Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Andrew1975 wrote:You are assuming that they would be openly hostile without the aid.

It's not a particularly big assumption. Are you aware of the history of Egypt before Mubarak brokered a deal for it to become a US client state?

I'm simply saying if they have the ability to to self sufficient then why shouldn't they.

Receiving aid doesn't mean a nation isn't self sufficient. Every time the US has bushfires that get out of control, Australia sends firemen to help out... is the US self sufficient?

When I invest in a company I'm not investing so that everyone in the world can get a dividend. If I build a road I'm not letting someone else use it unless they help pay for maintenance and upkeep. If he is using that road that I paid for to bring competing products to market then he can undercut cut me and do me financial harm, I now have to calculate the cost of infrastructure into my product and he doesn't. Do you let random people use your car when you are not using it, for free?

Really, all those things are big concerns for you when the road cost 0.0026% of your total yearly expenditure?

Come on, mate. You're being very pigheaded about some very simple things here.

I have not removed the other issues from the table. I'm not ignoring those issues too. I don't understand why you keep inferring that I seam to think that limiting foreign aid is the end all be all solution. It's not even a start. I'm saying charity starts at home.

The simple point is that debate on those issues just isn't happening. One of the reasons it isn't happening is because people are dancing about the issue and making a show of dealing with the deficit by talking about pretend things like cuts to foreign aid. Crap like this works as a release valve, and a side measure to drive ideological means. Meanwhile the deficit will grow and grow until debate is started for real.

If you were genuinely concerned about the deficit you'd stop pretending foreign aid mattered one bit, and start talking about what really needs to happen to bring the deficit into line.

OK, so what does that change? I don't get your point. Yes they are our allies. Are you suggesting that if we cut off aid they would no longer be our allies? They profit more by being our allies than we do from being theirs.

Yes, if you cut off Egypt they would have stopped being your allies. This is not a great secret.

Andrew1975 wrote:Dogma I'm not responding to you anymore, I really don't care to respond to your utter nonsense. Go ahead an spout drivel if you must. I think therapy would be of more benefit to you, but to each his own. I've already collected enough of your inane quotes to last me a lifetime.

To simplify:

Andrew says X.

Dogma says Y.

Andrew says nuhuh.

Dogma presents evidence.

Andrew quietly contends with the fact that he has no education in the area of inquiry, or any significant intellectual curiosity.

It's not a particularly big assumption. Are you aware of the history of Egypt before Mubarak brokered a deal for it to become a US client state?

I highly doubt it would be in Egypt's best interest to cut ties with the US over the amount of aid we provide them. Are you serious?

Receiving aid doesn't mean a nation isn't self sufficient. Every time the US has bushfires that get out of control, Australia sends firemen to help out... is the US self sufficient?

And we send firefighters to Australia for the same reasons. Sounds fair to me. Sounds like a mutually supportive act if you ask me. Monetarily it makes sense to pull resources, so it pays. If the US had to pay enough full time firefighters to handle brushfires it would be much more expensive. Now if the US was sending firefighters to Australia and funding the entire Australian fire department because well it's in our interest to not let Australia burn down I'd call BS.

The simple point is that debate on those issues just isn't happening. One of the reasons it isn't happening is because people are dancing about the issue and making a show of dealing with the deficit by talking about pretend things like cuts to foreign aid. Crap like this works as a release valve, and a side measure to drive ideological means. Meanwhile the deficit will grow and grow until debate is started for real.

If you were genuinely concerned about the deficit you'd stop pretending foreign aid mattered one bit, and start talking about what really needs to happen to bring the deficit into line.

Who isn't having those debates? I'll have those debates too. Again with this. Can I only have one exclusive argument? If so fine I'll switch to something else. Are you interested in a comprehensive plan to cut the budget from me right now? It does matter as an attitude of cutting spending. You seam to think that the US should cut spending everywhere except foreign aid. Then everyone else will say why should we cut this when we give out so much foreign aid. So there must be comprehensive cuts everywhere.

