US ambassador and 3 others killed at embassy in Libya by Islamists (Page 10)

Comrade_:
OCD, I'll take it slower with you ok? You said that without the US these countries will starve because you 'feed' them, the link you sent don't show money going towards food as a necessity, 'aid' can also go under arming a military and training, it can be as setting up programmes also. Take a look at your links please.
"Foreign Aid Purpose:
To create foreign markets for US products, esp. arms sales.
1. Foreign aid aids the giver, not the recipient.
2. Corruption is a major problem - many funds go to private bank accounts.
- - - The leaders get the money, the people get nothing.
3. Richer nations receive the most aid."

It is not always 'benevolence' ok, as Davidk pointed out the last time, it is also interest on the part of the 'giver'.

Coffrey: Think about what you say about welfare, how people won't work if they can get it for free . We can't keep propping up these places just so they won't go to war. The people have to learn on their own how to govern themselves, we need to step out of the way because eventually, we all will broke and the only difference is the strife came later.

lavendar_star: Actually OCD African countries does have alot to sell including oil, cocoa, minerals, diamonds, gold and stuff that makes things like Ipod work, its just that multi national companies and some of the African leaders dont pass that wealth on to the people. I would say most countries in the world have some form of natural resources or something to sell.

I think the course of history has shown that every superpower i.e. Britain, Spain, France, Rome, Mongolian and recently USA and soon to be China have exploited other countries resources and politics for their own advantage and wealth. I think the difference is that maybe America has portrayed to other nations that they are helping i.e. with democracy, expansion and poverty rather then the truth. I do think in previous centuries people have resented that and resented superpowers in the 19th and 20 century most countries hated Britain and I'm sure in 50 years time it will be China. I do think its far more complicated to say that America is completely the bad guy or that the governments of some of these countries are without fault. If the leaders of some of these nations werent so greed and power hungry and didnt have so much conflict be it on political, ethnic or tribal lines then America wouldn't been able to exploit them so much. I do think sometimes some of these nations do use America and other Western countries as a scapegoat for the political leaders own failings. As you put before OCD no country in the world can have a isolated attitude even North Korea has relations with China, we all ahve something another country wants.

I have to say I share both coffrey and Jack's views but also do understand and somewhat agree with what OCD has put, hence why my political view are in the centre especially as I got older, things are far from black and white.

OCD_OCD: I never said there was not an interest on the part of the giver, Jack. I have said that we purchase what other countries have to sell. That is mutually beneficial.

Giving money, medical, food and other items to countries, even when they do not have any product that we need can also be a way of keeping peace. You may feel that this is completely selfish and self interested of the USA but peace can be bought or fought for.

There is no perfect system because there are no perfect countries, nor are there perfect people. Your ire at me because I have accepted something that I cannot change and has been happening for millenia is wasted.

OCD_OCD: Coffrey, the ability for people to have something other than a tyrannical, despotic or dictatorial government does not suddenly "occur". If it cannot come about through reason, it will come through conflict.

Comrade_:
That's not 'feeding', OCD. That is trading. What you receive may be dictators in your pocket who knows, but you are benefiting, not 'feeding'.

Never said you shouldn't give aid neither did Cofferey, only said you shouldn't get involved with another country's politics. Simple. No one is pushing for a perfect system, but as you can see the old way of doing things isn't working to anyone's lasting benefit.

Coffrey: As I recall, OCD, we had a whole revolution about a despotic government. do you think Washington and all the rest would have fought the British if the British were paying them not to create war? Of course there will be blood, but not it's just blood without gain, might as well work towards something

OCD_OCD: again, change will not come without conflict. Not even Ghandi could make that happen.

Norma955: OCD wht aid are you talking about that goes to the ME and that they would starve without, please elaborate. And you speak as if america doesn't NEED their oil. Trust me we need them as much and possibly even more than they need us. All these invasions are because of oil not because the us government actually cares about the people there. To think so is to be niave, and that I certainly am not.

OCD_OCD: http://www.marketplace.org/topics/news-brief/map-us-foreign-aid-middle-east-and-south-asia

Thia aid, Norma.

OCD_OCD: I said they would starve without oil to sell because they are unable to grow their food.

Comrade_: OCD, I don't think you understand her question, they would starve without aid or being 'fed' from the US? The 'aid' comes at a return benefit to the US, should they stop that 'aid' who is going to die from starvation?
We already know that the US sends 'aid' to the ME. She (and I too) would like to know where your previous statement came from on the ME needing to be fed less the die.
"As I said before, we can leave the middle east and everyone there would starve. We want their oil, they want our food, our medicines, and our manufactured goods."

The ME do have agriculture, what gave you the idea that they can't sustain themselves or trade amongst themselves/ Asia should the US cut all trading? It'll be as saying the US would starve without ME oil...

OCD_OCD: Jack I did not say we sent them food, I said they had to trade oil for food and without that ability, they could not feed their people because they are unable to produce their own food. How hard is that to understand?

OCD_OCD: http://www.meforum.org/2729/arabs-vs-abdullah-plan

Somehow the conflict between the arab states themselves keeps getting glossed over. all countries in the middle east are in agreement with each other.

Comrade_: What gave you the impression that they'd be unable to sustain themselves should the US cut trades with them? There are other countries that need their oil and other countries they trade with.

Comrade_: Don't say you send food, say you trade, you don't feed them as much as they feed you. Do you get the difference between trading and giving/feeding?

davidk14: .

Interesting document....

Go to page 23 -

Conclusion: Aid and American Interests

" America’s aid policy as currently structured is not and cannot be good for American
interests. But is there not danger in changing it? "

The entire paper is a good read also.



http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat11/strategic11.pdf

.

OCD_OCD: Russia and China are not wholly able to feed their own people even though they have vast amounts of land. Much of their land is not fruitful and there is the added problem of not having enough infrastructure to economically move produce from one place to another.

OCD_OCD: I dont know how I can say it any clearer, Jack. They need our food and we need their oil, so we sell our food to them and they sell their oil to us.

Comrade_: OCD it is not feeding it is trading, Asia isn't only Russia and China, and the rest of the world isn't "Russia and China". Now can you answer a bit better on what gave you the idea that the ME can't trade with their oil with other countries and sustain themselves should the US decide to stop all trading they'll "starve"?

OCD_OCD: we sent food, medicines and other items to Somalia. That is feeding, not trade.

davidk14: .

If the US decides to stop exporting food and importing oil, the US will be self sufficient with oil within a few years. The rest of the world will be in deep trouble.

.

Comrade_: OCD, I'd not repeat myself, think it's very clear what I was referring to in the previous comment. Taking oil in return for food is called trading, you need them, food is something that can be imported by other countries, the ME don't only trade with the US.

As for Davidk, nice that you live in a fantasy world, must be very cozy in there.

OCD_OCD: Jack, are you being deliberately obtuse? Countries have things that they can export in return for things they do not have and must import. If every country became insular, the balance of power would shift to those countries who are able to feed their populace.

Countries, not just the US, buy oil from the middle east and in turn the Middle east is then able to purchase food and other products that are not manufactured or produced there.

Comrade_: You got that from my comment or Davidk's? I'm stated that the ME (can) do trade with other countries, that is not being 'insular' that is saying that to state that they need to be 'fed' by 'you' is off.

Why you're repeating what I said..