Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
1. I never blamed the UN. I blamed the individuals involved. I don't do group think or group blame.
|
You already said that the only reason you posted the article was to take the UN down a notch or two since it is held in such high esteem.
Quote:
|
2. It appears to me from the article that the UN has enough food to give out. It's just that the INDIVIDUALS were using it as sexual currency, rather than humanitarian aid.
|
If there was enough food there, you wouldn't have people prostituting themselves to avoid starvation. Or are you going to pretend now that the UN is responsible for the famine and poverty there?
Quote:
|
3. Cutting the NEA is very relevant to the discussion. The conceptual point is that raising taxes is not necessary to provide foreign humanitarian aid. It is a matter of prioritizing the allocation of our resources. I could have just as easily chosen ethanol subsidies. Would that change your mind?
|
You and I agree that there is government waste, though not necessarily about what it is. But that's not the question I asked -- I asked whether you'd pay more in taxes to support more food aid to these people. Your answer is "no, I wouldn't pay more in taxes, but I would take money away from someone else to whom other citizens have decided to give tax money." In other words, this sort of exploitation bothers you so much that you're willing to spend other people's money to stop it, but not your own.
The whole UN angle really threw you off your game here. Usually you'd be reaffirming the sanctity of the contracts formed between the poor Congolese and the peacekeepers, and saying that all we need is some tax cuts in the Congo to set the stage for job creation.
