[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
Firstly, I didn’t say the US was solely responsible or anything.
As for limited resources? What on earth? The country has enough money to amass a war machine that can bombard countries miles away… There are more than enough resources. There is even a food surplus here in our countries causing a ton of diseases for us, while others are starving. As members of a fitness forum, you should be aware of that.
I am not a Leftist or Rightist or whatever political lingo you want to throw at me.
All I’m saying is the US has a mass of resources, power and influence at its disposal, enough to affect the world in a very positive way. Yet this influence is being wasted in waging wars abroad where innocent civilians and US soldier’s are dying needlessly. If the country actually did help charitably there would be no stigma against the US and it would actually be viewed as a wonderful country with wonderful values.
And giving money doesn’t do crap, we’ve already seen that in Africa, you’ve said it yourself, the African governemnts are too corrupt to utilize it for their people. Shouldn’t it make more sense to go there, change THEIR governments so that their people can get aid?[/quote]
Do you know there is a surplus of food in many countries where people are starving? It is left rotting both because of corruption and because they have no effective means of transport. Not so easy for America either to simply provide food indefinitely though we indeed have a surplus.
In regards to the African situation, it might be asked if it is EVER a good idea to simply go in and dismantle a government simply because it is corrupt. That is FAR from a guarantee of change. The required devotion of resources to truly effectuate change when a culture of Democracy doesn't exist and there are active oppositionist elements is enormous. And wherever we are, we have to leave sometime. Something that should've been considered before we went in Iraq and not simply cursorily dismissed.
I will not deny that we have an abudnance of resources. We misuse many resources. If we are going to invest more in the international front we should certainly use resources more effectively at home because it certainly denied that we have problems that will require money to be solved. Though certainly money alone will not be enough. Effective initiatives are crucial.
I think we are largely on the same page here. But you might want to think about the negative repercussions of use of resources abroad in ways that superficially seem superior but have many of the same inherent problems.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
Firstly, I didn’t say the US was solely responsible or anything.
As for limited resources? What on earth? The country has enough money to amass a war machine that can bombard countries miles away… There are more than enough resources. There is even a food surplus here in our countries causing a ton of diseases for us, while others are starving. As members of a fitness forum, you should be aware of that.
I am not a Leftist or Rightist or whatever political lingo you want to throw at me.
All I’m saying is the US has a mass of resources, power and influence at its disposal, enough to affect the world in a very positive way. Yet this influence is being wasted in waging wars abroad where innocent civilians and US soldier’s are dying needlessly. If the country actually did help charitably there would be no stigma against the US and it would actually be viewed as a wonderful country with wonderful values.
And giving money doesn’t do crap, we’ve already seen that in Africa, you’ve said it yourself, the African governemnts are too corrupt to utilize it for their people. Shouldn’t it make more sense to go there, change THEIR governments so that their people can get aid?
Do you know there is a surplus of food in many countries where people are starving? It is left rotting both because of corruption and because they have no effective means of transport. Not so easy for America either to simply provide food indefinitely though we indeed have a surplus.
In regards to the African situation, it might be asked if it is EVER a good idea to simply go in and dismantle a government simply because it is corrupt. That is FAR from a guarantee of change. The required devotion of resources to truly effectuate change when a culture of Democracy doesn't exist and there are active oppositionist elements is enormous. And wherever we are, we have to leave sometime. Something that should've been considered before we went in Iraq and not simply cursorily dismissed.
I will not deny that we have an abudnance of resources. We misuse many resources. If we are going to invest more in the international front we should certainly use resources more effectively at home because it certainly denied that we have problems that will require money to be solved. Though certainly money alone will not be enough. Effective initiatives are crucial.
I think we are largely on the same page here. But you might want to think about the negative repercussions of use of resources abroad in ways that superficially seem superior but have many of the same inherent problems.
[/quote]
I understand where you’re coming from and I agree with you. All I’m saying is that the influence is being wasted. The least that can be done is at least address issues like starvation in other countries, and as you say, domestic issues that are excruciatingly important as well.
[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
Firstly, I didn’t say the US was solely responsible or anything.
