[quote]conorh wrote:
So we don’t give as much per capita or as a percentage of our income. Who gives a shit? According to that we still gave half as much as all of the EU countries combined “estimated”. Of course by saying estimated they cover their ass for the massive corruption in those socialist hell holes which means probably less of that money got where it was going.
[/quote]
Someone asked and I answered. Apparently some people give a “shit,” since they kept mentioning aid/capita.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
“So because 99% of the world’s countries didn’t agree with the very questionable decision to invade Iraq”
Have you read the list of countries that agreed with the decision to remove saddam?
I’m sorry but 99% is not even ballpark.
“over non-existent WMDs”
Found WMD. Not the stockpiles.
“and non-existent Al Qaeda links”
“Basically, your post is retarded.”
The refrain of those who can’t defend their position.
Prove me wrong.
JeffR
[/quote]
Ah, Jeff, I have read your ‘There was a link between Bin Laden and Saddam, because Fox News says so’ thread.
The trouble is, that goes against everything I have read from other sources.
Bin Laden hated Saddam because Saddam always undermined the power of the clergy in Iraq. Iraq is the most secular of all the large Arab nations. Likewise, Saddam hated Bin Laden’s guts for promoting Islamic Fundamentalism which, despite Saddam’s many heinous crimes, is one thing he got right.
Rumsfeld himself said last year there was no link between Saddam and Bin Laden. Rumsfeld! He’s one of your guys.
When America invaded Iraq, Bin Laden urged the Iraqi people to fight America, but he also did something else: he urged the Iraqi people to overthrow his mortal enemy Saddam.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j021203.html
Bin laden called Saddam an infidel on Al-Jazeera
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0211-11.htm
They weren’t best buddies, despite what Dubya would have you believe.
And as for the WMDs- I think you are the only person in the world who still says they had them.
I could go on and on, Jeff. However, I have to do some work, and get ready for my summer vacation. Tomorrow morning I fly to Thailand for two weeks of sun, sea, and sipping the old cold beer on the beach.
[quote]jayhawk1 wrote:
The OECD numbers exclude most of the ways in which the United States delivers aid to the world. It doesn’t include private charity. It doesn’t include direct relief aid for situations like the tsunami in Southeast Asia. It doesn’t include military operations like the one in Bosnia. It doesn’t include the direct food aid the United States provides, which is well over half of the worldwide total. It doesn’t include funding of world organizations like the World Bank or the U.N. It doesn’t include debt relief, etc., etc., etc.
I don’t know if America is the most generous country in the developed world, but I don’t think we are the stingiest. I think at least some of the accomplishments listed above should be a part of the equation.[/quote]
This attempts to cover a few factors: http://www.cgdev.org/rankingtherich/docs/aid_2004.pdf
But again, estimates and statistics…
I’m not going to post my opinions on this “speech”, however I would like to make a point.
America is far from the country that it was - whether this is good or bad is not the point. The ideals that this country was built on were supported by the vast majority of those living here. In the 200+ years since then, much has changed. Our elections are very close. There are many different and numerous political groups with different ideals. It seems with any decision there are and equal number of groups on each side (or all sides as the case may be). Voicing an opinion is only going to get half to agree and half to disagree. In many cases the problem is that not all the facts are known (i.e. conspiracy theories) but in many cases even when the root facts are agreed on the desired actions have equally oppossed groups/numbers. While it can be debated who is most in agreement with the current or founding principles of this country and whether or not that is a good thing, it’s obvious that most people don’t agree with eachother.
Are we really going to make any progress when whoever is in “charge” has only half the country on their side and the other half completely opposed? It’s obvious that not everyone can be pleased (not that that is the goal). But when you have half the population not agreeing with the current ideals, something is out of whack. It’s a tug of war with equal strength on each side. The rope won’t move at all until someone against us all comes and snips the rope.
