still setting up it’s department under actor Shatrugan Sinha, who is then expected the funds to National AIDS Control Organisation of India, whose only brief is to conduct surveys once in 5 years in suspected AIDS hotspots.
If this sounds boring, bear with me. All I’m trying to point out is that the money never reaches to the people.
Regarding the aid that USA gives to people in distress, the higher money figures may also be a result of higher transportation, operational costs, and medical costs. For the same amount, Bangladesh is able to help India more. This fact is borne out by the aid India got after the Gujarat earthquake from USA, which was a lot on paper, but actually very little.
I’m not claiming to be an expert on the US foreign aid programme, but I really fail to see the benefits, at least in India. The only visible impact of American aid was during the drought years of the 1950’s and 1960’s where USA constantly increased in aid, whenever Russia send aid here.
Yes, I’m aware the image is edited; I just thought it’s amusing. And as for the schools, the material covered in Serbian elementary & secondary schools is about 2-3 years ahead of the material covered in Canada. In grade 1 elementary I learned how to hand-write both alphabets. Learned basic arithmetic up to 50 with brackets etc. When I got to Canada and looked what was being done in grade 1, I saw a…sandbox. And kids singing the alphabet song. And many pretty colors. I’m not saying post-secondary institutions are comparatively sub-par in Canada, just the elementary and secondary. However, that’s a whole nother discussion, so just think next time before you judge something that you know nothing about.
So mark, Saddam never shot at any of our planes? That is a cause for war, regardless of how little it may seem. I like to think of this as a pre-emptive strike. Can you honestly tell me that if he had nukes he wouldn’t use them as leverage? I think what bothers most people is the fact that the U.S was gonna “go it alone” without the help of the UN. If this was a UN invented, organized and executed event no one would complain, but since it isn’t, we look like “the big bad bully”.
mark, you try to justify the actions of terrorists as a legitimate tool. Therefore, I am not going to respond to you again.
Ru12nvme, that was a very interesting and thought-provoking post. However, I’m going to have to do some research into this. This may be anectdotal information. Perhaps, water wells were drilled that you didn’t see. I’ll warn you, I find it incredibly hard to believe that a man who fought valiantly in WWII would subject our military to combat to pad his pockets. If anyone believed in honesty and virtue, it was George Bush Senior. Do not give me a lecture about “crooked politicians.” George Bush Sr. was top three, most honest men to have ever held the office. Behind, Lincoln and Herbert Hoover. Did George HW. Bush have stock in that company in 1992? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. I don’t believe a Marine would fall prey to the democratic mantra of just throwing things out there without credible evidence. So please find out if he held stock at the time. Thanks for the interesting post.
OK –
This whole debate seems a bit ass backwards to me. It is not debated that Saddam attempted to assassinate a former U.S. president (Bush Sr.). That Saddam orders the Iraqi military to fire on U.S. and British planes patrolling the no-fly zone on a regular basis is also undisputed. Those provocations would generally be enough to justify war in and of themselves.
However, there is of course more. The Czech secret service still maintains that Iraqi intelligence operatives were linked to the September 11 bombers. Saddam has been in violation of the treaties that ended the Gulf War for years (and yes, I realize the Clinton administration did not choose to enforce them right when Saddam began violating them -- however, that does not make them moot or make Iraq's continuing violations any less serious).
Given that, as well as Saddam's record on human rights, which I blogged above, and the obvious importance of maintaining the stability of the middle east to our national interest (imagine the instability a nuclear-armed Hussein would cause), I would like one of the anti-war types to give me some reasons why we shouldn't go in to Iraq.
BTW, you get no points for any answer resembling these: 1) The rest of the world doesn't want us to (the provocations and violations were effected against us, and national sovereignty means that a nation can act to defend its own national interests -- and by the way, are there any of you who could not see that the French and Russians were simply acting in their own national interests by dragging their feet and trying to prevent the U.S. from acting -- they are deep in trade with the Iraqis (in violation of U.N. sanctions, and wanted to preserve their contracts); 2) This is just blood for oil (It's not -- if we wanted the oil it would be much easier to get it by negotiating with Saddam -- and if it were, so what? Oil is very important to our national economy (cars, heat, power, industry, jobs, etc.)); 3) Other countries have nukes too (So what? They aren't generally a threat to destablize the Middle East, they haven't provoked war, and, obviously, it's much harder to deal with a nuclear-armed threat to our national interest than it is to proactively prevent that threat from acquiring a nuke); or 4) the U.S. does bad things too (So what? We can still defend ourselves and our national interests).
