Bush 'Undermining UN with Aid Coalition' ?

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 13 Jan 2005 15:38

So many things about this disaster-aid crap pisses me off.

But, it gives me the opportunity to challenge conventional wisdoms, and make points you can't deal with.

It will take several posts to piss off everybody.

1.

Pledged money = nothing

Pledge all you want, if you think it makes you look good.

Until those governments cough up the actual dollars, it's just hot air.

2.

If we listened to the "generous" nations, we would not have built the aircraft carrier, ships, and helicopters that delivered food and water and medical help DIRECTLY to the needy.

Thousands of lives will be saved by ACTUAL assistance, while the U.N. worries about room service in their 4-star hotel.

The U.S. should be able to deduct the cost of the aircraft carrier from other nations contributions, and put those dollars in the U.S. column.

Those nations should have bought aircraft carriers of their own, so they could better deliver aid.

3. How much of the money will be grifted ..... to buy whiskey, adolescent male prostitutes, and Viagra?

Does aid sent to these governments reach the people when they need it, or reach them ever?

How many crooked charities are stealing money hand over fist?

How much will be spent to revive the underage-prostitution capitals of the world?

-n

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 14 Jan 2005 11:11

you know, it's funny, but Paul O'Neil lost his job for asking some of those same questions! When Paul O'Neil asked "who profits from american aid", your government wasn't very happy with him.

Also, america is the largest weapons exporter in the world. Who do they sell those weapons to? Countries like Indonesia, who use the weapons on their own people.

Also, your question about 'grifting' reminds me of the present American assertion that millions (possibly billions) of dollars was stolen by Iraq from the food for oil program, but it was the american government who got to pore over every single reciept from that program, often holding up supplies desperately needed for humanitarian aid because of the possibility that they could be used 'innapropriately'. This is the same country that ecouraged smuggling of oil out of iraq to Turkey because they were a good client state, buying arms from the U.S. and using them to brutally repress the kurds.

and of course, we can't forget the arms sold to colombia, used to kill hundreds of labour unionists every year, and conduct what amounted to a full scale assault on the catholic church (the only humanitarian institution willing to risk involvement in the area).

Yes, america has a lot of helicopters. And some of those helicopters were delivering aid to tsunami victims. Some of them, on the other hand, were firing missles into residential palestinian neighbourhoods. Sorry, but no matter how you look at it, America is not the hero in this story.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 15 Jan 2005 00:06

But, it gives me the opportunity to challenge conventional wisdoms, and make points you can't deal with.

It will take several posts to piss off everybody.

I don't see how this is challenging conventional wisdom at all. All three of your points have been discussed within the first two weeks after the tsunami.

Also, why would anything you said piss anyone off? If anything all of your points were very hackneyed and trite.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 Jan 2005 12:51

Nobody seems to be arguing that......

"Tsunami aid will be grifted, an unknown percentage of what anybody sends will not go the needy."

junkyardjew said:
--------------------
Sorry, but no matter how you look at it, America is not the hero in this story.
---------------------

This attitude supports the idea that the U.S. will not gain even the slightest bump in world opinion. I agree that it wont get the bump.

"It's not enough."
"Give me more."
"Drop dead Yankee!"

This is what we should learn to expect from our efforts. You would think that the politicians and the media would learn it also, and spare us the irritating questions about how much stature the U.S. will gain from it's "charity".

America will be painted as the bad guy no matter what the response is.

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 Jan 2005 13:09

It is human nature to despise those who have more than you,and who bails you out of trouble.

Sure, you can be thankful in the short term.

But when you are constantly reminded that you can't do it yourself, and your benefactor has to bail you out all the time, you hate them.

It is not enough to improve your own lot, you can't feel better until your wealthy neighbor loses his lot.

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 Jan 2005 13:18

So to TRULY improve the stature of the U.S., it has to give WAY more.

It has to give to such an extent that it suffers great hardship.

For example, instead of building temporary structures for tsunami victims, American's homes should be torn down, and the materials shipped over to build the new homes.

Without going homeless ourselves, our efforts are meaningless gestures, hiding our own secret apathy and greed.

-n

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 19 Jan 2005 16:36

I don't see how this is challenging conventional wisdom at all. All three of your points have been discussed within the first two weeks after the tsunami.

Also, why would anything you said piss anyone off? If anything all of your points were very hackneyed and trite.

I'm not sure you responded to this in any of your three posts?

shreddaily · Post by **shreddaily** » 19 Jan 2005 21:42

Jeremy wrote:Please note that I am not saying that it is or isn't my opinion that the US is stingy, greedy or selfish - just that other people are saying that.

Yes you are! You've said it, you love saying it, and you'll say it again, in another post, with easily manipulatable numbers that show how horible us Americans are. Its easy to hate the US, but unfortunatly if you aren't starving to death and you are lucky enough to have a computer and internet , YOU ARE THE US!!! Scary isn't it Jeremy! Face it Jeremy, you're well off, edjucated, think you know what is going on all over the world, and hate American politics and it hypacracy: YOU ARE AMERICAN, 100%!!!!!

just kidding dude

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 20 Jan 2005 10:19

My earlier post had numbered points, 1,2,3, as I intended to include points #4 and 5 at a later post.

