How does the West win the 'War on ******'?
- Thread starter McRocket
- Start date
it's not fair to say that we (as in the majority of poor americans) are responsible for US imperialism. well ok, so yeah, we are... but that's like saying that the german citizen that believed what he read in the papers and went to work everyday at the factory and paid his taxes is just as responsible for the holocaust as members of the SS.
that's the first rule of propaghanda. if you can slip your arguements by people, then you allready have them hooked, and there is no need to convince them. It reminds me of a conversation a freind of mine had at the start of the invasion of iraq. a freind of his called him up and she said, "well, we're in Iraq." and he said, "really? I thought we were in california?" and she said, "I mean our soliders are in Iraq." and he said, "whoa. I have solidiers? If I knew that I would have sent them to washington DC."
he's being a bit of an ass.. but he's got a point. IM not the one that's in the middle east dropping bombs on people. Don't associate me with the one's that are.
I didn't build the bombs. all I did was go to work and the government took my money to pay for them. I didn't have a choice. If I didn't pay my taxes then the solduers over here would come to my house and take me away.
I didn't create the system. yes, I drive a car which was paid for in ***** and stolen resources on every level, but I can't help it that I was born into a system where non-compliance with the state will excersize that military ***** onto me.
are you really willing to drop out of industrial capitalism and fight the war machine? are you willing to possibly die and most certinaly go to jail? If so that's great, because there's 100 people for every cop and politician and executive and there's not enough jails to hold us.
But I don't see it happening.
that's the first rule of propaghanda. if you can slip your arguements by people, then you allready have them hooked, and there is no need to convince them. It reminds me of a conversation a freind of mine had at the start of the invasion of iraq. a freind of his called him up and she said, "well, we're in Iraq." and he said, "really? I thought we were in california?" and she said, "I mean our soliders are in Iraq." and he said, "whoa. I have solidiers? If I knew that I would have sent them to washington DC."
he's being a bit of an ass.. but he's got a point. IM not the one that's in the middle east dropping bombs on people. Don't associate me with the one's that are.
I didn't build the bombs. all I did was go to work and the government took my money to pay for them. I didn't have a choice. If I didn't pay my taxes then the solduers over here would come to my house and take me away.
I didn't create the system. yes, I drive a car which was paid for in ***** and stolen resources on every level, but I can't help it that I was born into a system where non-compliance with the state will excersize that military ***** onto me.
are you really willing to drop out of industrial capitalism and fight the war machine? are you willing to possibly die and most certinaly go to jail? If so that's great, because there's 100 people for every cop and politician and executive and there's not enough jails to hold us.
But I don't see it happening.
eyoowhatup
Banned
yea lets never give up, lets keep on fighting over oil for rich corporations while so many innocent soldiers die every day, great idea dickhead
Philbert
Banned
This proves the theory that a room full of monkeys typing for all eternity will eventually reproduce "War and Peace" word for word!
Even though you seem to have your head so far up your ass that you think everything tastes like ****, you got that part right (sorta).
Never give up is a great idea!
Of course, innocent soldiers is kind of an oxymoron, since someone carrying a rifle, hand grenade and other equipment designed to destroy people and places is probably aware of their basic function. No one accidently finds themselves in the military, they sorta mean to be there.
I live here, I know who my neighbors are...if anyone wants to mess with my friends and ****** I have no problem with who I want to survive.
I'd like to find a way to live in peace and harmony, things work better that way, but not at the expense of my world.
