[Mefustae]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf
I believe he has until next summer, when the session of Congress ends.

Damn, he could do a lot of damage in that amount of time...

[DeepSpace9er]

You arent going to eliminate poverty with dictators running the poor countrys. The "war of poverty" has lasted 40 years and has cost in excess of 6 trillion dollars, with absolutely NOTHING to show for it.

[karajorma]

If that's the case why has the US spent so many years toppling democratic governments in order to put dictators in charge of them.

[Grey Wolf]

Short-term gain for long-term instability.

[karajorma]

Of course but it sort of undermines DeepSpace9er's basic point doesn't it.

[Grey Wolf]

I was just stating the United States rationale for their answers. Each time when we've backed dictators its to combat some perceived threat in the present, ignoring consequences down the line.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
You arent going to eliminate poverty with dictators running the poor countrys. The "war of poverty" has lasted 40 years and has cost in excess of 6 trillion dollars, with absolutely NOTHING to show for it.

You're not going to do any better by reducing the country to rubble or starving them to death, either.  Better to have some money going to feed people (through NGOs if need be) and some being stolen, than just abandoning people because of some bastard they didn't get the choice to elect.

Whatever happened to 'charity is it's own reward', anyways?

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Liberator


It's not a cheat, Kaz.  It's one of the powers of the office and you know it.  Had some Red Diaper Doper Baby used it we would not be having this discussion.

yes, Mr Savage, we would, as you would have brought it up.

[DeepSpace9er]

You're not going to do any better by reducing the country to rubble or starving them to death, either. Better to have some money going to feed people (through NGOs if need be) and some being stolen, than just abandoning people because of some bastard they didn't get the choice to elect.

Because "some of it" doesnt get to the people... none of it does. And it keeps the warlords in charge of the countries. Does much more harm than good.

Remember the movie Black Hawk Down where the militias were killing people and then taking the grain? That is what happens to foreign aid.

[Galemp]

Then maybe we need to give the UN the power to ensure the aid gets to the people it's supposed to.

Bolton's appointment is nothing less than an underhanded attempt to abuse the power granted by Churchill, deGaulle and Roosevelt. We're seeing how a 'permanent' seat on the security council gives a nation the ability to ignore the rest of the world and proceed as it sees fit.

Bush and his administration want to either control the UN, or castrate it. We've already seen how the US responds when push comes to shove over certain issues with the UN (the Iraq war) and how the UN responds (Kyoto.)
Bolton's blatent advancing of the current Republican agenda at the expense of the health, safety, peace and happiness of the rest of the world's population is unfathomable. Someone in such a position of power with such diametrically-opposed philosophy can only lead to the ruin of the establishment. It would be akin to appointing an outspoken Anarchist to a state governor, or a radical Muslim cleric to that of a bishop. There's no qualifications or recommendations as to why he got his job, except to destroy.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er


Because "some of it" doesnt get to the people... none of it does. And it keeps the warlords in charge of the countries. Does much more harm than good.

Remember the movie Black Hawk Down where the militias were killing people and then taking the grain? That is what happens to foreign aid.

Why do you think I said 'NGOs'?

 NGOs simply would not operate in the conditions you describe, hence this would not be an issue (especially where the NGO role include on site medical assistance and monitoring).  If we have a situation where militias are stealing off people, why is that an excuse to withhold aid to those people?   Because they're suffering?  Do we deny aid to the most needy, the most oppressed, just because they're oppressed?

What NGOs can do is cut through the 'corrupt governments deserve to have their people die' bull**** and deliver aid directly.  Some money, unfortunately, does go to greasing palms just to get it there, but some aid does get there.

All I imagine, is that your perspective - that all aid is stolen by crooked thieves etc - helps soothe any prospect of guilt over low donations by either yourself or your country.  Would you deny aid to  refugees in Darfur because the government of Sudan is out to kill them?  

Albeit I remember a while back checking the details of the 13 poorest nations in the world, the majority of which were democratic.  Of course, poverty and crisis provides an impetus for violent change; but it certainly doesn't strengthen representative democracy.  Unless you can point to a situation where, for example, famine has caused the emergence of democracy?