Aid hasn't stopped, but if for the sake of argument we consider the cost of the war 'aid' (since in essence that's what we're saying it is), I'd say we're giving a disproportionate amout to Iraq all things considered.
Ah, the 'ole semantics game. How nice it is to see.
"If you take all of the pennies you have in your house and call them one million dollar bills are richer than Bill Gates."
You do realize that your gripe there is 100% fabricated in your own mind in how you choose to look at things right? Great.
The cost of war is not aid, it's the cost of war. The amount of aid we'll send to Iraq will be the amount of aid we send to Iraq.
And even if we look at it your way, what does it matter?
Quote:
Mali is poor as sand, has an AIDS crisis like the rest of Africa, it's stuck in the middle of a big drug trade originating in Nigera, [EDIT] the average life expectancy is like 45 minutes [/EDIT], and has had a Civil War going on for a long time. It's been really quiet for maybe 10 years, but to my knowledge it's never been abandoned. It still flared up on occaision back in the mid-nineties.
And this requires immediate military intervention... why? Is there lots of fighting going on?
How would military intervention in that situation help and which "side" would we be on?
What is the history of the mythical "international community"'s interaction with regard to this crisis?
How many people stand to lose their lives if we don't intervene?
Is there a regional security risk?
It is not difficult for me to imagine that the "international community" is ignoring a crisis, I'm just needing some more information before I draw up my "Stop The War In Iraq And Go To Mali Instead" signs.
I'm going to second a post made back on page 1 but still has relevance. I'm to the point where I say screw the rest of the world. Let them kill each other off. Let Saddam kill off the Iraqi population. Let Africa starve to death. Let Israel and Palestine bomb the crap out of each other. Nobody wants our help, and when they do, the rest of the world complains. When we see a need for military policing or economic support, we are accused of having alterior motives such as oil some bullshit like that. So I say again, screw the rest of the world...the rest of us Americans will practice isolationism again, and maybe talk to Canada once in a while and build the Great Wall of America to keep those pesky Mexicans from trying to make a living in the U.S., not to mention the rest of people escaping their governments. And when the next generation Hitler or Stalin, or even Uday and Qussay Hussein begin World War III, don't come knockin on our door (talkin to you France), because we'll put up a defense so strong, nobody will be able to get anything in. We'll take all the money we save from economic assistance to the rest of the world and invest it in our defense. Our anti-missile defense system will be unlike anything ever seen. Our military will be so technologically advanced, nobody would stand a chance. And that' s all we'll worry about...our defense. At least we'll be the last one standing. Ok, rant over.
Ah, the 'ole semantics game. How nice it is to see.... And even if we look at it your way, what does it matter?
Groverat, it's not my way, it's your way. You can lie as much as you like but it doesn't change the truth. I thought you could discuss this intelligibly, but evidently I was wrong. Your arguments are intellectually dishonest. Your avoidance is disingenuous.
You claim 'fix Iraq before fixing North Korea' because it's easier. Fixing Africa is easier than fixing Iraq. By your definition we should go to Africa first.
In this scenario cost of war is cost of aid. Or we could just as easily say the cost of aid in Africa is actually a cost of war (war on AIDS, war on poverty, war on drugs, etc.). Whatever YOU want to call it, the cost of fixing a problem, the cost of going into Africa is less than Iraq, just as the cost of fixing Iraq is less than that of North Korea. Cost in dollars, cost in lives, cost in everything.
Skirt the issue as much as you want. There are millions more people in Africa that need help at a reduced [cost of fixing the problem]. The humanitarian crisis in Africa, one of the supposed motives for going to fix the Iraqi problem, is graver in Africa.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
It is not difficult for me to imagine that the "international community" is ignoring a crisis, I'm just needing some more information before I draw up my "Stop The War In Iraq And Go To Mali Instead" signs.
So you'll support war instead of supporting the fight against a humanitarian crisis on continent that wouldn't require war? You're just being dishonest. You either don't care about the humanitarian crisis, or you care a lot about going to war. Got that war woody I guess.
You claim that the humanitarian crisis is reason for going in to Iraq. You claim Iraq because we have the power to combat the military regime. The humanitarian crisis is worse in Africa, but would not require military force, at least not a war, to solve. But you'll still support a war in Iraq over aid to Africa.