And that's the name of that game, "dickhead".
we like to pretend the the US economy isn't entirely based on oil. and it has jack **** to do with driving cars. all this alternative energy talk is great for the guilty liberal conscience, but nevermind the fact that it doesn't work very good, and how exactly are we going to mine copper and steel and 98% of the other resources required for technical infastructure that has nothing to do with it's power source?
the fact is that we used up all the viable oil in america (and what's left over costs twice to produce then it can be sold for at any ever increasing demand.) the only place to get it is in the middle east. I'm not saying that it's a good thing, but that's the way it has to be if we want to maintain our lifestyles and it seems that we do at any and all costs.
the fact is that we used up all the viable oil in america (and what's left over costs twice to produce then it can be sold for at any ever increasing demand.) the only place to get it is in the middle east. I'm not saying that it's a good thing, but that's the way it has to be if we want to maintain our lifestyles and it seems that we do at any and all costs.
Don't forget *****, dyes, plastics and other industries dependent on oil or oil derivatives...
cheers,
"Alternative energy" is a term for the ignorant ...
It's far more difficult to talk about real, viable alternative energies, of which there are only 3 for electrical generation:
1. Coal reserves -- status: immediate -- extensive R&D and actual implementation in reducing emissions using advanced EMF-based filters (largely only a US option, most other countries do not have our reserves). Continued, ignorant environmental lobby causes some issues in some states, limited issues in others.
2. Wind power -- status: underway -- clean, completely reusable and good throughput/efficiency. Favored in many mid-western and western, but under intense "eye sore" political non-sense by (ironically) many Democrats in eastern power states.
3. Nuclear fission -- status: heavy R&D 2004+ -- 3rd generation plants that use existing waste (for 20-30 years per 5% pure rod, instead of only 3 years for a 95+% pure rod) under heavy R&D by 10 countries, including a $4B stake by the Bush administration as of late 2004. Some ignorant environmental organizations still fighting, but now supported by founders of Greenpeace, who (ironically) originally formed to prevent (and succeeded in preventing) any new nuclear fission power plants being built.
Phase 1 (shorter-term):
A. Focus more and more on minimizing consumption of fuel at the end-vehicle -- e.g., hybrid gas-electric
B. Build an intermediate set of supportive technologies (as well as modern engines designed for) and distribution of *******-based fuels
Phase 2 (longer-term):
A. Renovate the power grid so we can support producing alternative fuels locally, solving both efficiency in the distribution system and the environmental friendliness power infrastructure itself
B. Building upon A, the power infrastructure to support home-based electrolysis (hydrogen) and direct consumption (electrical engines)
The funny thing is that Phase 1A, done by private Japanese-US-Korean industry, actually advanced battery technologies farther in 6 months than US government research did in electric vehicles in 20 years! Sometimes it's better to let engineers in the private industry solve things than to just throw money at the problem. And I'm saying this as a former NASA engineer myself (NASA is full of "over-budgeted blunders" that were solved far better by industry).
And if anyone doesn't understand the first thing about what I'm talking about or believe there's a "better solution" using "renewable energies" without defining them (please don't mention solar power, I'll laugh -- it will never generate more than 10% of the power in this country, ever, if we had it on every freaking building in the US because it's just too low of a yield and not viable at all) it's a good indicator that you should STFU.
Unfortunately, at this time, petroleum is everything to us. That really needs to change.
The term alternative energy is an almost scifi term that was created by the scientifically ignorant. It's not that engineers **** the term itself, but how the majority of people wield it like it's a real thing. It's the equivalent of a "widget."
It's far more difficult to talk about real, viable alternative energies, of which there are only 3 for electrical generation:
1. Coal reserves -- status: immediate -- extensive R&D and actual implementation in reducing emissions using advanced EMF-based filters (largely only a US option, most other countries do not have our reserves). Continued, ignorant environmental lobby causes some issues in some states, limited issues in others.
2. Wind power -- status: underway -- clean, completely reusable and good throughput/efficiency. Favored in many mid-western and western, but under intense "eye sore" political non-sense by (ironically) many Democrats in eastern power states.
3. Nuclear fission -- status: heavy R&D 2004+ -- 3rd generation plants that use existing waste (for 20-30 years per 5% pure rod, instead of only 3 years for a 95+% pure rod) under heavy R&D by 10 countries, including a $4B stake by the Bush administration as of late 2004. Some ignorant environmental organizations still fighting, but now supported by founders of Greenpeace, who (ironically) originally formed to prevent (and succeeded in preventing) any new nuclear fission power plants being built.