As for limited resources? What on earth? The country has enough money to amass a war machine that can bombard countries miles away… There are more than enough resources. There is even a food surplus here in our countries causing a ton of diseases for us, while others are starving. As members of a fitness forum, you should be aware of that.
I am not a Leftist or Rightist or whatever political lingo you want to throw at me.
All I’m saying is the US has a mass of resources, power and influence at its disposal, enough to affect the world in a very positive way. Yet this influence is being wasted in waging wars abroad where innocent civilians and US soldier’s are dying needlessly. If the country actually did help charitably there would be no stigma against the US and it would actually be viewed as a wonderful country with wonderful values.
And giving money doesn’t do crap, we’ve already seen that in Africa, you’ve said it yourself, the African governemnts are too corrupt to utilize it for their people. Shouldn’t it make more sense to go there, change THEIR governments so that their people can get aid?[/quote]
Oh, tthat’s good. Isn’t that NATION building? Won’t we get into a QUAGMIRE? Come on. Why don’t you support Iraq 100%? What you describe is exactly what happened there! People were being executed, women raped (talk about a violation of ‘reproductive rights’!), torture (more even than in the evil GITMO!), that’s all done now.
Humanitarian, right? See, the US can’t win. If we do one thing it’s the wrong thing. If we do the other thing, it’s too late and too little. I guess that’s what you get for having ‘unlimited resources’.
I liked your opening post hack. I think what needs to be perfected is what nobody wants to talk about. Nation Building.
If people and nations want to create a better world. We should study how to build nations. We spend a lot of money on perfecting their destruction, shouldn’t we spend as much perfecting how to build them?
Why, exactly, does the world fail to do this when we have huge organizations to handle this?
[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
I hope the new government will also have the compassion and sympathy to help out other countries in need, not just focus on its own nationalistic objectives all the time.[/quote]
And Canada has done what for whom? Is Canada not a well resourced country. Better yet, why don’t you, yourself go and strive to make the world a better place. There is plenty of need for humanitarian workers in Africa. Why not join a mission and go.
Everybody loves to rip the U.S. but they got no issues taking handouts from the U.S. The U.S. is the most generous country on earth. We give to friends and enemies in times of need. There is not a country who gives more aid around the world. If there is name it, because I have never seen it. We even gave aid to Iran after the Bam earthquake.
My thought is not only should we not police the world, we should be so fucking nice to it. We should aid less not more.
[quote]Skystud wrote:
I liked your opening post hack. I think what needs to be perfected is what nobody wants to talk about. Nation Building.
If people and nations want to create a better world. We should study how to build nations. We spend a lot of money on perfecting their destruction, shouldn’t we spend as much perfecting how to build them?
Why, exactly, does the world fail to do this when we have huge organizations to handle this?[/quote]
No, we shouldn’t BE nation-building. We should only be getting involved when a government or strong and stable factions in a country solicit our aid. And they have their own comprehensive plan for change, and just need some aid to effectuate it. Or there is a DIRECT threat to our own security that we need to respond to.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
I hope the new government will also have the compassion and sympathy to help out other countries in need, not just focus on its own nationalistic objectives all the time.
And Canada has done what for whom? Is Canada not a well resourced country. Better yet, why don’t you, yourself go and strive to make the world a better place. There is plenty of need for humanitarian workers in Africa. Why not join a mission and go.
Everybody loves to rip the U.S. but they got no issues taking handouts from the U.S. The U.S. is the most generous country on earth. We give to friends and enemies in times of need. There is not a country who gives more aid around the world. If there is name it, because I have never seen it. We even gave aid to Iran after the Bam earthquake.
My thought is not only should we not police the world, we should be so fucking nice to it. We should aid less not more.
[/quote]
I think we probably should aid less and not more. But we are certainly NOT the most generous country when you compare what we give as with what we have against other coutnries. The Tsunami in Phuket was one example. Our PEOPLE were extremely generous. The intial offering from our government was atrocious compared to other countries until a domestic and international public outcry resulted in giving substantially more aid.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
pat36 wrote:
… the economy is booming and not because of Enron making up false numbers and the build-to-flip internet companies.
Huh?
Lowering the interest rate propped up our economy.
This has run its course.
Using the price increase on 30 stocks is not an indication that our economy is booming.
What did you say you did for a living?