Yes, if you cut off Egypt they would have stopped being your allies. This is not a great secret.

Yeah, you are gonna have to provide documentation for that. Anwar did not leave the Soviet sphere of influence based soley on a promise of US monetary or military aid. It didn't go down like that. It's part of it sure, but not the only reason. Soviet influence was already waning globally, the US presented much better economic possibilities.

Even if they were not our ally, I don't see them becoming openly hostile or cutting diplomatic ties it would be economic suicide for the last regime or the current one that steps up. Egypt's economy improved by leaps and bounds because of it's ties to the US, little to none of that has to do with US aid but US influence and trade.

Andrew1975 wrote:

The point is that oil is cheaper on the whole, than it would otherwise have been. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that if the governments of the middle east were independant of western aid and openly hostile towards us oil would cost a lot more than it does.

You are assuming that they would be openly hostile without the aid. I'm simply saying if they have the ability to to self sufficient then why shouldn't they.

When I invest in a company I'm not investing so that everyone in the world can get a dividend. If I build a road I'm not letting someone else use it unless they help pay for maintenance and upkeep. If he is using that road that I paid for to bring competing products to market then he can undercut cut me and do me financial harm, I now have to calculate the cost of infrastructure into my product and he doesn't. Do you let random people use your car when you are not using it, for free?

I have not removed the other issues from the table. I'm not ignoring those issues too. I don't understand why you keep inferring that I seam to think that limiting foreign aid is the end all be all solution. It's not even a start. I'm saying charity starts at home.

Suez Canal remains under control of a close ally (Egypt).

The dominant regional military power (Israel) is another close ally.

OK, so what does that change? I don't get your point. Yes they are our allies. Are you suggesting that if we cut off aid they would no longer be our allies? They profit more by being our allies than we do from being theirs.

These are my points.

Egypt was a Soviet ally until the US got it on side with foreign aid.

Israal might not have survived this long with the large amount of foreign aid it has received from the USA.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
But really there's no arguing with you.

You asked for examples of cases where foreign aid proved a genuine investment. I gave them. You just deny they are factual.

You made up your mind before you starting posting. Now that people are giving you facts that contradict your position, you just ignore them.

This is a well known psychological function, so I'm not surprised.

These are my points.

Egypt was a Soviet ally until the US got it on side with foreign aid.

Israal might not have survived this long with the large amount of foreign aid it has received from the USA.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
But really there's no arguing with you.

You asked for examples of cases where foreign aid proved a genuine investment. I gave them. You just deny they are factual.

You made up your mind before you starting posting. Now that people are giving you facts that contradict your position, you just ignore them.

This is a well known psychological function, so I'm not surprised.

It's not that. It's that with Soviet influence waning globally Egypt had more to gain by coming into the US sphere of influence with or without millions of dollars in aid. I'm pretty sure that's why even Russia now has trade with the US. It's poor strategy to not be economically intermingled with the US, the sheer economic prosperity and security derived from such relationships is worth more than any aid the Us gives.

Israel is really a non starter. You may consider this relationship vital for some reason. I consider our relationship with Israel to be a good example of the US intervention costing us more than it is worth. Us support for Israel is a great financial and political drain and a cause of much of our political issues in the middle east. You do understand that most of the middle east hates that we support them right? This policy alone has kept the middle east in a constant state of instability and made it very difficult for us to create lasting and strong relationships throughout the region.

I don't really know what the middle east would look like if the US had just kept it's hands off, but its hard to imagine a more unstable and chaotic environment then the one that currently exists. I highly doubt the current situation where every country is 2 seconds from cutting the others throats would exits because those throats would already be cut. If lets say 50 years ago the US policy was not to not take sides in the middle east I honestly believe the region might not be so messed up and in the need of constant and costly baby sitting.

The Idea that the US can buy peace throughout the world is a falsehood. All we are doing is sticking thumbs in the wall and building more and more tension and hate. That dam is going to burst one day.

US foreign aid = $25bn

US unfunded state pension liability = $2.5trn

That's right, TRILLION.

