US Aid

[Judge Hades]

I thought this can be the spring board of a new discussion.

 

Alanschu states:

I feel so strongly about it that when someone such as you makes suggestions such as nuking the middle east as a viable solution to the problems there, as well as the staunch isolationist ideals you have, it really pisses me off. The United States is probably the most capable country of helping people, and you'd rather tuck into your turtle shell and do NOTHING. When people point out your callousness at times, you talk about how the only person you are worried about is yourself. Nothing like looking out for number one.

 

Actually I have slowly changed my views from isoloationism to self sufficiency. I see the need of the global market and the need to continue trade with nations in order to maintain our economy but I do not like the fact that we are dependent of other nations for our energy needs and labor. While continued trading is needed I do think the US needs to become more self sufficient and aid other countries til they can also be self sufficient.

 

As for helping people, is the US really helping others or seeking to maintain its own self interests? Israel recieves the most financial aid fromt he US but has proven itself to be able to stand on its own and face aggressors in kind. That money could be better spent on helping the welfare in our own country or shifted to other poorer nations. Also the invasion of Iraq has done more harm than good. It has destabilized the region, actually bolster the ranks in terrorist cells, and brought the arab country on the verge of civil war. I also think that if we pull completely out there would be more harm done than good.

 

The US needs to work its aid more efficiently and effectively. I agree the US is one nation that has the greatest capability to help the more unfortunate in the world but are we doing so to actually help people out or is the US government just helping themselves at the cost of lives of its own soldiers and the countries they occupy?

Edited October 7, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Volourn]

"brought the arab country on the verge of civil war."

 

Meh. Iraq has been in a civil war for decades. The only problem was that before it was completely one sided.

[Judge Hades]

Now it is fragmented and a leveled playing field, thusly the death toll has increased. The question is though, is the Iraq more safe and better off with the aid of the US than it was with Saddam? Are we actually helping or are we causing more problems?

Edited October 7, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Krookie]

We're helping.

[Judge Hades]

Are we helping them for their benefit or is the US government is helping themselves more?

 

I just think that it would have been more helpful if we stopped aid in Israel, militarily focused on Afganistan and use some of the money that once funded Israel there, then probably focus on more pressing trouble spots like Sudan and North Korea.

Edited October 7, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Krookie]

We're helping them for their benefit.

[Judge Hades]

What about Israel? Do we still need to give them the biggest amount of financial aid? Think of what can be done if that money was channeled to Afganistan, Iraq, and other locations who actually have people in need.

[Atreides]

I think the US is helping Africa plenty. And I don't just mean money for Nigerian oil.

[metadigital]

Actually I have slowly changed my views from isoloationism to self sufficiency.  I see the need of the global market and the need to continue trade with nations in order to maintain our economy but I do not like the fact that we are dependent of other nations for our energy needs and labor.  While continued trading is needed I do think the US needs to become more self sufficient and aid other countries til they can also be self sufficient.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nonsense.

 

Self-sufficiency is a fantasy. I suppose you would have been all onboard with Pol Pot's Communist vision, where everyone was moved from their bourgeoisie Colonial positions and set to work, equally, as proletariat brothers in the fields of the new agrarian cooperatives, too. (Who needs doctors when we can all work in the fields and feel satisfied with a job well done, all our hands calloused with the tonic of honest days' work?)

 

I think you need to read up on a fairly important piece of work published recently by Adam Smith. Namely An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, which examined in detail the consequences of economic freedom, the role of self-interest, the division of labor, the function of markets, and the international implications of a laissez-faire economy (which is the ineluctable result of every country being focused inwards on "self-sufficiency", with no external plan). Oh, and there goes the UN, too.

 

Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience.

[Judge Hades]

Meta, I think you are misinterpreting what I am going for. When I mean self sufficient, I mean that the country econonic and social development progresses strongly on its own accord without the need of aid from other countries. Trading goods and services aid in that, because that brings in resources not normally availabe yet given on a more or less even playing field, depending on market forces. One of our, meaning the US, major dependency is foreign oil but if we reach a technological and resource stage which we no longer need foreign oil we will be a stronger position of self sufficiency. I think that is something worthwhile to achieve.

 

Also I think it is necessary for other nations to work towards not needing foreign aid on a yearly basis. I think it would be a major accomplishment if Iraq became economically and socially self sufficient, meaning that its exports and imports of trade goods make it no longer needing US or any other country's assistance. That is what we need to achieve in both Afganistan and Iraq in order for those countries to be truly free and autonomous.

