http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article823183.ece
Norway protests child abuse in Iraq
Norwegian authorities reacted with shock and disgust Tuesday to a documentary on
German TV that American soldiers allegedly have been holding children in prisons
in Iraq, and abusing them as well. The Norwegians joined the Red Cross and
Amnesty International in calling for an immediate end to the abuse, and release
of the underage prisoners, some of whom are as young as 12 years.
In one case, a girl around age 15 was said to have been shoved up against a wall
by a group of male soldiers who proceeded to manhandle her. They then started
ripping off her clothes, and she was half-naked before military police broke in.
In another case, a boy aged 15 or 16 was stripped naked and sprayed with water
before being placed in an open truck and driven around in the cold night air
last winter. He then was covered with mud.
"These types of attacks are absolutely unacceptable," said a spokesman for
Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik. "They violate international law
and are morally indefensible."
Odd Jostein Sæter of the prime minister's office told Norwegian Broadcasting
(NRK) Tuesday that Norwegian officials will react "both politically and
diplomatically" to their US counterparts.
Neither the imprisonment nor abuse of children "can be tolerated," Sæter said.
"We will take this up in a very sharp and direct way and make concrete demands,"
he said on national radio, adding that such practices "damage the struggle for
democracy and human rights in Iraq."
Norwegian authorities plan to review other reports of the abuse by both Amnesty
International and Red Cross in detail.
The head of Amnesty International in Norway said Tuesday that Norway should not
continue its military cooperation with the US after the reports of child
"torture" were revealed.
Most of the more than 100 minors still believed to be held in
American-controlled prisons in Iraq were taken into custody after US forces
raided their homes.
.
|
|
| User: "Leigh_Bee" |
|
| Title: Re: Philippine and US |
22 Jul 2004 05:12:57 PM |
|
|
"Clark Pope" <cepope@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<sRPLc.9188$f4.1469@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"AK" <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message
news:l0evf0dl9j6vhonhjska7lpm1nm4pcrm0n@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:42:37 GMT, "Clark Pope" <cepope@mindspring.com>
wrote:
I'm not the one arguing that the liberation of 50 million people is not
worth a "single American life". Plenty of others on this newsgroup and
Micheal Moore are.
Invading a foreign country based on a lie (WMD) and installing a puppet
regime
is not "liberation." All invaders claim to be liberators. Even Nazis
claimed to
have "liberated" the part of Europe they occupied. Some idiots in Poland
and
France greeted Nazis. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, some idiots in
Lebanon were showering them with flowers. This happens in all wars. All
occupiers and invaders claim they are "liberators." How many invaders do
you
know who didn't claim the title "liberators"?
SNIP>
Was everyone bribed in GWI? Yes, its unfortunate that the world knows that
the U.S. will do what's necessary for security and they use politics to
extort whatever they can from us. We held Soviet expansion at bay for 50
years, with little help from the rest of the world. I guess we'll have to do
the same for the terror war.
Hey a well reasoned response unusual for this NG, however yes
international politics are grubby, and the subject line here is about
US and Philippines relations which has a long and bloody history well
not long in historical terms just over a century.
The WW2 thing was by dint of not being able to reached effectively,
and of course were dragged into the war knowing sooner or later, you
were going to be either dictated to or invaded.
The winds of history are now blowing because the sovereignty issue is
now upset.
So Iran Usama and his warlords are the current targets, but likewise
you are in their sights and they still seem ahead of the game.
LB
The human race has one really effective weapon, and that is laughter.
Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AK" |
|
| Title: Re: Philippine and US |
23 Jul 2004 05:52:32 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:06:16 GMT, "Clark Pope" <cepope@mindspring.com> wrote:
So we never helped liberate Europe in WWII? We were just invading Kuwait in
GWI?
Irrelevant. In WWII the US was attacked. Remember? Also, Germany declared the
war on US first. Iraq had never attacked the US.
You didn't answer the question: how many invaders do you know who didn't claim
the title "liberators"?
It's clear there is no Iraqi government that you'll ever say isn't a puppet
regime.
The current one is a puppet. That's for sure.
Also, keep in mind (even when talking about the cost of war), that the war went
wrong. They never thought the resistance would continue this long. If there was
no resistance in Iraq, we would not be having this debate. The WMD claims would
have been forgotten by now. And the cost of war would have been worth a
"friendly" regime that sits on huge oil reserves. Having bases in a country that
borders Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia would have been worth a few billion
dollars (to Americans).
But something went wrong. Thanks to Iraqi resistance.
Some of the war supporters now doubt if the war was worth it, not because it was
an imperial war based on falsehood (WMD), but because things didn't turn out as
they expected (i.e resistance).
It's also clear that even if we found nuclear weapons tomorrow, you would
say they were planted.
Again with the oil. Why is it we're spending $450 billion a year on our
military in order to BUY the $8 billion a year that Iraq produces in oil?
We
must be the dumbest crooks in history.
The continuous supply of oil for the next 20 years is worth more. The US
exerts
indirect influence on other emerging powers like India and China if the
oil
supply is under US friendly (i.e. puppet) regimes.
So if this is our evil plan why didn't we "steal" the oil in the first gulf
war?
You can't "steal" the oil, but you can rely on a "friendly" government that
ensures oil supply. A "friendly" government that complies when you want to put
pressure on China, North Korea, India or Europe. All of them need oil.
The war (to Americans -- not me) would have been worth all this, but Iraqi
resistance (you rule) messed it up.
So it was wrong to have normal relations with Saddam in the 80s? It was
wrong to have sanctions on Saddam in the 90s? AND it was wrong to go to war?
If YOU "cared when Saddam gassed Kurds in 1988" then you should be a strong
war supporter.
The US kept arming Sadam when Sadam WAS gassing Kurds. They went to war when he
wasn't gassing Kurds. Why would I be a strong war supporter? You are not making
sense.
We held Soviet expansion at bay for 50
years, with little help from the rest of the world. I guess we'll have to do
the same for the terror war.
Invading and occupying Iraq has created a lot more terrorists. It has done
nothing positive in the "terror war."
------------------------------
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clark Pope" |
|
| Title: Re: Philippine and US |
23 Jul 2004 07:38:31 AM |
|
|
"AK" <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message
news:tdr1g0ltu807dpfusaup6hi30k2rhpqc0b@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:06:16 GMT, "Clark Pope" <cepope@mindspring.com>
wrote:
So we never helped liberate Europe in WWII? We were just invading Kuwait
in
GWI?
Irrelevant. In WWII the US was attacked. Remember? Also, Germany declared
the
war on US first. Iraq had never attacked the US.
You didn't answer the question: how many invaders do you know who didn't
claim
the title "liberators"?
It's clear there is no Iraqi government that you'll ever say isn't a
puppet
regime.
The current one is a puppet. That's for sure.
Also, keep in mind (even when talking about the cost of war), that the war
went
wrong. They never thought the resistance would continue this long. If
there was
no resistance in Iraq, we would not be having this debate. The WMD claims
would
have been forgotten by now. And the cost of war would have been worth a
"friendly" regime that sits on huge oil reserves. Having bases in a
country that
borders Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia would have been worth a few billion
dollars (to Americans).
But something went wrong. Thanks to Iraqi resistance.
I don't buy the oil supply theory. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are supposedly
great friends of ours, (so great that Micheal Moore thinks they run the U.S.
government) yet every spring we get gouged by OPEC. We obviously have no
control over our own oil supply so why do you think we can effect Asia's? By
the way, we have strategic oil reserves where we could be buying up the
world supply and storing it if we wanted to corner the market.
Another problem is you make the same guys that every other war opposer
characterizes as dunces out to be these brilliant strategists playing a
chess game to win a war that's 20 years away. You really think we have that
much forethought in our government?