I’m not necessarily for compromise (besides I don’t want to give opinions anyway) that I’m talking about - compromise can be good or bad. But when all these arguments and opinions break out what are we really going on about? Is it just to vent how we feel? Is it really to try and convince someone? Which I bet is pretty hard on an internet forum. It just seems pointless to me - and the main reason I hardly post on opinion-based topics. I have a voice and sometimes I choose to voice it to let others know of its existence, but would it really be worthwhile to get into a discussion about my politics or ethics? It just seems like all this arguing (not just on this forum) is a wasted and we’d be much better off taking an enrichment class or something.
I’ve obviously ranted and written my opinions (I appreciate the irony), but really, how am I supposed to respond to these kinds of posts. Yes I don’t have to, but why does anyone? If it’s just to type an opinion why does everyone get all argumentative over it. And if it is to just argue it seems like many people are missing the point.
I have strong opinions but I think the Jehova’s witnesses have learned - you can’t force them on someone who isn’t receptive.
I guess I’m just asking - what’s the motivation for posting threads like these? It’s either going to result in name-calling because of differing opinions with no adjustments, or bickering over certain “facts” that may or may not be true. Maybe I’m missing something - but does anyone actually think these “discussions” are productive? Has anyone changed their mind from one?
So to stay on track with this topic at least - there are other threads on each of the points made in this “speech” that can be “discussed” there. Is this thread then only to say “I agree”, “I disagree”, or “Before reading this I had a diametrically opposed position, but now I completely agree with these points - thank you for helping me see the light!”
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
So because 99% of the world’s countries didn’t agree with the very questionable decision to invade Iraq over non-existent WMDs and non-existent Al Qaeda links you dismiss them completely? Maybe if 99% of the world’s countries think the same way, they are onto something.
…
Basically, your post is retarded.
[/quote]
Pretty quick with the insults there. Now that you have joined the old boys club I thought wou would have mellowed.
Perhaps many countries did not agree with our rationale to liberate Iraq from a madman. That is cool.
I think even France would now agree that a stable Iraq free of “insurgents” would be better for the world than having Iraq fall apart completely.
Why do they still badmouth our effort and refuse to help putting down the insurgents?
Let me ask you, deanosumo, do you want the “insurgents” to win in Iraq or would you prefer that the democratically elected government in Iraq survive?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Let me ask you, deanosumo, do you want the “insurgents” to win in Iraq or would you prefer that the democratically elected government in Iraq survive?
[/quote]
Of course I want the insurgents defeated and the democratic govt. to survive.
That still doesn’t justify the war though, Zap. You don’t start a war for X and when X doesn’t appear to exist say it was for Y. Oh, I forgot all the dead bodies and billions of dollars and little muslim kiddies learning to hate us.
[quote]
This attempts to cover a few factors: http://www.cgdev.org/rankingtherich/docs/aid_2004.pdf
But again, estimates and statistics…[/quote]
LOL, brings out the big guns with the imposing scholarly work which no one will read. I scanned through it, obviously briefly. I would have to sit down with this for a while to get the gist. Again though, I have to note that this study does not account for most of the factors I mentioned earlier.
FYI, in the future I would link to a Foreign Policy or Foreign Affairs (for ex.) article that cuts to the chase so that you don’t have to have a Political Economy PHD to comprehend whatever points this document is attempting to communicate…
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Let me ask you, deanosumo, do you want the “insurgents” to win in Iraq or would you prefer that the democratically elected government in Iraq survive?
Of course I want the insurgents defeated and the democratic govt. to survive.
That still doesn’t justify the war though, Zap. You don’t start a war for X and when X doesn’t appear to exist say it was for Y. Oh, I forgot all the dead bodies and billions of dollars and little muslim kiddies learning to hate us.
[/quote]
I see the liberation of Iraq as a component of the war on terror, you see it as a mistake.
Either way we are now fighting the very terror organizations that we are supposed to be.
You may want to tone down on your criticisms of the war effort. You often come across a supporter of the bad guys.
We are in it, lets win it. If you want to vote Democrat in the next election, go ahead and do it.
[quote]jayhawk1 wrote:
LOL, brings out the big guns with the imposing scholarly work which no one will read. I scanned through it, obviously briefly. I would have to sit down with this for a while to get the gist. Again though, I have to note that this study does not account for most of the factors I mentioned earlier.
