Should We Suspend Aid to Countries That Attack U.S. Embassies?
Chris D
2012/09/13 18:21:21
|
|
|||||
|
700 votes
|
|
82% | |||
|
71 votes
|
|
8% | |||
|
84 votes
|
|
10% | |||
The U.S. helps save the Egyptian people from the tyrant Mubarak -- and then radicals attack our embassy. We help Libya free themselves of the horrific Muammar Gaddafi, and they storm our embassy and murder our diplomats. Should the US suspend aid to the countries that commit these crimes?
FOXNEWS.COM reports:
FOXNEWS.COM reports:
Lawmakers and other officials stepped up calls Thursday for the United States to put heavy pressure on the governments whose people are storming U.S. diplomatic posts across the Middle East and North Africa -- even if it means freezing aid and expelling diplomats from Washington.
Read More: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/13/lawmake...
Top Opinion
-
Tuna 2012/09/13 19:33:13Yes
I do not think that paying nations off with the idea that if we don't, they'll attack us, to be a positive relationship... for either party.
We're broke. We can't afford to continue paying foreign aid. We have plenty of families in our own nation who are living on the streets, in tents, in cars, etc. who need our help. It sucks that there are poor people in other nations, but what about our own? Besides... that aid rarely gets to those who actually need it... it tends to go directly into the pockets of the already wealthy. Why not do business with those guys so that we BOTH get something out of the deal, including their furthering of labor, etc. in their nation?
I see more positive aspects to business associations than to aid... just my opinion.
however you look at it, we NEED to stay engaged.
it takes all forms of economic engagement to prevent a stituation where trade is no longer possible.
Wouldn't it be better to form trading partnerships with nations instead of going to war with those nations? No one wins with war.
engaging with these nations economically (even if that is hostile in nature... embargo, sanctions) is better than going to war.
an yes that sometimes means we GIVE money to nations who may be hostile toward us so that we stay engaged with them.. and keep the dialog open.
still better than invading them.
with aid we can open the doors of the castle and work from within even tho we may not be trading with them.
we put too much emphasis on trade to the point that we are currently engaged in a race to the bottom for a living wage in this country.
trade does not solve all the problems, in fact its created many of the problems we are dealing with right now.... think outsourcing and cheep steel.
Trade has long ago devastated the garment industry in America.
But I will say this: It's a problem that we need to handle internally.
I believe that the future is in highly technical & scientific goods. We need the top producers of highly technical goods in the world & in order to get that, our nation needs to be educated.
We also need clean air, land & water (& plenty of it) so that we can produce good, high quality food for our people (& the world). Killing or endangering our natural resources is only weakening us further & endangering the stability of our nation (eventually, though we'll have plenty of petro fuels, we'll have no water, for example... hint: we can all survive without energy, but nothing can survive without water). Having to purchase water &/or food from other nations because ours is not fit for consumption or won't produce due to environmental disaster is not going to be a fun adventure.
I disagree with you about foreign aid. There are economists from some nations who say it would be better for their nation(s) were we to stop supplying aid to them. Of course, that is not true all of them. Though I am not fussy. I say start where it's needed & wean the rest off the American teat.
I do not think that someone who is in business with someone else, wants the other to be damaged. It only hurts business.
if only more business would take a long view like this...
but they don't.
its all about the quarterly statement and how to get more blood from the stone.... they are not working toward sustainable goals like you illustrate.
this mentality results in a race to the bottom as each one vies for the cheapest labor costs and least environmental restrictions... they don't find those things HERE because we DO value our air and water, and we do value our workers.
we will never be able to compete head to head with these other countries, because they don't value those things as much.
giving them aid is a way to "extract" those kinds of concessions from them on human rights and environmental controls.... certainly the companies are not going to do it, nor should we expect them to.
corporations are profit making machines... nothing more. to attribute to them a conscience or heart is to buy into the PR campaign rhetoric specifically designed to convince us of something that cannot possibly exist.
consider the credo of my website....
http://putpeopleoverprofit.or...
My point about business partners not wanting their counterparts to fail, was referring to someone like Saudi Arabia or Iran. The Saudis are not interested in our nation collapsing. I don't believe it for a second. They want us to succeed because it's the only way they can make money off us. I believe that is generally true with any nation we would have business relations with... I believe it would be true with Iran as well, were we to stop threatening them & start doing business with them.
Yeah, I realize that about corporations. That's part of my problem with today's big business in America... short sighted profiteering. They don't give a damned about the American people or economy... or at least they didn't. Now that there aren't very many people in America to sell their products to, they're a bit more concerned. But if you send all the jobs overseas & increase unemployment, simply because you are only willing to pay slave labor wages instead of living wages, you're going to find a broken economy on your feet.
But hey! The short term profits are huge, right?
So, to hell with the American economy & the American people.
Same goes with our natural resources. The short term profits are out of this world... the environment be damned....
&&&
My point about business partners not wanting their counterparts to fail, was referring to someone like Saudi Arabia or Iran. The Saudis are not interested in our nation collapsing. I don't believe it for a second. They want us to succeed because it's the only way they can make money off us. I believe that is generally true with any nation we would have business relations with... I believe it would be true with Iran as well, were we to stop threatening them & start doing business with them.
Yeah, I realize that about corporations. That's part of my problem with today's big business in America... short sighted profiteering. They don't give a damned about the American people or economy... or at least they didn't. Now that there aren't very many people in America to sell their products to, they're a bit more concerned. But if you send all the jobs overseas & increase unemployment, simply because you are only willing to pay slave labor wages instead of living wages, you're going to find a broken economy on your feet.
But hey! The short term profits are huge, right?
So, to hell with the American economy & the American people.
Same goes with our natural resources. The short term profits are out of this world... the environment be damned. Screw The People... of today AND tomorrow.
Great American Patriots, my ass! Supporting Communism by hiring workers from a Communist nation, then having the nerve to yell "Communist" or "Socialist" at others is sickeningly hypocritical.
I have little to no respect for American big business & those greedy bastards at the top. They're greatly contributing to the downfall of my nation & I'd like to see them land on their ass first... let the rest of us fall on top of them when we go... bury & crush them for their actions.
its better to get ALL the stakeholders into an agreement which is what Obama has been trying to do. They rejected a "business" deal where they would be supplied enriched uranium by Russia for civilian use because they wanted to continue developing their centrifuges.
this puts them on a path to highly enriched uranium which is not the best interests of the region.
the sanctions are harsh and blunt, but they are working... and its far better than the alternative.
the problem facing Romney supporters is that he's likely get us involved in another war in region. his convention speech was very hawkish and bombing Iran or helping Israel to bomb Iran would not be in our best interests.
i would MUCH rather pursue the diplomacy/sanction/trade route that we have been talking about, which we will get with Obama.
I simply agree with Ron Paul more.
you seem to have confused the ppl with those responsible for deaths at the embassy....
look above at the link Grammar posted.
a lot.
My belief is that at least as far as Libya these acts will be found to be Al Qaeda & the Islamic Brotherhood (important to note Zawahiri came from this organization) to affect this new weak government and to send a message to the United States. We shall see?
http://users.bestweb.net/~om/...
please take time to listen and hear....
Peace and Love, Barefoot♥
It certainly wasn't the Libyan nation. That is simply obvious. Which "group" it was will be announced soon, I'm sure. Now that the sentiment is spreading to other nations, I'm sure it will be even quicker.
i must have missed that part.
Whatever.
"You to stupid to know whats really going on. "
End of conversation.
If you were broke would you give someone $100, because they needed it?
nice plan.