Finally, let's say your wild conspiracy is right. How does that effect the
millions of people that supported getting rid of Saddam, the hundreds of
thousands in the military, and the thousands of politicians that supported
it. None of us have some crazy conspiracy about oil in our heads when we
made up our minds. The point is, I supported removing Saddam in 92, 93, 94,
.....03, Bush Admin has little, if anything, to do with most supporters
thinking.
Some of the war supporters now doubt if the war was worth it, not because
it was
an imperial war based on falsehood (WMD), but because things didn't turn
out as
they expected (i.e resistance).
It's also clear that even if we found nuclear weapons tomorrow, you would
say they were planted.
Again with the oil. Why is it we're spending $450 billion a year on
our
military in order to BUY the $8 billion a year that Iraq produces in
oil?
We
must be the dumbest crooks in history.
The continuous supply of oil for the next 20 years is worth more. The
US
exerts
indirect influence on other emerging powers like India and China if the
oil
supply is under US friendly (i.e. puppet) regimes.
So if this is our evil plan why didn't we "steal" the oil in the first
gulf
war?
You can't "steal" the oil, but you can rely on a "friendly" government
that
ensures oil supply. A "friendly" government that complies when you want to
put
pressure on China, North Korea, India or Europe. All of them need oil.
The war (to Americans -- not me) would have been worth all this, but Iraqi
resistance (you rule) messed it up.
All Iraqi resistance has done is kill Iraqis. We're spending the $450
billion dollars a year for our military whether our guys are in Iraq or
sitting in a fort in the U.S. The main additional cost of the war at this
point is the billions we're spending to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. Which
by the way you're beloved insurgents seek to sabatoge at every turn.
So it was wrong to have normal relations with Saddam in the 80s? It was
wrong to have sanctions on Saddam in the 90s? AND it was wrong to go to
war?
If YOU "cared when Saddam gassed Kurds in 1988" then you should be a
strong
war supporter.
The US kept arming Sadam when Sadam WAS gassing Kurds. They went to war
when he
wasn't gassing Kurds. Why would I be a strong war supporter? You are not
making
sense.
The point is we obviously agree that gassing the Kurds was wrong. Therefore,
shouldn't Saddam be punished for his crimes. If you agree he should be
punished then how do you propose that happens without war. Or maybe you
think the statute of limitations has run out?
The other point is there must of been some policy that you agreed with.
We've tried every possibility.
We held Soviet expansion at bay for 50
years, with little help from the rest of the world. I guess we'll have to
do
the same for the terror war.
Invading and occupying Iraq has created a lot more terrorists. It has done
nothing positive in the "terror war."
The war on terror has three fronts: past, present, and future. The past is
being fought by our FBI and law enforcement (and their international
equivalents) to find and prosecute terrorists who have already commited
their atrocities. The present is fought by our CIA and intelligence services
(and their international equivalents) to discover, infiltrate, and foil
terrorist plots as they're being devised. The future front on terror is
being fought by the military coalition that is routing out governments that
offer safe haven for terrorists in order to bring democracy, freedom, and
prosperity to the oppressed people of the Middle East. I assure you when
Iraq is on its feet and the people are free and prosperous, blowing up
buildings in the United States will be the last thing on their minds. We
have mobilized every asset of our government in this fight and we will win
on all fronts with or without your help.
------------------------------
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Philippine and US |
26 Jul 2004 02:23:11 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:38:31 GMT, "Clark Pope" <cepope@mindspring.com>
wrote:
"AK" <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message
news:tdr1g0ltu807dpfusaup6hi30k2rhpqc0b@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:06:16 GMT, "Clark Pope" <cepope@mindspring.com>
wrote:
So we never helped liberate Europe in WWII? We were just invading Kuwait
in
GWI?
Irrelevant. In WWII the US was attacked. Remember? Also, Germany declared
the
war on US first. Iraq had never attacked the US.
You didn't answer the question: how many invaders do you know who didn't
claim
the title "liberators"?
It's clear there is no Iraqi government that you'll ever say isn't a
puppet
regime.
The current one is a puppet. That's for sure.
Also, keep in mind (even when talking about the cost of war), that the war
went
wrong. They never thought the resistance would continue this long. If
there was
no resistance in Iraq, we would not be having this debate. The WMD claims
would
have been forgotten by now. And the cost of war would have been worth a
"friendly" regime that sits on huge oil reserves. Having bases in a
country that
borders Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia would have been worth a few billion
dollars (to Americans).
But something went wrong. Thanks to Iraqi resistance.
I don't buy the oil supply theory. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are supposedly
great friends of ours, (so great that Micheal Moore thinks they run the U.S.
government) yet every spring we get gouged by OPEC. We obviously have no
<snip>
You've just answered it. Remember that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are
not under occupation by the US. Remember that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait
are not under a huge war-debt to the US. You don't think very deeply,
do you?
Another problem is you make the same guys that every other war opposer
characterizes as dunces out to be these brilliant strategists playing a
chess game to win a war that's 20 years away. You really think we have that
much forethought in our government?
It doesn't appear that you have *any* forethought in your government.
It isn't up to appearances, however. At the time the *real*
strategists started steering the world, this war was much more than 20
years away. The strategists we are referring to are not necessarily
in government, either. For example, financial institutions have a
*lot* of forethought and are masters at pulling strings.
Finally, let's say your wild conspiracy is right. How does that effect the
millions of people that supported getting rid of Saddam, the hundreds of
thousands in the military, and the thousands of politicians that supported
it. None of us have some crazy conspiracy about oil in our heads when we
made up our minds. The point is, I supported removing Saddam in 92, 93, 94,
....03, Bush Admin has little, if anything, to do with most supporters
thinking.
He's shown us that on numerous occasions. He wants little or nothing
to do with *anyone's* thinking.
Some of the war supporters now doubt if the war was worth it, not because
it was
an imperial war based on falsehood (WMD), but because things didn't turn
out as
they expected (i.e resistance).
It's also clear that even if we found nuclear weapons tomorrow, you would
say they were planted.
Again with the oil. Why is it we're spending $450 billion a year on
our
military in order to BUY the $8 billion a year that Iraq produces in
oil?
We
must be the dumbest crooks in history.
The continuous supply of oil for the next 20 years is worth more. The
US
exerts
indirect influence on other emerging powers like India and China if the
oil
supply is under US friendly (i.e. puppet) regimes.
So if this is our evil plan why didn't we "steal" the oil in the first
gulf
war?
You can't "steal" the oil, but you can rely on a "friendly" government
that
ensures oil supply. A "friendly" government that complies when you want to
put
pressure on China, North Korea, India or Europe. All of them need oil.
The war (to Americans -- not me) would have been worth all this, but Iraqi
resistance (you rule) messed it up.
All Iraqi resistance has done is kill Iraqis. We're spending the $450
billion dollars a year for our military whether our guys are in Iraq or
sitting in a fort in the U.S. The main additional cost of the war at this
point is the billions we're spending to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. Which
by the way you're beloved insurgents seek to sabatoge at every turn.
So it was wrong to have normal relations with Saddam in the 80s? It was
wrong to have sanctions on Saddam in the 90s? AND it was wrong to go to
war?
If YOU "cared when Saddam gassed Kurds in 1988" then you should be a
strong
war supporter.
The US kept arming Sadam when Sadam WAS gassing Kurds. They went to war
when he
wasn't gassing Kurds. Why would I be a strong war supporter? You are not
making
sense.
The point is we obviously agree that gassing the Kurds was wrong. Therefore,
shouldn't Saddam be punished for his crimes. If you agree he should be
<snip>
Considering the bio/chem weapons used against Iran in the Iraq/Iran
conflict came with little "Made in the USA" stickers on them, I could
think of a few others. Oh sorry, was that more conspiracy theory?
The other point is there must of been some policy that you agreed with.
We've tried every possibility.
We held Soviet expansion at bay for 50
years, with little help from the rest of the world. I guess we'll have to
do
the same for the terror war.
Invading and occupying Iraq has created a lot more terrorists. It has done
nothing positive in the "terror war."
