Will the United States go to war again...

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Yeah, it's well documented how neoconservatives stick up for one another.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

And let's not forget my whole point here: we have had some disasters with aid (such as Somalia), but for every one of those, there are 300 cases where we issue aid to victims of natural disasters which do a TON of good. So, we should just say "fuck them"? Aren't you trying to take the moral high ground and say we're justified for these things? If so, shouldn't you be 100% in support for aid to other countries?

[Guest Powerplay]

Are you going through and trying to dispute all of my posts for the sake of disputing them, or do you have a real point in trying to say that we shouldn't send aid to these countries? If so, why should we go through and kill their dictators?

A small little break from hockey (2-1 Wings, FUCK YEAH~!!!!1!!!), but if aid is to ever succeed in these countries with hostile dictators and regiemes, the regiemes must be eliminated. This generally means military action.

[Guest SP-1]

Fair enough, Tyler. I see where you're coming from with that. I can see the spirit of what SG is saying too, though. We supply the force for the UN to carry out a relief mission and we get shat on for it. We didn't initiate but we still went in. In a sense, the UN affiliation makes it an even bigger slap in the face.

 

But that conflict is WAY off-topic.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

True, but his argument is against aid altogether.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

But that conflict is WAY off-topic

 

Come on, it's page three. Do you expect any CE thread to stay on topic past that?

[Guest TheMikeSC]

 

A war with them would take a few months

Yeah just like the last war you had with them eh?

Are you one of the people who would compare Iraq to Vietnam as well? North Korea then and now would be totally different for many of the same reasons.

No I don't compare Iraq and Vietnam. But North Korea would be no easy victory either. China would never stand Idly by and let you invade them, Germany,France, and Russia would also be alarmed at youre actions.

 

Also North Korea does supposedly have the Bomb now.

Do you honestly think China would oppose us for attacking N. Korea? Heck, if we threaten war, CHINA will attack N. Korea so we won't do it and China will "control" that part of the world.

 

And Germany, France, and Russia probably wouldn't say a word --- they don't have any business ties to N. Korea.

 

BTW --- why no mentions of Germany claiming rights to some of Iraq's oil fields?

-=Mik

[Guest SP-1]

True enough. We were doing so well though!

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

And Germany, France, and Russia probably wouldn't say a word --- they don't have any business ties to N. Korea.

 

Of course not, because we know that everyone who opposes us is a low-down-dirty crook (tsk at our administration NOT being labelled as such) and can't possibly have the interests of world stability in mind as they oppose our military action.

 

 

IF YER NOT WITH US, YER EVIL!!!!!11!1!

[Guest Some Guy]

Because it wasn't like we initiated the conflict, the UN did. We got shat on because of it, but it's not as if we're the ones who went to liberate their country, it was a UN mission to deliver aid.

 

Also, SG, I'm not sure the point you're trying to make. Are you going through and trying to dispute all of my posts for the sake of disputing them, or do you have a real point in trying to say that we shouldn't send aid to these countries? If so, why should we go through and kill their dictators?

Someone pointed out that if we should stay out of people's business then should we also not give aid. You disputed that by saying that we should still give aid because our soldiers don't die when we do. I disputed that because it's not true and gave an example.

 

I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't do much of anythign with other countries unless we have somehting to gain, whether that be another military base, money, security or whatever.

I don't think that we are under any obligation to provide anything to another country for free. The fact that we do is admirable, but really doesn't get us anythign in return. Most 3rd world countries are ingrates. They take and take and have a sense of entitlement to our money. And they have no gratitude for it. They don't even say thank you. If they continue to act that way then fuck 'em. Let them feed themselves.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

And if we sit here with billions and billions of dollars and don't send aid to countries who need it, we are no longer the moral good guys. We're the rich fuckers who are no better than anyone else.

[Guest Some Guy]

And if we sit here with billions and billions of dollars and don't send aid to countries who need it, we are no longer the moral good guys. We're the rich fuckers who are no better than anyone else.

Huh?

 

Why should we give any of our money away? You're anti-rich bias really hurts your arguement here.