The key is to get away from petroleum, period. That includes a 2-part, 2-phase plan:
Phase 1 (shorter-term):
A. Focus more and more on minimizing consumption of fuel at the end-vehicle -- e.g., hybrid gas-electric
B. Build an intermediate set of supportive technologies (as well as modern engines designed for) and distribution of *******-based fuels
Phase 2 (longer-term):
A. Renovate the power grid so we can support producing alternative fuels locally, solving both efficiency in the distribution system and the environmental friendliness power infrastructure itself
B. Building upon A, the power infrastructure to support home-based electrolysis (hydrogen) and direct consumption (electrical engines)
The funny thing is that Phase 1A, done by private Japanese-US-Korean industry, actually advanced battery technologies farther in 6 months than US government research did in electric vehicles in 20 years! Sometimes it's better to let engineers in the private industry solve things than to just throw money at the problem. And I'm saying this as a former NASA engineer myself (NASA is full of "over-budgeted blunders" that were solved far better by industry).
And if anyone doesn't understand the first thing about what I'm talking about or believe there's a "better solution" using "renewable energies" without defining them (please don't mention solar power, I'll laugh -- it will never generate more than 10% of the power in this country, ever, if we had it on every freaking building in the US because it's just too low of a yield and not viable at all) it's a good indicator that you should STFU.
Please read up on Bono ...
I'm not trying to dismiss your viewpoints. I'm just saying that while you are complaining about all these "biases" and "issues" in America, I don't think your ideas or solutions will solve things. I believe they will make them worse. I believe that because I have read and read and read (as well as experienced for 33 years) what American is and isn't.
Some people come into this country and tell us how we should be "better." But I find that most people come into this country because it is already "better" for the same reasons you take issue with.
And since you spoke of Bono, maybe you should read up on what Bono is saying about President Bush on Africa and AIDS. Don't **** the man because some blind political alignment or assumption compels you to, but what the man has actually done for many of the things you speak of.
You can dislike (as I do) or even "****" (I like to say "great disappointment" in) W. for Iraq and many other things. But you should remember to "keep an open mind" when it comes to each and every individual action. Again, if you speak of Bono, you should read up on what Bono says about what W. is doing that not even Clinton bothered to do.
Have to agree with that attitude. Don't accept any country or the world for what it is.
The problem is Fox that people differ on what that is. Your idea of what that is no less or more "right" than others, and in many cases in the past, I (among others) have pointed out where you were -- how can I say this -- "not looking at the big picture" and "not considering the historical perspective and common law" of American courts and its system.
I'm not trying to dismiss your viewpoints. I'm just saying that while you are complaining about all these "biases" and "issues" in America, I don't think your ideas or solutions will solve things. I believe they will make them worse. I believe that because I have read and read and read (as well as experienced for 33 years) what American is and isn't.
Some people come into this country and tell us how we should be "better." But I find that most people come into this country because it is already "better" for the same reasons you take issue with.
Unfortunately Fox, we very much disagree on how to get there. What you see as "America not caring" I see as "America already caring more than any other nation!"
And since you spoke of Bono, maybe you should read up on what Bono is saying about President Bush on Africa and AIDS. Don't **** the man because some blind political alignment or assumption compels you to, but what the man has actually done for many of the things you speak of.
You can dislike (as I do) or even "****" (I like to say "great disappointment" in) W. for Iraq and many other things. But you should remember to "keep an open mind" when it comes to each and every individual action. Again, if you speak of Bono, you should read up on what Bono says about what W. is doing that not even Clinton bothered to do.
You're the one who introduced him.