Many economic indicators are up, job growth, stock market, etc. I’d say it’s doing well right about now. Who said anything about 30 stocks? Lowering interest rates helped but was not the sole reason for the rebound.
I did not say what I did for a living.
[/quote]
No, we shouldn’t BE nation-building. We should only be getting involved when a government or strong and stable factions in a country solicit our aid. And they have their own comprehensive plan for change, and just need some aid to effectuate it. Or there is a DIRECT threat to our own security that we need to respond to.
[/quote]
There was a perceived DIRECT threat to our own security that we needed to respond to. Why are we failing to build a nation? I’m in the last third of Woodward’s book and I’m watching the news. I am pretty sure we are doing just that. Building a nation. Shouldn’t we study and invest more for the future of doing just that. Haven’t we learned from our experiences in Vietnam, Somalia and
iraq that that is our weak area?
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
I hope the new government will also have the compassion and sympathy to help out other countries in need, not just focus on its own nationalistic objectives all the time.
And Canada has done what for whom? Is Canada not a well resourced country. Better yet, why don’t you, yourself go and strive to make the world a better place. There is plenty of need for humanitarian workers in Africa. Why not join a mission and go.
Everybody loves to rip the U.S. but they got no issues taking handouts from the U.S. The U.S. is the most generous country on earth. We give to friends and enemies in times of need. There is not a country who gives more aid around the world. If there is name it, because I have never seen it. We even gave aid to Iran after the Bam earthquake.
My thought is not only should we not police the world, we should be so fucking nice to it. We should aid less not more.
[/quote]
Umm… did I say anything about Canada being extravagantly giving in nature?? Everyone here in Canada is complaining about new war-like policy that we’re adopting and leaving the peacemaking one behind.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Skystud wrote:
I liked your opening post hack. I think what needs to be perfected is what nobody wants to talk about. Nation Building.
If people and nations want to create a better world. We should study how to build nations. We spend a lot of money on perfecting their destruction, shouldn’t we spend as much perfecting how to build them?
Why, exactly, does the world fail to do this when we have huge organizations to handle this?
No, we shouldn’t BE nation-building. We should only be getting involved when a government or strong and stable factions in a country solicit our aid. And they have their own comprehensive plan for change, and just need some aid to effectuate it. Or there is a DIRECT threat to our own security that we need to respond to.
[/quote]
I still don’t understand why the US shouldn’t? They have so much they can give. They can reduce military spending, pay off debts, and start helping countries to grow. This will also help to improve the US’ image, then you can have more allies who’ll rally behind you if someone attacks, because only a complete dumbass attacks a charitable country.
[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Skystud wrote:
I liked your opening post hack. I think what needs to be perfected is what nobody wants to talk about. Nation Building.
If people and nations want to create a better world. We should study how to build nations. We spend a lot of money on perfecting their destruction, shouldn’t we spend as much perfecting how to build them?
Why, exactly, does the world fail to do this when we have huge organizations to handle this?
No, we shouldn’t BE nation-building. We should only be getting involved when a government or strong and stable factions in a country solicit our aid. And they have their own comprehensive plan for change, and just need some aid to effectuate it. Or there is a DIRECT threat to our own security that we need to respond to.
I still don’t understand why the US shouldn’t? They have so much they can give. They can reduce military spending, pay off debts, and start helping countries to grow. This will also help to improve the US’ image, then you can have more allies who’ll rally behind you if someone attacks, because only a complete dumbass attacks a charitable country.
What you’ve said sounds way too selfish for me.[/quote]
Because it’s my money. Not the US government’s. I’ll decide where and when I want to be charitable. If, I want to be charitable. The US government shouldn’t be robbing me of one red cent for it’s approved, and non-voluntary, charity programs. There’s nothing selfish about oppossing theft and redistribution.
No, we shouldn’t BE nation-building. We should only be getting involved when a government or strong and stable factions in a country solicit our aid. And they have their own comprehensive plan for change, and just need some aid to effectuate it. Or there is a DIRECT threat to our own security that we need to respond to.
