This SUCKS! $230 million!

[Mr. P]

Anybody have a problem with US tax payer money going to rebuild Lebanon besides me?

 

[-Cp]

Nope - not at all... Lebanon is a Christian nation - only 20% there are muslim, 80% are Christian.... we need to stand w/ the country over there in their time of need....

Our enemy there isn't Levanon - it's the freaks in Hezbulah and Iran who has been fighting this proxy war.

 

[red states rule]

Anybody have a problem with US tax payer money going to rebuild Lebanon besides me?

I think this is a fair deal. $230 million for a $100 million contract is a great deal

 

[Mr. P]

Neither of you have given a valid reason why US tax payers should fork over $230 million to rebuild Lebanon.

 

[Hobbit]

Neither of you have given a valid reason why US tax payers should fork over $230 million to rebuild Lebanon.

Because the U.S. is an evil empire responsible for all the evil and destruction in the world and this $230 million is just another small step towards full reparations?

 

[theHawk]

Anybody have a problem with US tax payer money going to rebuild Lebanon besides me?

A drop in the bucket compared to what we give to Israel. Is there any valid reason for either? :huh:

 

[Gem]

I suppose I would rather the money come from us than from Hezbollah (given to the terrorist organization by Iran).

If we do not support Lebanon as it rebuilds and hopefully gets to work on a functional, non-terrorist government...then the money Iran is filtering in through Hezbollah will be the only money those people see...it will be hard to win friends and allies if the people rebuilding their schools, mosques, churches, markets, businesses, and homes are the people we are claiming are the enemy.

I am not thrilled with the notion - but I am less thrilled with the people of Lebanon being happy with the rebuilding efforts of Hezbollah and Iran and even angrier at the US for doing nothing.

Is there a better solution?

 

[Mr. P]

I suppose I would rather the money come from us than from Hezbollah (given to the terrorist organization by Iran).

If we do not support Lebanon as it rebuilds and hopefully gets to work on a functional, non-terrorist government...then the money Iran is filtering in through Hezbollah will be the only money those people see...it will be hard to win friends and allies if the people rebuilding their schools, mosques, churches, markets, businesses, and homes are the people we are claiming are the enemy.

I am not thrilled with the notion - but I am less thrilled with the people of Lebanon being happy with the rebuilding efforts of Hezbollah and Iran and even angrier at the US for doing nothing.

Is there a better solution?

Yep, we should have let Israel destroy Hezbollah, and then I’d feel different. Why pay to rebuild something that is going to be destroyed again?

 

[Emmett]

Hey everybody, a big tree fell on my favorite collector pick up the other day, can I have 3 or 4 thousand dollars to rebuild it please. I promise not to give any to Hezbollah or the Iranians. What's the differnece. Israel has refused my request!

 

[Mr.Conley]

The United States has provided aid to poor and war torn nations for decades. It is an effective tool for alleviating human suffering, improving the United States' reputation regionally and globally, and increasing US power and influence in the affected area as well as in international relations. I support it's distribution and hope that we continue to assist the people of Lebanon, both in hopes alleviating the pain and suffering in that now destroyed country as well as improving our image in the region while simultaneously curbing Hizbollah's power.

 

[Mr. P]

The United States has provided aid to poor and war torn nations for decades. It is an effective tool for alleviating human suffering, improving the United States' reputation regionally and globally, and increasing US power and influence in the affected area as well as in international relations. I support it's distribution and hope that we continue to assist the people of Lebanon, both in hopes alleviating the pain and suffering in that now destroyed country as well as improving our image in the region while simultaneously curbing Hizbollah's power.

Ha! FAT CHANCE! Pour the $$$$$$$ in, Lebanon allowed Hizbollah to operate to start with. Thats why I have a problem with US $$ to rebuild, I don't have a problem with humanitarian aid, food an meds.

 

[Emmett]

The United States has provided aid to poor and war torn nations for decades. It is an effective tool for alleviating human suffering, improving the United States' reputation regionally and globally, and increasing US power and influence in the affected area as well as in international relations. I support it's distribution and hope that we continue to assist the people of Lebanon, both in hopes alleviating the pain and suffering in that now destroyed country as well as improving our image in the region while simultaneously curbing Hizbollah's power.

So Mr C, where do we draw the line? Imean do we help every single person with a need all over the world? Obviously we can't help everyone. Do we just help the ones in areas where we need the politics?

Somalia! Oh man, the list goes on. What happemns when we realize we don't have the money to support everyone.?

We should rebuild countries no matter who does the damage, right? Where is the logic in that?

 

[Gem]

Yep, we should have let Israel destroy Hezbollah, and then I’d feel different.