So why did you introduce him?And by the way, even I know Bono doesn't know everything
I'm just a dumb and simple engineer. I'm more into stopping to understand the viewpoints of others and building upon that to solve problems instead of complaining and thinking I can change the world through mere talk and, worse yet, rhetoric. Leaders lead through example, not by blaming others.
I just didn't want us to get off topic. I'm not saying you led us there. No way.
How does the west win the war on ******? By doing the things we're talking about. (1) Like you said stopping to understand the viewpoints of others - around the world. And building upon that to solve problems instead of complaining and fearing and demonizing those across the seas, like many do.
(2) By leading through example, every day in our lives, which I *DO*, I assure you, and you do. I live what I preach. Always have. To the best of my abilities while still surviving.
(3) By NOT KEEPING SILENT. Leaders lead by example and also by rhetoric. The rhetoric is often designed to convince people of things. My rhetoric is just pure honesty from the heart urging people to question their leaders, and their beliefs, and the "truth" and especially the media and government. I don't expect everyone to believe what I believe. I just expect everyone to think for themselves - eventually - and to accept that there are many possibilities behind every "truth".
MANY MANY MAJOR CHANGES IN THE WORLD happened because SOMEONE WOUDLN'T STOP PREACHING. Yes we should lead by example. But not only by example. Without the constant exchange of ideas and the constant voicing of opinions, the world is stagnant and the present flaws in our lives and the politics of our nations will remain.
I assure you talk is not talk. Talk - words - are very very very very very very very very powerful, more powerful than anything in this world. You know that.
And I introduced Bono because he has done a lot to try and open minds, question leaders and to "end the war on ******". But he is not perfect, he is just an example, an idea of what I am aiming for. Along those lines, somewhat. When I said "even I know he doesn't know everything", I meant, not that you think he does, but that I didn't want to come across as people thinking I idolize him and his actions. More like, I adore some of him and his actions, respect others. And it's best not to get too into Bono because we've gotten in trouble before for going completely off the rails on threads - for both our sakes you know
Well, to win the war against ****** you should have trustworthy, reliable and rule abiding partners. If those don't exist are haven't any of those qualities then consider the war as lost. A compromise involve two or more parties that must fully respect involvements and not derogate to it. People/Parties who sign the treaties must also bare in mind that a change of behaviour is needed to go through the process successfully if not the processus will fail unmistakeably.
Also a rethoric with powerful, forwardplanned, proven and solid arguments will always have more value than an utopian irrealistic talk. To realist and organized is also something you need when you want to make things work perfectly or solve a difficult case. To voice an opinion is a good thing but it is better for the opinion to be realistic and credible and not childish or irrealistic.
Before questionning your leaders and beliefs try to look at how people think and what they like/dislike it will give you and idea of why they voted for this person and not the other.
Everyone sees the world differently, some see it in pink and in everything is going that well, I don't.
Ideas that are pure utopia, unrealistic or that have proven their unefficiency can't be accepted nor tried. Utopias are a waste of time and money.
Careful fox...What defines realism anyway? Realists to me are those who come to the most logical of conclusions. Capitalism is far more "optimistic" than realistic don't you think? Capitalism's flaw is that its adherents are limited to their own frame of reference and are unable to address their counterparts outside the protocol of competition...
The cornerstone of classical realism is the rational interest model - whereby every does whats in their best interest... Now if thats true than all the things we do to screw people around the world make sense right? But if thats ture, than isn't it also true that its in iran's interest to fck us on oil deals?;in China's interest to screw us over ; in Bin Laden's interest to bomb us?; in the EU's interest to make a power play for our markets and drive the value of the Euro through the roof?