War is the mitigating factor for you? By your reasoning if we could go to war in Africa, one that's easier than the current war in Iraq, then you'd support going to war in Africa to fight for the humanitarian causes. But since fighting the current problems in Africa wouldn't require a war, you wouldn't support aid to Africa over a war in Iraq. That's sick in the head.
You claim 'fix Iraq before fixing North Korea' because it's easier.
I claim no such thing. I think we acknowledge and deal with both situations at the same time. This is a key concept you continually forget. We can walk and chew gun at the same time so all this "before" garbage is just illogical.
We kill Hussein while doing something else with North Korea, that has not played out like Iraq had before the war started.
Quote:
In this scenario cost of war is cost of aid. Or we could just as easily say the cost of aid in Africa is actually a cost of war (war on AIDS, war on poverty, war on drugs, etc.). Whatever YOU want to call it, the cost of fixing a problem, the cost of going into Africa is less than Iraq, just as the cost of fixing Iraq is less than that of North Korea. Cost in dollars, cost in lives, cost in everything.
You just say that without backing it up or answering my question. I'm supposed to just take your word that the need is more pressing as fact when you've continually shown you have a difficult time understanding what I post?
Quote:
Skirt the issue as much as you want. There are millions more people in Africa that need help at a reduced [cost of fixing the problem]. The humanitarian crisis in Africa, one of the supposed motives for going to fix the Iraqi problem, is graver in Africa.
Show me that we are doing nothing with these problems and be more specific and I'll agree. Hell I agree we should do more about Africa anyway but it's not just a question about pulling out of Iraq. We weren't helping as much as we should BEFORE Iraq war what the hell makes you think we would if we suddenly pulled out of Iraq?
Help Africa, yes, as a separate plea it is very compelling but as an anti-war argument it's too dumb even for you.
What the hell do they have to do with each other?
Quote:
So you'll support war instead of supporting the fight against a humanitarian crisis on continent that wouldn't require war?
I'll support both, thanks.
Quote:
You claim that the humanitarian crisis is reason for going in to Iraq. You claim Iraq because we have the power to combat the military regime. The humanitarian crisis is worse in Africa, but would not require military force, at least not a war, to solve. But you'll still support a war in Iraq over aid to Africa.
"over". Again with this childish and moronic either/or logic.
"You can either have your heart beat or have your lungs breathe....CHOOSE!"
Quote:
War is the mitigating factor for you? By your reasoning if we could go to war in Africa, one that's easier than the current war in Iraq, then you'd support going to war in Africa to fight for the humanitarian causes. But since fighting the current problems in Africa wouldn't require a war, you wouldn't support aid to Africa over a war in Iraq. That's sick in the head.
Yeah, I just like war. I want to kill babies. You're a ****ing intellectual giant.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING AT ALL!!!
you people are still here?
"the parks closed. moose outside should have told you so."
-john candy
Aid hasn't stopped, but if for the sake of argument we consider the cost of the war 'aid' (since in essence that's what we're saying it is), I'd say we're giving a disproportionate amout to Iraq all things considered.
Ah, the 'ole semantics game. How nice it is to see.
"If you take all of the pennies you have in your house and call them one million dollar bills are richer than Bill Gates."
You do realize that your gripe there is 100% fabricated in your own mind in how you choose to look at things right? Great.
The cost of war is not aid, it's the cost of war. The amount of aid we'll send to Iraq will be the amount of aid we send to Iraq.
And even if we look at it your way, what does it matter?
Mali is poor as sand, has an AIDS crisis like the rest of Africa, it's stuck in the middle of a big drug trade originating in Nigera, [EDIT] the average life expectancy is like 45 minutes [/EDIT], and has had a Civil War going on for a long time. It's been really quiet for maybe 10 years, but to my knowledge it's never been abandoned. It still flared up on occaision back in the mid-nineties.
And this requires immediate military intervention... why? Is there lots of fighting going on?
How would military intervention in that situation help and which "side" would we be on?
What is the history of the mythical "international community"'s interaction with regard to this crisis?
How many people stand to lose their lives if we don't intervene?
Is there a regional security risk?
It is not difficult for me to imagine that the "international community" is ignoring a crisis, I'm just needing some more information before I draw up my "Stop The War In Iraq And Go To Mali Instead" signs.
Originally posted by groverat
Ah, the 'ole semantics game. How nice it is to see.... And even if we look at it your way, what does it matter?