FYI, in the future I would link to a Foreign Policy or Foreign Affairs (for ex.) article that cuts to the chase so that you don’t have to have a Political Economy PHD to comprehend whatever points this document is attempting to communicate…
[/quote]
From http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/trade/files/98-916.pdf :
A pie-chart of US aid program composition.
Economic Political/Security - 26.1% (In 2004, Congress appropriated $5.4 billion)
Development (bilateral) - 30.1% ($6.2 billion)
Multilateral - 8.2% ($1.7 billion)
Humanitarian - 12.3% ($2.55 billion)
Military - 23.2% ($4.8 billion)
Total - $20.65 billion (A later table gives a more accurate figure of $20.673 billion)
From Official Development Assistance increases further - but 2006 targets still a challenge - OECD : ODA/GNI ratio rose from 0.15% to 0.16% in 2004 from a $19 billion ODA. One, ODA apparently includes much more than bilateral development type funds. Two, ODA and total funds appropriated by Congress do not differ by a huge amount. A 0.16% ratio would mean a GNI of $11.875 trillion, which I used in my calculations (World Bank puts this at $12.151 trillion for 2004 which would drive my calculations down). With the $20.673 billion figure, the ratio would be 0.174%. A table towards the end reports this number to be 0.18%.
Foreign Operations Appropriations for 2004, including Iraq funds - $38.69 billion. Now we’re talking. That would make it 0.326%. That still puts the US behind Finland, UK, Switzerland, Ireland, Belgium, France, Portugal, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Luxembourg, and Norway
( http://www.globalissues.org/images/NetODA2004.jpg ). Unfortunately, that also puts the US behind the 2004 figure of 0.36% for the EU.
2004 is actually one of the biggest recent years, since foreign aid has actually been declining.
Foreign Assistance as a % of GDP
“As a percent of gross national product, prior to the mid-1960s, in most years foreign aid represented over 1% and exceeded 2% during the Marshall Plan period. Following the end of the Vietnam War, foreign assistance as a percent of GDP ranged between 0.5% and 0.25% for the next 20 ears. The program size dropped further to its lowest level ever in FY1997/1998 and FY2001/2002 (0.16%). Foreign aid as a percent of GDP rose somewhat the past two years, averaging about 0.2% but remains near the all time low (Figure 8).”
Soooo…I guess tack on private aid (and maybe subtract debt forgiveness?) and do the same for all the other OECD donor countries.
You know, during America’s Revolutionary war against England, France provided arms, ships, money, and men to the American colonies. The French Navy was a deciding factor in the American victory.
The Marquis de Lafayette, a close friend of George Washington - was a high-ranking officer in the American army, and he was one of many.
Edouard Rene Lefebvre de Laboulaye was a scholar, jurist, abolitionist and a leader of the French “liberals,” the political group dedicated to establishing a French republican government modeled on America’s constitution. In light of France and America’s shared history and love of liberty, Laboulaye called the countries “the two sisters.”
This was the inspiration that would become the Statue of Liberty.
I mean, seriously, France is possibly America’s most important historic ally.
When they felt you had a legitimate war to fight, they were the ones who got your back.
Benjamin Franklin was the ambassador to France.
Thomas Jefferson was the ambassador to France.
James Monroe was the ambassador to France.
Gee whiz, the Founding Fathers of your country sure did love France!
But clearly the past few years and the fact that France does not agree with the current administration’s policies negates with the fact that they’re the ones who helped you found the entire damned country and then later created the statue of liberty which proudly stands in the most famous harbour in the entire world.
I submit the point of view from a classic book called “War is a Racket”. It was written by a marine corps general who was at the time of his death the most decorated marine in all of history. Here’s what this general and two-time medal of honor winner had to say:
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National city Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902?1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.”
I also submit the words of former President of the United States and General, Eisenhower:
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
[quote]John K wrote:
You know, during America’s Revolutionary war against England, France provided arms, ships, money, and men to the American colonies. The French Navy was a deciding factor in the American victory.
The Marquis de Lafayette, a close friend of George Washington - was a high-ranking officer in the American army, and he was one of many.