The war on terror has three fronts: past, present, and future. The past is
being fought by our FBI and law enforcement (and their international
equivalents) to find and prosecute terrorists who have already commited
their atrocities. The present is fought by our CIA and intelligence services
(and their international equivalents) to discover, infiltrate, and foil
terrorist plots as they're being devised. The future front on terror is
being fought by the military coalition that is routing out governments that
offer safe haven for terrorists in order to bring democracy, freedom, and
prosperity to the oppressed people of the Middle East. I assure you when
Iraq is on its feet and the people are free and prosperous, blowing up
buildings in the United States will be the last thing on their minds. We
have mobilized every asset of our government in this fight and we will win
on all fronts with or without your help.
Did you know Joseph Goebbels by any chance?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AK" |
|
| Title: Re: Philippine and US |
23 Jul 2004 10:25:28 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:38:31 GMT, "Clark Pope" <cepope@mindspring.com> wrote:
The current one is a puppet. That's for sure.
Also, keep in mind (even when talking about the cost of war), that the war
went
wrong. They never thought the resistance would continue this long. If
there was
no resistance in Iraq, we would not be having this debate. The WMD claims
would
have been forgotten by now. And the cost of war would have been worth a
"friendly" regime that sits on huge oil reserves. Having bases in a
country that
borders Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia would have been worth a few billion
dollars (to Americans).
But something went wrong. Thanks to Iraqi resistance.
I don't buy the oil supply theory. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are supposedly
great friends of ours, (so great that Micheal Moore thinks they run the U.S.
government) yet every spring we get gouged by OPEC. We obviously have no
control over our own oil supply so why do you think we can effect Asia's?
That is just one more reason that supports this theory. They thought Iraq would
become a vast source of cheap oil under US control which could be used to
undermine OPEC, provide the battering ram to deal with Iran and Saudi Arabia,
and be a tool against other political or economic rivals. Iraqi oil could also
be a used against stronger opponents of the US, providing a useful tool to
undermine competitors such as China. The US can also keep France, Germany, and
Japan in check. Asia Times writer Pepe Escobar put it: "Oil and gas are not the
U.S.'s ultimate aim. It's about control.... If the U.S. controls the sources of
energy of its rivals-Europe, Japan, China, and other nations aspiring to be more
independent-they win."
Finally, let's say your wild conspiracy is right. How does that effect the
millions of people that supported getting rid of Saddam, the hundreds of
thousands in the military, and the thousands of politicians that supported
it.
People are easily doped by the government. How many were fooled by the claim
that Iraq WMD were an imminent threat to the US, or that Iraq was responsible
for 9/11? Most people support their government in wars anyway. Most Germans
supported their government during WWII. Didn't they? Even in Vietnam (until the
last few years), most Americans were prowar. Was that a just war? Why were most
Americans supporting that war?
Some of the war supporters now doubt if the war was worth it, not because
it was
an imperial war based on falsehood (WMD), but because things didn't turn
out as
they expected (i.e resistance).
It's also clear that even if we found nuclear weapons tomorrow, you would
say they were planted.
Again with the oil. Why is it we're spending $450 billion a year on
our
military in order to BUY the $8 billion a year that Iraq produces in
oil?
We
must be the dumbest crooks in history.
The continuous supply of oil for the next 20 years is worth more. The
US
exerts
indirect influence on other emerging powers like India and China if the
oil
supply is under US friendly (i.e. puppet) regimes.
So if this is our evil plan why didn't we "steal" the oil in the first
gulf
war?
You can't "steal" the oil, but you can rely on a "friendly" government
that
ensures oil supply. A "friendly" government that complies when you want to
put
pressure on China, North Korea, India or Europe. All of them need oil.
The war (to Americans -- not me) would have been worth all this, but Iraqi
resistance (you rule) messed it up.
All Iraqi resistance has done is kill Iraqis. We're spending the $450
billion dollars a year for our military whether our guys are in Iraq or
sitting in a fort in the U.S. The main additional cost of the war at this
point is the billions we're spending to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. Which
by the way you're beloved insurgents seek to sabatoge at every turn.
The methods used by Iraqi insurgents are not much different than other colonial
wars. FLN killed a lot of fellow Algerians in their war against French
colonialists. They bombed the cafes and other "soft" targets. Same thing
happened in Vietnam. This is not unique to Iraqi resistance. It works.
As for US spending billions to rebuild Iraq, that's not true. Out of $18 billion
approved for reconstruction last year, only $458 million has been spent on
reconstruction. The "billions" are actually being spent on the war and security,
not reconstruction. All this is irrelevant anyway. Yes the insurgents don't want
to let US stabilize Iraq and solidify the occupation.
So it was wrong to have normal relations with Saddam in the 80s? It was
wrong to have sanctions on Saddam in the 90s? AND it was wrong to go to
war?
If YOU "cared when Saddam gassed Kurds in 1988" then you should be a
strong
war supporter.
The US kept arming Sadam when Sadam WAS gassing Kurds. They went to war
when he
wasn't gassing Kurds. Why would I be a strong war supporter? You are not
making
sense.
The point is we obviously agree that gassing the Kurds was wrong. Therefore,
shouldn't Saddam be punished for his crimes. If you agree he should be
punished then how do you propose that happens without war. Or maybe you
think the statute of limitations has run out?
Who are you to "punish" Sadam for what he did to people who revolted against his
government? There are many dictators everywhere in Africa. Are you are going to
"punish" all of them by invading all these countries?
Sadam should have been brought to justice by Iraqis themselves someday perhaps.
It was not your business. This was not the justification given for the war by
Bush anyway.
We held Soviet expansion at bay for 50
years, with little help from the rest of the world. I guess we'll have to
do
the same for the terror war.
Invading and occupying Iraq has created a lot more terrorists. It has done
nothing positive in the "terror war."
The war on terror has three fronts: past, present, and future. The past is
being fought by our FBI and law enforcement (and their international
equivalents) to find and prosecute terrorists who have already commited
their atrocities. The present is fought by our CIA and intelligence services
(and their international equivalents) to discover, infiltrate, and foil
terrorist plots as they're being devised. The future front on terror is
being fought by the military coalition that is routing out governments that
offer safe haven for terrorists in order to bring democracy, freedom, and
prosperity to the oppressed people of the Middle East.
No evidence has been given that Iraq was a safe haven for al queda before the
war. After the war, it has become a safe haven. Doesn't that prove the war has
been a failure?
I assure you when
Iraq is on its feet and the people are free and prosperous, blowing up
buildings in the United States will be the last thing on their minds.
No Iraqi has ever blown any building in the United States. None of the hijacker
on 9/11 was Iraqi. Though someone might want to blowup a building in the United
States because he despises the US army occupying his country. Don't you think?
What are you doing about political disputes, like US troops occupying Iraq --
Israel-Palestine conflict. Don't you think these issues are used by al queda to
gain recruits? The "future front" you mentioned above ignores them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clark Pope" |
|
| Title: Re: Philippine and US |
23 Jul 2004 11:19:41 AM |
|
|
I don't buy the oil supply theory. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are supposedly
great friends of ours, (so great that Micheal Moore thinks they run the
U.S.
government) yet every spring we get gouged by OPEC. We obviously have no
control over our own oil supply so why do you think we can effect Asia's?
That is just one more reason that supports this theory. They thought Iraq
would
become a vast source of cheap oil under US control which could be used to
undermine OPEC, provide the battering ram to deal with Iran and Saudi
Arabia,
and be a tool against other political or economic rivals. Iraqi oil could
also
be a used against stronger opponents of the US, providing a useful tool to
undermine competitors such as China. The US can also keep France, Germany,
and
Japan in check. Asia Times writer Pepe Escobar put it: "Oil and gas are
not the
U.S.'s ultimate aim. It's about control.... If the U.S. controls the
sources of
energy of its rivals-Europe, Japan, China, and other nations aspiring to
be more
independent-they win."
