screwed either way..., US helping other countries Options

[*mona lisa*]

i think US should continue to give out money otherwise many countries would not get help. it just should be lessened. i mean the amount being given should be lowered. and more money should be given if its extreme.

[gigiopolis]

why WOULDNT we let the iraqi people fix it? It's THEIR country. NOT ours.

Well, if you think about it, it WAS the US who made Iraq the way they are today. If it wasn't for Bush's ignorance, this wouldn't happen to them.

What do you mean, the US doesn't have an obligation to fix Iraq? Making bad choices are mistakes, but irresponsibility is even a greater mistake.

[ryfitaDF]

Well, if you think about it, it WAS the US who made Iraq the way they are today. If it wasn't for Bush's ignorance, this wouldn't happen to them.

What do you mean, the US doesn't have an obligation to fix Iraq? Making bad choices are mistakes, but irresponsibility is even a greater mistake.

so you're in support of completing a mistake? the responsable thing would be to pull out and kiss iraq's ass for all the women and children Bush has killed. now he's just going to do the same to Iran, then Libia, then possibly even N. Korea. who knows who else will need "liberated"? iraq will just be proof that he can get away with this BS.

this country is doomed because their are too many pro-life homophobes in ohio. plain and simple. and i probably sound like i went off on a tangent, but i'm cool.

[*xcaitlinx*]

Well, if you think about it, it WAS the US who made Iraq the way they are today. If it wasn't for Bush's ignorance, this wouldn't happen to them.

What do you mean, the US doesn't have an obligation to fix Iraq? Making bad choices are mistakes, but irresponsibility is even a greater mistake.

im talking about forcing our government on the iraqis. That's THEIR decision. We should let them be.

[picaso_smile]

im talking about forcing our government on the iraqis. That's THEIR decision. We should let them be.

But..... if we just let them be they'd most likely be taken over by some terrorist network. Without any type of organized government they're suseptable to all kinds of takeovers.

[*xcaitlinx*]

But..... if we just let them be they'd most likely be taken over by some terrorist network. Without any type of organized government they're suseptable to all kinds of takeovers.

true. but what after that? Are Bush and the administration going to continue to invade iraq? Or will he give us some bullshit speech...stating that the war is over when it really isn't? I'd like to know---will the war end? ever?

[picaso_smile]

true. but what after that? Are Bush and the administration going to continue to invade iraq? Or will he give us some bullshit speech...stating that the war is over when it really isn't? I'd like to know---will the war end? ever?

After theiur new goprvernment is set up well probably start to leave... sure there will most liely be some b.s. involved. We'd probably just try to leave them alone and hope to get some good oil deals.

[Spirited Away]

To those who said that we should pull out and not complete what we started...

That happened in Vietnam (as in the US pulled out). Nationalist Vietnamese were persecuted after the Americans left. Some are still in prison because they refuse to accept the Communist regime.

ALL Nationalists believe that if the US had stayed and lend support, Vietnam would have been able to retain democracy today.

I think that so long as the US does not have in mind to make Iraq another America, our presence, at least until the new govt. is established and strong, ensure that the country won't have to go back to a long line of tyrants running the country and mass killing of innocent citizens can be prevented.

[angel-roh]

They shouldn't be anger with us.
I mean we, US are having problems
with our lands and wars too. I mean
we're trying to help as possible. If
we're not helping too much for the
countries, it's their fault for not doing
it right. I mean why do they need to be
so mad and grew so much selfishness?
They don't need to be, if they are, then
it's their fault. They don't need to bomb
U.S. It's not their rights to do that.

[Spirited Away]

They shouldn't be anger with us.
I mean we, US are having problems
with our lands and wars too. I mean
we're trying to help as possible. If
we're not helping too much for the
countries, it's their fault for not doing
it right. I mean why do they need to be
so mad and grew so much selfishness?
They don't need to be, if they are, then
it's their fault. They don't need to bomb
U.S. It's not their rights to do that.

You know, it's this kind of arrogant talk that makes the rest of the world hate the US. It's also this kind of talk that makes people wonder how sheltered, perhaps even ignorant and STUPID, US citizens can be.

