Hurray for Die Welt!

well i believe germany got stuck with the bill for the first one, which led to resentment and therefore started ww2. afterwards the usa made money available to keep the same thing from happening again, and in hopes of keeping countries from going communist. so dont try to make it sound like the good old usa was forced to pay for it.

maybe because they feel like it doesnt really affect them. thats why the world has been ignoring africa for so long.

Who’s been ignoring Africa? No continent has received more aid and attention. Guess what? It would have been even worse off without this help. It is not a question of imperialism or neocolonialism. It is that Africa has no institutions to provide for a level of economic development and political social leadership that would make it possible for progress to take place.

Actually, many in Europe never paid the US back for the loans in WWI nor WWII so I guess we did pay for it and as I posted earlier, the US paid the defense costs to allow Europe to develop economically. This is even admitted to by the Europeans. Reread your history and learn.

as per my earlier statement about communism. they did all that to prevent the spread of communism.
you dont think the world has been ignoring africa? a few dollars here and there hasnt solved much. nothing is being done about sudan, yet all the right wingers like to comment how under saddam it was so terrible. yet in africa its worse. how would you like to be a white land owner in zimbabwe right now? how much money has been spent in mid east to try to help out there and how much in africa.

Are you joking?

First, was communism a threat or not? to Europe and to elsewhere?

Europe believed it was but was more than happy to allow the US to pay to defend them while they built up their economies. This was admitted to by representative after representative in NATO. This is all on record and has been posted before. If even the Europeans admit it, what’s your beef? Regardless of the reasons, the US paid to defend Europe. If someone would pay to defend the US and all the sealanes that keep world trade going, we too could save US$400 billion per year. Is that a small amount? Europe owes the US more than gratitude, it owes its very existence and present levels of development to direct US aid. Was this also beneficial to the US? Not to the same extent but the US benefited from denying Europe to the Soviets. Just because we also benefited does not mean that the contribution was any less valuable and that somehow Europe is not obligated to be grateful.

As to Africa, numerous examples of intervention and assistance on massive scales have been granted to this continent. This includes free food, medicine, etc etc. etc. The simple fact remains that most realize that this is just money down a rat hole. Until Africa develops the institutions that would make economic progress and political social stability possible, it ain’t going to make any difference. Please remember that during the 1950s and 1960s and even into the early 1970s most AFrican nations were richer than their counterparts in East Asia. Now compare India’s progress. In addition, Africa is loaded with mineral resources?

Africa has not been ignored. The problem is that Africa just cannot seem to manage to make the transition to stability and sustained economic development for whatever reason. BUT in many ways, incredibly, it is still better off in terms of economic and political and social development than the Middle East!!! Is this not incredible!!! Shame on the Arab world.

my point about africa is that the usa is quick to say they are fighting a war in iraq and afghanistan to promote freedom and promote democracy. well if thats their reason why dont they do the same in africa. go to zimbabwe and get rid of the president there and hold free elections. do the same in sudan. there are lots of muslim countries in africa too, so why not go after them too after all algeria has been supporting terrorism. africa has been given lots of money and should be doing better, however its because the money was allowed to be squandered and corruption was and still remains rampant that the institutions you mentioned are not in place. after the UN scandal happend iam a little hesitant to suggest having them have programs or logistics in place to ensure the money is being spent properly, but iam sure there are organizations that could be formed to do this job.

my beef is that a poster a while ago wrote something about the cost of war and who picked up the tab. i was under the assumption that the usa provided the money not because they were asked in some cases but as a means of keeping the countries from falling to the threat of communism. so they had alternative means for “picking up the tab”. they feared that ussr would gain in power if it could spread and then the next war would be even more costly in terms of money and lives since it would probably have gone nuclear. so it was a good business strategy. pay a little now, to prevent paying alot in the future, if there would have been one.

… ups before anyone thinks Germany is preparing to invade Poland once again.

It it still a stable democratic country. BUT the seeds of instability and thus dictatorship are planted, namely postponing necessary economic reforms. Or … carrying out in a pathetic fashion like doing a bit reform, then telling people “that is all”. Then doing a little more…

People in the west, the old “Federal Republic” are democratic and western-oriented. East-Germans (being 16 of the 80 Million) on the other hand are often a scary mix of communists and neo-nazis in a quite large extend. Even people still voting democratic are often full of racial prejudice. Been there, talked to them. Gulp. Stumbled from one dictatorship into the other and now face mass-ememployment, dangerous mix.

Mass-unemployment plus this brown (nazi) base makes me worry. Unfortunately, our bad economy does not seem to be a big issue in the German press anymore.

Still we are far from a state crisis, but if the course goes on like this, we may have one in 5 years.

EDIT: make that 3 years, as I just remembered we have 12.5% unemployment

Two elections later. How would you say that stacks up for democracy compared with what was there before? Not democracy?

Yes, we all read zmag and have read Chomsky’s diatribes. Guess what? We have a foreign policy team which decides national security in conjunction with expected benefit. We do not have to invade every country to have a coherent foreign policy. Besides, if you want to be consistent and coherent, isn’t your position on the left that war is always wrong. Therefore, we are agreeing with you this time. War is not the answer. So why are you upset?

How do you suggest we invade? Through South Africa? I doubt that they would give us the permission? Mozambique? Perhaps? Where?

We stopped the civil war in the South in Sudan. Yes, that was the US and we are the ones putting pressure on the government regardign Darfur while the EU and UN dither about whether it counts as genocide or not. I believe they are still “discussing” the issue and “consulting” about it.