Let’s say the U.S. was a third world country who had a very limited and somewhat antiquated military. Then a major power in the west took over parts of America and in the process slaughtered thousands of Americans? Not only that, but has continued to murder more Americans over the course of 35 years. What would you recommend as an appropriate response? Ru12nvme has the most interesting post on this whole subject in that he saw first hand the duplicitous nature of suppossed “peace keeping” missions. By the way who ever said that George Bush Sr. was top three of the most honest men to hold office? That is a cruel joke.
By the way, I like how you avoided all of my questions to you by saying that you will no longer debate with me. Nice tactic
Even if the U.N. were involved the U.S. would still, rightfully so, bare the tag of being a bully. The U.S. always makes up the majority of U.N. operations. Of course saddam has shot at our planes, we were at war. If your talking about recent events let me ask you a question. What gives the U.S. a right to fly fighter planes over another nations territory? How would you feel if red China flew fighter jets over the U.S.? Saddam may use nukes for leverage but so have the politicans in this country. Are we the only ones who are allowed to do this? If Saddam is a threat what would you call China? China has the worlds largest military and nukes with the capability of reaching the U.S. How come we are not going after them? Read Ru12nmve post. It’s the best one here.
I’d like to personally thank you for your post. Maybe it will help wake up all the brainwashed people on this post. Have you ever heard of Rodney Stich? If not look him up on the internet. Peace
Sure, we only act to benefit us, but isn’t that a good thing? I think you can realize that a goverment is only for their country.We can’t go around helping everyone out free of charge, otherwise there would be more wars than ever. On China; we have butted heads with her already. We already said if China trys to invade Taiwan, its fight time. China is a little different than this. So is N.Korea, so I wont go any further on that. The reason we make up the bulk of any UN action is; we have the best and well trained military force in the world today and we back the UN with most of the cash, who else would you pick?
You said that we only act to benefit us and that is a good thing. I’m not sure what you mean. Can you please clarify. For instance, if we are doing this primarily for the oil then no it is an atrocity. And I don’t see how N.Korea is so different. They have horrible human rights violations, they’re a sworn enemy of the U.S. and even worse they can hit America with nukes. Well then again maybe it is different because I don’t think they have oil reserves but I could be wrong. And by the way, who are we helping? You said there would be more wars than ever if we went around and helped everyone for free. Well the reason that most people over in the mid-east despise us is because of our forceable intrusions into their affairs. It’s not the bullshit being fed to the public. That is, they hate us cause we are so good. It makes my stomach turn everytime I hear some duplicitous pundit(Rush, Bill Bennett, Michael Medved, to name a few)say so. If the U.S. foreign policy was the way it used to be i.e. non-interventionist, Sept.11th never would have happened. I’m curious, what are your thoughts on the Patriot Act and the T.I.P.S. program furher Bush tried to pass? Anyway I think this is a great forum and you’re a good sport fot repling without losing your cool. Peace.
I really only have one major problem with the USA it is how the majority of Americians think that they live in the greatest country on earth and tend to look down on evryone else. I wish Canadians had the same kind of patriotism. Most Americans need to wake up and look at their country for what it is not what it represents
What I meant was; we can’t go around doing random acts of goodness that would deplete our cash and put our troops at risk when there is no benefit for us. Of course, doing something just for oil is wrong but I think you understand what I mean. Okay, I’ll say that Saddam poses a small to moderate threat of nuking us, but the threat is still there. Saddam has ties to terrorists, funds them and makes a “safe haven” for them. This is reason enough to take him out, in my opinion. Getting that out of the way, what about Israel? Can you tell me honestly, with a straight face, he wouldn’t supply nuclear, biological or chemical weapons to terrorist wanting to destroy her? Forget the last sentence, would he not use them himself? N.Korea and Iraq are not similar situations now, but they have the potential to be. N.Korea is using nukes as leverage for money, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they planned the whole, “opps you found our ship with weapons in it” just to turn up the heat. If Saddam was to get nukes, he would do the same. Why make a very bad situation worse? Also, people are quick to hammer Bush on the China and N.Korea issue, yet they fail to hammer Clinton on his handling of the situation. I think, if you look at it well enough, he handled the China and N.korea situation horribly, and its hard for any president Republican or Democrat to fix that. Okay Im ranting. I would also like to thank you responding to my posts and not losing your cool either.Bye
I know a thing or two about schools in Canada. They are much better at the whole “Don’t put your neighbors into concentration camps” area of study. I’ll take that anyday.
