[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[primitive]

Urban myths:
US foreign aid financing the 3rd world, is one of the premium urban myths of our times.
While the actual value in USD is great, large parts of it can hardly be described as aid. Also per capita value is less then for most other rich/western countries.
Here you can get a breakdown:

http://www.peacehost.net/mdpc/USAIDvsPoverty.html

I know many of you will claim this link is biased, and you are probably right. But it is still much closer to the truth than what some of you obviously believe.

(Guess my cred is gone forever now, since I promised not to post in this thread again )

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by SamuraiProgrammer:
I felt that Reagan won a landslide victory in part because the public was tired of how Carter's foreign policy was making us a laughing stock.

Let's not kid ourselves. US Presidents are not elected for foreign policy, they are elected on economic issues. The vast majority of Americans don't give a whit about anything but their pocket books. Reagan wasn't elected because of foreign policy failures of Carter. Reagan had no foreign policy experience before he was elected. And foreign policy was a very small part of his '80 election platform. It was more of an issue in his '84 reelection campaign against Mondale, but only because he made it so. It still had little impact on the voters. In '80 he was elected because of the unemployment and rampant inflation of the late 70's that, rightly or wrongly, was blamed on Carter. He was reelected in '84 for the same reason Clinton was reelected in '96, he didn't screw it up too badly.

The only US president in the Last 50 years with any foreign policy going in was Bush Sr. (Yeah I know he's not really Sr, but it's easier to say then George Herbert Walker Bush. ) Maybe JFK if you count living in England as the son of an Ambasador as foreign policy experience.

The truth that most americans don't realize is that the President has very little positive or negative impact on the economy. It's affected by policy changes to some extent, but those changes take years to have any measurable effect. And usually even then the effect they have is negligble. It's like throwing rocks in a stream. They might cause some ripples on the surface, but they aren't going to change the course all that much.

Geoschmo

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:


Oh and I've noticed my ranking has dropped, all I have to say about that is that I couldn't care less.

Don't worry about that, mine dropped too in this thread.
I guess some people don't like my anti-Bush anti-Saddam anti-Europe anti-corporations Pro-Israel political stance.

I guess some people are rating based in anything but SE4.

[primitive]

Thermodyne:
Here is a page I think very few people will dismiss as leftist propaganda.
Scroll down to Economic aid (Military aid is taken out).

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...esanddefs.html

$ 6.9 Billion, That’s a whooping 25 bucks per capita.

I know private American organizations do a great job.

World Bank:
Donations to the World Bank can hardly be considered Aid. I think Andrès will have a few chosen word to say on this. The World Bank together with some local politicians will have to take most/all of the blame for the wrecking of the Argentinean economy.
And, Norway and EU and the other OECD contries are equal partners with USA in the World Bank, so this is not USA bashing.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by primitive:
Thermodyne:
Here is a page I think very few people will dismiss as leftist propaganda.
Scroll down to Economic aid (Military aid is taken out).

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...esanddefs.html

$ 6.9 Billion, That’s a whooping 25 bucks per capita.

I know private American organizations do a great job.

World Bank:
Donations to the World Bank can hardly be considered Aid. I think Andrès will have a few chosen word to say on this. The World Bank together with some local politicians will have to take most/all of the blame for the wrecking of the Argentinean economy.
And, Norway and EU and the other OECD contries are equal partners with USA in the World Bank, so this is not USA bashing.

Yep the fact book is a good source. Only problem I have with it is that it tends to be badly out of date and at one time had a reputation of skewing the data so as to fit current policy. 25 bucks per capita is not that bad a number. And the figures are based on a year where we bound to a deficit reduction budget. Take a look at the recipient’s pages; it is interesting to see just who gets how much. I wonder how much of it get siphoned off into the pockets of the politicians?