Yet we've "controlled" Iraq's oil for a year, and just this spring OPEC is
gouging us?
Finally, let's say your wild conspiracy is right. How does that effect
the
millions of people that supported getting rid of Saddam, the hundreds of
thousands in the military, and the thousands of politicians that
supported
it.
People are easily doped by the government. How many were fooled by the
claim
that Iraq WMD were an imminent threat to the US, or that Iraq was
responsible
for 9/11? Most people support their government in wars anyway. Most
Germans
supported their government during WWII. Didn't they? Even in Vietnam
(until the
last few years), most Americans were prowar. Was that a just war? Why were
most
Americans supporting that war?
So Bill Clinton and Al Gore are in on the conspiracy too? And we duped the
security council into writing seventeen resolutions to provide pretext for
our big oil grab and ensuing world domination of the energy market?
Viet Nam was a just war. Just ask the cambodians who were slaughtered when
we failed to commit the resources to win. And what has been the effect of
our withdrawal in Viet Nam? Its basically taken them 30 years to get the
country back to where it would have been in 1975 had we stayed and saw it
through. The Iraqi insurgency is aiming to do the same thing. There is no
doubt that the middle east will be free and democratic because that system
has won every where its been tried, its just a matter of when. The so called
"freedom fighters" are just delaying the inevitable by holding the Iraqi
people hostage.
Most Americans supported removing Saddam long before Bush took office. Just
watch the movie "Three Kings" to see what Americans thought of Saddam even
in the mid 90s.
All Iraqi resistance has done is kill Iraqis. We're spending the $450
billion dollars a year for our military whether our guys are in Iraq or
sitting in a fort in the U.S. The main additional cost of the war at this
point is the billions we're spending to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.
Which
by the way you're beloved insurgents seek to sabatoge at every turn.
The methods used by Iraqi insurgents are not much different than other
colonial
wars. FLN killed a lot of fellow Algerians in their war against French
colonialists. They bombed the cafes and other "soft" targets. Same thing
happened in Vietnam. This is not unique to Iraqi resistance. It works.
It's always wrong to target civillians. The "they did it too" arguments
don't fly with me.
As for US spending billions to rebuild Iraq, that's not true. Out of $18
billion
approved for reconstruction last year, only $458 million has been spent on
reconstruction. The "billions" are actually being spent on the war and
security,
not reconstruction. All this is irrelevant anyway. Yes the insurgents
don't want
to let US stabilize Iraq and solidify the occupation.
Yes reconstruction is being slowed because foreign workers are being scared
off, taken hostage, or killed and individual projects are being sabotaged.
Not to mention the lengthy procurement and approval process of our
government. Yet again, the "freedom fighters" fighting against what is best
for the Iraqi people.
So it was wrong to have normal relations with Saddam in the 80s? It
was
wrong to have sanctions on Saddam in the 90s? AND it was wrong to go
to
war?
If YOU "cared when Saddam gassed Kurds in 1988" then you should be a
strong
war supporter.
The US kept arming Sadam when Sadam WAS gassing Kurds. They went to war
when he
wasn't gassing Kurds. Why would I be a strong war supporter? You are
not
making
sense.
The point is we obviously agree that gassing the Kurds was wrong.
Therefore,
shouldn't Saddam be punished for his crimes. If you agree he should be
punished then how do you propose that happens without war. Or maybe you
think the statute of limitations has run out?
Who are you to "punish" Sadam for what he did to people who revolted
against his
government? There are many dictators everywhere in Africa. Are you are
going to
"punish" all of them by invading all these countries?
Sadam should have been brought to justice by Iraqis themselves someday
perhaps.
It was not your business. This was not the justification given for the war
by
Bush anyway.
It had been 35 years, when do you suppose they were going to get around to
it? We punished Saddam because he signed a cease fire agreement with us and
then violated it. The truth is there is no GWII, there's just GWI with a 12
year intermission.
We held Soviet expansion at bay for 50
years, with little help from the rest of the world. I guess we'll have
to
do
the same for the terror war.
Invading and occupying Iraq has created a lot more terrorists. It has
done
nothing positive in the "terror war."
The war on terror has three fronts: past, present, and future. The past
is
being fought by our FBI and law enforcement (and their international
equivalents) to find and prosecute terrorists who have already commited
their atrocities. The present is fought by our CIA and intelligence
services
(and their international equivalents) to discover, infiltrate, and foil
terrorist plots as they're being devised. The future front on terror is
being fought by the military coalition that is routing out governments
that
offer safe haven for terrorists in order to bring democracy, freedom, and
prosperity to the oppressed people of the Middle East.
No evidence has been given that Iraq was a safe haven for al queda before
the
war. After the war, it has become a safe haven. Doesn't that prove the war
has
been a failure?
I assure you when
Iraq is on its feet and the people are free and prosperous, blowing up
buildings in the United States will be the last thing on their minds.
No Iraqi has ever blown any building in the United States. None of the
hijacker
on 9/11 was Iraqi. Though someone might want to blowup a building in the
United
States because he despises the US army occupying his country. Don't you
think?
What are you doing about political disputes, like US troops occupying
Iraq --
Israel-Palestine conflict. Don't you think these issues are used by al
queda to
gain recruits? The "future front" you mentioned above ignores them.
The reason they can be recruited is (a) they're young men that having
nothing better to do because their economy sucks (b) their own corrupt
governments have been using the U.S. as a scapegoat for decades and (c) they
are largely illiterate and uneducated. The prosperous democracy that
Iraq(and then Iran, and the Syria, and so forth) will become won't need to
scape goat the U.S. because they will be accountable to the people. They'll
also have improved economies and better educations that come from having
open societies. Thus, we will have solved the basic causes of terrorism at
the source.
That said, there may well be some policy issues that should be modified. But
we're certainly not going to do what terrorists ask us to do. And
frequently, the policy that is mostly objected to is that we don't believe
that 6 million jews are the source of all pain and suffering for 1200
million arabs. Nor do we think that all jews should be annihilated from the
earth, which is the real policy demand that underlies most of what the
terrorist objections are.
Let's bottom line the so called "freedom fighters", though. What is the
worst case scenario if, tomorrow, all of the "freedom fighters", insurgents,
jihadists, etc. put down there arms and stopped blowing things up? Would the
Iraqi people be better or worse off?
.
|
|
|
| User: "AK" |
|
| Title: Re: Philippine and US |
24 Jul 2004 03:24:48 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:19:41 GMT, "Clark Pope" <cepope@mindspring.com> wrote:
People are easily doped by the government. How many were fooled by the
claim
that Iraq WMD were an imminent threat to the US, or that Iraq was
responsible
for 9/11? Most people support their government in wars anyway. Most
Germans
supported their government during WWII. Didn't they? Even in Vietnam
(until the
last few years), most Americans were prowar. Was that a just war? Why were
most
Americans supporting that war?
So Bill Clinton and Al Gore are in on the conspiracy too? And we duped the
security council into writing seventeen resolutions to provide pretext for
our big oil grab and ensuing world domination of the energy market?
Yes, Bill Clinton had the same policy. Even under Clinton, the US policy always
was the removal of Saddam Hussein and installing a "friendly" government. The UN
sanctions were a ploy. Saddam could have done nothing to "please" the US. May
20, 1991: James Baker, Secretary of State: "We are not interested in seeing a
relaxation of sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power."
March 26, 1997: Albright: "We do not agree with the nations who argue that if
Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction,
sanctions should be lifted."
November 14, 1997: Clinton: [When Iraq broke the inspections regime] "What
he has just done is to ensure that the sanctions will be there until the
end of time or as long as he lasts."
August 20, 1997: Ambassador Bill Richardson: "Sanctions may stay on in
perpetuity."
Why should have Saddam kept on complying with UNSCOM when the US made it clear
that UNSCOM and inspections are just an excuse to keep the sanctions? The US
could always claim Saddam has WMD even if he complied completely. There was
nothing Saddam could have done to lift the sanctions.
