Bush's Vision

[walwor]

From a recent speech made by the President to Air Force graduates:

"Just as events in Europe determined the outcome of the Cold War," he said, "events in the Middle East will set the course of our current struggle."

"If that region is abandoned to dictators and terrorists, it will be a constant source of violence and alarm, exporting killers of increasing destructive power to attack America and other free nations," Bush said. "If that region grows in democracy and prosperity and hope, the terrorist movement will lose its sponsors, lose its recruits and lose the festering grievances that keep terrorists in business."

That is a vision. And it is absolutely correct. The only hope is to bring those values we know to be good to an area of the world that desperately needs them.

 

[insein]

Couldn't agree more.

 

[The Worried One]

Its a lot harder than just saying it...if you don't remember, latin america tried to create a government "just like ours", but failed and now they're in economic downfalls. France also, they tried 3 or 4 times, and THEY DIDN'T HAVE IT FORCED ON THEM! what im saying is, give it to the iraqi people to decide what government to have and who should lead it because they are not gunna be happy with the people we put in there because we want another ally

 

[insein]

You should change your name to ignorant one.

Go look at post war Germany and Japan after WW2. We placed temporary leaders in those countries. Both times we were criticised for trying to put someone that favors America. Also notice that after general elections were held, these countries pretty much governed themselves. The US didn't remove troops from those coutnries as a sign of support. Those 2 countries are now both democratic by nature and have capitalist economies. All this took over a decade to accomplish. In iraq its being done in less than 2 years. Thats astromnomically quick in history's eyes.

Any person that is placed into leadership by a foreign entity will be criticised. When general elections are held, the Iraqis will select their own leaders. General Elections will be held either this year or early next year. So enough with the "US is placing someone they like in there to control Iraq" bullshit.

 

[Gop guy]

Burn!

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by walwor
From a recent speech made by the President to Air Force graduates:

"If that region grows in democracy and prosperity and hope, the terrorist movement will lose its sponsors, lose its recruits and lose the festering grievances that keep terrorists in business."

The quoted statement is not too far from what many liberals have advocated for many years. U.S. support for dictatorships throughout the world, particularly repressive regimes with abysmal human rights records such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Egypt etc breed resentment in the arab street, both toward their own government and their American backers.

Foreign aid is unpopular in the U.S. leaving the U.S. last among developed countries in development aid as a percentage of GDP. Conversely, the U.S. is the largest exporter of weapons in the world. Perhaps greater investment in democratic institutions, civil society, education, health care in developing countries is, in the long term, our best weapon in the WOT.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
blah, blah, blah

Are you still here?

Foreign aid is unpopular in the U.S. leaving the U.S. last among developed countries in development aid as a percentage of GDP.

How does the amount of money we give away compare to every other country?

 

[nycflasher]

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Are you still here?



How does the amount of money we give away compare to every other country?

Depends on how you count it. Very little in terms of developmental assistance. Most of the aid to the top two recipients, Israel and Egypt, is military which of course, is a help to US industry. Aide to the former soviet states, which is third is primarily in the form of Nunn/Lugar which is aid to sucure former Soviet nukes, clearly in our interest, and fourth is Columbia, again, primarily military assistance to combat narcotic growers, traffickers, revolutionary movements, and militia's. War on drugs. To put it in perspective, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gives away about ten times the amount the U.S. government gives on preventing childhood diseases in developing countries.

 

[insein]

I think its time to say goodbye to cut and paste boy. This referred to math before his 20th post of the same thing was removed.

 

[musicman]

Worried one:

It is a serious mistake to say that France has tried to "do it our way." Remember the watchwords for the French Revolution were "Liberty, equality, fraternity" - pretty-sounding words and vain hopes.

America was, and is, unique in that it was founded upon a much more realistic appraisal of human nature. Governments, our founding fathers understood, are the creations of imperfect men. Government must, therefore - if left unchecked - degenerate into tyranny. It must be kept on a short, diligently guarded leash.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Depends on how you count it. Very little in terms of developmental assistance.

In dollars.

Economic Support Fund= FY:2001 $2.3b FY:2003 $2.2b PFY:2004 $2.1b PFY:2005 $2.5b
Development Assistance= FY:2001 $1.3b FY:2003 $1.5b PFY:2004 $1.4b PFY:2005 $1.3b
Child Survival and Disease Programs= FY:2001 $851m FY:2003 $1.7b PFY:2004 $1.8b PFY:2005 $1.4b
Multilateral Development Banks= FY:2001 $1.2b FY:2003 $1.3b PFY:2004 $1.4b PFY:2005 $1.5b
Peace Corps= FY:2001 $264m FY:2003 $295m PFY:2004 $308m PFY:2005$401m

New Spending:

Global HIV/AIDS Initiative= PFY:2004-05 $488m $1,450m
Millennium Challenge Corporation= PFY:2004-05 $994m $2,500m

Dept. of State

Development Assistance is steady around $1.4 billion dollars annually. What does that add up to over the years? 'Very little' you'd say.

The total aid in these categories for 2003 was about $7 billion dollars.

Many people on this board think we shouldn't be spending a dime on any of this. According to the Constitution, they would be right.