All of these are debatable - but what if "they" believed it was true - wouldn't that be enough if you were a realist? Wouldn't you formulate a policy that could serve as a counterweight or would you assume that you had the power to fool people into believing that your way was actually good for them...Thats the Carl Rove spin machine at work my friend... Their is nothing real about the capitalists who manipulate and spin webs of lies etc... Its only real because they tell us its real... These guys believe their own bullshit half the time - but at the end of the day, they're just players in the game, not the game itself. Now listen, I'm not a realist - I'm a cynic a.k.a disillusioned idealist. I still hold out a sliver of hope for a better world and I believe that if we all worked together - not everyone would get what they want but maybe we'd all get everything we need - like a roof over our head and food, and maybe even some other basic human needs to boot. Maybe if we all worked together it would serve all of our interests... Does that make me a realist? I dont know...
To win the war on ******; we have to win the war on poverty, oppression, and greed - yes I said it - the war on greed... They whole "sytem" is a freakin circus act and I got news for you my friend - the clowns are *****, the trapeze artist is on heroin and the ringmaster himself is center stage covered in elephant ****... (ALL PUNS INTENDED!)
I rarely disagree with you but I cant stomach the idea of putting capitalists and realists in the same camp...
MY
:2 cents:
Cheers...
What are you on about?
Free market capitalism affords, protects and depends on (individual) choice. It is thus the MOST moral and ethical of human interaction systems in the history of mankind.
If Capitalists aren't realists - who is/are?
cheers,
Roughneck
Prepackaged choice - really isn't a choice - you can choose to go out and live in the woods as a hermit and try and live off the dirt with no help from anyone else-two billion people on this planet don't have the opportunity to choose not to... until that changes - its not really a choice...its a problem... Even if the markets were free - and they are by no means free - (why do we have a **** lobby again?) - its not an ideal situation -
What about cultures that genuinely put collective will ahead of the individual - is that supposed to work for them??? That doesn't sound very realistic to me...
Prepackaged choice - really isn't a choice - you can choose to go out and live in the woods as a hermit and try and live off the dirt with no help from anyone else-two billion people on this planet don't have the opportunity to choose not to... until that changes - its not really a choice...its a problem... Even if the markets were free - and they are by no means free - (why do we have a **** lobby again?) - its not an ideal situation -
What about cultures that genuinely put collective will ahead of the individual - is that supposed to work for them??? That doesn't sound very realistic to me...
How would you rather raise them?
Why stop at "world" - life in general is dangerous. So what? Whats the point here?
I don't care about UN simply because I refuse to sign away the sovereign authority of my country.
I notice you conveniently forgot to mention that the biggest fucking donor to the United Nations is America. You conveniently forget to mention that the largest ***** contributions to the UN has always been America.
Billions are forcibily taken from American taxpayers to fund an internationalist enterprise and you expect people to NOT be pissed when it act contrary to their interests?
In case you missed the point I'm making - you ***** people to give up their hard earned money to support an organisation that doesn't look out for their interests and not expect them to be pissed?
Whom you elect matters... but your "choice" of moral leaders are as corrupt as the ones you vehemently claim to oppose. As we speak, Charley Rangel [D-NY] is proposing the re-instatement of the draft.
In other terms - he wants to reinstitute slavery. he tried it earler (H.R. 163) and again reintroduced it this year (H.R.4752).
Clinton wasn't averse to foreign wars of intervention. If you can justify The Balkans, then using the same logic, you can justify Iraq. To claim otherwise is moral inconsistency.
Show me which major political party has consistently opposed foreign wars of intervention in the past 65 years...
How?
How do you propose to do this? Oh wait - I KNOW! More progressive income taxation for the "War on Poverty".
I think it's time I answered that absurd post of yours in that other thread that deals extensively with this topic...
What? The amount the US gives is not enough? If what the US donates through the government isn't enough - take a look at the billions private, individual US citizens give on a yearly basis.
I'm fucking sick and tired of my country being accused of greed and selfishness! We have **** starving in Appalachia and West Virgina. Who the fuck helped us when hurricanes battered and ripped the nation? Who helped post Katrina? Did anybody thank the US Navy for it's heroic efforts post asian tsunami?