The whole thing was a ploy by the US.
Viet Nam was a just war.
You are a nutcase. I am sure the US has never done anything unjust according to
you. I am not going to debate Vietnam here.
Just ask the cambodians who were slaughtered when
we failed to commit the resources to win. And what has been the effect of
our withdrawal in Viet Nam? Its basically taken them 30 years to get the
country back to where it would have been in 1975 had we stayed and saw it
through.
Vietnam is still better off than many South American countries where the US
succeeded in installing puppet dictators, like Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras,
and Panama.
The Iraqi insurgency is aiming to do the same thing. There is no
doubt that the middle east will be free and democratic because that system
has won every where its been tried, its just a matter of when. The so called
"freedom fighters" are just delaying the inevitable by holding the Iraqi
people hostage.
What system? There is no democracy in Iraq. Iraq has a puppet government
installed by the US. As for Iraqi insurgency, the US invaded and occupied a
sovereign country. Why shouldn't there be an insurgency against foreign invasion
and occupation? Who gave you the right to invade Iraq?
Most Americans supported removing Saddam long before Bush took office. Just
watch the movie "Three Kings" to see what Americans thought of Saddam even
in the mid 90s.
See above. It's been Clinton's policy to remove Saddam and install a puppet
friendly government. No one gives a ***** about what most Americans supported.
Iraq is not an American state. It's not your business to "remove" Saddam. This
is Iraq's internal issue.
As for US spending billions to rebuild Iraq, that's not true. Out of $18
billion
approved for reconstruction last year, only $458 million has been spent on
reconstruction. The "billions" are actually being spent on the war and
security,
not reconstruction. All this is irrelevant anyway. Yes the insurgents
don't want
to let US stabilize Iraq and solidify the occupation.
Yes reconstruction is being slowed because foreign workers are being scared
off, taken hostage, or killed and individual projects are being sabotaged.
Not to mention the lengthy procurement and approval process of our
government. Yet again, the "freedom fighters" fighting against what is best
for the Iraqi people.
So now you admit you were wrong when you claimed "billions" are being spent on
the reconstruction? As for Iraqi freedom fighters, sorry to disappoint you but
they have the right to fight against a foreign army invading and occupying their
country based on a lie (WMD). Why are they to be blamed for harming Iraq and not
you for invading their country?
Who are you to "punish" Sadam for what he did to people who revolted
against his
government? There are many dictators everywhere in Africa. Are you are
going to
"punish" all of them by invading all these countries?
Sadam should have been brought to justice by Iraqis themselves someday
perhaps.
It was not your business. This was not the justification given for the war
by
Bush anyway.
It had been 35 years, when do you suppose they were going to get around to
it? We punished Saddam because he signed a cease fire agreement with us and
then violated it. The truth is there is no GWII, there's just GWI with a 12
year intermission.
The ceasefire agreement was with UN, not the US. I thought you rightwing nuts
don't care about the UN?
What are you doing about political disputes, like US troops occupying
Iraq --
Israel-Palestine conflict. Don't you think these issues are used by al
queda to
gain recruits? The "future front" you mentioned above ignores them.
The reason they can be recruited is (a) they're young men that having
nothing better to do because their economy sucks (b) their own corrupt
governments have been using the U.S. as a scapegoat for decades and (c) they
are largely illiterate and uneducated.
And (d) they might have legitimate reasons to be recruited, like invasion and
occupation of Iraq and the US blind support of Israel.
The prosperous democracy that
Iraq(and then Iran, and the Syria, and so forth) will become won't need to
scape goat the U.S. because they will be accountable to the people. They'll
also have improved economies and better educations that come from having
open societies. Thus, we will have solved the basic causes of terrorism at
the source.
Guess what? None of the 9/11 hijacker was from any of these three countries you
mentioned: Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Most of the hijackers were from the countries
where dictators are supported by the US, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
That said, there may well be some policy issues that should be modified. But
we're certainly not going to do what terrorists ask us to do. And
frequently, the policy that is mostly objected to is that we don't believe
that 6 million jews are the source of all pain and suffering for 1200
million arabs. Nor do we think that all jews should be annihilated from the
earth, which is the real policy demand that underlies most of what the
terrorist objections are.
Nonsense. The US backs and arms an apartheid state policies of land theft
(settlements), home demolitions, deportation, killing, land confiscation,
annexation, the village destructions, bombings of hospitals and schools, the
deliberate creation of hundreds of thousands of refugees, and the bantustans
being set up.
Let's bottom line the so called "freedom fighters", though. What is the
worst case scenario if, tomorrow, all of the "freedom fighters", insurgents,
jihadists, etc. put down there arms and stopped blowing things up? Would the
Iraqi people be better or worse off?
Iraqi people would have been better off even if there was no invasion and if
sanctions were lifted. This is irrelevant. The US invaded and occupied a
sovereign country. Do the people have the right to reject US invasion and fight
against it? Yes, they do. If there ever is a just cause for rebellion, it's now
against a foreign invasion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clark Pope" |
|
| Title: Re: Philippine and US |
24 Jul 2004 07:17:45 AM |
|
|
So Bill Clinton and Al Gore are in on the conspiracy too? And we duped
the
security council into writing seventeen resolutions to provide pretext
for
our big oil grab and ensuing world domination of the energy market?
Yes, Bill Clinton had the same policy. Even under Clinton, the US policy
always
was the removal of Saddam Hussein and installing a "friendly" government.
The UN
sanctions were a ploy. Saddam could have done nothing to "please" the US.
May
20, 1991: James Baker, Secretary of State: "We are not interested in
seeing a
relaxation of sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power."
March 26, 1997: Albright: "We do not agree with the nations who argue that
if
Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction,
sanctions should be lifted."
November 14, 1997: Clinton: [When Iraq broke the inspections regime] "What
he has just done is to ensure that the sanctions will be there until the
end of time or as long as he lasts."
August 20, 1997: Ambassador Bill Richardson: "Sanctions may stay on in
perpetuity."
Why should have Saddam kept on complying with UNSCOM when the US made it
clear
that UNSCOM and inspections are just an excuse to keep the sanctions? The
US
could always claim Saddam has WMD even if he complied completely. There
was
nothing Saddam could have done to lift the sanctions.
The whole thing was a ploy by the US.
Viet Nam was a just war.
You have three administrations and a stream of people from both ends of the
political spectrum in a conspiracy to corner the world oil market to
establish global hegemony, but I'm the nutcase?
You are a nutcase. I am sure the US has never done anything unjust
according to
you. I am not going to debate Vietnam here.
Just ask the cambodians who were slaughtered when
we failed to commit the resources to win. And what has been the effect of
our withdrawal in Viet Nam? Its basically taken them 30 years to get the
country back to where it would have been in 1975 had we stayed and saw it
through.
Vietnam is still better off than many South American countries where the
US
succeeded in installing puppet dictators, like Nicaragua, Guatemala,
Honduras,
and Panama.
The Iraqi insurgency is aiming to do the same thing. There is no
doubt that the middle east will be free and democratic because that
system
has won every where its been tried, its just a matter of when. The so
called
"freedom fighters" are just delaying the inevitable by holding the Iraqi
people hostage.
What system? There is no democracy in Iraq. Iraq has a puppet government
installed by the US. As for Iraqi insurgency, the US invaded and occupied
a
sovereign country. Why shouldn't there be an insurgency against foreign
invasion
and occupation? Who gave you the right to invade Iraq?
Its been 13 months! They probably don't even have accurate census numbers,
how are they to insure a fair election. Plus it will take months to have
candidates step forward and do their campaigning. You apparently had plenty
of patience with Saddam, why not for democracy?
Most Americans supported removing Saddam long before Bush took office.
Just
watch the movie "Three Kings" to see what Americans thought of Saddam
even
in the mid 90s.
See above. It's been Clinton's policy to remove Saddam and install a
puppet
friendly government. No one gives a ***** about what most Americans
supported.
