A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I hate to disagree with you Ty,

Why? The moderate Dems should be disagreeing like mad with Ty and his ilk. Club and the rest here disagree all the time with the Reps in power. Ty is right now the closest thing to a nationally elected Dem. office holder.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I hate to disagree with you Ty, but this stikes me as awefully naive.

Not that I disagree that the billions and billions of dollars spent on Iraq in the last two years couldn't have been put to better use in protecting our country and otherwise generally improving the welfare of the world. By putting another 50,000 people on the search for OBL, for example. But I don't think that any country in the world is going to positively respond to the message: we'll give you some money if you become less corrupt. What's in it for the people who are corrupt/in power?

Say you want to spend $200 billion to make Egypt a beacon for its neighbors. You spend the first $1 billion to bribe the corrupt leaders to move to Switzerland. That still leaves you $199 billion to work with.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Say you want to spend $200 billion to make Egypt a beacon for its neighbors. You spend the first $1 billion to bribe the corrupt leaders to move to Switzerland. That still leaves you $199 billion to work with.

Then should we give it nuclear technology?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Then should we give it nuclear technology?

If by give it, you mean launch an all-out nuclear attack, I don't think that's what Ty meant, but it would turn the area into a beacon for the Mid-East.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And certainly you don't have watch CNN for very long these days to feel some sympathy there (even if, for the moment, there's not much way to get aid to the worse hit because communications and logistics are so completely destroyed).

That's for sure. I got in some trouble with the Mr. for sending my Xmas money from his parents (which we'd sort of earmarked for the house fund) to Dr.s w/o Borders. He got over it after the nightly news.

The complete collapse of infrastructure has got the relief orgs rethinking how to assess need, though. For instance, apparently the indonesian gov and various relief organizations have started doing flyovers of some of the islands off the coast of sumatra to assess damage. On a number of them, some with sizeable populations (in the 100,000-200,000 range) there are no signs of life at all. And a number of populated islands are just gone. None of those are included in the current reports of fatalities because no one has gone out there to account for the dead - they are just doing flybys to figure out if there is anyone there left to help. Some ngos are unofficially estimating the dead (first wave, before disease, etc.) at well over 400,000 for indonesia alone.

BR(sharing your depressed and horrified obsession)C

[Dave]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Say you want to spend $200 billion to make Egypt a beacon for its neighbors. You spend the first $1 billion to bribe the corrupt leaders to move to Switzerland. That still leaves you $199 billion to work with.

Whereupon a new generation of corrupt leaders arise, it costs you $2 bill to get rid of them, and on and on, until you someday reach a point where either the exploitation of the masses no longer pays, you're out of money, or nobody is still living in Egypt.

For all there may be some merit in the argument that war isn't the most efficient use of funds, your theory is charmingly naive. Decidedly un-Tylike. How did Hank get your login, anyway?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Dave
Whereupon a new generation of corrupt leaders arise, it costs you $2 bill to get rid of them, and on and on, until you someday reach a point where either the exploitation of the masses no longer pays, you're out of money, or nobody is still living in Egypt.

For all there may be some merit in the argument that war isn't the most efficient use of funds, your theory is charmingly naive. Decidedly un-Tylike. How did Hank get your login, anyway?

Since installing a new government at the point of a gun isn't working so well, maybe we should have tried buying ourselves one. By your theory, democracy in Iraq sounds kind of like a pipe dream, so why are American soldiers dying there?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
There are real, obvious limits to what you can do with military power, and we are exploring them in Iraq. We've spent a fantasic amount of money there, partly because the way we blow things up is expensive. If we had devoted those same resources to assisting the economic, social and political development of certain countries, and had made it the same sort of national priority, I think we would be closer to winning the war on terrorism. Our standing in the region and in the world would be much higher, reducing the support for those fighting us, and we would have done a better job of creating a better alternative to the kinds of regimes that most Arabs live under.

