Can we just !/$$!?$?! leave now?

@msolga,

Pardon me, that was littlek.

@ossobuco,

The numbers, I think but am no expert at -
In a book I just read, very interesting, I got it that the north vietnamese lost many more than the south, and we, the complex of we, lost the least numbers. I knew that, but not the numbers. The north somewhat more than a million. As of that book, Nelson deMille's Up Country, there were about 300,000 north vietnamese missing in action.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

No worries.
Let's move on now.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

You will note that the US gave out almost three times as much in foreign aid as any other country did.

I knew that, Mr Disingenuous. But let's take a closer look. Comments in bold are mine, to lessen the chances that your eyes will glaze over, Cy.

Quote:

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

The USA claims to be, in absolute terms, the world's biggest giver and this is true. However, as a proportion of its wealth the USA gives least when compared to all 22 of the worlds' most developed countries.

“[Americans] are regularly told by politicians and the media, that America is the world's most generous nation. This is one of the most conventional pieces of 'knowledgeable ignorance'. [...For example Japan gives more even in absolute terms...]
Absolute figures are less significant than the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid. On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: 'We are the stingiest nation of all'.

Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%. The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%.

Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share."

"Why do people hate America?" by Sardar & Davies (2002)27

Not only that, but according to one source cited by Sarder & Davies, 80% of that aid itself actually goes to American companies in those foreign countries.

2.2. Tied Aid

“The most generous countries are also the ones that do not tend to tie aid to their own products and services. The stingiest countries also, almost spitefully and nastily, force countries to buy their own services and products with the aid they give; which reduces free trade and commerce and harms the country's economy, as well as being simply selfish and conceited. Thankfully, many countries do not tie their aid. Countries that tie less than 10% of aid include Ireland, Norway and the UK, then Belgium, Finland, Switzerland and Sweden. The USA is the worst, and ties nearly 90% of its aid to developing countries. Italy is the second worst with 70%. The two worst countries for this obnoxious practice in aid-giving are also the two countries out of the most developed countries, who give least generously!”

http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/hateamerica.html

0 Replies

@msolga,

OK.

On and out.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quit your whining, CI. You have it infinitely better than Afghanistan, a country YOUR government has spent 30 years destroying.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

Quote:

You are assuming I and we don't get it.

Evidently, Osso, you've missed a whole lot of posts in this thread. Has that got anything to do with the highly selective mindset of Americans?

No reply necessary.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

Quote:

Do you not know the north was heavily bombed?

Explain it to me, Osso, if you would.

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Quote:
Let's discuss the impact of the US leaving Afghanistan. Grant me, if you will, that the people of the US had multiple missions going in. We can debate forever whether we should be there. You'll be hard pressed to convince many Americans that our entry there was anything other than a response to a declaration of war against the US with the full backing of the Taliban - the ruling gov't of Afghanistan at the time. Yes, it was a new definition of war here. Like it, or not, that is the reality

Maybe, just maybe, "many Americans" got it wrong, JPB?

Why was such a "response" necessary, apart from appeasement of internal US sensitivities?
Reason enough for an invasion & a war on the people of Afghanistan?

Yes, absolutely. A government of a country is a reflection of the wishes of the people of the country. The people of Afghanistan were not in revolt against their Taliban government. There was no active movement to oppose them at the time. Therefore, there is no other logical conclusion than that the people of the country supported the actions of their leaders in protecting these terrorists who attacked us.

I know people who were killed on 9/11. They aren't coming back. This doesn't mean that I'm filled with some unreasoning rage, some anger that demands deaths in kind to atone for it; but we shouldn't treat the people of these other countries as children, either... they are not and were not. They are adults, the same as you and I, and responsible for their actions and those of the leaders who they willingly allowed to commit atrocities by proxy.

Quote:

What exactly could the beleaguered people of Afghanistan do to appease US outrage to 9/11? Absolutely nothing.

They could have risen up against the very government who actively protected those who committed atrocities - but they chose not to do so. In large part because the traditional teachings of their religion - not the one that all share, but the teachings that many of them shared - said that there was no moral compunction against killing people like me.

Quote:

Yet it was the impoverished, invasion-weary, ordinary people who have suffered the most as a result of US retaliation to 9/11, not those who caused it.