Iraq is not an American state. It's not your business to "remove" Saddam.
This
is Iraq's internal issue.
So why is everyone blaiming Bush? He didn't write the policy he just
executed it.
As for US spending billions to rebuild Iraq, that's not true. Out of
$18
billion
approved for reconstruction last year, only $458 million has been spent
on
reconstruction. The "billions" are actually being spent on the war and
security,
not reconstruction. All this is irrelevant anyway. Yes the insurgents
don't want
to let US stabilize Iraq and solidify the occupation.
Yes reconstruction is being slowed because foreign workers are being
scared
off, taken hostage, or killed and individual projects are being
sabotaged.
Not to mention the lengthy procurement and approval process of our
government. Yet again, the "freedom fighters" fighting against what is
best
for the Iraqi people.
So now you admit you were wrong when you claimed "billions" are being
spent on
the reconstruction? As for Iraqi freedom fighters, sorry to disappoint you
but
they have the right to fight against a foreign army invading and occupying
their
country based on a lie (WMD). Why are they to be blamed for harming Iraq
and not
you for invading their country?
The money has been allocated and passed by congress. It's as good as spent.
Plus, I don't believe the actual figure is as low as you say, the military
had undertaken a lot of projects even before the congressional allocation. I
include money spent providing basic security and law enforcement as aid too.
By the way, how much money have Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. donated to
help with the reconstruction. In fact, name a single country that has sent
more humanitarian aid, reconstruction money, etc. than America. (to Iraq or
elsewhere) A little inconsistent with your evil Americans rant?
Who are you to "punish" Sadam for what he did to people who revolted
against his
government? There are many dictators everywhere in Africa. Are you are
going to
"punish" all of them by invading all these countries?
Sadam should have been brought to justice by Iraqis themselves someday
perhaps.
It was not your business. This was not the justification given for the
war
by
Bush anyway.
It had been 35 years, when do you suppose they were going to get around
to
it? We punished Saddam because he signed a cease fire agreement with us
and
then violated it. The truth is there is no GWII, there's just GWI with a
12
year intermission.
The ceasefire agreement was with UN, not the US. I thought you rightwing
nuts
don't care about the UN?
If the UN doesn't enforce its resolutions, then, yes, it's as good as
useless.
What are you doing about political disputes, like US troops occupying
Iraq --
Israel-Palestine conflict. Don't you think these issues are used by al
queda to
gain recruits? The "future front" you mentioned above ignores them.
The reason they can be recruited is (a) they're young men that having
nothing better to do because their economy sucks (b) their own corrupt
governments have been using the U.S. as a scapegoat for decades and (c)
they
are largely illiterate and uneducated.
And (d) they might have legitimate reasons to be recruited, like invasion
and
occupation of Iraq and the US blind support of Israel.
There was plenty of terrorism during the 30 years preceding the invasion of
Iraq. And usually "blind support" translates to we don't agree that all Jews
should be annihilated from the earth.
By the way, what have the middle eastern nations done to help solve the
palestinian-isreali problem. Seems to me they like the palestinians piled up
in refugee camps on the border of Isreal. It gets their people stirred up
and diverts the people's attention from their own government's corruption.
Also, let's talk about the scale of the PI conflict: There's about 5.5
million Jews and as many Palestinians. They represent maybe 1 percent of the
Arab population. This is like saying that all of America's domestic problems
are caused by Vermont. I don't get why it even gets reported. Nothing that
happens there is news because it never changes.
You're so willing to imagine wild conspiracies, with twelve degrees of
freedom, involving the U.S. but you seem to have no criticism for the middle
eastern nations that are blatantly corrupt.
The prosperous democracy that
Iraq(and then Iran, and the Syria, and so forth) will become won't need
to
scape goat the U.S. because they will be accountable to the people.
They'll
also have improved economies and better educations that come from having
open societies. Thus, we will have solved the basic causes of terrorism
at
the source.
Guess what? None of the 9/11 hijacker was from any of these three
countries you
mentioned: Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Most of the hijackers were from the
countries
where dictators are supported by the US, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
That said, there may well be some policy issues that should be modified.
But
we're certainly not going to do what terrorists ask us to do. And
frequently, the policy that is mostly objected to is that we don't
believe
that 6 million jews are the source of all pain and suffering for 1200
million arabs. Nor do we think that all jews should be annihilated from
the
earth, which is the real policy demand that underlies most of what the
terrorist objections are.
Nonsense. The US backs and arms an apartheid state policies of land theft
(settlements), home demolitions, deportation, killing, land confiscation,
annexation, the village destructions, bombings of hospitals and schools,
the
deliberate creation of hundreds of thousands of refugees, and the
bantustans
being set up.
Well maybe they're just "freedom fighters" defending their land from foreign
invaders?
Let's bottom line the so called "freedom fighters", though. What is the
worst case scenario if, tomorrow, all of the "freedom fighters",
insurgents,
jihadists, etc. put down there arms and stopped blowing things up? Would
the
Iraqi people be better or worse off?
Iraqi people would have been better off even if there was no invasion and
if
sanctions were lifted. This is irrelevant. The US invaded and occupied a
sovereign country. Do the people have the right to reject US invasion and
fight
against it? Yes, they do. If there ever is a just cause for rebellion,
it's now
against a foreign invasion.
So why do the Iraqis hate the "freedom fighters" so much? Everything I've
seen is that they have maybe 5% support of the people.
But you're right, the war is ancient history. The question that has to be
answered today is: what is best for the Iraqi people. If the "freedom
fighters" cared at all about the Iraqi people they wouldn't be blowing them
up and undermining the rebuilding effort.
You're into conspiracy theories. Try this one. I think the insurgents are
being funded, armed, and trained by the Iranians. Iran still hates Iraq from
the war and they know that a democratic Iraq will only embolden the
democratic forces in their own country. Seems to me a lot more believable
than wild oil grab scenarios.
The bottom line is your view of the world seems to based entirely on hate
and conspiracy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grantland" |
|
| Title: Re: Philippine and US |
24 Jul 2004 11:28:44 PM |
|
|
"Clark Pope" <cepope@mindspring.com> wrote:
Hey you fucking stupid PIG of a yank *****. I'd love to smash your face.
Grantland
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AK" |
|
| Title: Re: Philippine and US |
25 Jul 2004 04:44:20 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 12:17:45 GMT, "Clark Pope" <cepope@mindspring.com> wrote:
In fact, name a single country that has sent
more humanitarian aid, reconstruction money, etc. than America. (to Iraq or
elsewhere) A little inconsistent with your evil Americans rant?
This is just another American myth. The U.S. foreign-aid budget as a percentage
of gross national product (GNP) ranks LAST among the world’s wealthiest
countries (at about 0.1 percent).
http://www.jei.org/Archive/JEIR00/0023w3tab.html
Foreign aid budget of the US as a percentage of its overall wealth (as expressed
by the GNP) is less than the poorest nations of Europe.
The top donors are Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Sweden. The
tiny Netherlands (pop. 5.3 million) gave $3.2 billion in 2001—almost a third of
what America contributed.
A poor man who gives 100 dollars to a beggar is more generous than a rich man
who does the same, by this yardstick, it is evident that the US is the LEAST
GENEROUS developed country in the world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clark Pope" |
|
| Title: Re: Philippine and US |
25 Jul 2004 07:52:14 AM |
|
|
"AK" <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message
news:brv6g01tb7b2btmhuoj5pghbo420nbbph3@4ax.com...
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 12:17:45 GMT, "Clark Pope" <cepope@mindspring.com>
wrote:
In fact, name a single country that has sent
more humanitarian aid, reconstruction money, etc. than America. (to Iraq
or
elsewhere) A little inconsistent with your evil Americans rant?
This is just another American myth. The U.S. foreign-aid budget as a
percentage
of gross national product (GNP) ranks LAST among the world's wealthiest
countries (at about 0.1 percent).
http://www.jei.org/Archive/JEIR00/0023w3tab.html
Foreign aid budget of the US as a percentage of its overall wealth (as
expressed
by the GNP) is less than the poorest nations of Europe.