Groverat, it's not my way, it's your way. You can lie as much as you like but it doesn't change the truth. I thought you could discuss this intelligibly, but evidently I was wrong. Your arguments are intellectually dishonest. Your avoidance is disingenuous.
You claim 'fix Iraq before fixing North Korea' because it's easier. Fixing Africa is easier than fixing Iraq. By your definition we should go to Africa first.
In this scenario cost of war is cost of aid. Or we could just as easily say the cost of aid in Africa is actually a cost of war (war on AIDS, war on poverty, war on drugs, etc.). Whatever YOU want to call it, the cost of fixing a problem, the cost of going into Africa is less than Iraq, just as the cost of fixing Iraq is less than that of North Korea. Cost in dollars, cost in lives, cost in everything.
Skirt the issue as much as you want. There are millions more people in Africa that need help at a reduced [cost of fixing the problem]. The humanitarian crisis in Africa, one of the supposed motives for going to fix the Iraqi problem, is graver in Africa.
Originally posted by groverat
It is not difficult for me to imagine that the "international community" is ignoring a crisis, I'm just needing some more information before I draw up my "Stop The War In Iraq And Go To Mali Instead" signs.
So you'll support war instead of supporting the fight against a humanitarian crisis on continent that wouldn't require war? You're just being dishonest. You either don't care about the humanitarian crisis, or you care a lot about going to war. Got that war woody I guess.
You claim that the humanitarian crisis is reason for going in to Iraq. You claim Iraq because we have the power to combat the military regime. The humanitarian crisis is worse in Africa, but would not require military force, at least not a war, to solve. But you'll still support a war in Iraq over aid to Africa.
War is the mitigating factor for you? By your reasoning if we could go to war in Africa, one that's easier than the current war in Iraq, then you'd support going to war in Africa to fight for the humanitarian causes. But since fighting the current problems in Africa wouldn't require a war, you wouldn't support aid to Africa over a war in Iraq. That's sick in the head.
You claim 'fix Iraq before fixing North Korea' because it's easier.
I claim no such thing. I think we acknowledge and deal with both situations at the same time. This is a key concept you continually forget. We can walk and chew gun at the same time so all this "before" garbage is just illogical.
We kill Hussein while doing something else with North Korea, that has not played out like Iraq had before the war started.
In this scenario cost of war is cost of aid. Or we could just as easily say the cost of aid in Africa is actually a cost of war (war on AIDS, war on poverty, war on drugs, etc.). Whatever YOU want to call it, the cost of fixing a problem, the cost of going into Africa is less than Iraq, just as the cost of fixing Iraq is less than that of North Korea. Cost in dollars, cost in lives, cost in everything.
You just say that without backing it up or answering my question. I'm supposed to just take your word that the need is more pressing as fact when you've continually shown you have a difficult time understanding what I post?
Skirt the issue as much as you want. There are millions more people in Africa that need help at a reduced [cost of fixing the problem]. The humanitarian crisis in Africa, one of the supposed motives for going to fix the Iraqi problem, is graver in Africa.
Show me that we are doing nothing with these problems and be more specific and I'll agree. Hell I agree we should do more about Africa anyway but it's not just a question about pulling out of Iraq. We weren't helping as much as we should BEFORE Iraq war what the hell makes you think we would if we suddenly pulled out of Iraq?
Help Africa, yes, as a separate plea it is very compelling but as an anti-war argument it's too dumb even for you.
What the hell do they have to do with each other?
So you'll support war instead of supporting the fight against a humanitarian crisis on continent that wouldn't require war?
I'll support both, thanks.
You claim that the humanitarian crisis is reason for going in to Iraq. You claim Iraq because we have the power to combat the military regime. The humanitarian crisis is worse in Africa, but would not require military force, at least not a war, to solve. But you'll still support a war in Iraq over aid to Africa.
"over". Again with this childish and moronic either/or logic.
"You can either have your heart beat or have your lungs breathe....CHOOSE!"
War is the mitigating factor for you? By your reasoning if we could go to war in Africa, one that's easier than the current war in Iraq, then you'd support going to war in Africa to fight for the humanitarian causes. But since fighting the current problems in Africa wouldn't require a war, you wouldn't support aid to Africa over a war in Iraq. That's sick in the head.
Yeah, I just like war. I want to kill babies. You're a ****ing intellectual giant.