This isn't true. Those who caused it are, for the most part, dead or in prison. There are very few active members of AQ's leadership still alive. Few who are active in any way. These folks have suffered the most - they paid for their actions with their lives. I don't have any problem with that whatsoever. I'm not a warmonger and I wish nothing bad upon anyone alive; but, if you dedicate yourself to making war on me and mine, you deserve to suffer the result of us making war back. And we're far better at it than they could ever imagine being. The US is a beast, both Great and Terrible... I never want to see a war in which another people truly incur our wrath. I honestly fear for what would happen if we lost restraint.

I think that, at this point, we should up and leave Afghanistan to their own devices; the way they claim to want. No aid to them, no nothing - except a promise, that if they allow terrorists to arise within their populace, and support and protect them on the governmental level (the way they did a decade ago, which isn't even a question, but a fact), they can expect much less restraint next time, on our part.

Cycloptichorn

4 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Fat chance.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

Fat chance.

Which part? lol

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

this part -
"No aid to them, no nothing"

Sleepy now, see ya later.

0 Replies

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm

The Complaints About Foreign Aid
Foreign Aid Purpose:
To create foreign markets for US products, esp. arms sales.
1. Foreign aid aids the giver, not the recipient.
2. Corruption is a major problem - many funds go to private bank accounts.
- - - The leaders get the money, the people get nothing.
3. Richer nations receive the most aid.

Foreign Aid Determinants:
1. Strategic considerations (Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan)
2. Former colonial status (Africa)
3. Political alignment (Middle East)
4. Drug policy (South America)

Foreign Aid NON-determinants:
Need - The poorest nations receive the least aid.
U.N. Voting Record - Doesn't count, if you can't do anything for the US.

================

Do you need any more facts, Cy?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

A government of a country is a reflection of the wishes of the people of the country. The people of Afghanistan were not in revolt against their Taliban government. There was no active movement to oppose them at the time. Therefore, there is no other logical conclusion than that the people of the country supported the actions of their leaders in protecting these terrorists who attacked us.

Cyclo, you're talking about a primitive tribal, mostly rural, society.
Most of the ordinary people would have known nothing about 9/11 & probably still don't.
Most probably wouldn't have known too much about Kabul, for that matter ... .
Most of the ordinary people would have had their hands full, simply trying to cope with everyday survival demands ... the demands of the war lords & their corrupt government .... say nothing of seemingly endless invasions from outsiders!
You think they had any sort of real say about what happened in their country? That the war lords & the government paid any attention to their wishes?
Seriously, do you think they were watching NBC every night, to keep up to date with the latest developments, or something .....?

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Quote:
A government of a country is a reflection of the wishes of the people of the country. The people of Afghanistan were not in revolt against their Taliban government. There was no active movement to oppose them at the time. Therefore, there is no other logical conclusion than that the people of the country supported the actions of their leaders in protecting these terrorists who attacked us.

Cyclo, you're talking about a primitive tribal, mostly rural, society.
Most of the ordinary people would have known nothing about 9/11 & probably still don't.
Most probably wouldn't have known too much about Kabul, for that matter ... .
Most of the ordinary people would have had their hands full, simply trying to cope with everyday survival demands ... the demands of the war lords & their corrupt government .... say nothing of seemingly endless invasions from outsiders!
Seriously, do you think they were watching NBC every night, to keep up to date with the latest developments, or something .....?

I think it's naive to pretend that information doesn't travel amongst these people. Other countries in the world had developed governments and societies long before the advent of electronic communication; word of mouth is extremely effective.

There is no popular movement against their warlords and their corrupt government. No uprisings or even notable protests against them. You have to either pretend that people have been so beaten down over generations as to have no ability to resist, or to actually pay attention to what they and their religious leaders say - which is to say that they don't care at all about the killing of anyone who doesn't follow their teachings.

I simply can't accept that. There's a feeling inside me, a force that pushes for justice and freedom. I couldn't accept the things they accept without fighting back; better to die than to live that way. I don't advent war on the common people of Afghanistan; what's to be gained from it? But; anyone who supports a terrorist is in league with them, as far as I'm concerned. Anyone who pretends that their government isn't their problem is kidding themselves. The world has moved past the day of tribal concerns.