Edouard Rene Lefebvre de Laboulaye was a scholar, jurist, abolitionist and a leader of the French “liberals,” the political group dedicated to establishing a French republican government modeled on America’s constitution. In light of France and America’s shared history and love of liberty, Laboulaye called the countries “the two sisters.”
This was the inspiration that would become the Statue of Liberty.
I mean, seriously, France is possibly America’s most important historic ally.
When they felt you had a legitimate war to fight, they were the ones who got your back.
Benjamin Franklin was the ambassador to France.
Thomas Jefferson was the ambassador to France.
James Monroe was the ambassador to France.
Gee whiz, the Founding Fathers of your country sure did love France!
But clearly the past few years and the fact that France does not agree with the current administration’s policies negates with the fact that they’re the ones who helped you found the entire damned country and then later created the statue of liberty which proudly stands in the most famous harbour in the entire world.
[/quote]
John K
France was an important benefactor in the Revolutuinary war. The French blockade sealed our victory and their contribution of massive stockpiles of gunpowder was one of the major components of our victory.
It was clearly in France’s National interest to support an enemy of Britian. They were historical enemies.
France offered little in the way of military support after that, primarily due to their own revolution…and alittle fellow named Napolean.
Skip forward to WW1. On the eve of defeat following a massive German offensive the US supplies fresh troops and munitions to France and England. 30 yrs. later we invade France and drive the Germans out…again. Debt repaid 2X over.
In the 60’s France pulls out of Nato and kicks the Americans out…who are there to now protect them from the Russians.
France, like the US, acts in their own National interest. France actually opposes US hegonomy at every turn possible. France will no longer be treated as a dependable ally by this administration or most likely the next few. The right thing to do was quietly decline. They went over the line and will be punished for it by the US accordingly.
That’s my opinion.
I did read the book you referenced. We have come along way. Read Tommy Franks book “AMerican Soldier”. We have come a long way since the turn of the century. Long way.
dean, first of all, this shouldn’t have been in this thread.
Oh, well.
“Rumsfeld himself said last year there was no link between Saddam and Bin Laden. Rumsfeld! He’s one of your guys.
BBC NEWS | Americas | Rumsfeld questions Saddam-Bin Laden link”
From the same article!!!
"Several hours after his appearance, Mr Rumsfeld issued a statement saying his comments had been “regrettably misunderstood” and that he had acknowledged there were ties between Osama Bin Laden and Iraq based upon CIA intelligence.
This included “solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad”, he said."
Frankly, dean, you are unbelievable.
“When America invaded Iraq, Bin Laden urged the Iraqi people to fight America, but he also did something else: he urged the Iraqi people to overthrow his mortal enemy Saddam.
One Battlefield, Two Wars, by Justin Raimondo”
I read your link here. Before you go on vacation, could you please link the official, final translation. There appears to be serious doubt as to your above comments. I find this to be interesting.
"Bin laden called Saddam an infidel on Al-Jazeera
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0211-11.htm
They weren’t best buddies, despite what Dubya would have you believe."
I couldn’t get this link to work. Either way, that is not proof of anything.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
“And as for the WMDs- I think you are the only person in the world who still says they had them.”
You know that is false. I’ve posted an entire thread about that. Read Duefler. As I keep saying, no stockpiles does NOT mean no WMD. It also doesn’t mean that he wasn’t trying to reconstitute the STOCKPILES, he was.
Either way, the WMD issue was going to be a serious problem for us sooner or later. A pinch of prevention…
“I could go on and on, Jeff. However, I have to do some work, and get ready for my summer vacation. Tomorrow morning I fly to Thailand for two weeks of sun, sea, and sipping the old cold beer on the beach.”
I want you to go on and on. Don’t drink too much, I have too much work to do on your mind. Don’t cloud it with nattie light.
Have a good time!!!
JeffR
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
That’s right.
How much aid is Japan giving out–per capita? Germany? Russia…
We still lead the world so get off your America sucks soap box.
Japan and Germany both give more per capita than America. Japan, in fact, actually gives more in total despite having half of America’s population. But that’s beside the point.
