BF2S Forums What would happen if the U.S. stopped foreign Aid?

apollo_fi wrote:

nlsme wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

The released funds could be assigned to a more charitable use. Thirty billion dollars would carry a whopping six months of the Iraq operation, for example.

Gives a scope on how much money we actually give away. I mean, we are able to support a war on less.

Less?

Yes less, 30 bil is the government end(not incluing the private there)

Last edited by nlsme (2007-07-24 14:22:32)

nlsme wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

nlsme wrote:

Gives a scope on how much money we actually give away. I mean, we are able to support a war on less.

Less?

Yes less, 30 bil is the government end(not incluing the private there)

60 billion per year to keep the Iraq operation running.

jonsimon wrote:

Pug wrote:

Aid is never given by ANY country unless there is a benefit to the country giving the money.  So my thought would be that it would be more difficult to exert global influence.

jonsimon wrote:

If the US cut off it's government aid, a lot fewer people would be dying from the millions in weapons we willfully give to countries like Israel.

So you're saying that the number of people who die because US aid is cut off (food, medicine, clothing, economics, etc) would be less than supporting Israel?  I doubt that highly.

I'm pretty sure I said "a lot fewer people would be dying from the millions in weapons we willfully give to countries." Oh, wait, let's see. Oh, yeah, that is what I said, verbatim. Please don't try to twist my words.

I still stands though.

If all US aid (including military aid) was cut off
- It would be true that less people would be killed by US weapons...
....but I would argue that more people would die non-war related deaths due to starvation, medicine, etc.  Or perhaps US weapons is keeping peace as a deterrent instead of creating wars.

Plus you are assuming one of the following:
-supplying weapons is keeping the status quo in some cases.  Assume that an aggressive neighbor doesn't try to step in.  And I know this is a bad example but: would Israel still exist?  would it have been pretty much destroyed and would then the nuke be set off over Lebanon or Syria?  And it might be hard to fathom, but would the body count be higher if no weapons were sent?  Like the lesser of two evils?

-the country receiving the weapons will not receive weapons from other nations, and in that case its the same as they are supplied by the US (except the US doesn't have leverage in the country).

So it wasn't my intention to show any type of "twisting".  It's simply a different opinion.

Last edited by Pug (2007-07-24 14:47:21)

CameronPoe wrote:

nlsme wrote:

Umm I conceded that arguement. It does happen, however I was pointing out that there ARE laws. And the meat and potatoes of the post is that Americans spend more (per GDP) then ANY other nation when including the private sector. A sector where the government holds no control over. And such, has no ability to lean on anybody with it. Read my sig, I hate our current administration. So do MOST Americans. I never stated our country is squeky clean, nor do I hold the perception it is. However, our citizens get the short end on everything we do when looked upon in foreign eyes. Nobody includes the private donations because the U.S. private donations exceed the 3 largest donaters on the government side. I just want some credit for the $308 dollars that go towards numerous charities every month. I'll admit, not all of that would be givin away if it wasn't for the fact it puts me just in a lower tax bracket. However, that number would still be well over $2400 annually if it wasn't the case.

And btw the "secret service" does not tangle in international affairs. They have a purpose, and tend to stick to that purpose.

Where is the evidence that Americans privately give more per capita than European nations? You haven't provided any, never mind credible, links or information. You have just made a statement that may or may not be baseless. Ireland has a deeply ingrained charity culture for instance, stemming from the days of oppression under the Brits: 'We're all in this together, share and share alike'. I would like to see you provide some evidence.

Did you even READ the fucking op? I doubt you did if you are asking me for sources.

CameronPoe wrote:

nlsme wrote:

Did you even READ the fucking op? I doubt you did if you are asking me for sources.

Not a fan of impartiality I see. CameronPoe reports that CameronPoe is THE BEST!!! W00T

Not a fan of discrediting what is written, rather where it is written I see. BTW dodging at its best Cam. You truly amaze me. Truly.

CameronPoe wrote:

nlsme wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Not a fan of impartiality I see. CameronPoe reports that CameronPoe is THE BEST!!! W00T

Not a fan of discrediting what is written, rather where it is written I see. BTW dodging at its best Cam. You truly amaze me. Truly.

Honestly I know American people are generous. They are. What do you want me to say? Personally I think the onus should fall on the government to dole out aid (if any) though because that means that aid is guaranteed rather than reliant on the generosity of the populace, which may fluctuate considerably depending on the economic situation at any given time. Having said that most international aid provided by governments is woefully mismanaged and misdirected. Frankly I think aid is hampering developing countries from learning to fend for themselves. Especially given that a lot of aid comes with strings attached.

Now that is a post, one that gets you a +1 from me.

Btw, the fat girl really isn't that fat. Thick and perty is more like it. Offer still stands, if, you'd want to shag her. LMFAO

Last edited by nlsme (2007-07-24 15:44:32)

CameronPoe wrote:

Honestly I know American people are generous. They are. What do you want me to say? Personally I think the onus should fall on the government to dole out aid (if any) though because that means that aid is guaranteed rather than reliant on the generosity of the populace, which may fluctuate considerably depending on the economic situation at any given time. Having said that most international aid provided by governments is woefully mismanaged and misdirected.

I somewhat agree with what you are saying here - mostly about a minimum amount and what to support, but frankly I don't like some of the aid we give (Israel mostly).  So that's why I like the idea of private donations - there's more of a control over where the money goes, plus you don't have the problem of giving money to programs which...well...suck.

