Afghanistan

[DOMS]

Foreign Aid: USA is Stingiest of the 22 Most Developed Countries.

I have to go to sleep, so I can only address this bit right now. I've seen this statement before and it is ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT!

Yes, in terms of other GDP, we give less, but in term of absolute dollars given, we make the rest look like Scrooge. They only like to point that out because it makes them feel better about giving less. Plus, it gives them something else to bitch about regarding the US.

We give more, by a large margin. Period.

 

[DOMS]

This is a great article on why people hate America

Why People Hate America: A Summary of Anti-Americanism

I only had a chance to skim through this, but it look spectacular. It appears to be even-handed and reasonable.

I'll read this in full tomorrow. Thanks!

 

[bio-chem]

Word of the attack reached President Roosevelt as he lunched in his oval study on Sunday afternoon. Later, Winston Churchill called to tell him that the Japanese had also attacked British colonies in southeast Asia and that Britain would declare war the next day. Roosevelt responded that he would go before Congress the following day to ask for a declaration of war against Japan. Churchill wrote: "To have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. Now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death So we had won after all!...Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder."

europe and others can try and rewrite history all it wants. before we entered ww2 the outcome was far from determined. we did not enter at some late stage to help with mop up duties

 

[bio-chem]

In Churchill's history of The Second World War he wrote of his emotions upon hearing that Japan had attacked United States forces at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Only "silly people, and there were many," underestimated American strength. For him, the entry of the United States into the war meant that the ultimate outcome--favorable for his country--was now assured. Feeling "the greatest joy" that the attack had arrayed his mother's country on the side of Britain, he "went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful."

 

[danzik17]

yea, we tried the isolationist approach up until ww1 and ww2. how did that work out? the second something goes wrong in the world every country turns to us to see what we are going to do about it. like it or not we are members of the world and we have to be involved. its the only way we are going to have an economy. thats just how it is. if my government is doing things to ensure that our goods and services have places to go and I have gas for my car, well thats what i elected them for.

The USA was never meant to be isolationist. The founders never meant for us to be hermits. The idea was that we have trade and friendship with all countries, entangling alliances with none.

Just look at the shitfest in Taiwan. We are legally obligated by treaty to protect Taiwan, yet mainland China has the economic muscle to cripple our dollar (though it would be suicide for them as well).

It's that kind of a ridiculous mess the founders wanted us to avoid.

 

[Spaullba]

I have to go to sleep, so I can only address this bit right now. I've seen this statement before and it is ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT!

Yes, in terms of other GDP, we give less, but in term of absolute dollars given, we make the rest look like Scrooge. They only like to point that out because it makes them feel better about giving less. Plus, it gives them something else to bitch about regarding the US.

We give more, by a large margin. Period.

I don't know how you can really say that. I mean that is like saying you expect Bill Gates and yourself to give the same amount of money to charity.

I only had a chance to skim through this, but it look spectacular. It appears to be even-handed and reasonable.

I'll read this in full tomorrow. Thanks!

No problem! =).

Word of the attack reached President Roosevelt as he lunched in his oval study on Sunday afternoon. Later, Winston Churchill called to tell him that the Japanese had also attacked British colonies in southeast Asia and that Britain would declare war the next day. Roosevelt responded that he would go before Congress the following day to ask for a declaration of war against Japan. Churchill wrote: "To have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. Now at

A Newsboy Announces the Attack
Redmond, CA Dec. 7, 1941 this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all!...Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder."

europe and others can try and rewrite history all it wants. before we entered ww2 the outcome was far from determined. we did not enter at some late stage to help with mop up duties

We did enter at a late stage that is a fact. It is true that without the US the war would likely have lasted much longer and been even more devastating, but that doesnt mean that the we saved the day by any means. The straw that breaks the Camel's back cannot take full credit for doing so. We may have pushed the war in the allies favor, but the fact of the matter is that we still played a smaller role than most of the other European countries involved and we suffered the least from the war.

 

[bio-chem]

I don't know how you can really say that. I mean that is like saying you expect Bill Gates and yourself to give the same amount of money to charity.

.

Or like someone claiming they are more charitable than bill gates because they give 10% of their middle income gross to charity while he only gives 5% of his gross.

 

[Spaullba]

That person has given up more of their own wealth to others, therefore I would say they are more charitable. I guess it depends on how you operationalize the variable.

 

[Big Smoothy]

since september 11 how many US civilians have died on US soil? seems like kicking their asses on their home field is working

9/11, had 2,900+ casualties in the US.

In Iraq, over 4,000.

I understand the Afghanistan mission 8 years ago. Go after Al-Qaeda.