It's really a drop in the ocean, and the US seems to get a lot of bang for its foreign aid buck, all things considered. That's why the UK protected its aid budget - they generally make up a small proportion of the donor country's GDP, and go a long way towards creating goodwill.

Andrew1975 wrote:

These are my points.

Egypt was a Soviet ally until the US got it on side with foreign aid.

Israal might not have survived this long with the large amount of foreign aid it has received from the USA.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
But really there's no arguing with you.

You asked for examples of cases where foreign aid proved a genuine investment. I gave them. You just deny they are factual.

You made up your mind before you starting posting. Now that people are giving you facts that contradict your position, you just ignore them.

This is a well known psychological function, so I'm not surprised.

It's not that. It's that with Soviet influence waning globally Egypt had more to gain by coming into the US sphere of influence with or without millions of dollars in aid. I'm pretty sure that's why even Russia now has trade with the US. It's poor strategy to not be economically intermingled with the US, the sheer economic prosperity and security derived from such relationships is worth more than any aid the Us gives.

How come all these other states like Iran and Iraq (pre-2003) aren't economically intermingled with the US, then?

Iraq was until they invaded Kuwait. Iran was until the revolution.

I'd proffer we don't actually get much bang for the buck.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

These are my points.

Egypt was a Soviet ally until the US got it on side with foreign aid.

Israal might not have survived this long with the large amount of foreign aid it has received from the USA.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
But really there's no arguing with you.

You asked for examples of cases where foreign aid proved a genuine investment. I gave them. You just deny they are factual.

You made up your mind before you starting posting. Now that people are giving you facts that contradict your position, you just ignore them.

This is a well known psychological function, so I'm not surprised.

It's not that. It's that with Soviet influence waning globally Egypt had more to gain by coming into the US sphere of influence with or without millions of dollars in aid. I'm pretty sure that's why even Russia now has trade with the US. It's poor strategy to not be economically intermingled with the US, the sheer economic prosperity and security derived from such relationships is worth more than any aid the Us gives.

How come all these other states like Iran and Iraq (pre-2003) aren't economically intermingled with the US, then?

Not only that but even if Russia has lost that much influence China has gained it and then some. China has an interest in the region and the growing muscle to compete for the region. I don't think Russia's influence in the region is quite as weak as stated but even if it is the world isn't just the US and Russia.

How come all these other states like Iran and Iraq (pre-2003) aren't economically intermingled with the US, then?

I don't know. But these two countries are shinning pillars of what is means to not be a US ally aren't they. Not being a US ally has been wonderful for them huh?

Actually I'll take that back, one was an ally and one wasn't. They both however have paid the price of the US's terrible foreign policy fumbles. I'm not sure if I can think of two countries that have been messed with more by US foreign policy actually.

Iraq is maybe the worst example of US intervention! They were our ally. Then Kuwait basically declared economic war on them. Saddam asked the US what we would do it he attacked Kuwait. "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait" was the response he got. Trillions of dollars later the middle east is still a mess.

My point being is not only US intervention not really necessary, pretty often it's bad! We should be trade partners with lots of people, but sticking our noses in these places really has not been good.

Iran is not our ally specifically because we gave aid and supported the former Shaw and out aid to Israel. Now Iran can't even build it's own nuclear reactors in peace. Do you really think it pays to not have good relations with the US? Then show me a major global player that does not have good relations with the US. It worked out great for the USSR.

Not only that but even if Russia has lost that much influence China has gained it and then some. China has an interest in the region and the growing muscle to compete for the region. I don't think Russia's influence in the region is quite as weak as stated but even if it is the world isn't just the US and Russia.

Great, let China try to babysit that region and drain it's economy, it probably should, they have just as much interest in the oil as we do if not more. Since the baby sitter of this region get no specific compensation for the chore, I'm all for letting someone else do it. The US does not specifically get cheaper oil because it does the baby sitting, the world gets cheaper oil.

Relations, fine. Trade, fine. Aid and policy making...not so good.

Frazzled wrote:Iraq was until they invaded Kuwait. Iran was until the revolution.