4. was going to comment on the folly of aid being sent to "Make the muslim world like us".

But I decided to spare us that.

I had to look up "trite" in the dictionary. So calling my statements hackneyed and trite seems redundant. According to Oxford English Dictionary.

As far as challenging conventional wisdoms,I ended up challenging my own view on U.N. sanctions, or compliance with such:

U.N. sanctions are worthless for anything.
Nobody should have the expectation that they will actually be implemented or obeyed, by the U.N. itself or ANY member states.

Sanctions just take the U.S. out of the lucrative arms market, leaving it open to France, Russia, and China.

Of course, the old quote about the capitalist hanging himself comes to mind.

-n

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 26 Jan 2005 09:05

Boy, it sure would be a shame if america stopped selling guns, bombs and landmines to terrorism supporting dictatorships all of the world. Why should France, Russia and China reap all the profits of pain and suffering?

I don't know how you can make two posts like that back to back: in the first, suggesting that america gives and gives and 'bails people out of trouble', but it seems clear that you understand how much harm america's military industrial complex does in the world.

Listen, i understand that you love your country, hell, i love your country. I want to move to california, have a motorcycle, live the good life - but it would be so easy to change the administration - just remove your support. look at spain: people said that being part of the 'coalition of the willing' wasn't what they wanted, and they changed the government over it.

america does terrible things and allows terrible things to be done in their name all over the world, and nothing that me or jeremy writes or does can change that, because WE DON"T LIVE IN AMERICA. the reason we act like we hate americans so much is because we just don't understand why the people support the government. In canada, the people stood up and said "we aren't going to war in iraq" and Chretien listened. we got flak from the US, but we did what we thought was right. If you think what america does is right, that's your perogative. I think its disgusting, but you're entitled to your opinion. I would LOVE to live in America though, because then i could vote!

shreddaily · Post by **shreddaily** » 26 Jan 2005 16:55

WOW!!!

I worte my last post expecting to get some realy good retort from Jeremy! Looks like he held off. I obviously underestimated the Tasmanian. I'm very impressed

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 27 Jan 2005 21:18

WOW!!!

I worte my last post expecting to get some realy good retort from Jeremy! Looks like he held off. I obviously underestimated the Tasmanian. I'm very impressed

I haven't seen a post out of him in awhile, but I haven't been looking here often so I might be wrong. Didn't he say he might not have the interweb for awhile?

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 27 Jan 2005 22:34

(pardon misspellings except the immeadiate one in the line below. I'm tired....)
You mean the "internets?"

I love living here. I really do. There is a lot accessable here that probaly isn't accessable elsewhere in the world. We can do a lot that would get us shot elsewhere. However, the forign policy here sucks, the domestic policy sucks, and the one who has the policy sucks.

Again, I'm glad that the countries are recieving aid. Good part of policy. However, go north and west from those countries and we be goin' an' blowin' shit up! That's the bad part of policy.

to more or less steal a quote from george carlin...
"Sanctity of human life AND the death penalty, my, aren't we versitile?"

Texta · Post by **Texta** » 28 Jan 2005 22:14

BainbridgeShred wrote:
WOW!!!

I worte my last post expecting to get some realy good retort from Jeremy! Looks like he held off. I obviously underestimated the Tasmanian. I'm very impressed
I haven't seen a post out of him in awhile, but I haven't been looking here often so I might be wrong. Didn't he say he might not have the interweb for awhile?

Yeah, he's in country Victoria (that's a state of Australia) doing pear and peach picking with some footbagger from Finland or somewhere Dylan Fry I think. So he doesn't have internet access or even phone access, so I wouldn't expect to hear from him for another couple of weeks at least!

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 01 Feb 2005 12:23

I liked junyardjews last post. Cuz it was reasonable and I wanted to comment.

junk wrote:
--------------------------------------------
Boy, it sure would be a shame if america stopped selling guns, bombs and landmines to terrorism supporting dictatorships all of the world. Why should France, Russia and China reap all the profits of pain and suffering?

----------------------------------------------

When it comes to small arms, it shouldn't make a huge difference if a soldier is carrying an M-16/M-4 or an AK-47 or a CETME.

The reality in many parts of the world, is that you need these modern weapons to protect your interests.

Did the availability of the weapons cause the need for more in the first place? That's worth debate.

Junk mentioned our "allies" Russia and France. They deserve roasting.

When Russia ships "GPS scramblers" to Iraq, making smart bombs miss their target, are they not partially responsible if the bomb hits a school instead of a military bunker? Maybe.

Or how about France, they ship brand new missiles and other arms to Iraq on the eve of war. We captured tons of stuff still in the boxes.

France knew that Saddam wouldn't be able to repel our invasion.

Their last minute weapon exports had one main purpose:

Make sure as many American G.I.'s are killed as possible, making them regret invading without France's permission.

Maybe I am naive about this type of world intrigue.

Perhaps it would be in America's best interest to have shipped crates of machine guns and explosives to rebels in the Ivory Coast.

These weapons would not be sent to support the rebels cause.

No, they would be sent for the specific purpose of killing as many French troops as possible, sapping morale and troop strength in their African Imperial conquest.

Is this the type of "diplomacy" that we should return to? or has everyone been practicing it the whole time? ......Kinda depressing.

-n