 

I think we should give somehting because it is the right thing to do and gianign out of that is not evil or wrong, but we don't have to. And if those who take our charity are demostrate that they don't want it by their actions against us then we should stop giving them stuff.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The "anti-rich" bias is simply a cop-out for you. Give it up.

 

If you can afford it, you should always give to make the world around you better. That makes you a good man, or a good country, or whatever. When that stops, however, and you turn your nose to the sky and ignore everyone else's suffering, you are NO LONGER THE GOOD GUY. You're just another morally bankrupt person or country.

 

If we're to claim we're the good guys, we have to take shit like that. Is it nice? No. Should we have to put up with it? Probably not. Should we stop being the good guys because of it? Of course not.

[Guest Some Guy]

The "anti-rich" bias is simply a cop-out for you. Give it up.

If it weren't true then maybe.

 

If you can afford it, you should always give to make the world around you better. That makes you a good man, or a good country, or whatever.

 

It might make you a good person, but you shouldn't have to do it. You're just extending your beliefs onto other people, I thought diversity and tolerance were against that.

 

If we're to claim we're the good guys, we have to take shit like that. Is it nice? No. Should we have to put up with it? Probably not. Should we stop being the good guys because of it? Of course not.

 

Why not? If we do it to a few countries then the others will get the point. Never bite teh ahnd that feeds you or it'll take it's hand away or if you bite hard enough it might slap the taste out of your mouth.

 

When that stops, however, and you turn your nose to the sky and ignore everyone else's suffering, you are NO LONGER THE GOOD GUY. You're just another morally bankrupt person or country.

 

Isn't ti morally bankrupt to kill the people who are helping you? Isn't it morally bankrupt to shit on us while you only live because we feed you? Seems to me that you have this backwards.

 

I think a part of this deal with Iraq was also to show the world what can be expected to happen if you fuck with us. Taking away aid from those who fuck with us will further that.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

If it weren't true then maybe.

 

LOLZ U THINK!

 

It might make you a good person, but you shouldn't have to do it. You're just extending your beliefs onto other people, I thought diversity and tolerance were against that.

 

What the hell are you talking about? If we're truly the morally correct people, we should do everything we can to make people better. What the hell do diversity and tolerance have to do with that? Stop pulling things out of your ass and claiming they're a point in a debate.

 

Why not? If we do it to a few countries then the others will get the point. Never bite teh ahnd that feeds you or it'll take it's hand away or if you bite hard enough it might slap the taste out of your mouth.

 

So, we make an example out of human suffering. That's awfully kind hearted of you.

 

Isn't ti morally bankrupt to kill the people who are helping you? Isn't it morally bankrupt to shit on us while you only live because we feed you? Seems to me that you have this backwards.

 

So we should hold ourselves to the same standards as a morally bankrupt country? That's logical.

 

think a part of this deal with Iraq was also to show the world what can be expected to happen if you fuck with us. Taking away aid from those who fuck with us will further that.

 

And it will further the erosion of our ability to claim the moral high ground. Of course, you don't seem to care too much... nor do you seem to grasp what I'm saying on an even basic level. I'm not saying "OMG WER RICH AN THATS BAD GIV EVRYTHIN TO THA POOR AN LIV IN POVERY LOL", I'm saying that WE ARE the good guys in the world, and if we should expect to continue to be that, in anyone's (including ours) mind, we need to be compassionate and give to those who need it, whether or not they are appreciative.

[Guest Anglesault]

And part of what he's saying...I THINK, is why the hell should we continue to be the good guys if all we do is get shit on for it?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

...I'm not sure what's the question here.

 

Why don't we want to do the right thing? Why don't we want to be moral and good? Why don't we want to be the beacon of all that is right in the world?

 

Um... so?

[Guest Anglesault]

Why should we do something if we're not getting anything out of it? Human nature.

 

But stepped up, to the point of

 

Why should we do something if they are just gonna spit back in our face?

 

You never know what you have until it's gone. Maybe some of these people need to learn that.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Congratulations for completely ignoring my point.

[Guest EricMM]

Ok let ME try and organize this:

 

(various arguments about dictators then...)

 

Tyler: We should give because it is the right thing to do.