But now the mission has changed. It's the Taliban (yes, they allowed AQ to operate in Afghanistan areas) and there are many warlords and family tribes, as Afghanistan is a nation-state only in name.

Was Mullah Mohammed Omar the true leader of Afghanistan, then? Is Hami Karzai the true leader now?

No, on both counts.

There are many leaders in "Afghanistan."

If the US wants to go after Al-Qaeda, they'll have to go into Pakistan, correct? And the Pakistani gov (which has been under pressure internally) does not want this action by the US).

So, why in Afghanistan 8+ years later?

To keep Al-Qaeda from returning to operate and train in Afghanistan? Perhaps that is part of the reaons.

But, let's look at the BIG picture. The entire region itself.

 

[Big Smoothy]

The author of this article below uses a few too many adjectives, and she has her own bias. But her points are worth looking at:

U.S. Occupation and the Corrupt, Mafia-state of Hamid Karzai

By Mike Whitney

December 14, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- It's too bad Barack Obama didn't consult with Malalai Joya before giving his Nobel acceptance speech on Thursday.

The ex-Afghan Parliamentarian could have helped the president to see that the ongoing US occupation is damaging to both American and Afghan interests. Afghanistan is not the "just war" that Obama defends so passionately in his speech. It's part of a larger US geopolitical strategy which Joya outlines in her new book "A Woman Among the Warlords: The extraordinary story of an Afghan who dared to raise her voice".

US policymakers have decided to establish a beachhead in Central Asia to monitor the growth of China, surround Russia, control vital resources from the Caspian Basin, and provide security for US mega-corporations who see Asia as the "market of the future." It is the Great Game all over again. "Victory" in Afghanistan means that a handful of weapons manufacturers, oil magnates, and military contractors will get very rich. That's it. It has nothing to do with al-Qaida, "democracy promotion" or US national security. That's all just public relations pablum.

"A Woman Among the Warlords" is an explosive book that takes a scalpel to many of the illusions surrounding the US invasion of Afghanistan. For example, most Americans have never heard about the "Warlord Strategy", a term that is commonplace among Afghans. That's because it doesn't mesh with the western media's narrative about Afghan "liberation". The truth is, US war-planners, led by Sec Def Donald Rumsfeld, settled on a plan to hand over entire regions of Afghanistan to the warlords before the first shot was fired. The whole "liberation"-meme was just a ruse to elicit support for the war.

Link & Entire: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24172.htm

 

[DOMS]

I don't know how you can really say that. I mean that is like saying you expect Bill Gates and yourself to give the same amount of money to charity.

No, it's like saying that since Bill only gave a billion dollars (a fraction of what he has) to charity and that I gave $30,000 (a large chunk of my yearly income) that calling Bill a stingy bastard is somehow appropriate or that my donation is somehow equal to his.

Like I said, the people that call the US stingy are just trying to make themselves feel better about giving less.

 

[bio-chem]

9/11, had 2,900+ casualties in the US.In one day

In Iraq, over 4,000. In 7 years

Compare those numbers to the 5,000 that the Americans lost at Omaha beach on D-Day alone. But outcome is all that matters. If a horribly evil regime like sadam had gets replaced by a decent government then I call it a success.

 

[bio-chem]

No, it's like saying that since Bill only gave a billion dollars (a fraction of what he has) to charity and that I gave $30,000 (a large chunk of my yearly income) that calling Bill a stingy bastard is somehow appropriate or that my donation is somehow equal to his.

Like I said, the people that call the US stingy are just trying to make themselves feel better about giving less.

exactly.

 

[Spaullba]

No, it's like saying that since Bill only gave a billion dollars (a fraction of what he has) to charity and that I gave $30,000 (a large chunk of my yearly income) that calling Bill a stingy bastard is somehow appropriate or that my donation is somehow equal to his.

Like I said, the people that call the US stingy are just trying to make themselves feel better about giving less.

Um... I would agree with that statement...

Whoever gives a larger portion of their income that year is more charitable IMO. For us to say that we are this amazingly charitable nation when we are giving .1% of our GDP in aid while other countries are giving .7% to 1% is ridiculous. I think most statisticians would agree that you need to look at it in terms of how capable a country is of giving versus how much they actually give when determining how charitable a country is.

 

[Spaullba]

Compare those numbers to the 5,000 that the Americans lost at Omaha beach on D-Day alone. But outcome is all that matters. If a horribly evil regime like sadam had gets replaced by a decent government then I call it a success.

A horrible regime that we supported and put into power to further our own interests that backfired horribly..