Like others have already posted, I think this is a bit of wishful thiinking. Aside from that, the specific problem I have with it is that it doesn't solve the main cause of the threat IMHO, i.e., the lack of democracy and modern capitalism in those regions. Until that is established, the middle east will continue to be the cradle of terrorism for a variety of reasons, including because the tyrants will continue with impunity to be able to blame their countries' failures on the US/West and the lack of a discernable future for 80% of the 18-35 year olds.

Democracy by peace was never going to be established in the ME.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since installing a new government at the point of a gun isn't working so well, maybe we should have tried buying ourselves one. By your theory, democracy in Iraq sounds kind of like a pipe dream, so why are American soldiers dying there?

Hell Ty, lets give it a few more months. At least let them vote. What are you afraid of?

[sgtclub]

• United States President George Bush was tonight accused of trying to undermine the United Nations by setting up a rival coalition to coordinate relief following the Asian tsunami disaster.
  
  The president has announced that the US, Japan, India and Australia would coordinate the world’s response.
  
  But former International Development Secretary Clare Short said that role should be left to the UN.
  
  “I think this initiative from America to set up four countries claiming to coordinate sounds like yet another attempt to undermine the UN when it is the best system we have got and the one that needs building up,” she said.
  
  “Only really the UN can do that job,” she told BBC Radio Four’s PM programme.
  
  “It is the only body that has the moral authority. But it can only do it well if it is backed up by the authority of the great powers.”
  
  Ms Short said the coalition countries did not have good records on responding to international disasters.
  
  She said the US was “very bad at coordinating with anyone” and India had its own problems to deal with.
  
  “I don’t know what that is about but it sounds very much, I am afraid, like the US trying to have a separate operation and not work with the rest of the world through the UN system,” she added.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• United States President George Bush was tonight accused of trying to undermine the United Nations by setting up a rival coalition to coordinate relief following the Asian tsunami disaster.

People are complaining that the Bush Administration is setting up a rival coalition to provide aid. Some of the more politically charged complaints certainly come from those who have an interest in using the existing structures, but from what I've read, other presumably objective observers are somewhat baffled as well, because (a) apparently, the existing aid organizations actually do this stuff pretty well, and (b) for conservatives who wail about scandalous waste in international aid and development efforts, setting up parallel organizations is at best a counterintuitive means to that end.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
People are complaining that the Bush Administration is setting up a rival coalition to provide aid. Some of the more politically charged complaints certainly come from those who have an interest in using the existing structures, but from what I've read, other presumably objective observers are somewhat baffled as well, because (a) apparently, the existing aid organizations actually do this stuff pretty well, and (b) for conservatives who wail about scandalous waste in international aid and development efforts, setting up parallel organizations is at best a counterintuitive means to that end.

But Ty said we should start throwing our money around, and as our money, if we want people to start liking us.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
But Ty said we should start throwing our money around, and as our money, if we want people to start liking us.

Using existing structures wouldn't prevent the recipient from knowing that the US was behind the aid. Maybe an informative sticker would work.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Using existing structures wouldn't prevent the recipient from knowing that the US was behind the aid. Maybe an informative sticker would work.

Do you think the Annan family would offer to give up its usual take, in view of the magnitude and all.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Do you think the Annan family would offer to give up its usual take, in view of the magnitude and all.

I'm sure Annan will agree to a nice sticker saying something like "This food parcel was brought to you by the U.S. of A. Other countries may contribute other items, but note that this is only one theory among many."

In any event, let's try a different tack. Any libertarian with a hair on his ass will declare that the US should give NO money at all to tsunami victims, because it's not the government's to give. So sayeth the Ayn Ran Institute.

Such industrial-strength libertarianism even make private giving suspect. (emphasis added)

• As the death toll mounts in the areas hit by Sunday's tsunami in southern Asia, private organizations and individuals are scrambling to send out money and goods to help the victims. Such help may be entirely proper, especially considering that most of those affected by this tragedy are suffering through no fault of their own.

I wonder which of the victims brought their fate on themselves.

Club, you up for this? 'Cause otherwise, it's back to the coconut monument.

Gattigap