[quote=“fred smith”]Robi:
I would say that America is one of the absolutely key contributors to world prosperity. What would you say?[/quote]
Some counties benefit of global trade others don’t. To which group might the US belong?
-Fred Smith
It was America, after all, who poured resources into the 1980s war against the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul, at a time when girls could go to school and women to work. Bin Laden and his mojahedin were armed and trained by the CIA and MI6, as Afghanistan was turned into a wasteland and its communist leader Najibullah left hanging from a Kabul lamp post with his bollocks stuffed in his mouth.
But by then Bin Laden had turned against his American sponsors, while US-sponsored Pakistani intelligence had spawned the Taliban now protecting him. To punish its Afghan offspring, the US subsequently forced through a sanctions regime which has helped push 4m to the brink of starvation, while Afghan refugees fan out across the world.
Well, at least 3.5 million have come back :s
So Dangerrat:
Let me get this straight. The USSR invaded a sovereign nation, we were asked for assistance by the resistance which we supplied and none of this went directly to Osama bin Laden, but we are the ones primarily responsible for Afghanistan even more than the Russians who after all invaded and destroyed the country? How does this work in moral relativism? It is so confusing to me.
What you say is in part right, but as usual only half the story prevails.
The US supplied much of the rogue organisations with weaponary and cash (along with the UK).
Most of the refugees became refugees after the US imposed sanctions after the Taliban popped up. As stated above.
You supported the regime to help fight back against Russia. The tables turned. You imposed sanctions. Regimes fought. People ran away.
Are you denying this?
And who let you loose on a Sunday afternoon? I thought your posting was limited to weekdays only. Go away and come back tomorrow. :raspberry:
How in the name of God the Americans are responsible for supplying the resistance against the Russians, etc. etc. is ridiculous. I don’t hear you complaining about American “supplies” which saved your nation from Hitler’s onslaught. What’s the difference.
Oh I see. America saved everyone. Is that what you are saying?
Besides, this is irrelavant. Perhaps you should stay with the subject at hand. (And perhaps you should have joined the war earlier so we wouldn’t have needed it and perhaps you should have waived the cost a little so we could rebuild our economy a little quicker - but thats also irrelavant). America did supply vast amounts of material goods, but it did not throw itself, or it’s soldiers, into combat wholeheartedly. America’s most consistent aid was against the Japanese, and not until Japan attacked America directly, and even then America eventually resorted to the massively indiscriminate nuclear bombs rather than “waste” men on resolute Japan.
The point is the US is quick to denounce terrorism unless the terrorism is used in the favour of the US. The Taliban were hardly resistance - they had their own agenda. However, I am talking about why there were suddnly 4 milliion refugees.
After the Taliban turned sides, the US imposed sanctions on Afghanistan thereby starting the outflux of refugees - things went rapidly downhill from that point. Before the US imposed sanctions there were very few refugees up to the point when sanctions were imposed.
So it is hard to blame the refugee problem directly on Afghanistan alone.
I don’t think fred is saying that at all. I think he’s asking what the difference is.
Perhaps the US wasn’t ready for a war as it was in a state of isolationism… And its odd, IMO, that on the one hand you complain about the US being in an isolationist mode back then while on the other hand complain about the current state of US activism. In which mode should the US remain? Its all very confusing, don’t you know? I mean, Hitler didn’t pose an imminent threat to the US. Why should we have “rushed” to war then? Haven’t we been accused of and criticized for “rushing” to war in Iraq?
Huh? When we enetere the war we didn’t join whole-heartedly?
I guess we were probably afraid that the world would acuse us of acting unilaterally, or even of acting PRE-EMPTIVELY had we attacked japan before Japan attacked us.
Why should we have wasted American men on a resolute Japan? :s
The US did not cause the Afghan refugee problem no matter how you look at it. We solved it. 3.5 million Afghan refugees have returned since America got involved and BEFORE the invasion of Afghanistan, the US was supplying 75% of the food and medical aid to the Taliban government. So much for these sanctions you are talking about causing the problem.
The US is often the solution not the problem. Blinkered political leftist claptrap may sound cute and oh so outre while a sophomore in college while puffing away on cigarettes in coffee shops wearing black and talking about US imperialism but the facts on the ground are that absent the US, you’ve got problems. With the US, you generally have solutions. Where has the rest of the world been in all of these areas? Even those nations that are “supporting” the effort are there in vastly disporportionately small numbers compared with their economic size and importance.
Sorry, but you want to blame the Afghan refugee problem on someone, blame it on the Russians and then the Taliban and then the al Qaeda and then the warlords or even Pakistani intelligence and Iranian agent provacateurs. The Saudi government and its policies pushing radical Islamofascist thought created far greater problems than anything the US did or did not do.