Edited October 7, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Enoch]

Meta, I think you are misinterpreting what I am going for.  When I mean self sufficient, I mean that the country econonic and social development progresses strongly on its own accord without the need of aid from other countries.  Trading goods and services aid in that, because that brings in resources not normally availabe yet given on a more or less even playing field, depending on market forces.  One of our, meaning the US, major dependency is foreign oil but if we reach a technological and resource stage which we no longer need foreign oil we will be a stronger position of self sufficiency.  I think that is something worthwhile to achieve. 

 

But how do you decide what trade constitutes "dependency" and what trade is acceptable and necessary? Is America less "self sufficient" because other nations have a comparative advantage in producing labor intensive goods, so that it's cheaper for the American consumer to buy imports? We could make them if we wanted to, but we'd have to pay twice as much.

[Volourn]

"thusly the death toll has increased."

 

Proof please.

[Judge Hades]

If we need something then we are not self sufficient. If we want something, then its trade.

[Judge Hades]

"thusly the death toll has increased."

 

Proof please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

 

An interesting, if not morbid, site.

 

Actually, comparing the number of dead during Saddam's reign of 23 years and to the numbers of Iraqi dead since the US occupation... They both have the same early average.

 

Um... nevermind.

Edited October 7, 2006 by Judge Hades

[thepixiesrock]

So the US is self sufficient according to you.

[Judge Hades]

We are getting there. We still have a pretty strong dependency on foreign oil, but it would help other nations to become more self sufficent if we shuffle the foreign aid around and give to other countries who have the greatest need the greater amount of aid. Israel is not one of them.

Edited October 7, 2006 by Judge Hades

[thepixiesrock]

No, we are there according to you. We don't depend on foriegn oil, we have oil in the US. We just don't use it.

[Judge Hades]

Hmmm... You have a good point there. Well, maybe I would be a little more secure in our self sufficiency once E85 and hybrid cars become more common and Ethonal and Biodiesel become the main fuel sources for our country.

[Volourn]

Hades: The problem with counts like that is the kind of deaths they keep track. I've seen counters who count 'traffic accidents' or 'old fashion robbery + murder' as being caused by the invasion. LOL Basically, any and all detahs in Iraq are blamed on the US.

 

R00fles!

[Judge Hades]

That is why we should probably compare the average yearly death counts prior the invasion to the post invasion numbers and see where they lie. If my calculations are correct, they are approximately the same. So, Iraq is not worse off, but not better off, at least where it comes to the total amount of dead are concerned.

[Colrom]

We're helping them for their benefit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Now that the world has the US with Republican leadership to decide who needs help and what help they need and who should live and who should die - with the self proclaimed authority to execute those decisions - many may think that we no longer need God.

 

Isn't that something!

Edited October 7, 2006 by Colrom

[Pop]

I remember going to Nicaragua and seeing how we "aided" them in the 1980's, and I imagine the "aid" of the British and French were just as appreciated through the 1800s.

 

It's not as simple as throwing handfuls of money at a problem to end it. Self-sufficiency and deregulation are bad ideas (hello Great Depression!) the idea is, if we want to bring a nation out of poverty, they've got to have a commodity to trade and create markets with, which "aid" gives us first dibs on, such that a market is either never created, created with us specifically in mind (ie Saudi Arabian oil) or nationalized and then dismantled in the interest of western capitalists (ie Iranian oil)

 

Interesting that China and India are cornering the labor markets these days, what with western industrial sectors shrinking and white-collar and retail sectors on the rise, particularly since India would be the best-off former colony in the world (not counting the US, since the brits pretty much stopped ****ing with our government post-independence).

Edited October 7, 2006 by Pop

[ElNino]

This is the kind of thread I once would have thrown myself at. But those days has come and gone. Now, I mostly ignore them.

 

Personal beliefs, ideas and concepts. That's what it boils down to. I could easily dig up the first 100 articles about climate change, peak oil, fascism in the US, economic warfare (dollar hemogeny), drug trafficing etc. But whats the point?

 

Most people will not change their beliefs; their outlook on the world.

 

For what it's worth:

 

I believe the world is entering the plateau of global oil production. I believe it will bring about chaos on a level never before seen. I mention oil because it's the lifeblood of "modern society" - of the top 65 top oil producing nations, 54-55 are in permanent decline. But I could just as well mention water, food, metals etc.

 

We are now 6.5 - 6.6 billioner people on this once beautiful earth and through overcomsumption we have managed to dig ourself into a hole from where escape seem more and more unlikely every day.

 

But I don't blame the US. Certainly not it's people but not even it's leadership. Had any other country been dealt the same hand the outcome would probably have been the same.

 

If you wish to argue peak oil or don't believe in manmade climate change then please don't waste your energy on me. I have heard it all too many times before. (Yes I realize the irony...)

 

 

[Atreides]

All the more reason to get your Ford GT and gun it down the highway before you can't anymore!

[Darque]

Thread pruned a little.

 

Can we please play nice?