There was a perceived DIRECT threat to our own security that we needed to respond to. Why are we failing to build a nation? I’m in the last third of Woodward’s book and I’m watching the news. I am pretty sure we are doing just that. Building a nation. Shouldn’t we study and invest more for the future of doing just that. Haven’t we learned from our experiences in Vietnam, Somalia and
iraq that that is our weak area?[/quote]
I think we should’ve learned by now that we need to STOP doing that. It’s our weak area. It’s everyone’s weak area because like I said it shouldn’t be done. Except in countries that solicit aid and have their own comprehensive plan but lack the resources, funds, and power to pull it off. Otherwise, the required resources and devotion necessary is just astronomical and impossible. And I think Iraq was a false, drummed up perception. There are mcuh more significant direct threats to the U.S. and world at large. Though it may be a somewhat fair argument to say that we simply can’t handle Iran, China, and North Korea the way we can Iraq. And if we could, we should. Though I don’t believe that there was ever enough evidence that Iraq was such a threat that we should’ve gone in like we did. Not on a threat to nationale security rationale. Maybe to unseat a dictator. Maybe to try to instill democracy. But those were conveniently only emphasized after we were there and didn’t find what we were looking for and our original justification for going in.
[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Skystud wrote:
I liked your opening post hack. I think what needs to be perfected is what nobody wants to talk about. Nation Building.
If people and nations want to create a better world. We should study how to build nations. We spend a lot of money on perfecting their destruction, shouldn’t we spend as much perfecting how to build them?
Why, exactly, does the world fail to do this when we have huge organizations to handle this?
No, we shouldn’t BE nation-building. We should only be getting involved when a government or strong and stable factions in a country solicit our aid. And they have their own comprehensive plan for change, and just need some aid to effectuate it. Or there is a DIRECT threat to our own security that we need to respond to.
I still don’t understand why the US shouldn’t? They have so much they can give. They can reduce military spending, pay off debts, and start helping countries to grow. This will also help to improve the US’ image, then you can have more allies who’ll rally behind you if someone attacks, because only a complete dumbass attacks a charitable country.
What you’ve said sounds way too selfish for me.[/quote]
It’s not selfish. Our interference does little good in most cases where we are actually nation-building. Helping pay off a little debt and reduce military spending is one thing. Instituting a novel form of government in a nation, regardless of the fact that some of the populist may desire it, and providing an ever-present military presence that is the only thing that is keeping everything from crumbling is quite another. It’s not sustainable indefinitely. Something that should’ve been clear at the very beginning.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Skystud wrote:
I liked your opening post hack. I think what needs to be perfected is what nobody wants to talk about. Nation Building.
If people and nations want to create a better world. We should study how to build nations. We spend a lot of money on perfecting their destruction, shouldn’t we spend as much perfecting how to build them?
Why, exactly, does the world fail to do this when we have huge organizations to handle this?
No, we shouldn’t BE nation-building. We should only be getting involved when a government or strong and stable factions in a country solicit our aid. And they have their own comprehensive plan for change, and just need some aid to effectuate it. Or there is a DIRECT threat to our own security that we need to respond to.
I still don’t understand why the US shouldn’t? They have so much they can give. They can reduce military spending, pay off debts, and start helping countries to grow. This will also help to improve the US’ image, then you can have more allies who’ll rally behind you if someone attacks, because only a complete dumbass attacks a charitable country.
What you’ve said sounds way too selfish for me.
Because it’s my money. Not the US government’s. I’ll decide where and when I want to be charitable. If, I want to be charitable. The US government shouldn’t be robbing me of one red cent for it’s approved, and non-voluntary, charity programs. There’s nothing selfish about oppossing theft and redistribution. [/quote]
Well, no-sorry that’s not how it works. We live in a represenative democracy. While the government shouldn’t engage in ill-advised policy initatives and should think very hard about getting involved in unpopular ones genearlly, we do not live in a pure democracy. I’m sure there are many other things you would prefer weren’t spent on. That probably applies to most everyone. That kind of system isn’t workable.
What isn’t workable about anti-wealth redistribution? Free individuals should be free from state coerced ‘charity’. The government should not be in the business of giving out the fruit of my labor to foriegn nations. Tax money doesn’t grow on trees. Real people labor to produce those revenues. In effect, the government is forcing me to labor, so they can 'donate’foriegn aid. If one likes foriegn aid, there’s plenty of private sector organizations to go through.