Of course not! Instead we got more bellyaching about "how little the US government contributed to relief efforts" and our coward of a president and a spineless Congress bent over backwards and immediately stole more money from the American citizen to hand over to others.
You can assure people all you want - but if the talk doesn't produce action, the talk remains just that - talk.
I'm surprised you didn't know that.
cheers,
What are we referencing this to?
A. How do you propose we "change" it?
I agree with you that the markets are not free - there is too much government regulation.
But how does this equate as a failure of the free market?
Note: There is NO "ideal situation". Ideal situations are practical impossibilities. But the free market affords the choice and the chance to approach the "ideal situation" in the most rapid and most moral way possible.
Then you obviously know nothing of history or you don't keep up with present times. The free market has existed since before the institution of nations and States - all over the world. The free market was what drove Japan's stupendous rise to prosperity post WWII. The free market is on the march - and lifting millions out of poverty - in China and India.
The examples of free market choice working for the benefit of man are legion.
cheers,
Capitalism sucks, until you realize it's the only one about individual choice ...
Capitalism sucks, until you realize it's the only one about individual choice!
Any "system" that takes away individual choice is flawed.
A "Public Commons" where the people choose themselves to work together is a good thing. It can thrive in a capitalist system, and does. Charities and public work (not state-funded) projects help thousands upon thousands of people daily. Ironically enough, they are heavily funded by the wealthy, with those of less wealth often putting in their own, hands-on hours.
A "Public Commons" where people are ****** to work together and they lose their individual choice to do so which is replace by "the good of the people" which is an arbitrary viewpoint of some politician that differs among different people is whereby the concept of group rights replaces the individual's right. The problem with such a viewpoint is that people differ on what is for "the good of the people".
Which is why a "public commons" only works when people individual choose to do it. It is why large government fails, because it takes over more and more of individual choice and ****** people to work together. And as a government grows, it becomes more and more inefficient and -- worse yet -- not accountable to its electorate.
As I always say, I don't mind that government holds a *** to my head and takes half of my sandwich for the poor. But I do mind that the government comes back later and says I need to give the other half of my sandwich to pay for the new agency they setup to give the original half to the poor.
Individual people do it better, using their own choice, which is why we have many different charities with many different foci helping in the ways their donors believe is best. Because if the charity didn't, they can immediately withdraw their support and not have to wait another 2-6 years to vote again, and that is no guarantee the new leader will change anything! Let alone you're voting for a "platform" of numerous decisions, and not allowed to make just 1, individual choice on your own, without interference!
That's why private charity works, and why public charity doesn't. Especially when it comes to the direct accountability.
Damn straight!
Capitalism sucks, until you realize it's the only one about individual choice!
Any "system" that takes away individual choice is flawed.
A "Public Commons" where the people choose themselves to work together is a good thing. It can thrive in a capitalist system, and does. Charities and public work (not state-funded) projects help thousands upon thousands of people daily. Ironically enough, they are heavily funded by the wealthy, with those of less wealth often putting in their own, hands-on hours.
A "Public Commons" where people are ****** to work together and they lose their individual choice to do so which is replace by "the good of the people" which is an arbitrary viewpoint of some politician that differs among different people is whereby the concept of group rights replaces the individual's right. The problem with such a viewpoint is that people differ on what is for "the good of the people".
Which is why a "public commons" only works when people individual choose to do it. It is why large government fails, because it takes over more and more of individual choice and ****** people to work together. And as a government grows, it becomes more and more inefficient and -- worse yet -- not accountable to its electorate.
As I always say, I don't mind that government holds a *** to my head and takes half of my sandwich for the poor. But I do mind that the government comes back later and says I need to give the other half of my sandwich to pay for the new agency they setup to give the original half to the poor.
Individual people do it better, using their own choice, which is why we have many different charities with many different foci helping in the ways their donors believe is best. Because if the charity didn't, they can immediately withdraw their support and not have to wait another 2-6 years to vote again, and that is no guarantee the new leader will change anything! Let alone you're voting for a "platform" of numerous decisions, and not allowed to make just 1, individual choice on your own, without interference!