I would remind you that I only seek for the US to leave Afghanistan alone, so that their own people can live and seek out the lives they want - hopefully in peace. I seek nothing negative for anyone who doesn't actively want to either harm me or support someone who does.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Yes, absolutely. A government of a country is a reflection of the wishes of the people of the country. The people of Afghanistan were not in revolt against their Taliban government. There was no active movement to oppose them at the time. Therefore, there is no other logical conclusion than that the people of the country supported the actions of their leaders in protecting these terrorists who attacked us.

Did Oralloy write this drivel for you, Cy?

Quote:

They are adults, the same as you and I, and responsible for their actions and those of the leaders who they willingly allowed to commit atrocities by proxy.

The CIA commits atrocities all the time. The Contras were Reagan's boys, you remember, Cy, they were the equivalent of the Founding Fathers.

Do you want to consider the numbers of people killed by "the people of Afghanistan" and compare those numbers killed by "the people of America", you know, the ones who, by your reckoning, are adults?

Quote:

They could have risen up against the very government who actively protected those who committed atrocities - but they chose not to do so. In large part because the traditional teachings of their religion - not the one that all share, but the teachings that many of them shared - said that there was no moral compunction against killing people like me.

You are embarrassing yourself, Cy. The people of the US have supported the slaughter, by terrorist actions and by war crimes, of some 7 to 9 million people since WWII. These are number from CIA/US government sources.

And yet you have the temerity to try to advance this shlock. You have no shame, do you?

Quote:

I honestly fear for what would happen if we lost restraint.

You stupid, ignorant little ****. That has happened so many times already; Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines, Japan, Nicaragua, Guatemala, ... .

What the hell is wrong with you?

1 Reply

http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/foreign-aid-development-assistance

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I think it's naive to pretend that information doesn't travel amongst these people.

I think it is extremely naive to imagine that ordinary rural Afghans hold any real political power at all. Within their own country, say nothing of outside its borders.

Do you think it might be a good idea if someone started an information thread about Afghanistan?

2 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Quote:
I think it's naive to pretend that information doesn't travel amongst these people.

I think it is extremely naive to imagine that ordinary rural Afghans any political power at all. Within their own country, say nothing of outside its borders.

Any group of people who gather together and are willing to fight injustice have power. Political power in these societies is derived from a willingness to die for their beliefs - much like any other society. They don't value freedom or equality enough to fight for them and they don't want a society in which these are the primary goals. And the truth of the matter is a great deal of these people DO indeed believe that heretics - like myself - have no rights and are worth no respect at all. That our lives are worth nothing, in the end.

It's no different than fundamentalist religious folks anywhere, really - but, you can't have your country's government protect terrorists and think that there will be no side effects at all. I'm quite sure that they no longer suffer under that pretension. Time will tell if they are willing to continue their practice, but I'm totally willing to let them alone to find out.

Quote:

Do you think it might be a good idea if someone started an information thread about Afghanistan?

I don't see why not, though I wouldn't expect it to be widely read or posted in.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo, perhaps it is because I am an offspring of a powerless, "displaced" family (one of so many such families after WW2, who were forced to migrate to other places. Refugees, in other words) I think I understand these things better than you do.

Sometimes ordinary people ARE in fact powerless to bring about change in their own circumstances & their own societies.
Before people can contemplate such luxuries as "fighting injustice" there needs to be some confident basis of unity for that fight within a country. That isn't the case in Afghanistan, where there are so many different cultures, some of which are persecuted by the dominant cultures.

There needs to be sufficient education, sophistication, if you like, for ordinary people to have the hope, even, that things could be different to what they are ... the way that they have been for as long as they (& their parents & their parents' parents) can remember.
None of us have any idea (& I suspect the "experts" are none too much the wiser) about how to go about changing such set attitudes in what is basically still a rural feudal society, run by war lords for their own ends.

However, Afghanistan is a country which has grown very used to demoralizing & defeating outside oppressors & invaders. Over 200 years of practise at that. The US is just the latest invader which has learned that (sorry, but that's how I think the US invasion has been perceived) is not going to be able to hold much influence over the hearts & minds of ordinary Afghans.

I would love to see change in Afghanistan ... especially for women & girls & for the poorest & most oppressed. BUT I do understand that outside influence will not achieve this.

It is going to be up to the Afghans to decide their own direction for their own future. Nothing we (just like previous invaders) can do will influence the pace & the direction of change there. I think we have to accept that.

1 Reply

Can we just !/$$!?$?! leave now?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know