Still, who gives away more money on a yearly basis than the United States of America?

Only Japan.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No kidding. Going by % gdp is such bullshit. We give more than anyone else.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by Zhukov
In dollars.

Economic Support Fund= FY:2001 $2.3b FY:2003 $2.2b PFY:2004 $2.1b PFY:2005 $2.5b
Development Assistance= FY:2001 $1.3b FY:2003 $1.5b PFY:2004 $1.4b PFY:2005 $1.3b
Child Survival and Disease Programs= FY:2001 $851m FY:2003 $1.7b PFY:2004 $1.8b PFY:2005 $1.4b
Multilateral Development Banks= FY:2001 $1.2b FY:2003 $1.3b PFY:2004 $1.4b PFY:2005 $1.5b
Peace Corps= FY:2001 $264m FY:2003 $295m PFY:2004 $308m PFY:2005$401m

New Spending:

Global HIV/AIDS Initiative= PFY:2004-05 $488m $1,450m
Millennium Challenge Corporation= PFY:2004-05 $994m $2,500m

Dept. of State

Development Assistance is steady around $1.4 billion dollars annually. What does that add up to over the years? 'Very little' you'd say.

The total aid in these categories for 2003 was about $7 billion dollars.

Many people on this board think we shouldn't be spending a dime on any of this. According to the Constitution, they would be right.

Still, who gives away more money on a yearly basis than the United States of America?

Only Japan.

Those '05 figures will not survive this fall appropriations. It appears that some of the '04 figures are projections as well.

The catagories are not very helpful. "Multilateral development banks" for example funds the Ex-Im bank which primarily helps U.S. business overseas.

Constitutional issues aside, a great deal of "foreign aid" (I'd say most but I haven't crunched the numbers) directly benefits U.S. industry, interests and many would argue consumers. I'm not saying that funds used by State to support U.S. business is a bad idea. It is simply good business. But it gets lumped in with funds that serve the poor, a smaller slice of the pie so it's hard to get a clear picture. Also included is assistance to counries that are support U.S. efforts in the war on terrorism. I would argue that too much of that goes to undemocratic dictatorships, but the conservative lament that we give away a lot of money does not survive closer inspection.

Did it not strike you as odd that there was no line item for the agency for international development, the primary vehicle for development assistance?

Make no mistake, U.S. taxpayers have helped to fund important programs for the world's poor. But the overwhelming majority of U.S. aid during the cold war supported our allies against the commies, even brutal dictatorships. Ditto the war on drugs eleveting Columbia to the number four status of recipients of U.S. aid. Now its the war on terror. I'm not saying its wrong to help our friends and allies. Just that we should not confuse that with charity.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
I'm not saying its wrong to help our friends and allies. Just that we should not confuse that with charity.

What you said was:

Foreign aid is unpopular in the U.S. leaving the U.S. last among developed countries in development aid as a percentage of GDP.

When in fact we spend more on foreign aid than every other country but Japan.

Percentage GDP is a deliberately misleading statistic.

At any rate if you want charity, do some research into the charitable donations of individual Americans.

Once you find out just how generous Americans are, here's a link to show you which Americans are the most generous.

Red vs. Blue

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by Zhukov
What you said was:



Percentage GDP is a deliberately misleading statistic.

While not directed at you personally, it seems many on the right find %GDP misleading when talking about foreign aid, but appropriate when discussing military expenditures. Hmmm.

The percentage is particularly relevant when discussing federal spending priorities. We, as a nation, are not only rich and cheap, but rich and short-sighted. If we spent a few bucks building schools perhaps parents would not send their kids to madrasses where they learn to hate Americans and Jews.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
While not directed at you personally, it seems many on the right find %GDP misleading when talking about foreign aid, but appropriate when discussing military expenditures. Hmmm.

Dollar amount, % GDP; it should be more.

We, as a nation, are.......short-sighted.

One of my main arguments against democracy.

If we spent a few bucks building schools perhaps parents would not send their kids to madrasses where they learn to hate Americans and Jews.

Good thing that is precisely what we are in the process of doing right this minute in Iraq. Absent the war this would not have been possible.

Perhaps more to the point, why spend our money building schools without the ability to restrict what will be taught within them? A building is after all just a building. It does not in and of itself impart any type of knowledge or mode of behavior on anyone.

In a broader sense, what good does it do to give anyone any aid if we cannot dictate precisely how it will be used? And we can't. On the other hand, if we spend money on a tank and give that to them we can be relatively sure what they will do with it.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by Zhukov


In a broader sense, what good does it do to give anyone any aid if we cannot dictate precisely how it will be used? it.

Because strengthening democratic institutions and civil society directly benefits us and our children.

I've gotta run and meet my pardner. Take it easy Zhukov.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Because strengthening democratic institutions and civil society directly benefits us and our children.

The point is we can give out all the 'developmental assistance' we want, it doesn't neccesarily follow that the schools built with that aid won't be teaching people to hate America.

Giving money to other countries without being able to dictate what they use that money for will not neccesarily strengthen democratic institutions. It could be used to do the opposite.

Military assistance on the other hand has but one use.

We see a country, decide if they are more with us or against, and, provided the former, say "here have a tank".