Precisely my point.
And you think I’m a lefty? Have I got news for you.
Why should waste innocent civilian lives and take out far more civil targets than military targets?
Lethal Lemming:
Now, you have me confused. Food and medical aid to the Taliban while imposing sanctions and holding their feet to the fire regarding human rights violations are what the UN is supposed to be about. Despite the fact that the Taliban is the “enemy” of the US as is North Korea, we are sending most of the food and medical aid (as always) because in the US, food and medical aid cannot be given or withheld based on political considerations so we cannot punish the Afghan or North Korean people to make a point to their governments.
But I am still confused as to how we caused 4 million refugees. Chomsky CLAIMED our invasion would cause 3 to 5 million deaths and 7 to 9 million refugees BUT in fact, there was no humanitarian crisis and the situation is now so good in Afghanistan that the country had its first election albeit with minor problems that are being investigated and most participants and international observers are giving it a strong thumbs up. Yet, again, those doom and gloom naysayers were wrong. The election did go off and it went better than predicted far better than predicted and the Taliban and Al Qaeda were unable to stop it.
Let’s see what happens in January in Iraq. I am confident. Look at the ceasefire in Sadr City. Sadr is turning over heavy weapons and medium weapons because he knows that he has to make sure that he gets his supporters votes to count or he loses political power. But what is wrong with that? Let him enter the election and let him take whatever role he can find democratically because that is what this is all about. He can try to influence overall government policy but it is highly unlikely that he would get more than 10% of the vote, 20% if he was lucky but Sistani and others will still be calling the shots. So he is involved, he is against us but he is taking his fight to the parliament not the streets. Fantastic.
[quote=“Dangermouse”]
Why should waste innocent civilian lives and take out far more civil targets than military targets?[/quote]
a us invasion of japan would have caused far more deaths amongst the japanese civilian population than the 2 atomic bombs.
option 1.) lots of japanese civilians die
option 2.) even MORE japanese civilians die, lots of japanese military die, lots of us military die
why you would wish for option #2 is beyond me…
Don’t quote me on how much the US gives in aid to foriegn countries. I know it gives the most, but as a percentage of GDP, you come way down the list at no. 22 making you very stingy indeed.
While I acknowledge the fact that things are getting back to normalality (if there ever was such a thing in Afghanistan in it’s 7000 years or so of history) and I am aware that the Afghanistan elections were for the most part considered successful, this is not really what we are talking about. We are talking about wht 4 million people were displaced in the first place.
Arming militant groups to get back at the Russians and jostle yourself into first place during the cold war is a valid talking point and one reason for the displacement of these people.
Germany didn’t pose an imminent threat to the UK either. Why should we have got involved? I criticise the US for changing its reasons for going to war with Iraq every five minutes without a concrete excuse - not the war itself or going in too quickly.
But perhaps if you had executed it properly you would be in afar better position now instead of standing around getting shot at wondering what to do. I mean what are you doing now? Whats your next plan. Who is your enemy?
[quote]a US invasion of Japan would have caused far more deaths amongst the Japanese civilian population than the 2 atomic bombs.
option 1.) lots of Japanese civilians die
option 2.) even MORE Japanese civilians die, lots of Japanese military die, lots of us military die
why you would wish for option #2 is beyond me…[/quote]
- Flipper
So would the US be so quick to throw atom bombs around now?
After the end of WW2, how many people have died as a result of the radiation from these bombs which have had no part in the war?
Mmmm.
Danger Otter:
I have not the faintest idea what your point is.
The US was not responsible for the 4 million Afghan refugees during the period that you are talking about. If you still disagree, then I challenge you to prove it. Supporting the opposition in an invasion does not make you responsible for the invasion or the aftermath. That would be like saying we were more responsible for deaths in Russia during WWII than Germany because we sent weapons and supplies to Russia. ??? WTF???
Now, your quote of 22 on the list of countries by per capita giving based on GDP is true BUT it is only government money and does not include any of the following:
- private charities (US$38 billion per year) raising us to the top three. Most Americans donate generously to private charities and religious groups which are very active overseas. This is even included in our tax code. The top private foundations and charitable institutions around the world are all American or heavily dependent on American donors for funding. We are still the largest “donor” to the UN as well though I would question the wisdom of our continued support.
- Effectiveness and efficiency of such GOVERNMENT aid. Every year, much aid goes to “administrative” expenses or just is not well spent and proves ineffective. Private charities by way of contrast have strict guidelines about how much can be spent on administrative expenses. They usually limit themselves to 10%. For some government programs the figure is 50% or in some ridiculous cases, 90%. What difference does it make in these cases how much you give if nothing is getting where it is supposed to be going?