 

[bio-chem]

A horrible regime that we supported and put into power to further our own interests that backfired horribly..

well I agree that we supported him, but I've not seen anything that shows we put him into power. either way hindsight and all that

 

[Spaullba]

Hindsight bias is true, but this is by far not the first regime we have supported and/or put into power.

 

[DOMS]

Um... I would agree with that statement...

Whoever gives a larger portion of their income that year is more charitable IMO. For us to say that we are this amazingly charitable nation when we are giving .1% of our GDP in aid while other countries are giving .7% to 1% is ridiculous. I think most statisticians would agree that you need to look at it in terms of how capable a country is of giving versus how much they actually give when determining how charitable a country is.

I'm willing to bet that 10 out of 10 starving people that live off the generousity of the US would tell a statistician to go to hell. Your opinion doesn't feed people either, but absolute dollars do.

Really, quibbling over how much of a country's GDP is donated is petty. It's like have a dick measuring contest where the 5'3" loser bitches that the winner's 10 inch wonder shouldn't be considered better because he's 6'4". No matter how you look at it, it's bigger.

Also, you really, really need to be careful about believing people when they have an agenda.

For example, take infant mortality. Some Europeans just love to point out that the US has a higher rate of infant mortality. What they don't tell you is that they report differently than the US. In Europe, if a baby is born under 2 pounds and dies, it doesn't count as an infant death. In the US, no matter what the baby's weight, if it dies, it counts as an infant death.

 

[bio-chem]

+1 to DOMS for knowing his shit

 

[Spaullba]

I'm willing to bet that 10 out of 10 starving people that live off the generousity of the US would tell a statistician to go to hell. Your opinion doesn't feed people either, but absolute dollars do.

Really, quibbling over how much of a country's GDP is donated is petty. It's like have a dick measuring contest where the 5'3" loser bitches that the winner's 10 inch wonder shouldn't be considered better because he's 6'4". No matter how you look at it, it's bigger.

Also, you really, really need to be careful about believing people when they have an agenda.

For example, take infant mortality. Some Europeans just love to point out that the US has a higher rate of infant mortality. What they don't tell you is that they report differently than the US. In Europe, if a baby is born under 2 pounds and dies, it doesn't count as an infant death. In the US, no matter what the baby's weight, if it dies, it counts as an infant death.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on how you gauge how charitable a country is... There are people alot more smart than both of us on both sides of the argument.

And I realize everyone has their own agenda. That is the exact exact point I have been trying to make in my posts. We have a corporate (and thus an imperialistic) agenda that has nothing to do with national security or the safety and rights of people from other countries, but everything to do with our own economic interests. James Madison warned us of allowing factions (in this case corporate America) to have too much power in government yet this is exactly what has happened. Our entire country is driven by the success of our businesses and we are willing to go as far as it takes to make sure they continue to flourish, which includes expansion into parts of the world that strongly oppose our presence there (for good reasons).

 

[bio-chem]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on how you gauge how charitable a country is... There are people alot more smart than both of us on both sides of the argument.

And I realize everyone has their own agenda. That is the exact exact point I have been trying to make in my posts. We have a corporate (and thus an imperialistic) agenda that has nothing to do with national security or the safety and rights of people from other countries, but everything to do with our own economic interests. James Madison warned us of allowing factions (in this case corporate America) to have too much power in government yet this is exactly what has happened. Our entire country is driven by the success of our businesses and we are willing to go as far as it takes to make sure they continue to flourish, which includes expansion into parts of the country that strongly oppose our presence there (for good reasons).

In the words of Toby Ziegler "They will like us when we win"

 

[Spaullba]

In the words of Toby Ziegler "They will like us when we win"

Win what? Domination of their economic markets and funnel all of their dollars into our own country? Doubtful.

 

[bio-chem]

globalization benefits all

 

[Spaullba]

Globalization through militaristic deceptive means? I don't think so. It must be consensual to ever be appreciated or successful.

 

[bio-chem]

deceptive? you are starting to loose the moral high ground.

 

[Spaullba]

Yes, deceptive. We have convinced the public that we are fighting for democracy and freedom when we are actually fighting for economic reasons.

 

[DOMS]

Yes, deceptive. We have convinced the public that we are fighting for democracy and freedom when we are actually fighting for economic reasons.

Like most things in life, it's not done for a single reason.

 

[Spaullba]

Indeed. There is always a order of importance though.

 

[ZECH]

you really believe that?

Sure...what's to stop them from re-training and entering our soil to do harm if we leave? And they do want to do harm to us IMO.

 

[DOMS]

Sure...what's to stop them from re-training and entering our soil to do harm if we leave? And they do want to do harm to us IMO.

And, as Bill Clinton has shown, if you do nothing, they will come.