Am I a disheartened nazi or a good rationalist?

[mEds]

I dont know about you guys but i say fuck Iraq. I mean yes they're poor and sddam was a bad guy but that money the US is giving to Iraq AND ti afghanistan IMO is unneccesary. Other countries such as China, India and especially African countires need the money more desparately. Or at the minimum just give money to all countries who are starving (like that will ever happen.) I dont know but seems like a waste to put ALL that fucking money into 1 country. We should give away way more as it stands...

[Babylon5 Crusade]

Um the US is the planet's biggest donor of Cash to other counters in the world. Bigger donations than the UN and the EU combined.

[Urban Rubble]

Yes, they are also the biggest donor of funds to corrupt regimes in foreign countries. Also, the biggest sponsor or terrorism.

[mEds]

True. US could donate more, raise taxes on LARGE corporation etc. Greed nation. :(

[(*]

Originally posted by Babylon5 [email protected] 10 2003, 12:49 AM
Um the US is the planet's biggest donor of Cash to other counters in the world. Bigger donations than the UN and the EU combined.
The US does not give as much as they should. In relation to their GDP. In fact, they give the least out of all the industrialized nations (as the following article mentions).


more info (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp)

[cubist]

The US is also the most in debt country of them all.

we shouldn't have blown there country apart in the first place, we should have killed saddam in the first gulf war least that one was justified.


"lets bomb texas the have oil too"

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 12:11 PM


we shouldn't have blown there country apart in the first place, we should have killed saddam in the first gulf war least that one was justified.


"lets bomb texas the have oil too"
can't say i disagree.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

First of all, most U.S. aid is military aid. We do not provide nearly as much food and medicine as we do guns and bombs. Our humanitarian aid, in proportion to our total wealth, is dead last among industrialized nations.

cephas,
"...we should have killed saddam in the first gulf war least that one was justified."

I disagree. The first U.S. war on Iraq was not justified. First of all, the border between Iraq and Kuwait is an arbitrary one. It was decided by the retreating British Empire. Second of all, at best, the U.S. was "unfucking" the system we fucked up in the first place. We GAVE Saddam the weapons he used to invade Kuwait. The blood of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait is on American hands in addition to Saddam's. Third of all, this was war for oil, not democracy or human rights. When Kuwait was "liberated" from the despot Saddam, we delivered it to the domestic despots who had ruled before. Passing a land and its people from one tyrant to another is hardly a liberation. We attacked Saddam because he had become too much of a nationalist to serve his American masters. The ruling class of Kuwait is content to whore its oil to the U.S., and that is why they were restored.

Kuwaitis were murdered in the invasion, Iraqis were murdered by overwhelming U.S. force, American and British soldiers were murdered fighting the imperialists' war against Iraq... the only real winners were the American and British corporate interests, and their loyal Kuwaiti ruling class lapdog. All of the blood spilled served only to maintain the West's iron grip on Arab oil.

[Babylon5 Crusade]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 12:11 PM
"lets bomb texas the have oil too"
Hey
http://www.dontmesswithtexas.org/images/products/order_bump_dmwt.gif


<-- Once a Texas Native

[chamo]

I disagree. The first U.S. war on Iraq was not justified. First of all, the border between Iraq and Kuwait is an arbitrary one. It was decided by the retreating British Empire. Second of all, at best, the U.S. was "unfucking" the system we fucked up in the first place. We GAVE Saddam the weapons he used to invade Kuwait. The blood of Iraq&#39;s invasion of Kuwait is on American hands in addition to Saddam&#39;s. Third of all, this was war for oil, not democracy or human rights. When Kuwait was "liberated" from the despot Saddam, we delivered it to the domestic despots who had ruled before. Passing a land and its people from one tyrant to another is hardly a liberation. We attacked Saddam because he had become too much of a nationalist to serve his American masters. The ruling class of Kuwait is content to whore its oil to the U.S., and that is why they were restored.


The war was justified in the eyes of the UN council because the USA got a young girl to give evidence saying that the Iraqi&#39;s invading Kuwait went into hospital&#39;s and threw babies on the floor. Turns out she was the daughter of the US embassador to Kuwait, though this was only admitted after the Gulf War.

And Afghanistan is the second poorest country in the world, donations are necessary, as long as they are not plunged into third world debt like Africa.

[mEds]

Someone please ban that f00lio babylon5.

[praxis1966]

First of all, U&#036; foriegn aid is never without strings attached. I would refer you to the chapters on post-World War II Italy and Greece in William Blum&#39;s work Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II (http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm). There are more examples than just those, but those were a couple of the first.

Secondly, I have a Marine friend who just came back from Iraq. Most of the large arms he saw came from India by way of Malasya and then Pakistan. There were, however, medium range Silkworm missiles from China (like the one that hit the mall in Kuwait), Scuds and Migs from the former Soviet Union, as well as Kalishnikov AK-47s from the Soviet Union.