I'd proffer we don't actually get much bang for the buck.

We have a bad habit of supporting totalitarian regimes in the area in the name of stability. The unfortunate part about that is that such regimes tend to suffer revolution after a while.

Andrew1975 wrote:Great, let China try to babysit that region and drain it's economy, it probably should, they have just as much interest in the oil as we do if not more. Since the baby sitter of this region get no specific compensation for the chore, I'm all for letting someone else do it. The US does not specifically get cheaper oil because it does the baby sitting, the world gets cheaper oil.

Relations, fine. Trade, fine. Aid and policy making...not so good.

God, you really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

God, you really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

Ahtman seeing as the world and regional players were able to get Libya to agree to a cease fire without the US raising a finger, dropping a bomb, enforcing a no-fly zone, or bribing Libya with aid, I think my point is pretty well made actually. But thanks for playing!

Frazzled wrote:Iraq was until they invaded Kuwait. Iran was until the revolution.

Both have always been by way of the oil market, and up until the second Iraq war we got about 8% of our crude from Iraq; the invasion of Kuwait made no difference there.

Andrew1975 wrote:

God, you really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

Ahtman seeing as the world and regional players were able to get Libya to agree to a cease fire without the US raising a finger, dropping a bomb, enforcing a no-fly zone, or bribing Libya with aid, I think my point is pretty well made actually. But thanks for playing!

The US deployed military assets to the region, and was a major player in the declaration of the no-fly zone.

At this point you're just making gak up.

The US deployed military assets to the region, and was a major player in the declaration of the no-fly zone.

At this point you're just making gak up

Wrong again, there we plans but nothing was ever implemented.Who is making Gak up now, oh yeah Charlie Sheen/Dogma as usual.



"The US military is moving naval and air forces into position around Libya, the Pentagon said today, as Western countries weigh possible intervention against Moamer Kadhafi's regime.

"We have planners working various contingency plans, and I think it's safe to say as part of that we're repositioning forces to provide for that flexibility once decisions are made," Pentagon spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan told reporters.

The redeployment of "naval and air forces" would give US President Barack Obama a range of options in the crisis, said Lapan, without specifying what ships and aircraft had been given orders or what potential action was under consideration.

As Gaddafi's troops assaulted opposition forces, US and European leaders were weighing the use of NATO air power to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to stop Kadhafi from using air strikes against his own people.

For any military intervention, US commanders could turn to the USS Enterprise, which is currently in the Red Sea, as well as the amphibious ship the USS Kearsarge, which has a fleet of helicopters and about 2,000 Marines on board.

British Prime Minister David Cameron said this afternoon a possible no-fly zone over the Libya was being planned.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said no naval action against Libya was planned."

Andrew1975 wrote:
Wrong again, there we plans but nothing was ever implemented.Who is making Gak up now, oh yeah Charlie Sheen/Dogma as usual.

You really, really need to read more news.

You have no idea what you're talking about, stop trying to pretend otherwise; its embarrassing.

Modquisition on. Lets take it back to Dakka Rule #1 compliance people. Personal attacks are not needed.

"It is scheduled to depart from the state of Virginia on Wednesday along with the Mesa Verde, a transport dock ship, and the USS Whidbey Island, a dock landing ship".

They haven't even left yet! These can hardly be considered military maneuvers much less a threatening military posture.

Everything else in the article specifically mentions the other forces were already in the theater and that their presence there had nothing to do with Libya. The Libyan cease fire is based on international pressure including that of it's Arab neighbors. The fact that Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are willing to help enforce the no fly zone with their own air forces really took the air out of big G


If you look back you will see I always said we should play a play a part and do our share. These moves could hardly be construed as heavy lifting. BE MORE PICKY

Are you still against the $90 million then?

"Are you still against the $90 million then? "

Why wouldn't I? This situation wasn't solved by aid. Not that is has been solved yet. Looks like I was right and if the US sits back the rest of the world can solve its problems on its own.

So you are in favour of light lifting in terms of assistance and you are against minor aid contributions.

