!Bob -First of all, America already does a lot to alleviate povery and second, WHY should US give my tax money to help the poor everywhere? You say that US shouldn't interfere militarily (based on your posts on BS) to help those who are being subdued, but it's ok for us to give money. Please expalin. If you want US to just leave counties alone, then why should we keep pouring money into those countries?
Their aim is not to kill and maim and simply that. It is to put fear into people's hearts and make the countries change their ways and go against their own basic ideologies and unfortunately it is happening just as with US PATRIOT Act in America and Terrorism Act in the UK. I never said you paint all Muslims with the same brush! Find me the part that I said that. So stop with the name calling on something that I didn't even say. I am glad that you can make the disctinction, but my point is that even those savages are driven by their ideologies and that is why those ideologies should be attacked. There are many others who do not commit such acts but are being pusuaded by those terrorists by being shown examples of the unfairness in the world and pointing the finger of blame at America or Europe. If these excuses are not valid (such as the events in Iraq) then these people would not be pursuaded to act as such.
You should have stopped writing your non-sense here. If Israel are terrorists, then according to that ratio, Iran makes Nazi Germany look like a paradise. You are so blind with hatred for this country and Israel, that it clouds any judgement you might possibly have. How can you possibly accuse Israel with terrorist actions when all Israel does is protect itself. Israel has not once attacked a country just to conquer its lands. Not once has Israel used military power to force their way onto other nations. Israel gives more away that it takes. Much of the lands Israel has won over the years has been given up, i.e. Sinai. Yet, you keep bringing the nuclear card. IF ISRAEL DIDN'T HAVE THE NUCLEAR OPTION, IT WOULD CEIZE TO EXIST. GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL.
Yeah Iran is such a peace loving state It's backwater full of crazed religous morons Of which you sir, or madam, or whatever you are, are chief arse washer
You and I, as well as the American Government can disagree all we want, but it wont change the fact that this is how the terrorists and also millions of muslims see the attack on Iraq... To them this is a "Christian" attack on a muslim country (many even see this as a Jewish/Christian attack, because of Americas close relationship with Israel). They do feel it's their Muslim duty to figh back according to Islam. As long as ther are American/ "Christian" troops in Iraq, we will see this terror continue, and as long as the terror continue, I'm sure we wont see the American troops leave Iraq... So I (and many other European) expect the war/terror in Iraq to go on just as long at the terror/war has been going on in Israel... As you write it yourself, if the muslim view was that Jihad is ony permitted when defending their religion/beliefs, then those people would not continue their attacks... But the fact is that they do... and will keep on doing it... The worst part, however, is that millions of Arabs who may have had a wish for democracy now most surely have lost faith in democracy, because of the situation is in iraq and the untrustworthy (anti democratic) actions made by the American Goverment since 9/11 ... and I'm not only thinking about Guantanomo and the torturing of prisoners... It's also a fact that millions of Europeans have lost faith in America.... .
I gave poverty as one example. If you want others try the events in Iraq and the obvious fact that both Spain and England were attacked for that unfair war. The people who carry out the attacks often live in poverty, true that is not always the case but it is true for many of them. That is why as far as I know, proportionally more of those involved are from the poorer sector of society. Poverty is simply one major contributing factor in convincing people to carry out those attacks. I would like to emphasise the fact that attitudes like yours which ended in the war in Iraq (correct me if I am wrong but I assume you supported the Iraq war too based on your current opinions) that led to both Spain and England being bombed.
They don't bomb us b/c they are poor and they won't stop if you give them your whole paycheck. The sooner you get that, the sooner we can move on.
I read a great article recently about a captain or major in a Guard or Reserve unit who, in civilian life, is a cop or sheriff's deputy. For the latter, violence is always really, truly the last resort. Violence is always a failure. And he's using the same approach, with great success, with his unit. He realizes that every time one of his guys is a tad trigger happy, it costs us hearts and minds, and likely puts some of the victim's relatives into active insurgency. We need alot more people doing counterinsurgency with a policeman's mentality rather than a soldier's mentality.
I have already said that poverty is one reason but by no means the sole reason. US puts your tax into weapons, used to fight an unfair war which only added to the number of terrorists. If that same money was used better and more wisely in educating people against these wrong beliefs or trying to stop the excuses the terrorists use to get people on their side, America would be safer from such attacks. Unfortunately we live in a global age and we need one another and hence America, in order to be safe would have to try to use US tax payer's money to help other nations. We in the Western world have much that others may envy. More importantly, yes I am against another country interfering with other's internal policies and so on but that does not prevent America from lending aid to those countries. America can be seen as a saint should they start investing in those countries instead of an evil force determined to destroy their religion and way of life (no matter how wrong this perception is, it is what their view right now is). I am all for helping another when it is being asked for and when it is necessary but not for direct influence through an attack and so on. After all, just by doing business with countries they are being influenced. It is simply inevitable that countries would interact with one another, it is a simple matter of what nature these interactions take.
People funding terrorism may not be in poverty, true. But the people they purported to help in fact are. That's the difference. I think !bob's conclusion was correct in that regard, namely, because of the exploitation of resources by US and other leading capitalistic countries, the world today has become a place where "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer". Because of that, terrorists have found their excuse.
It all sounds like you are trying to create a utopia, while in fact what will happen if US does so much help is go broke. We are not the World Bank. Until those countries show that they want our help and that the money in Africa goes to poor nations and fighting aids, instead of powerful war-lords, then we can re-think our "money-giving" policies.
Is this the latest moonbat tangent...blaming free people for terrorism? You sure you want to advocate that? Sounds pretty stupid!