Um because they are not invading anyone are they? a threat to anyone? Libya did a volte face on its wmds. THAT is directly related to Bush’s policies. Score another success.

No Algeria’s government is facing an insurgency. It is NOT supporting terrorism. Better get your facts right.

Thank your political correctness for that. People like me don’t trust government officials in the UN or in Africa. We have seen the results. Your types are the ones who insist that we must treat all world “leaders” alike and keeping money from them would some how imply they were corrupt and therefore that would be an insult and so the money goes to them directly because that is far better even if it goes down a rat hole than hurting their “sensibilities.”

Numerous studies have actually shown that the aid is distorting. Ever read the Wealth and Poverty of Nations. It cogently explains why Africa and Latin America are relatively poor and it uses facts not feelings to do so. I doubt it has been read much on the left where Western imperialism and racism and hegenomism are the catchwords of the day.

Your beef is irrelevant. The US defended these nations and it was better for us that they did not fall to the USSR but ultimately it was a hell of a lot better for these countries that they did not fall to the USSR. Therefore, while ingratitude is nothing less than what I expect from Europeans, it does not in any way negate the enormous contribution of the US just because we benefited as well. Given that they benefited to a far greater degree, that debt remains and their behavior of recent days is again proof of the old adage that no good deed will go unpunished. They owe us for three things in particular:

  1. Preventing a Soviet takeover.
  2. Defending them for 50 years for basically free.
  3. Allowing them 50 years to devote to extensive social programs and economic development.

Then, you could also take in the following lesser factors:

  1. Keeping world trade and sealanes open and running.
  2. Providing stability in areas requiring peacekeepers and preventing nations like Greece and Turkey from going to war. Ditto for the pax Americana in Latin America. Remember the old almost nuclear rivalries between Chile, Argentina and Brazil. The lack of an arms race because of US pressure saved these nations billions of dollars.

To date, Europe STILL does not pay its fair share of stabilizing the world and keeping the peace. What does Europe do to keep the Persian Gulf sealanes open? the Malacca Strait safe? the Taiwan Strait open to ships and free of war? Nothing. Even worse they are set to sell weapons to China that will destabilize the Taiwan Strait, they sold weapons to Saddam to destabilize the Persian Gulf (France and Germany and Russia were Saddam’s major suppleirs) and Germany is the largest source of loans and funding for North Korea, while France is for Syria and Iran.

With allies like these butt munches, perhaps we should look at retaliatory bombing of Paris and Berlin. It had a most salutory effect on Qaddafi. Perhaps, the same could be used to keep the corrupt pirates of the Elysees Palace and Chancellory in line as well?

and iraq was? they invaded someone to start all this, or threatend to invade. please give me the link so i can read it.

there have been attacks in the past in france as well as insurgent attacks in the country. i didnt not mean there is state support of terrorism abroad, but then again maybe there is. it wasnt my point.

there are plenty of reasons why places are poor compared to others. are you implying that aid doesnt help?

smart business sense. get someone else to pay for it.
and for selling weapons, i remember watching oliver north on tv when i was a kid. not only that but seeing shots of rummy shaking hands with saddam around 20 years ago. selling weapons in latin america too. so you cant use the arguement about selling weapons.

Troy:

I don’t know where to begin with you. Iraq invaded Iran. It invaded Kuwait. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States continued to fear Iraq and Saddam. This is why the US troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia. All just a mirage? a myth? Gee. How stupid Bush was to view Saddam as a threat along with all of the intelligence services of every major nation, every major Democrat from Clinton to Kerry and even the UN. How could we have all been so stupid when he was clearly harmless? So Iraq was not going to invade anyone and was therefore not a threat? How do you know?

Aid makes a difference if you are starving and someone feeds you but if you do not deal with the underlying problems you have not really solved anything. In fact, supplying aid can destroy farmer livelihoods and thus exacerbate the problem.

I think it is very interesting to see a typical European approach and a typical American one under Bush.

Europe for years has set up numerous bureaucracies along with the UN to “deal” with the Afghan refugee problem. In 25 years, the problem grew and grew and more bureaucrats needed to be hired to “deal” with it. The US went in, took out the Taliban and now 4 million refugees have returned and the bureaucrats are out of business.

The largest bureaucracy in the UN was guess what? The Oil for Food program. Then, throw in all the weapons inspectors and all the other aid organizations that were sent to “deal” with the problems and you have a lot of people working on things. The US took out Saddam, the troops are out of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States now feel secure. The risk factor of doing business in their nations is much lower. All those UN and EU bureaucrats are now out of jobs.

Europe talks. The US acts. Europe “deals” with the results of problems. The US goes in and takes them out so there is no need to “deal” with the problems. You want to talk root causes? Look at how the US has uprooted some of the worst regimes and look what is happening, spreading democratic movements. But remember the scorn and contempt that Bush got for suggesting such a thing could happen? How naive? What a poor understanding of history? How could he possibly be so stupid? The man had hardly ever traveled, hardly ever been out of the US. How ridiculous when he said “Grecians” and not “Greeks.” Does he even know the names of the 150 world leaders? Incredible that such a man could pretend to know anything or have the audacity to disagree with the self-appointed experts.

Doesn’t he know that they have master’s and PH.D degrees in postmodern deconstructionist theories about the revisionist Orientalist approach to the Other as represented and manifested by the Occidentalist Paradigm of Self-Perpetuating Superiority-Inferiority Dichotomies?