Perhapes more tax cuts will help pay for this…
Wow, between this and the 10 Billion to Israel the Jewish lobbies are cleaning out the States completly.
Too bad most Americans are'nt intelligent to know what is going on. They would likley be outraged to realize that their hard earned tax dollars are being guzzled by soldiers slapping around Arabs in the desert and by some Russian guy pertending to be Jewish squatting on somebody else's land in the West Bank.
This
versus this from two years ago…
Aids orphans are being created by their millions, and in two decades’ time, Africa will have possibly millions of children, some HIV-positive, who have become orphans. While Bush is busy causing the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq, generations of children will grow up with real terrorism in their midst - the terrorism of poverty, Aids, and illiteracy. i hope none of us wonder, in 20 years’ time, if another bin Laden comes out of a poor African country.
GWB looked so much like LBJ last night...
LBJ? Nah....looked more like a BLT to me!
Re: Bush asking Congrees for $87 billion more for Iraq.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Perhapes more tax cuts will help pay for this.....
[/quote]
Why not give Tax Cuts to Iraqis, Hey!
Now let's hear it again, "It's all about the Oil!"
Wasn't that the big theory that the US was doing this to make money? If the US pumps $30Bil per year of Iraqi oil, how long will it take to pay back the US?
So please tell me geniuses how is the US going to make money in this endeavor? And please do not bore me with the Haliburton stuff, as very little of that will be paid back to the treasury in taxes.
What does one have to do with the other?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Now let's hear it again, "It's all about the Oil!"
Wasn't that the big theory that the US was doing this to make money? If the US pumps $30Bil per year of Iraqi oil, how long will it take to pay back the US?
So please tell me geniuses how is the US going to make money in this endeavor? And please do not bore me with the Haliburton stuff, as very little of that will be paid back to the treasury in taxes.
[/QUOTE]
And u still believe they care about tax money collection! This saga of threat thing is to ligetimize 400 billion defense budget.. making war lobby happy and defense contracts booming along with Halibutons...
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Aids orphans are being created by their millions, and in two decades' time, Africa will have possibly millions of children, some HIV-positive, who have become orphans. While Bush is busy causing the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq, generations of children will grow up with real terrorism in their midst - the terrorism of poverty, Aids, and illiteracy. i hope none of us wonder, in 20 years' time, if another bin Laden comes out of a poor African country.
[/QUOTE]
So if the U.S., doesn't pour money int Africa, it will be responsible for future African terrorists?
Will anyone else who is paying less than the American pledge to fight AIDS be responsible for future terrorists?
"Root cause" for terrorism = U.S. not charitable enough.
Typical.
^Nope it is actually because you guys would rather break something and then spend a lot of money fixing it rather than spend a little bit of money on something that is already broken. In other words you will go into another's country , ravage it then spend gazillions of dollars trying to undo the mess while saying look at us we are just trying to help rather than spending a little bit of money to help people who are need in the first place. Is that right Ms. Nadia?
BTW Storch, don't take this the wrong way but your logic works remarkably like that of a southern baptist or an evangelical. Are you either? (just curious) and once again no offence intended.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mufakkar: *
^Nope it is actually because you guys would rather break something and then spend a lot of money fixing it rather than spend a little bit of money on something that is already broken. In other words you will go into another's country , ravage it then spend gazillions of dollars trying to undo the mess while saying look at us we are just trying to help rather than spending a little bit of money to help people who are need in the first place. Is that right Ms. Nadia?
BTW Storch, don't take this the wrong way but your logic works remarkably like that of a southern baptist or an evangelical. Are you either? (just curious) and once again no offence intended.
[/QUOTE]
What has the U.S. broken in Africa? How about Britain, Canada(who's oil interests sustained a bloody Sudanese conflict), France, Belgium, the Netherlands?
Nadia's point suggests that the U.S. mistreats and ignores those in Africa. There is truth to the ignorance part, but so does the rest of the world as well as fellow Africans. Her point and the logic behind your acceptance of it, is very questionable.
And we are spending a little bit of money in the first place. In the case of Africa, likely more than most countries. So, why specifically should future terrorists from Africa target the U.S. alone? With the information laid out in Nadia's post, there is no clear conclusion that can be drawn.
The conclusion I draw is that there is a mindset that says:
U.S. is responsible for the human condition-unless it is a positive contribution-
and thus shall in perpetuity incur the wrath of all poverty-stricken, disenfranchised people across the globe.
And BTW, I'm neither of the denominations you mentioned.