Actually US is the most stingy country when it comes to foreign aid comparing to that of other developed countries. Why? because US is a world leader. That's an obligation for being so.
I didn't blame anyone if you read it carefully. I merely point out the fact that terrorism has something to do with poverty. If US wants to fight terrorism, fight world poverty first.
1. Cause 2. Superior military tacticians 3. Superior men 3. Detterence And how do you know what Israel's "friendly" neigbors would do if they didn't know that Israel had the nuke?
Not necessarily. In fact, you or your parents are enjoying some forms of socialism or communism whatever. Free education, Social Security System, Medicare, Mediaid, Welfare, unemployment benefits, 8 hour work day, vacation, holdidays...etc...You just don't realize it.
As a percent of GDP, maybe. But not the overall $ value. No such thing as an obligation. When we get rid of poverty w/in US, then we can concentrate on the rest of the world. As a leader, we should help bring peace before giving everyone cell phones and lap tops.
I understand what you mean now. I agree that many in Iraq see the attack as the Christians or even Jews attacking their religion and that is why many ordinary Iraqis harbour the insugents. I thought your original point was something which is appears not to be. However I would add that the actions of the American government have not helped to alleviate this perception. The war in Iraq in itself due to the vagueness of the reason has been used by the extremists as proof of the intents of America. Also that is how they explain the need for a jihad.
That's the point. If Bill Gates gave out 100 million to charity, which probably be more than anyone else in this country, you still can not say he's doing better than me who has given out 1000 bucks on 30,000 salary. It's the percentage that counts. Yes, there is. Didn't you hear Bush claimed everytime when he got a chance by saying US is the leader of the freeworld? Well, leader, pony up!
Anyone with two bits of brains should be able to avoid falling for the propaganda game. Avoiding the propaganda game, however, does not suggest you should not confront Al Queda. It only means making sure "generalizations" and "propaganda" aren't allowed to skew the policy choices to further some other agendas. On 9/11, the US was attacked by Al Queda. The response, however, did not focus merely on Al Queda. Instead, it adopted an agenda that predated 9/11 and had no real focus on Al Queda! Long before 9/11, a group of ideologues had proposed a new framework for American foreign policy. This group's main ideologues were right wing pro-Israeli folks. Their argument, as they themselves predicted in the Clean Break, was able bring other influential groups on board the same bandwagon. Those otehr groups included former cold war warriars needing a new paradigm to justify their pet projects and positions. It also included a bunch of fanatical nut cakes from the Christian evangelical movement, known in some quarters as "Christian Zionists". What they had going for them, besides strong interest groups on their side, besides well funded propaganda organs masquerading as think tanks (e.g. American Enteprise Institute, etc) and news media (e.g. Foxs, Weekly Standard etc), was one undeniable fact: through long US involvement with Israel, many groups whose real focus is on Israel, have also become anti-American. These were a variety of groups, some secular (Baathists), some religious (sunni and shia), and some interested in largely Western democratic ideals (e.g. reformers such as Khatami in Iran). For some of these groups, the "anti-Americanism" was focused on American foreign policy in the region. For others, the anti-Americanism had wider reach. But they all shared one thing: all were hostile to Israel. A war to fight just Al Queda, who among these groups was the least focused on Israel per se, was not going to be enough. The war had to be framed as a "war on terrorism", meaning a war against all of Israel's enemies who could not fit into George Bush's "you are either with us or against us". Some of the folks who endorced this vision don't really give a hoot about Israel, but certainly know that this course holds promise for their own agendas or in some cases nothing but their pocket books. Others were life long "Zionists" but not all the garden variety. Many of the most prominent, staffers of Senator Scoop Jackson, were now pro-Israeli right wingers who had once attacked even Henry Kissinger for being soft in defending Israel when the latter was Secretary of State. People who villified Clinton for Oslo and who had worked to censor and abuse even prominent pro-Israeli American Jews during the whole Oslo process that divided American Jewish groups. All these folks, each for their own reasons, sold America a bag of lies. They want to continue doing so, until they have weakened every Israeli enemy while claiming they are seeking to "fight terrorism" and "bring democracy". Well, the kind of environment were radical thrive, and were democratic voices are sidelined, is exactly the kind of environment these folks have created. The kind of environment that also breeds anti-American terrorism. The only thing gained out of all this is some of Israel's remaining conventional enemies, they hope, can be knocked down and weakened. Iraq, Iran, Syria, later on even Saudi Arabia. America is going to pay a heavy price going further down this road. Domestically, America cannot remain in any sense democratic while employing the tactics necessary to keep lying to the American people. Internationally, America is no longer respected, and indeed it is not liked at all. Economically, they have come close to wrecking the very foundations of the US economy. Some idiots with no brains wrapping themselves in the American flag, others slandering and insulting and throwing labels around, while letting others rip everything that flag might have stood for, that has become the definiton of American patriotism. To me, all these pseudo patriots have done is made sure America will no longer be a great nation. It is already well on that path.
Evidently you live by different moral values (perhaps we have found a true Capitalist). Normally, they say the strong should help the weak and the rich should help the poor. Most people believe similar things hence charity. This may even be the true problem that Capitalism would eventually face; the rich get richer and the poor poorer. This would lead to the eventuality that the majority would be poor and in their anger target the rich. Unless the rich are willing to at least help the poor somewhat, when the numbers are in their favour and they have the determination due to need, they are bound to eventually win. Hence the need for America to give more than others. Look at the numbers and how much America spends on their military and how much on aid. It is something like $300 billion on arms (probably way off) and $5 billion soon to be doubled (which was considered a massive step) on aid.