So you are in favour of light lifting in terms of assistance and you are against minor aid contributions.

If by light lifting you mean sitting back and doing practically nothing....yes. I have yet to see where Libyan operations have cost the tax payers one additional dollar. Most of the bluster has come from Europe. If Europe wants to spend money on a No-fly zone with what essentially is us verbal backing, fine. I'm not against military intervention as an absolute value, I'm against the US doing it alone or essentially alone and having to foot the bill for the entire fiasco. I'm against a constant state of welfare that requires the US to pay off everyone friend and foe alike, and requires us to keep a military presence throughout the entire world underwriting the world peace on our own while everyone else sits back and reaps the rewards.

Sending aid for things like the occasional natural disaster is one thing. Giving people 90 million because the pulled off an essentially bloodless coup, financing a friendly's armies and infrastructure is another is another. Seriously trying to force Somalians to accept aid while they are shooting at us is brilliant thinking and money well spent. Where was the return on the investment on that one?

Andrew1975 wrote: I have yet to see where Libyan operations have cost the tax payers one additional dollar.

Would the massive re-depolyment and preparation of forces come out of the tax payer's wallet?

Would the massive re-depolyment and preparation of forces come out of the tax payer's wallet?

It might if such things were happening. Currently all that has happened is some minor fleet movement. Ships moving is an operational cost that is paid everyday one way or another. If I had my way they wouldn't have been their eating money everyday, but they are, might as well get my moneys worth with them.

Do I think it's likely that it will cost something eventually. Yeah probably. But it will cost alot less then having the US do this essentially on their own, which is what would of happened if we didn't hold our card for so long. I guarantee if we rushed into it Britain and maybe Australia would send forces (stalwart supporters of the US they are), but their politicians would take a beating for supporting another US military excursion. France would be screaming at us now, and you can forget the Arab league support and China and Russia's pass. The second anything really happens the middle east would be burning the stars and stripes, terror alerts would go up and radicalism would be on the rise. I don't think the world can blame the US now when gak eventually hits the fan, hopefully it doesn't but judging by past experience....Then who sends ground forces in. Not this time, The US has already said no boots on the ground for us....not that that is really a promise.

This strategy saved alot of political capital along not to mention $$$$.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Would the massive re-depolyment and preparation of forces come out of the tax payer's wallet?

It might if such things were happening. Currently all that has happened is some minor fleet movement. Ships moving is an operational cost that is paid everyday one way or another. If I had my way they wouldn't have been their eating money everyday, but they are, might as well get my moneys worth with them.

Hate to say it, but it's already been established in this thread that the US probably shouldn't be run the way you would have it.

Do I think it's likely that it will cost something eventually. Yeah probably. But it will cost alot less then having the US do this essentially on their own, which is what would of happened if we didn't hold our card for so long. I guarantee if we rushed into it Britain and maybe Australia would send forces (stalwart supporters of the US they are), but their politicians would take a beating for supporting another US military excursion. France would be screaming at us now, and you can forget the Arab league support and China and Russia's pass. The second anything really happens the middle east would be burning the stars and stripes, terror alerts would go up and radicalism would be on the rise. I don't think the world can blame the US now when gak eventually hits the fan, hopefully it doesn't but judging by past experience....Then who sends ground forces in. Not this time, The US has already said no boots on the ground for us....not that that is really a promise.

Yeah, much of the Australian public is still pissed off about getting dragged into a unilateral clusterfeth that was done soley to scratch US balls.

This is has nothing to do with foreign aid. Unless suddenly foreign aid includes US intervention?

This strategy saved alot of political capital along not to mention $$$$.

All of which has nothing to do with a paltry sum being given to secure the support of the new Egyptian government. Paltry for the US that is, if Aus politicians over here pulled something like that things would be very different.

My whole point about the 90 million in aid is about a stupid a spending attitude brought on by the idea that we have to control the world and interfere in everyone elses business.

Hate to say it, but it's already been established in this thread that the US probably shouldn't be run the way you would have it.