Mark, very much appreciate the pleasant comments made. I have not heard of the person you speak but would be interested in knowing more, if you could send me info on where to go. I really did not mean to get so involved into this post but it is rather difficult not too. This just goes to show that we all have valid points. Here is my opinion and I will leave it at this with nothing more to say. Everyone is right. You cannot alter someones beliefs, that has to come from inside of them. You might be able to help influence a different belief however the person has to ultimately want to change, nobody else can do it for them. So many things play a part in what someone will or will not believe. Geographic location, ethnicity, our cultural status, etc. etc. The people that we have elected to run this country are making decisions for its citizens and if you do not agree with these decisions being made by these elected officials then do something about it. Vote or run for office, protest, do something. Just do not sit there and be the one to take it in the wazoo. Anybody can make excuses, it is making a difference that is hard. Those US people elected into office believe that they are doing the right thing by enforcing the US policies the way THEY see fit and if they lose public support I believe that they will do whatever is necessary to find a way to gain public support and use the tools at their disposal. Sometimes they do not even need to give the whole story just bits and pieces and no comments and let the people form their own opinions. The way I remember it is the consitution went something like this…“We the people in order to form a more perfect union…” We the people. We still have the ultimate control and could totally turn this country upside down if we wanted to but only if we all united in one voice and said NO. That will never happen and the government knows it. There was a survey that went around when I was in the service. Just a simple questioneer that everyone selected needed to take part in. It asked this… “If your fellow countrymen took up arms against the government would you fight them?” With a yes or no that you circled. Who knows why. There is all sorts of crap that goes on behind closed doors in the government and do not let anything kid you. The government is secretly disarming this country by passing all the gun laws. We have the right to bear arms or do we? No debate here and lets not turn it into one. Eggnog, I do appreciate the comments. I did not write about Somolia to start anything, just to let you know that there was more to it than just a humanitarian mission. The US does not and will not act unless it has something to gain, this is why they do not mess with all countries. I believe that the US makes every effort to choose wisely its battles. I speak not of past but of present and near future. This country is very selective. You asked for information of if George SR. held stock in this company and for me to provide it. You say George is an honest man, now do you honestly think you can prove that? There is no way that you could because honesty is a formed opinion based on interaction with the individual. Have you personally dealt with George Bush Sr. in such a matter that would allow you to form an opinion of honesty? You could think he was the most honest of the honest and I could beleive he was thief. Never put anything past anyone, even the cream of the crop have lied, made mistakes, or done something wrong, this is how we better ourselves, by learning from our mistakes, is it not? Just ask yourself this question, is Somolia rich in untapped oil? My answer is yes. Where did George Bush get all his money from? My answer, oil companies. Maybe it all is just bullshit and conjecture but it truly does show a different side of the picture. I said it before and I will say it again, the US does not interfere in anything unless it has something to gain whether that be oil, status as a superpower, looking like humanitarians, trade rights, whatever. There is always something to be gained and if we are going to lose more than we gain we are smart enough to leave well alone. Red Square ring any bells?
Do Americans know something about Iraq that the rest of the world doesn’t? How come the Bush administration (or any of the regimes before) never have to substantiate charges about Saddam, Iran, North Korea and whoever they charge with terrorism, and voilating international laws. In many cases, US governments are always seen supporting the wrong guys, or being complete hypocrites.
Bush is supporting Musharraf - though he initiated the Kargil war to capture Kashmir (like Saddam did with Kuwait), overthrew his Prime Minister, rigged the election ( to hold onto power like Saddam does) and holds nucleur weapons. He has also allowed the Taliban to flourish in Pakistan, and has released their leader like Azhar Mehmood from jail.