So if the U.S. economy grows the rest of the world suddenly becomes more
needy? I don't get why its tied to GNP in the first place. Shouldn't we
decide how much is needed and then everyone chip in accordingly? If the aid
is at all successful one would expect less need year over year, right?
If you compare our aid as a percentage of total aid against our economy as a
percentage of the world economy you get a much more favorable picture. Even
better, our 4 percent of the world population provides about 25 percent of
all the aid.
The top donors are Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and
Sweden. The
tiny Netherlands (pop. 5.3 million) gave $3.2 billion in 2001-almost a
third of
what America contributed.
A poor man who gives 100 dollars to a beggar is more generous than a rich
man
who does the same, by this yardstick, it is evident that the US is the
LEAST
GENEROUS developed country in the world.
Yes, we have a small percentage as compared to our GNP, but it is still
twice as much in absolute dollars as anyone else. Plus, I think there are a
lot of things those figures don't count. Is it counted when we lend $100
billion to bail out Mexico, a few years back? When we removed Saddam from
Kuwait was that cost counted as foreign aid? Is the cost of our 50,000
troops stationed to help defend South Korea counted? Are contributions to
charity organizations by individuals counted? When foreign students come to
study in U.S. grad schools, paying in tuition a fraction of the expense of
their education, counted as foreign aid? What about the millions of Mexican
illegal immigrants receiving education and social services benefits? That's
basically foreign aid to Mexico. How about the $400 billion dollars in goods
and services that we import more than export each year? Seems to me there is
about 8 million extra jobs that we're creating for the rest of the world
from our trade imbalance.
Most of the countries on the list that contribute high percentages of GNP
really don't have military oligations. Seems to me they're free loading off
of NATO because they know if anything happens that the U.S. and the U.K.
will do the heavy lifting for them. We could provide a whole lot more
foreign aid, too, if not for the $420 billion a year we're spending on
defense.
It also misses the really big point: Most large countries believe in trade
over aid. I would rather have an impoverished nation develop some industry,
jobs, an economy so that they become self-sufficent rather than just write a
blank check. Especially in places like Africa where the governments are so
corrupt you can never be sure if the money will get to the people that need
it. (Even when the UN distributes it.) In these cases direct investment is a
better solution but it isn't counted as aid.
By the way, I'm not sure I trust the ODA numbers. We've announced $15
billion for AIDs in Africa and passed $18 billion for Iraqi reconstruction
yet the ODA says the total aid is only $15 billion for the year. I realize
these are multi-year endowments, but I would expect a much bigger jump.
Finally, I've noticed that no middle eastern country even ranks in foreign
aid giving despite the many billions in oil?
But I agree we could do more. The problem in America is we tax payers
constantly have to hear from the world what greedy, selfish, imperialist,
bastards we are and it tends to cause one to wonder: "why I am helping these
people?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "AK" |
|
| Title: Re: Philippine and US |
25 Jul 2004 09:33:56 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:52:14 GMT, "Clark Pope" <cepope@mindspring.com> wrote:
Yes, we have a small percentage as compared to our GNP, but it is still
twice as much in absolute dollars as anyone else.
Even in absolute dollars, Japan used to be ranked higher than US (until their
economy collapsed.) Other developed countries, like France and Germany, were
never that behind (even in absolute numbers).
GNP is relevant. A poor man who gives 100 dollars to a beggar is more generous
than a rich man who does the same. As a percentage of GNP, US ranks LAST among
the world’s wealthiest countries (at about 0.1 percent).
Also, a lot of US aid is blackmail for political purposes. Examples: Israel and
Egypt, Jordan (for signing peace with Israel). US has given more money to a rich
country like tiny Israel (population 6 million) than to entire starving
sub-Saharan Africa combined. Other examples of political "generosity": Pakistan,
Philippines, and most of South America.
If you take all this in consideration, the US is even less generous than what
already bad stats show.
When we removed Saddam from Kuwait was that cost counted as foreign aid?
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait paid for the war (US might have even made money). Look
it up.
When foreign students come to
study in U.S. grad schools, paying in tuition a fraction of the expense of
their education, counted as foreign aid?
Give me a break! US universities make millions because of foreign students
(since they have to pay out-of-state fees which is much higher than what most
Americans pay).
What about the millions of Mexican
illegal immigrants receiving education and social services benefits?
They work and pay taxes and are a backbone of US economy. Your economy will
collapse without them.
How about the $400 billion dollars in goods
and services that we import more than export each year?
We could provide a whole lot more
foreign aid, too, if not for the $420 billion a year we're spending on
defense.
Self-interest. The military is used to project US power around the world to
ensure dominance (this applies to everything you said about Korea and other US
bases everywhere in the world).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clark Pope" |
|
| Title: Re: Philippine and US |
25 Jul 2004 12:24:54 PM |
|
|
"AK" <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message
news:itd7g0lpr8koke8d1sedrag6j9ckvdd5rf@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:52:14 GMT, "Clark Pope" <cepope@mindspring.com>
wrote:
Yes, we have a small percentage as compared to our GNP, but it is still
twice as much in absolute dollars as anyone else.
Even in absolute dollars, Japan used to be ranked higher than US (until
their
economy collapsed.) Other developed countries, like France and Germany,
were
never that behind (even in absolute numbers).
GNP is relevant. A poor man who gives 100 dollars to a beggar is more
generous
than a rich man who does the same. As a percentage of GNP, US ranks LAST
among
the world's wealthiest countries (at about 0.1 percent).
Also, a lot of US aid is blackmail for political purposes. Examples:
Israel and
Egypt, Jordan (for signing peace with Israel). US has given more money to
a rich
country like tiny Israel (population 6 million) than to entire starving
sub-Saharan Africa combined. Other examples of political "generosity":
Pakistan,
Philippines, and most of South America.
If you take all this in consideration, the US is even less generous than
what
already bad stats show.
When we removed Saddam from Kuwait was that cost counted as foreign aid?
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait paid for the war (US might have even made money).
Look
it up.
When foreign students come to
study in U.S. grad schools, paying in tuition a fraction of the expense
of
their education, counted as foreign aid?
Give me a break! US universities make millions because of foreign students
(since they have to pay out-of-state fees which is much higher than what
most
Americans pay).
What about the millions of Mexican
illegal immigrants receiving education and social services benefits?
They work and pay taxes and are a backbone of US economy. Your economy
will
collapse without them.
They're not paying taxes, thats the point, they're illegal. Even for those
that are, the cost per year to educate one student is about $12,000. I'm
pretty sure they're not paying that much each year per child.
Our economy would be just fine. I detassled corn, mowed lawns, and picked
strawberries as a kid for summer work.
How about the $400 billion dollars in goods
and services that we import more than export each year?
We could provide a whole lot more
foreign aid, too, if not for the $420 billion a year we're spending on
defense.
Self-interest. The military is used to project US power around the world
to
ensure dominance (this applies to everything you said about Korea and
other US
bases everywhere in the world).
So is Korea better off or worse off with our troops there? Are NATO members
safer or less safe with us as a member? Seems to me our self-interest is
frequently in the best interest for much of the world.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "vonroach" |
|
| Title: Re: Philippine and US |
25 Jul 2004 06:03:26 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 09:33:56 -0500, AK <someoneNasty@hotmails.com>
wrote:
someoneNasty from canada pontificates on something they know nothing
about - a free capitalist economy without socialist regulation in the
cannuck manner. I wonder why all the canadian morons post on US
newsgroups -
Even in absolute dollars, Japan used to be ranked higher than US (until their
economy collapsed.) Other developed countries, like France and Germany, were
never that behind (even in absolute numbers).
GNP is relevant. A poor man who gives 100 dollars to a beggar is more generous
than a rich man who does the same. As a percentage of GNP, US ranks LAST among
the world’s wealthiest countries (at about 0.1 percent).