^
Read her post again. No where has she said that future terrorists from Africa should or would target the US. She has simply labelled generalized poverty, AIDS and illeteracy as forms of terrorism against the people. But your reply suggests that because you spend money in Africa, you somehow have the right to ravage any country you choose. Care to defend that statement? I don't know about spending the most in Africa since Doctors without Borders UNAIDS, and UNHCR are the largest presences in Africa. One is French and as for UN I believe the US is woefully behind on paying its dues to that organization. Also countries such as Japan tend to end up footing the bill for most of your attempts at helping others (Gulf war I and II stand out lemme verify and get back to you on the others).
While replying please keep in mind that criticism comes not out of hate but from genuine concern and a desire to improve.
Mufakkar, U.S. is the highest donor in Aid to Africa in dollar terms. Everyone in the G8 should give more, great we both agree.
And who has benefited the most from this Iraq mess anyways? The oil-rich Gulf States have reaped the most benefits from Iraqis crippled Infrastructure. Hundred million dollar contracts that American companies are receiving don't touch the 10's of billions Gulf States such as Saudi Arabia have gained from increased oil sales due to Iraq. Puts a whole crimp in that "Blood for oil theory" doesn't it?
Ok a quick search gave me nothing to contest your claim of the US being the largest donor to Africa in dollar terms except to say that the JICA the Japanese International Cooperation Agency claims itself as being the biggest player, and another news item said that the EU and the US together are the largest donors.
Secondly, USAID has its largest program in Nigeria, another OPEC member which makes me wonder why an OPEC member would need aid. Well I will leave that for guppies interested in the US and oil to explore ;)
Thirdly where has all the "who has really benefited" questions come from? Have I raised any such points? Have I talked about the "oil for blood program" at all? But considering that Saudis have benefitted from all this even after the fact that a lot of the hijackers were Saudi and that there was a lot of noise about lack of Saudi cooperation in the war against terror, was this windfall for the Saudis part of the US plans because as far as I can recall, thr Saudis did not ask you attack Iraq. You asked yourselves to attack Iraq.
It was the right thing to do to overthrow Saddam with or without the UN, the mistakes were made afterwards, not much more to say than that.
It IS about the OIL but whoever said US would be the ultimate benficiary?? It's for the masters in Tel Aviv... so don't complain about billions of deficit otherwise you're an anti-semite.
And let's thank the 'benevolent' US for their 'AID' to Africa.. the US stands between the supply of cheap drugs to Africa.. the very reason Microsoft donates so much to Africa.. cuz the patent laws that prevent the production of cheaper alternative to AIDS medicines available also protect Microsofts monopoly.
PA, I would have given you some credit if you said Bill Gates donates so much to India to fight Aids because they have major development within India thus their helping their own cause while fighting Aids but this talk of giving Aid to Africa because it protects them is more than a little off the deep end.
39 major drug companies agreed in 2001 to allow cheap generics to be sold in africa without fighting them in court.
PA,
And let's thank the 'benevolent' US for their 'AID' to Africa.. the US stands between the supply of cheap drugs to Africa.. the very reason Microsoft donates so much to Africa.. cuz the patent laws that prevent the production of cheaper alternative to AIDS medicines available also protect Microsofts monopoly.
Huh?
Please do some research. Almost any epidemiologist will tell you that the key to contolling aids in Africa will be prevention. This has been the lynchpin in virtually any country where aids has erupted. Numerous trial have been done with aids drugs in Africa. The problem is that the vast majority of african patients are completely non-compliant with the strict regimes needed to arrest the disease. The cocktails that have proven so effective in controlling the symptoms must be followed to the letter, and without fail each and everyday at precisely the appointed times. Africans who have had the drugs available frequently sell the drugs, take them when they get around to them, or invent thier own theories on how to take them.
At this point the US could PAY the entire continent to take the meds, and it would not arrest the spread of aids. The key is education, then treatment.
[quote]
It was the right thing to do to overthrow Saddam with or without the UN, the mistakes were made afterwards, not much more to say than that.
[/quote]
So when there are no answers available just repeat a suitable cliche and run eh? This thread is about the load that Americans have to carry footing the bill for these "mistakes", not about intentions or good things in a vacuum.
On a side note, the fact that Saddam is gone is very good in that Iraq is rid of a tyrant, but have the Iraqis simply traded one set of miseries for another? (There are no "good" and "bad" miseries I am telling you in advance because thats what will probably be the essence of your reply anyway).