That's why private charity works, and why public charity doesn't. Especially when it comes to the direct accountability.
I've been out of this thread for a while, and I don't mean to stir the proverbial pot but I think this is the most important question facing the the Western world. I hope that people will read my ideas and not dismiss them directly out of hand.
1. End our dependance on oil.
Ending our dependance on oil does several things. First it limits the funds provided to anti-western governments who despite saying otherwise are funding terrorism via oil profits (e.g. Iran, Iraq). Second, there are the environmental benefits that regardless of your position on global warming everyone can agree that limiting greenhouse gas emmisions is a good thing.
Some have cautioned that a massive departure from oil based economies in the west could lead to further hatred of the west by the arab world, since the only thing they **** more than our buying their oil is our NOT buying their oil. Investments in renewable energy resources could also help local economies employ new workers to service the new energy production facilities.
2. Food aid to the poorest of the poor.
No single thing would do more to lessen the hatred of the west than to feed the neediest. The problem is explaining to the illiterate who is feeding them. Currently the vast majority of US food assistance comes in the form of flour in 50# bags with USA stamped on it. Printing in several languages would not cost significantly more and would boost the image of the good part of US foreign policy.
3. Quit supporting corrupt foreign governments.
Unfortunetly what is missing from the news today is an honest discussion of history vis-a-vis US support for ****** foreign regimes simply to protect short term economic interests. What was lost in this approach was the damage that was being done to long term economic interests. The CIA's overthrow of the democratically elected Iraqi government in the 50's to protect oil interests lead directly to where we are today. Similar cases could be made about Chile, Venezuela, and El Salvador.
I have more but I've also had about 6 beers tonight.
1. End our dependance on oil.
Ending our dependance on oil does several things. First it limits the funds provided to anti-western governments who despite saying otherwise are funding terrorism via oil profits (e.g. Iran, Iraq). Second, there are the environmental benefits that regardless of your position on global warming everyone can agree that limiting greenhouse gas emmisions is a good thing.
Some have cautioned that a massive departure from oil based economies in the west could lead to further hatred of the west by the arab world, since the only thing they **** more than our buying their oil is our NOT buying their oil. Investments in renewable energy resources could also help local economies employ new workers to service the new energy production facilities.
2. Food aid to the poorest of the poor.
No single thing would do more to lessen the hatred of the west than to feed the neediest. The problem is explaining to the illiterate who is feeding them. Currently the vast majority of US food assistance comes in the form of flour in 50# bags with USA stamped on it. Printing in several languages would not cost significantly more and would boost the image of the good part of US foreign policy.
3. Quit supporting corrupt foreign governments.
Unfortunetly what is missing from the news today is an honest discussion of history vis-a-vis US support for ****** foreign regimes simply to protect short term economic interests. What was lost in this approach was the damage that was being done to long term economic interests. The CIA's overthrow of the democratically elected Iraqi government in the 50's to protect oil interests lead directly to where we are today. Similar cases could be made about Chile, Venezuela, and El Salvador.
I have more but I've also had about 6 beers tonight.
I think I've already agreed 100% with this. Unfortunately, over 90% of Americans are ignorant of what is required, hence our continued issue.
The US already does this, far more than any other nation.
Not just from its government, but by countless, private US citizens.
The very fact that people don't "give us credit" for this, and countless other funding (e.g., World Bank, etc...) is the core problem, not the US itself.
Which is why I find the majority of arguments I see on this board made in great ignorance of the actual facts.
Unfortunately the US can't do anything about its past.
Especially when it comes to the Americas, we have really screwed things up throughout our history.
The question is, will we learn from it?
Unfortunately, the Reagan, H. Bush, Clinton and W. Bush administrations have been no better.
Even when we have the best of intentions, sometimes throwing out a ruthless dictator only results in another.