CameronPoe wrote:

Frankly I think aid is hampering developing countries from learning to fend for themselves.  Especially given that a lot of aid comes with strings attached.

I believe that foreign aid from ANY country has strings attached.  It's always been that way and always will be that way.  Developing countries might be deficient in some areas, and the potential boost would help them immensely.  The problem, as you have cited, is that the potential boost become politicized if doled out by the government.  Which in turn leads to instability.  I'm not quite sure what the answer is...but I'm of the feeling that aid should be less of a political statement and more about providing aid.  I think it's more in tune with private donations because the donation budget isn't impacted by who's in office.

The Bitching would get louder and the dollar would increase.

FEOS wrote:

What the hell is everyone's beef with Israel? Seems most of the people bitching about Israel (not sure what...their existence maybe?) also support the UN. NEWS FLASH: Israel exists because of the UN. So go bitch to your precious UN about why Israel is such a problem.

They are a functional democracy surrounded on (nearly) all sides by countries following a "tolerant religion of peace" that want to wipe them off the face of the earth simply because they are there (and not Muslim). So the Israelis kick everyone else's asses in wars started by others? Forgive me if I don't get all weepy about that. Every major fight for Israel (except for most recent Lebanon action) has been a fight for national survival. Think about that the next time you criticize them...they live every day with the threat of being wiped off the face of the earth. Because they aren't Muslim. Then think about how hard YOU would fight to protect your nation's very existence. And how paranoid you would have to become...

I, for one, have no problem with support for Israel. They don't have a problem with us having friendly relations with Muslim countries. It's just the Muslim countries that have a problem with us because we have friendly relations with Israel. Did I mention that Islam is a tolerant religion of peace?

I look at the support of Israel as no other choice...and that sucks.

OK I read 242. I can see how some would view it as strictly a territorial dispute. However, based on the rhetoric that comes out of the Muslim countries surrounding Israel (those would also be the ones who attacked Israel during the 6-Day and Yom Kippur Wars), this is clearly a religious conflict...242 is just window dressing for those who want to destroy Israel. Does anyone here really think that if Israel withdrew from the Golan Heights and West Bank, back to their pre-1967 borders that all would be hunky dory over there?

If so, I've got some ocean-front property just outside of Yuma, AZ for sale.

We must go back to why Israel is occupying said territories. It's because they were attacked on all sides with the intent of annihilating this country established by the UN...and Israel won.

Regardless, it appears that neither America nor Israel can do any good any where at any time on these forums. Blind hatred irrespective of facts is an ugly thing.

Our country spends more, in hard currency, than any other country on earth helping others. But it's not enough. It's either not a high enough percentage of GNP or it's tied to some unproven but nefarious scheme to keep someone down, blah blah blah. I submit there's not a damn thing America could do--any where or any time--to have some of these pseudo-educated forum trolls say "You know, America isn't so bad." We could reverse our military and foreign aid spending and still someone would bitch.

FEOS wrote:

OK I read 242. I can see how some would view it as strictly a territorial dispute. However, based on the rhetoric that comes out of the Muslim countries surrounding Israel (those would also be the ones who attacked Israel during the 6-Day and Yom Kippur Wars), this is clearly a religious conflict...242 is just window dressing for those who want to destroy Israel. Does anyone here really think that if Israel withdrew from the Golan Heights and West Bank, back to their pre-1967 borders that all would be hunky dory over there?

If so, I've got some ocean-front property just outside of Yuma, AZ for sale.

We must go back to why Israel is occupying said territories. It's because they were attacked on all sides with the intent of annihilating this country established by the UN...and Israel won.

Regardless, it appears that neither America nor Israel can do any good any where at any time on these forums. Blind hatred irrespective of facts is an ugly thing.

Our country spends more, in hard currency, than any other country on earth helping others. But it's not enough. It's either not a high enough percentage of GNP or it's tied to some unproven but nefarious scheme to keep someone down, blah blah blah. I submit there's not a damn thing America could do--any where or any time--to have some of these pseudo-educated forum trolls say "You know, America isn't so bad." We could reverse our military and foreign aid spending and still someone would bitch.

If it's such a religious dispute then why had Jews lived in relative harmony with Palestinians for centuries prior to the waves of Jewish immigration neglectfully allowed by the British following WWI and why are 35,000 Jews living happily in modern day Iran?

I can't believe I'm getting myself into another 67 pager explaining the ins and outs of that fucking region of the world all over again...

ISRAEL IS BUILDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS ON LAND NOT INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED AS ISRAEL'S. IT'S CALLED STEALING.

You seem to be saying 'two wrongs make a right' - sorry but that isn't an axiom I endorse. You accuse others of being biased against Israel when you quite obviously have a certain irrational bias towards Israel yourself.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-07-25 04:26:43)

nlsme wrote:

To Cam, I honestly don't see how 35000 jews can live HAPPILY in Iran.

Why not? THey could quite easily emigrate to Israel, which the state of Israel has been aggressively requesting them to do of late.

nlsme wrote:

That does not mean they are HAPPY where they are.

It is called voting with your feet. When you are unhappy and feel helpless you leave. Staying would imply you are not unhappy. To boot, I have read about the state of jews in Iran, and until Israel, they lived comfortably just like any other Iranian, holding military and government jobs without persecution. Even jewish women were allowed to hold government positions, until Israel.