Only by agros that think it is manifest destiny for the US to control the world though petty bribery and a global military presence. I don't really rate them at all.

Yeah, much of the Australian public is still pissed off about getting dragged into a unilateral clusterfeth that was done soley to scratch US balls.

Yeah well wouldn't have happened if we'd be more laissez-faire. Which if you look is what I have been preaching.

Andrew1975 wrote:My whole point about the 90 million in aid is about a stupid a spending attitude brought on by the idea that we have to control the world and interfere in everyone elses business.

$90 million gift =/= World Control.

It is a move, and in my opinion a clever one, to get a fledgling Egypt onside with the US.

Hate to say it, but it's already been established in this thread that the US probably shouldn't be run the way you would have it.

Only by agros that think it is manifest destiny for the US to control the world though petty bribery and a global military presence. I don't really rate them at all.

Did you even read their posts? This is nothing at all like what I picked up from their posts.

Yeah, much of the Australian public is still pissed off about getting dragged into a unilateral clusterfeth that was done soley to scratch US balls.

Yeah well wouldn't have happened if we'd be more laissez-faire. Which if you look is what I have been preaching.

Yeah, you see I was talking about a "AMERCUH!! feth YEAH!" invasion that dragged a lot of other people in with it. Not a show of goodwill to get a newly founded, strategically important, country on your good side.

How is estranging Egypt a good thing?

How is estranging Egypt a good thing?

How is not giving them 90 million dollars estranging them? I never said we should take it back now that we have promised it. I just said we (Hillary Clinton) shouldn't have promised it. Did I say break off diplomatic relations or cancel trade agreements. I never said that. Open markets, share technology, sell them stuff they don't need that will break after 5 minutes in the grand American tradition.

Don't resort to petty bribery. To hear other people put it we bribed Egypt away from Soviet influence for $250 mil. The reality of the situation at the time they probably would have done it for free, it just made economic sense. Trade alliances should be our currency. You start giving regimes money and weapons and you become responsible for what you give them and what they do with it. All the sudden they are a US puppet and every act they do with the loot you gave them becomes your responsibility because Washington bullets are killing people.

Look at Israel, every time some Palestinian gets killed there it's because The Great Satan is supplying them with weapons.

Please lets not turn this into a Israel/Palistien thread now!

Did you even read their posts? This is nothing at all like what I picked up from their posts.

Yeah I did. I can see where the message might get lost, some people like to derail converations and go on tangents about how you can't have negitive values and other bizzare things.

I said we shouldn't give aid to every fether that puts out a hand and sometimes those that don't. Its bad policy and it costs too much.

The response was well its really nothing and it is an "investment" that affects interests in global markets and allows us to interfere with regional policy while securing US military bases and power centers around the globe.

Sounds like manifest destiny to control the world through petty bribery and a global military presence to me. No?

I said we should just let the world sort itself out. If we are not peacekeeping someone else will step up, while pointing out that our foreign policy and constant meddling in other peoples affairs have put the world in a worse position, not better. Oh and cutting aid and global military presence is probably a good idea since we have a skyrocketing national debt. Oh and amounts of money totaling less than $.25 would usually be considered pennies.

That's about it.

look for yourself.

Oh and cutting aid and global military presence is probably a good idea since we have a skyrocketing national debt. Oh and amounts of money totaling less than $.25 would usually be considered pennies.

Go into your wallet and pull out $.30, now throw it away do you miss it. No, good. Thats how much 90 million cost you.

also id don't know how many times i have said this on this forum but i will reiterate in as simple terms as possible.


debt is not bad

debt is not bad

A little debt is actually healthy, IF you are using the money in a positive way to improve your economy at a rate higher than that of the interest on said debt. At that point it is investment and you MAKE money in the process

A giant amount of debt that you can't pay the interest on much less ever pay off the principle IS BAD. It means sacrifices and cuts to vital things like infrastructure that are the lifeblood of your economy. It means falling behind your competitors. This amount IS BAD.

If you have dedicated threads to this I'd like to see them and not turn this into one.