Bush also supports Putin, though he’s responsible for waging war on Russia’s neighbours; and China who’s supplying missile technology to Pakistan and North Korea.
He also supports Israel’s killing of Palestanian civilians, while condemning killing of Israel’s citizens. He’s quick to tell India and Iran not to increase their presence in Afghanistan, while allowing Pakistan to smuggle drugs via Afghanistan to all over the world (and maybe even the USA).
It’s time the US stops using the word ‘national interest’ and instead uses the word ‘greed’ to describe their motivations, because it’s more apt.
Yes, it sucks when Americans stand up for what they believe in . . . It bothers me that there seems to be a general assumption that all T Men are pro-military right wing ass kickers . . . I’m a proud green party member and campaign volunteer and activist. I’m sorry that it makes you sick when celebrities voice their opposition to a cause they deem unjust . . . but I guess it is okay for Charlton Heston to hold public rallies for the NRA and voice his opinions on gun rights in America . . .
All right, I’ve read through the whole forum, and I am incredibly disturbed. Realest, Harkonnen, and other “liberal” posters I am with you all the way. As far as the informed posters who base their knowledge on the American media, know this: Rupert Murdoch, CEO of Fox Corp., owns over 90% of the satellites that can broadcast signals to US televisions. One man, all the news fit to broadcast. GE owns NBC, Disney owns ABC, Fox is its own corporate entity. Forgive me for not trusting the American media. As far as attacking liberal literature, try reading some. It isn’t a bunch of pathos based persuasions, much like rush limbaugh’s work, it is a dissertation on the cold facts. Our country is spiraling down a dangerous path. The wage gap is ever increasing, the corporations have assumed control of both major parties, or as us liberals say, they’re one in the same. Once again, look it up. Campaign finance records are public domain, the only difference in the origin of donations is not the companies . . . but the amounts given by the corporations. It is no surprise that Republicans champion the cause of petroleum companies, they get more money from them than do Democrats. Which brings on the next point. Why Iraq??? Largest untapped oil reserve in the world (according to the BBC), but Saddam won’t play ball witih US companies like Texaco and Chevron, no oil for them. So, we simply remove Saddam, set up a new dictator who will play ball, now we control the largest untapped oil reserve in the world, let the bidding begin. Don’t buy it? Since 1983 Dick Cheney’s Halliburton, along with Texaco and other US oil corporations, have been trying to build an oil pipeline spanning the country of Afghanistan. Why? Countries like Kazakhstan are oil rich, but it is difficult to transport oil from landlocked countries to the ocean. So, a pipeline must be built! But, the Taliban is less than receptive to allowing such capitalist non-Islam activities to take place in their country. Amazing, 9-11 occurs, Osama was in Afghanistan at the time of the attack (according to US intelligence), Taliban is destroyed. Oil pipeline, free to be completed. I am not military, a good friend of mine here at school is in the MROTC. I respect the willingness of men to give their lives in defense of their country. But are we defending our country, or are we defending US business interests in the International market? Our nation is being led by War Pigs, men who speak of war in grand terms, but who for the most part have never sought out the “glorious battlefield.” They put our fighting men and women’s lives on the line to defend corporate interests. It is a despicable practice, we should all be filled with an unholy rage, not only at the perpetrators of 9-11, but at those who would sacrifice American lives for such selfish purposes. Thank you all, in the end we’re all T-Men, and Americans. Much love to everyone in the forum who cares enough to post.
Retaliation to the 9/11 and other terrorists acts is legit in light of precedents set by hundreds of years of international relations. Aggressive actions taken against a perceivd threat (albiet a categorically weaker one) has precedent in the US’ continuing efforts to squelch any foriegn or domestic policy that does not correspond with their own. If I recall corectly, Saddam picked a fight with Kuwait and then got the shit kicked out of the by the US and various others, and now the US is all indignant because Iraq arms itself. I smell a double standard. Its like if I went for a walk somewhere I shouldn’t, got mugged, started carrying pepper spray because I was mugged, and then got mugged again because some thug wants my pepper spray. whatever, I won’t be drafted.
Sweet is war to those who know it not.
Erasmus