[racoons > you]

They shouldn't be anger with us.
I mean we, US are having problems
with our lands and wars too. I mean
we're trying to help as possible. If
we're not helping too much for the
countries, it's their fault for not doing
it right. I mean why do they need to be
so mad and grew so much selfishness?
They don't need to be, if they are, then
it's their fault. They don't need to bomb
U.S. It's not their rights to do that.

i second what fae said. the us aint perfect... nor is it innocent

[picaso_smile]

You know, it's this kind of arrogant talk that makes the rest of the world hate the US. It's also this kind of talk that makes people wonder how sheltered, perhaps even ignorant and STUPID, US citizens can be.

What nationality are you?

[iheartsimba]

*sighs* The whole world will hate us regardless.

agreed.


anyway,...i dont really know much about who we are giving money to and all...but i think its sort of dumb..how people are so divided by countries and everything. we are all people, can't we just...share the whole f**king economy or something. we are so...selfish here.

[sammehmyst]

well, by the US' generosity i guess people might expect more from the US.

[racoons > you]

^^

and as the most powerfull nation in teh world, it is you rresponsibility to meet the demands which fall upon you

[sammehmyst]

^^

and as the most powerfull nation in teh world, it is you rresponsibility to meet the demands which fall upon you

no no, i didn't mean it that way.

I am saying that in the past, there has been so many country allie links. Each country helped eachother during wars. it's a give take thing.

if the united states didn't give back, everyone would get mad. like how some people got mad at france.

[racoons > you]

^^

ah my mistake, i misunderstood

i still stand by my post tho, for future reference

[Spirited Away]

What nationality are you?

American, naturalized.

[innovation]

we're not being bombed for insufficient monetary contribution; we're being bombed because we can't keep out of international affairs.. right?

[picaso_smile]

we're not being bombed for insufficient monetary contribution; we're being bombed because we can't keep out of international affairs.. right?

I think many differemt factors add to this...

Basicly the U.S. is now considered the world police (or something like that). When ever there's a problem we have to get involved. We're expected to help and give aid to other countries. The biggest reason for this is that the U.S. is wealthy. But... times are starting to change, anyway.

Other countries and peoples (such as the many terrorist networks) don't seeing people who they see as heathens enjoying resources that they don't have. I think jelousy plays a role in all of this.

I'd also like to add that the monitary aid the U.S. is giving will never be paid back. These countries are too poor to ever repay the debt.

[racoons > you]

^^

so? their need is greater, you cant just say... no i'll let your children starve because you're government is too poor to pay us back the 50 cents it takes to feed a child for a week

[picaso_smile]

^^

so? their need is greater, you cant just say... no i'll let your children starve because you're government is too poor to pay us back the 50 cents it takes to feed a child for a week

I never said the U.S. shouldn't give aid... But I do think we're helping in the wrong way. It's pointless to keep giving them cash when what they really need is a stable gorvenment and a decent economy.

And I'll betcha in 50 years China will be the new economic leader. Will they help people? I actually have no idea.

[innovation]

just a random fact: the U.S. pornography business is worth the same value as the amount of foreign aid that the U.S. contributes. imagine if all of those porn purchasers were to donate that money to those displaced nigerians, darnit! this nation would be contributing twice as much aid!

anyway, in my opinion, the U.S. actually has an obligation to give monetary aid to underdeveloped nations, since it has claimed great leadership in the international community. if the U.S. wants to promote development, social progress, and stability as it claims to, it needs to display financial devotion to these causes, as well. in addition, it's most likely that the U.S. is contributing this money for a cause, rather than out of fear for uh.. the terrorists. now that i think about it, it's kind of a ridiculous suggestion.

[--{Empty}--]

I personally don't think it matters how much money a country goes into debt... Because I dont' think there's a single country who isn't in debt. And what if the U.S. is in debt. I dont' think they'll be declaring bankruptcy and be bought out by some private company or another country. And besides, there's not much many of us can do in a situation like this. I just think it's best if we let the leaders of the country decide on how much to give or not give a country.

[Aesirus]

Other countries are more likely to attack us for intervening than leaving them alone.

A person who is stronger than you decides to stop giving you money and leave you alone. Do you beat him up or count your blessings?