But we didn't...so should we just let Hezbollah and Iran rebuild Lebanon?

Why pay to rebuild something that is going to be destroyed again?

I ask the same question everytime I see how much money goes to people living in flood plains, tornado alley, or the coasts of this country - places we KNOW (not suspect, but KNOW) are going to be ravaged by natural disasters (is it really a disaster if it is a naturally occurring event that happens over and over and over?) again and again..but its what we do.

 

[Mr. P]

But we didn't...so should we just let Hezbollah and Iran rebuild Lebanon?



I ask the same question everytime I see how much money goes to people living in flood plains, tornado alley, or the coasts of this country - places we KNOW (not suspect, but KNOW) are going to be ravaged by natural disasters (is it really a disaster if it is a naturally occurring event that happens over and over and over?) again and again..but its what we do.

I don’t think “Nature” has a stated goal to kill you, gem.

 

[Mr.Conley]

So Mr C, where do we draw the line? Imean do we help every single person with a need all over the world? Obviously we can't help everyone. Do we just help the ones in areas where we need the politics?

Somalia! Oh man, the list goes on. What happemns when we realize we don't have the money to support everyone.?

We should rebuild countries no matter who does the damage, right? Where is the logic in that?

No need to rebuild the world, though in an ideal world we would. We just support and rebuild in areas of strategic importance to us, and in particular hotspots where US aid would generate the most goodwill.

We've done it before too. The Marshall Plan is probably the signature US aid effort, and it wasn't a global effort. It focused specifically on Western Europe. Why? Well one reason was that there was suffering there, but another reason is that we couldn't allow the communists to take the continent, and helping Europe generated a lot of pro-US press and good will, which made our lives a lot easier down the road.

It's all about selecting the right place to help, because helping others helps us. Right now the place to help is Lebanon. Right now the world's eye is zeroed in on Lebanon, and if the world sees the US helping in Lebanon, the world will think much more highly of us. That's especially important because we need to improve our image, especially in Iraq and the Middle East. And helping Lebanon is the most effective way we have right now of doing that. Plus, if we effectively support the Lebanese people and government, we claim a new base in the region, and a gateway for our spys and recruits to the rest of the region. It also allows us to ensure that Hizbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations can't use the country as a base. As well, a democratic, US supported Lebanon is far less likely to be used by Iran, Syria, and Israel to fight a proxy war. With Lebanon out of the picture, we take that option off the table.

 

[Gem]

I don’t think “Nature” has a stated goal to kill you, gem.

No, of course not. But we do know with far more certainty than terror attacks that the United States will be hit by tornados, floods, mudslides, earthquakes, forest fires, and hurricanes year after year. And that people who live in danger zones like the Mississippi River flood plains, or on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, or below sea level in New Orleans are going to lose their homes and businesses again and again when disasters strike. Yet each time it happens the people who live there act surprised and expect the tax payers to cough up millions upon millions to rebuild their homes and businesses.

If we are willing to do this - rebuild homes for people who are willingly living in areas we KNOW are going to be destroyed by nature...then why wouldn't we spend money towards rebuilding cities destroyed by war - possibly fostering good will in the process? After all - we could win some hearts and minds of the Lebanese people this way - which might help us as we try to get Hezbollah out of Lebanon...but a hurricane is never going to say "Gee...those nice Americans sure gave a lot of money to help rebuild New Orleans...to be nice, I'm going to go crash into Cuba instead this time."

 

[Mr. P]

No, of course not. But we do know with far more certainty than terror attacks that the United States will be hit by tornados, floods, mudslides, earthquakes, forest fires, and hurricanes year after year. And that people who live in danger zones like the Mississippi River flood plains, or on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, or below sea level in New Orleans are going to lose their homes and businesses again and again when disasters strike. Yet each time it happens the people who live there act surprised and expect the tax payers to cough up millions upon millions to rebuild their homes and businesses.

If we are willing to do this - rebuild homes for people who are willingly living in areas we KNOW are going to be destroyed by nature...then why wouldn't we spend money towards rebuilding cities destroyed by war - possibly fostering good will in the process? After all - we could win some hearts and minds of the Lebanese people this way - which might help us as we try to get Hezbollah out of Lebanon...but a hurricane is never going to say "Gee...those nice Americans sure gave a lot of money to help rebuild New Orleans...to be nice, I'm going to go crash into Cuba instead this time."

We spend BILLIONS in other Countries, has it helped, ......yet?

US aid for US disasters vs US aid to a foreign nation…apples to oranges.

 

[Avatar4321]

Neither of you have given a valid reason why US tax payers should fork over $230 million to rebuild Lebanon.

If we don't the Hezbos will and then people will be more sympathetic to their cause.