SG: We should give, but we should get something in return.

Tyler: No we should give no matter what.

SG: No, because when we give people spit in our faces and dance when our towers fall. If they cannot appreciate us with a little bit of earned respect then fuck them, let them TRY to feed themselvees.

Tyler: Withholding food makes us the bad guys. If we can give we MUST give. That's the right and moral thing to do!

 

I'd have to agree somewhat with SG. Barring natural disasters which NOONE has been arguing about recently although we could, (how much UN relief do we get when hurricanes and earthquakes happen here? I dunno) we are arguing about third world nations. Usually at the root of poverty and hunger in a third world nation is a dictator of some sort embezzling and stealing from his people, in control with an army. There can be other causes like massive over population, but generally there is a leader who is taking from his people without actually leading. A good leader would open schools, invest in farming technologies, and create jobs and simple industry. A bad leader creates a (relatively) powerful military so he is not ousted in the next coup, and uses it to tax the populance.

 

In conclusion, the argument from people here has been that feeding people in control of a dictator is a waste of time, because the dictator will just steal most of the food back and give it to himself and his military. Corruption is a part of almost every third world country, and so putting money into them will generally get wasted. That is not to say that organizations like UNICEF don't do good, but they are not operating on the scale that the US does. Eliminating the corruption would make the process easier, but it's not something that anyone thinks we should be doing. So it comes back to the fact, if resources are going to be abused, why give them out?

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Yeah, it's well documented how neoconservatives stick up for one another.

Come on know Tyler, you know liberals do the same thing.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

We weren't even arguing about giving them to dictatorships, etc.

 

We're talking about aid in disasters, even though you tried to insinuate that we weren't. He says they don't appreciate it, so we shouldn't give it. On the other hand, I'm not sure why you're arguing that giving aid to these people isn't the right thing to do in cases of disaster and whatnot... but hey! Screw the people who are dying and suffering, right?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Yeah, it's well documented how neoconservatives stick up for one another.

Come on know Tyler, you know liberals do the same thing.

Actually, liberals are much more split than the neocon faction.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Do you mean the pro-war dems, vs the anti-war dems. I'd agree with that, but the liberal wing of the party is pretty much like the conservatives.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Well, not only the pro and anti-war Dems, but there's also other splinters within the party who lean closer to the right than the left. The party really is in disarray, thus the need to balance the ticket in any election.

 

Neoconservatives, not necessarily "conservatives", per se, are a faction of the conservative wing which really sticks up for their own and whatnot. I'd suggest reading "Blinded By The Right", by David Brock, for a leftist (although, no less valid) perspective on the neoconservative movement. He was a large part of it and switched to liberalism, mostly because of that faction of the party.

[Guest Anglesault]

He says they don't appreciate it, so we shouldn't give it. On the other hand, I'm not sure why you're arguing that giving aid to these people isn't the right thing to do in cases of disaster and whatnot... but hey! Screw the people who are dying and suffering, right?

I'm willing to give...If they are appreciative and grateful. It boils down to not biting that hand that feeds.

[Guest The Hamburglar]

America giving aid to places only makes it stronger. Most noteworthy case, the Marshall Plan, ensured an utterly US-friendly Western Europe for forty years, with it still being pretty much friendly today, which was an advantage to the USA in a myriad of different ways. Through the use of genuine, committed aid that actually achieves something, the US spreads its "empire", so to speak. The US should seek to avoid overseas military conflict as much as possible, because that isn't what its power is based on. So yeah, giving aid is worth it, if the aid is distributed effectively enough, and in the right areas.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I personally find the so called true conservatives to be nothing but a joke and not even members of the party. The neo-conservatives are making much better attempts at doing good around the world, than the other group does.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

And, at the same time, you're suggesting we withdraw aid to countries because they don't give us verbal blowjobs?

[Guest Anglesault]

And, at the same time, you're suggesting we withdraw aid to countries because they don't give us verbal blowjobs?

If that's how you want to phrase it, I guess I can't change your mind.

 

I think you should look more in their direction. Why do they refuse to be appreciative to America for what we give them? Is it THAT FUCKING HARD?