I’m not on an America sucks soap box. Should one not be able to criticize something? Especially a post as simplistically jingoistic as the one above.
[/quote]
I read the post as being simplistic and being more for imagery than reality. I think it rings true as to what alot of people feel. We cover alot of asses out there, and those that don’t return the favor in times of need should be cut off.
Did you read this like Sen. Kennedy was going to try to introduce it or something?
It’s easy to take reads like these and then put reality up against them. That was not the original intent.
It’s astounding to me that the liberals who say they support the War on Terror, are still against the Iraq War.
They obviously haven’t ever heard of the concept of attraction. Or bait.
Let me translate for you: An emerging democracy in the middle of tyrants and dictators is like a bright beam attracting all sorts of predatory insects.
You people do realize that the majority of the attacks are now aimed directly at the Iraqis, don’t you? What in the hell does that tell you?
It’s a power struggle. Please tell me that if the Iraqi’s could have overthrown saddam on their own, that the same violence wouldn’t have happened?
I give all the credit in the WORLD to the Americans, their allies, and the Iraqis who are giving their money, efforts, and very lives to defeat these scum.
JeffR
dean,
I got your last link to work.
READ THIS FROM THE SAME ARTICLE:
bIN lADEN SAID THIS:
"While urging Muslims to support the Iraqi people and repel any attack on their country, the tape said Saddam’s secular “socialist” government had lost credibility.
“Socialists are infidels wherever they are,” the statement said. But it added: “It does not hurt that in current circumstances, the interests of Muslims coincide with the interests of the socialists in the war against crusaders.”
THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND.
Read it again. That is what I’ve been saying. bin laden (may he burn in hell) is confirming my contention all along.
JeffR
i agree with even though i’m a frenchman and believe me i feel so ashamed that my country did not stand alongside your country when MR BUSH asked for most of the european countries to go to irak but like some friends of mine what can we do about it? and believe me i stand for your ideas but in france a guy like me is considered as a racist i am only a nationalist but in france it’s not a good way of thinking sadly most of my countrymen are blind
“… in politics nothing is accidental. If something happens, be assured it was
planned this way”
We shall unleash the Nihilists and Atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effects of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will be from that moment without compass, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view, a manifestation which will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.
Illustrious Albert Pike 33?
Letter 15 August 1871
Addressed to Grand Master Guiseppie Mazzini 33?
Archives British Museum
London, England
Fictions are necessary to the people, and the Truth becomes deadly to those who are not strong enough to contemplate it in all its brilliance. In fact, what can there be in common between the vile multitude and sublime wisdom? The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason.
“The world can therefore seize the opportunity (Persian Gulf crisis) to fulfill the long-held promise of a New World Order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind.”
George Herbert Walker Bush
[quote]chrismcl wrote:
Wouldn’t it be great to turn on the TV and hear any US President, democrat or rebublican, give the following speech?
To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to
speak Arabic.
God bless America. Thank you and good night.
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English,
thank a soldier.
[/quote]
A president issueing this statement would not last two weeks after issuing it. You obviously have no idea what diplomacy is or why it exists. If you think this country would be able to stand alone if something bigger than terrorism were to happen you are completly misguided. As it is we are stretched very thin and we are only fighting on two fronts. You mock the rest of the world when as it is atleast 50% of this country disagrees with the current administration–would you have us ignored, also? No democrat would ever issue this stament. No person in their right mind would issue this stament. No person in their right mind would want to hear it.
sumalee wrote:
“i agree with even though i’m a frenchman and believe me i feel so ashamed that my country did not stand alongside your country when MR BUSH asked for most of the european countries to go to irak but like some friends of mine what can we do about it? and believe me i stand for your ideas but in france a guy like me is considered as a racist i am only a nationalist but in france it’s not a good way of thinking sadly most of my countrymen are blind”
Thank you, friend.
You want to know what is even more sad?
You are the first Frenchman I have seen since 2001 to support the cause of freedom and give an honest assessment of what your countrymen put you through.
Thank you, again.
JeffR