Also, a lot of US aid is blackmail for political purposes. Examples: Israel and
Egypt, Jordan (for signing peace with Israel). US has given more money to a rich
country like tiny Israel (population 6 million) than to entire starving
sub-Saharan Africa combined. Other examples of political "generosity": Pakistan,
Philippines, and most of South America.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AK" |
|
| Title: Re: Philippine and US |
25 Jul 2004 09:52:25 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 09:33:56 -0500, AK <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote:
When foreign students come to
study in U.S. grad schools, paying in tuition a fraction of the expense of
their education, counted as foreign aid?
Give me a break! US universities make millions because of foreign students
(since they have to pay out-of-state fees which is much higher than what most
Americans pay).
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/11/03/foreign.students.ap/
"U.S. schools want foreign students both for the revenue they bring in -- the
IIE said international students spend up to $12 billion annually between tuition
and other expenses -- and their contributions to academic research. "
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=260109
"The fact is that international students do not receive special subsidies; in
fact, they actually represent a tremendous economic bonus for the United States.
"Contrary to the claims of some, international students receive no special
subsidies. All American college students, regardless of where they were born or
where they attend school, receive a subsidized education. This is widely known
and well-documented."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clark Pope" |
|
| Title: Re: Philippine and US |
25 Jul 2004 12:15:56 PM |
|
|
"AK" <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message
news:lnh7g0th5dreccm0p10l5dcbjhqskvjlmd@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 09:33:56 -0500, AK <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote:
When foreign students come to
study in U.S. grad schools, paying in tuition a fraction of the expense
of
their education, counted as foreign aid?
Give me a break! US universities make millions because of foreign
students
(since they have to pay out-of-state fees which is much higher than what
most
Americans pay).
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/11/03/foreign.students.ap/
"U.S. schools want foreign students both for the revenue they bring in --
the
IIE said international students spend up to $12 billion annually between
tuition
and other expenses -- and their contributions to academic research. "
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=260109
"The fact is that international students do not receive special subsidies;
in
fact, they actually represent a tremendous economic bonus for the United
States.
"Contrary to the claims of some, international students receive no special
subsidies. All American college students, regardless of where they were
born or
where they attend school, receive a subsidized education. This is widely
known
and well-documented."
I agree that most schools require foreign students to pay out of state
tuition but (a) I'm not convinced that really covers all expenses (b) they
still are getting research grants and working for professors funded through
NSF and (c) this site says we give $1.3 billion a year in scholarships.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark" |
|
| Title: Re: Philippine and US |
25 Jul 2004 07:45:40 AM |
|
|
"AK" <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message
news:brv6g01tb7b2btmhuoj5pghbo420nbbph3@4ax.com...
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 12:17:45 GMT, "Clark Pope" <cepope@mindspring.com>
wrote:
In fact, name a single country that has sent
more humanitarian aid, reconstruction money, etc. than America. (to Iraq
or
elsewhere) A little inconsistent with your evil Americans rant?
This is just another American myth. The U.S. foreign-aid budget as a
percentage
of gross national product (GNP) ranks LAST among the world's wealthiest
countries (at about 0.1 percent).
http://www.jei.org/Archive/JEIR00/0023w3tab.html
Foreign aid budget of the US as a percentage of its overall wealth (as
expressed
by the GNP) is less than the poorest nations of Europe.
The top donors are Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and
Sweden. The
tiny Netherlands (pop. 5.3 million) gave $3.2 billion in 2001-almost a
third of
what America contributed.
A poor man who gives 100 dollars to a beggar is more generous than a rich
man
who does the same, by this yardstick, it is evident that the US is the
LEAST
GENEROUS developed country in the world.
Oh, I dunno... do your figures include the cost of all the Bibles and St.
Christopher medals that we send?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Philippine and US |
26 Jul 2004 01:56:25 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 05:52:32 -0500, AK <someoneNasty@hotmails.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:06:16 GMT, "Clark Pope" <cepope@mindspring.com> wrote:
So we never helped liberate Europe in WWII? We were just invading Kuwait in
GWI?
Irrelevant. In WWII the US was attacked. Remember? Also, Germany declared the
war on US first. Iraq had never attacked the US.
You didn't answer the question: how many invaders do you know who didn't claim
the title "liberators"?
It's clear there is no Iraqi government that you'll ever say isn't a puppet
regime.
The current one is a puppet. That's for sure.
Also, keep in mind (even when talking about the cost of war), that the war went
wrong. They never thought the resistance would continue this long. If there was
no resistance in Iraq, we would not be having this debate. The WMD claims would
have been forgotten by now. And the cost of war would have been worth a
"friendly" regime that sits on huge oil reserves. Having bases in a country that
borders Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia would have been worth a few billion
dollars (to Americans).
But something went wrong. Thanks to Iraqi resistance.
Some of the war supporters now doubt if the war was worth it, not because it was
an imperial war based on falsehood (WMD), but because things didn't turn out as
they expected (i.e resistance).
It's also clear that even if we found nuclear weapons tomorrow, you would
say they were planted.
Again with the oil. Why is it we're spending $450 billion a year on our
military in order to BUY the $8 billion a year that Iraq produces in oil?
We
must be the dumbest crooks in history.
The continuous supply of oil for the next 20 years is worth more. The US
exerts
indirect influence on other emerging powers like India and China if the
oil
supply is under US friendly (i.e. puppet) regimes.
So if this is our evil plan why didn't we "steal" the oil in the first gulf
war?
You can't "steal" the oil, but you can rely on a "friendly" government that
ensures oil supply. A "friendly" government that complies when you want to put
pressure on China, North Korea, India or Europe. All of them need oil.
The war (to Americans -- not me) would have been worth all this, but Iraqi
resistance (you rule) messed it up.
So it was wrong to have normal relations with Saddam in the 80s? It was
wrong to have sanctions on Saddam in the 90s? AND it was wrong to go to war?
If YOU "cared when Saddam gassed Kurds in 1988" then you should be a strong
war supporter.
The US kept arming Sadam when Sadam WAS gassing Kurds. They went to war when he
wasn't gassing Kurds. Why would I be a strong war supporter? You are not making
sense.
We held Soviet expansion at bay for 50
years, with little help from the rest of the world. I guess we'll have to do
the same for the terror war.
Invading and occupying Iraq has created a lot more terrorists. It has done
nothing positive in the "terror war."
Methinks your words fall upon deaf ears, AK. The logic is there, but
it is the illogical who are reading.
I've slowly begun to accept that this debate is endless so long as
there is a deficiency in right's intellectual pool.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "shogun" |
|
| Title: Re: Philippine and US |
21 Jul 2004 06:11:01 PM |
|
|
In article <3evsf0halc15rfm9jl1df3hud6p0bf15qm@4ax.com>, AK <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote:
We have a pot calling cattle black situation here.
I never heard of a pot calling the cattle black situation. What breed of
cattle? Black Angus? Give me the good old days when the pot called the kettle
black.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: Philippine and US |
21 Jul 2004 07:57:52 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:33:28 -0500, AK overjoyed me with this news:
We have a pot calling cattle black situation here.
Udderly irresponsible.
They're just trying to cow-fuse the situation even moo-re. Althought I've
herd of this happening before in Jersey.
Time to cow-ter attack.
If it seems I'm still milking a previous thread, you're cow-rect.
:-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Never anonymous Bud" |
|
| Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ |
15 Jul 2004 02:45:08 PM |
|
|
Fresh from an Iraqi prisoner interrogation AK <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> smirked:
And? How does that prove there is anything ***** there?
It PROVES they haven't verified the story, but they're running it anyway.
REPUTABLE news agencies DON'T do that.
Right here: http://www.norwaypost.no/content.asp?folder_id=1&cluster_id=25740
"In one case, a girl around age 15 was said to have been
No, that's STILL hearsay, NO | |