As for Argentina, they barrowed the money, so they have the responsibility to take care of the debt. Corruption and stupid politicians are no excuse. If they were willing to make significant economic reforms, then I doubt they would have to make any payments in the near term. The loans were intended for economic development, not urban renewal and personal enrichment. This is a problem that will have to be dealt with by the people of Argentena. It is also not a problem that they suffer from alone. Here in the US, many states also seem to have the same problem.

[ February 27, 2003, 16:04: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by SamuraiProgrammer:
What I really want is for you to realize that this country must find a way to make sure that 9/11 does not happen again.

That you can never achieve. Not in an civil society were we all value our freedom to mind our own business without government interference in everything. To make sure that it will never happen you have to at least install a totalitarian government. You might walk the streets safe again without fear of being a crime victim in such a state but when they ring your doorbell to get you, you might wonder if it was worth it. Mind you, my grandma and grandpa have lived through this. Never again.
If you "just" want to reduce the likeliness of such an act of terrorism, that's a good thing to do. But will you reach it that aim in the end by invading Iraq?
I don't think so. When the US attacks Iraq, the ranks of the terrorists will once again grow with dissatisfied and hateful people willing to bLast themselves into orbit if they can take just one US citizen with them.
What about the Kurds in northern Iraq? The already are independent from Baghdad because of US military air support and have formed an autonomic northern Kurdish Iraq. Now the Kurds fear that in the wake of the US troops the Turks will come in and never leave again. They are even ready to fight the Turks! For them it's not a blessing when the US invades but maybe the end to their very young government and freedom.
Iraq exile opposition is on the barricades because the Bush administration will install a military government over Iraq to form it into an democratic state - without the Iraqi people the US prepared and supported for this event since the Last gulf war.
But if you really must go to Iraq, please, make it right, don’t leave premature! If you really want to establish a solid democracy in Iraq you have to de-baath it and stay there until some democratic culture has been established. Are you willing to stay that long? Are you willing to stay there when most of the population hate your guts? Bush has already announced that he won't stay long in Iraq (2 years IIRC). Make that 20 years to make it right. In an hostile environment. Where no one, not the people in Iraq nor the neighbours like you. With Northern Korea knocking on the nuclear door. And Osama still on the run.
I hope for the best but fear for the worst…

[Askan Nightbringer]

Originally posted by SamuraiProgrammer:
Bullies never seem to attack the strong, only the weak.

Ahhh...now I get it. That's why we're going to war with Iraq.

Askan

[dogscoff]

Wow, interesting figures Primitive. You have lost no cred with me...

[Wanderer]

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:
I think that the chose of target in 9-11 was clear enough. It was not the military, not the government, not the innocent civilians (just a little collateral damage), the WTC was canter and symbol of the large neo-imperialistic corporations.

Erm, are you saying the Pentagon isn't a military or governmental centre?

Where was the fourth plane headed? The White House? We'll probably never know for sure.

Does working for Cantor Fitzgerald make you lose your status as a civilian and make you a valid target? I think not.

Of course, the same applies to all the Iraqi civilians. The difference is that they won't be being targetted deliberately, assuming that the plan of action this time round is to avoid targetting all those baby milk factories that Baghdad seems to be stuffed with.

Actually, winning hearts and minds will be much easier if the infrastructure is kept intact and civilian deaths are kept to a minimum - but will the military planners accept the increased risk to the invading troops? (Iraqi soldiers will be able to defend better if their power stations, bridges, roads etc. are all intact)

That's what they consider their enemy is, what they see as imperialistic companies ravaging their people and the country that supports them.

Saudi Sheikh: "Damn infidel Westerners buying my oil for ever more ludicrous prices. I'll have to buy my wives another 200 cars. Someone phone BMW."

Saudi Sheikh's impoverished kitchen boy: "Yes, damn those decadent infidels for ravaging our country"*

It's too easy to blame foreign companies. Not that they're spotless, a force for good or anything like that (I seem to have reason to curse Micro$oft every day - if only Word wasn't so awkward to use at times).

Imperialism means your colonies fund you, not the other way!