I&#39;m not saying to alleviate the U&#036; of culpability in this situation, quite the contrary. In the late 1970s we supported the rise of the Baath Party, when Saddam was more or less a mid level Party official. Throughout the 1980s, massive funding was given to the Hussein autocracy in exchange for information on terrorists such as Abbu Abbas (Discovery Times Channel documentary "Blowback," centering on the negative ramifications of espionage programs worldwide). This money was almost certainly used to fund Hussein&#39;s purchase of these weapons.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, that was largely our fault as well. The CIA was in country at the beginning of the Soviet/Afghani confict. They formed alliances with the most radical of fundamentalist factions (one which would later become the Taliban government). The CIA supplied the shoulder launch Stinger missiles that everyone was so worried about earlier in the year. The CIA funded them with millions if not billions of dollars. The CIA also set up the training camps that were later used to train al-Quaeda terrorists. To quote a former agent speaking in the Blowback documentary "My attitude was, get the weapons in the hands of the shooters and truly let God sort them out." (This in reference to playing all sides against the middle.) Meanwhile, and this is what the agents didn&#39;t take into consideration, in the mosques the clergy was preaching the CIA as "the black hand of the Great Satan, the United States" line.

We&#39;ve seen what our work in the Middle East has done for the U&#036;. I&#39;m just curious to see what our misdealings in South and Central America will do.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Excellent post, Comrade praxis1966&#33; You did an outstanding job of illustrating how cynical U.S. politicians are when they talk about the aim of U.S. foreign policy being to bring human rights and democracy to the world while fending off threats to the U.S.

Capitalists, imperialists, and militarists have joined together within the military-industrial complex. Their objective seems to be to seize resources, give out loans at tremendous interest, and annihilate anyone who opposes what can be called "neo-liberalism." By financing so many shady characters, we are sure to create enemies. We can then fight new wars to save the world from the monsters we created&#33;

Capitalists get to profit from weapons sales and forced reconstruction of lost infrastructure, imperialists get to dominate the world, and militarists get more wars. By fighting regular wars, we also get to frequently remind the world that it is the United States who reigns supreme (a sort of political and economic tool of intimidation).

[the SovieT]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 04:41 AM
I dont know about you guys but i say fuck Iraq. I mean yes they&#39;re poor and sddam was a bad guy but that money the US is giving to Iraq AND ti afghanistan IMO is unneccesary. Other countries such as China, India and especially African countires need the money more desparately. Or at the minimum just give money to all countries who are starving (like that will ever happen.) I dont know but seems like a waste to put ALL that fucking money into 1 country. We should give away way more as it stands...
dont worry your not a nazi..

just a fucking idiot...




since wghen is USA giving money to Iraq or Afghan you moron?
oh yea the bombs and guns cost some money.. following that logic USA spent millions with both countrys...

listen kid, this is the reality..

USA invaded those countrys, it didnt "Liberated" them, it didnt gave the money or food, simply invaded, took the national treasure and resources, replaced the "evil" goverment for a one that is even worse, for instances see Afghanistan.. is it democratic?
is it free?
is it even near anything related to modern?

NO..
its still the same shit hole it was under the taliban regime..
the difrence is now they are even MORE poor...

the idea that USA are actually rebuilding those countrys is purelly stupid..
what it is doing is allowing the drilling companys to operate there and extract the max aount of oil and any other precious thing that country may hold..

the same thing happens in Iraq, the "evil" regim of Saddam is now replaced by the american "democraticly" "elected" goverment, a goverment composed by NORTH AMERICAN chairmans and such..
and what was the new goverment top priority?
the operation of the oil rigs and such..


as for the other countrys..
China´s problem isnt hunger or anything like it, its poverty and bad conditions (also corruption and a capitalist/revisionist estalo-assholist goverment)

India suffers from ocasional floods and pests, not to mention the decadent conditions on the big citys and some villages, but not particulary hunger..

do you even KNOW some geography kid?



as for the USA giving money to other countrys, yes thats a nice utopy..
i mean USA is the first guns partner of those third world countrys, it armed UNITA and several otehr terrorist organisations of central/north africa and will continue to sell them guns as long as they give them natural resources such as precious minerals and (again) OIL....

[mEds]

When the fuck did I say US liberated iraq ya moron. I just think its a waste to ask congress to spend money on iraq. I defintely think the us should NOT have a presence down there. thanks for misrepresenting my post moron. What my post was intened to mean is that if we were to give money to any countries it should be those i mentioned. And yes. CHINA DOES have starving people.

[the SovieT]

I dont know about you guys but i say fuck Iraq
yes this sentence had the best intentions..

idiot...

[cubist]

i second that

but we must stay in iraq we can&#39;t let this breeding ground for anti western terror exist it must be rectified by the UN before it is too late, i don&#39;t like the western world and its capitalist ideologies but it is them we must relie to act in a sensible and humanitarian manor (ignoring the stupidity of the actions made by US/UK in march this year)