- Technological innovation. The US develops most medical cures and these are “borrowed” by developing nations who take the formulas and make generic medicines. The huge cost of this R&D falls disproportionately on US citizens.
- Peacekeeping forces and armed forces and missile shields and sealanes. The US picks up the tab for most of the peacekeeping in the world including the most dangerous missions as well as through its alliances is the chief guarantor of stability around the world and that means protecting sealanes and trade routes.
- Relatively liberal immigration policies have made it possible for millions to live and work in the US who send billions back to their home countries. This is not included or calculated either.
So, I beg you to reconsider and admit that the US is the No. 1 donor nation in the world. We give more to AIDS prevention (officially) than the entire rest of the world combined. This does not include the fact that most AIDS medicines and AIDS research is also being done in America and again the American citizen and insurance company picks up the tab and when mass production results the rest of the developed world benefits and when huge economies of scale are arrived at then the rest of the world benefits too but ultimately it starts in America.
We are there whenever disaster strikes and it is only when we are not that true trouble like Rwanda goes unchecked. Then, the question must be, if America has done so much elsewhere and contributed so much, why is it that not one other nation or group of nations could muster the effort to do something about Rwanda without the United States? Hmmm? Why not?
I wasn’t talking about private charities, but since we are on the subject I should damn well hope so. You have an extremely large and wealthy population and if you weren’t the largest giver then it would be pretty embarassing so your point doesn’t hold any ground with me.
By and large, the US population is generouswhen it comes to charity. However, just because you give more it doesn’t mean that you aremore generous than other countries - you have more people.
So do charities of other countries. So what?
You forgot to mention that the US gives strategically.
Not strictly true. And lets think of all those drugs developed in other countries which the US has patented as its own. And how many plants have been patented by US coorporations? How can you patent a plant?
And lets think of all those drugs you sell back to third world countries.
And while we are on the subject of technology, lets look at all the innovations designed in other countries which the US likes to call its own.
Too many to list here…it would probably take about 6 weeks.
Agreed. But you make it sound like its for everyone elses benefit. It isn’t, it’s for your own ends.
Other countries benefit from it as a by product.
And your point is? Without this, no one would come to the US. The US cannot operateas it is without migrant workers. Without this system, the US would have less migrant workers and it would not be in the position it is now.
And lets not forget that many of your top designers, engineers and technitians are migrant workers who are from Japan, Europe or the UK.
Suits you sir.
The plan changes but the goal has always been the same. As I said, the media selects and focuses on different reasons for going to war at different times. Nonetheless, the goal has always been constant.
Mistakes are never made in war, eh? Dunkirk?
Give us a break, will ya? Of course mistakes are made. We lost as many men just practicing for the D-Day landings as we have in Iraq so far.
[quote=“Dangermouse”]I wasn’t talking about private charities, but since we are on the subject I should damn well hope so. You have an extremely large and wealthy population and if you weren’t the largest giver then it would be pretty embarassing so your point doesn’t hold any ground with me.
By and large, the US population is generouswhen it comes to charity. However, just because you give more it doesn’t mean that you aremore generous than other countries - you have more people.[/quote]
So, no matter what, the US is stingy, eh?
[quote=“Dangermouse”]
After the end of WW2, how many people have died as a result of the radiation from these bombs which have had no part in the war?
Mmmm.[/quote]
The US government is stingy. It also selective about who it gives aid to. If it gives aid it is usually to countries which it backs politically.
Again, I’m not talking about individuals.
It would be interesting to see what the percentage of charity is against the population and wealth compared to other countries.
Vietnam?
Iraq 1?
Iraq 2?
The point is one would have thought that with all your military planning, so called military prowess and so called “worlds best intelligence” you dont really know what you are doing. Again.
[quote=“Dangermouse”]Vietnam?
Iraq 1?
Iraq 2?
The point is one would have thought that with all your military planning, so called military prowess and so called “worlds best intelligence” you dont really know what you are doing. Again.[/quote]
However did the British Empire evaporate?
This is ridiculous. The US is by far the most generous nation on the history of the earth no matter how you slice it. This narrow focus on government giving is not fair given that the US much prefers to use private more efficient means than going through government agencies. Given all that we have donated, invented and developed, all the peacekeeping missions, etc. the size of the US and its population is irrelevant. If you find so much to criticize about the most generous nation, what do you have to say about those that have equally large populatioins and incomes and do so little. Again, the US is not perfect therefore it is the worst nation is a kind of logic that escapes me entirely.