Erm, hang on a minute. The British ploughed a lot of money into their colonies on the basis that they'd be able to buy more British goods. I think the Americans do much the same, except they have very few actual colonies (do McDonald's restaurants count as American soil? )

Even if everything is this war goes nicely... Will there be fewer terrorists willing to attack the US?

No. There will almost certainly be more.

If the next actions after Iraq are to get North Korea to stop f***ing about (dunno what the official diplomatic term is) and to make serious attempts to get a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian situation, things may change for the better. But it will take some time.

Originally posted by SamuraiProgrammer:
What I really want is for you to realize that this country must find a way to make sure that 9/11 does not happen again.

Hmmmm. Not sure how to respond to that.

I'm glad that the US is awake to the fact that firing the odd cruise missile at Iraq isn't a decent long-term solution, but it's a pity that it took such a horrific event to do it. It's also a pity the PR war has been almost completely lost (the Axis of Evil speech, threatening Iraq before going to the UN, having George Bush as president).

Personally, I think whoever has the biggest stick should wave it rather than sit back and do nothing. Of course, it was much easier when Victoria was on the throne, our stick wasn much larger and the enemy carried nothing more dangerous than sharpened fruit...

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
While carriers allow a country to readily project force in to the far flung regions of the world, the task of protecting them can actually be greater than what they cost to deploy. England came to this conclusion before the Falklands war. Then when the miniscule Argentinean Air force was able to repeatedly strike major blows against the British fleet, it was decided that the carriers were not able to operate when relying on fleet units for air cover. The result is that the British will close the book on Fleet Air Operations.

Actually, the British government has just confirmed who's going to build our next carriers (mostly the French it seems ). They're going to substantially larger than the current V/STOL class, but not as large as the American carriers. I think they're also going to operate aircraft designed jointly by the US and UK, although I might have got my wires crossed.

And yes, it was the worst possible timing to scrap the large carriers a few years before we had to fight in the kind of conflict they were perfect for.

---

* not a very good joke, sorry. For a better one, watch the 'What have the Romans ever done for us?' scene from Monty Python's Life Of Brian.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by primitive:
Urban myths:
US foreign aid financing the 3rd world, is one of the premium urban myths of our times.
While the actual value in USD is great, large parts of it can hardly be described as aid. Also per capita value is less then for most other rich/western countries.
Here you can get a breakdown:

http://www.peacehost.net/mdpc/USAIDvsPoverty.html

I know many of you will claim this link is biased, and you are probably right. But it is still much closer to the truth than what some of you obviously believe.

(Guess my cred is gone forever now, since I promised not to post in this thread again )

Which parts of it are not aid? If you are a country like Israel and have several countries that would like to see you dead, isn’t military aid just as valuable as humanitarian aid? Also the numbers reflect the budgeted amounts; a lot of America’s humanitarian aid is not budgeted, being delivered as needed to meet circumstances. And a lot of economic aid is distributed through the World Bank; I didn’t see any figures for contributions and guarantees for that. Also the payments to the UN are missing as are the numbers for the donations from the private sector. Statistics can be use to make a case for either side, and should only be used for comparison purposes. I doubt the authors would have been able to make their case if they had used the complete numbers and also listed the top 20 countries besides the US. America has great wealth, but this does no entitle the rest of the world to a share of it. We work hard here to generate it, harder that a lot of you know. And in times like these, the money could be put to good use here at home. All but one European nation never repaid money owed to the US from WWII. We forgave these debts. We also did not share in the reparations after WWI. When it comes to charity, I think the US does its share.

Also since it was on the seven o’clock news Last night, I guess it is Ok to say that the air war started 8 weeks ago. We have been aggressively taking down Iraq’s air defense systems in the south at the rate of 100 sorties a week. And the rules of engagement are scheduled to change from FWFO to FOW this weekend. In the Last 10 days over 300 sorties were flown.

[ February 27, 2003, 12:52: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]