U.S. Bans Military Aid to Almost 50 Countries

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by yavoon


like I"ve already pointed out. I've spent my entire life(or the entire time I cared). being graciously informed that the rest of the world hates me. It just doesn't affect me nemore. I'm not interested in yet another person saying "well the world REALLY HATES U NOW." its just meh. I don't consider it a valid objection nemore.

Maybe you were misinformed
I can only speak for the country I am living in, but here in Germany there has actually been much support for the US especially in the time Bill Clinton was President (despite there have always been people who protested certain US-Policies, but those were a minority).
Everything began to change as Bush came to power and showed the world that the american government under his rule has no interest in upholding international treaties since then the relations have more or less steadily declined (with a small rise when the Terrorists crashed into the WTC and even major support for the war in Afghanistan, but afterwards the decline went on with every action that showed that Bushs sole interest was in american supremacy ).
I would consider the relations between USA and Germany at the moment the worst ever.

I can´t speak for other countries, but I think many of them experience the same thing

[Sheik]

From what I have read, this is a good policy. It is nice to see the US taking a tough stance. The way I feel is that if we are going to be distributing money all over the world we better get something back. This is not charity, we give them the money not only to help them but to help ourselves too. I suggest that other countries show some thanks and give us what we want.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
I would consider the relations between USA and Germany at the moment the worst ever.

Worst ever? When does the invasion begin?

I suggest that other countries show some thanks and give us what we want.

We get what we want now from the aid, despite how stupid those objectives may sometimes be (ex. NATO expansion). What purpose is served by that mitgates undermining what we get from the aid?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


Maybe you were misinformed
I can only speak for the country I am living in, but here in Germany there has actually been much support for the US especially in the time Bill Clinton was President (despite there have always been people who protested certain US-Policies, but those were a minority).
Everything began to change as Bush came to power and showed the world that the american government under his rule has no interest in upholding international treaties since then the relations have more or less steadily declined (with a small rise when the Terrorists crashed into the WTC and even major support for the war in Afghanistan, but afterwards the decline went on with every action that showed that Bushs sole interest was in american supremacy ).
I would consider the relations between USA and Germany at the moment the worst ever.

I can´t speak for other countries, but I think many of them experience the same thing

oh its always been bad. Trust me from the receiving end. u think the french liked us in vietnam? or neone? so now we goto iraq and no1 likes us there. u think neone liked reagan? I can't believe u liked clinton. he sent missiles into countries cuz he didn't want ppl knowing about who was blowing him. amazing what your capable of overlooking.

it was obviously sympathy u felt for 9/11. not support.

[Q Classic]

makes sense for america to do this. we're protecting our own.

oh its always been bad. Trust me from the receiving end. u think the french liked us in vietnam?

actually, the french did. we supported them in their war for indochina in the aftermath of ww2; that support was what turned ho chih minh against us.

so now we goto iraq and no1 likes us there.

plenty do, but unless we get seriously crackin' on rebuilding it, the hopes will turn to displeasure and finally hate against us. in some areas, it's looking like that path is already beginning to arise.

u think neone liked reagan? I can't believe u liked clinton. he sent missiles into countries cuz he didn't want ppl knowing about who was blowing him. amazing what your capable of overlooking.

and you believe bush went into iraq purely for noble reasons?
saddam was bad. we took him out. we didn't go to iraq just to liberate the iraqis. nkorea supports terrorism. we haven't made any moves there. iran supports it. we haven't made moves there either.
the collapse of the iraqi threat proves what?
honorable intentions have very little to do with what we did in iraq.

it was obviously sympathy u felt for 9/11. not support.

remember, not everyone has the benefit of viewing 9/11 and bush's actions through the viewpoint of an american. proteus is german. thus, he'll see bush's actions quite differently than you, yavoon.
while for us, the rationale that it's in our best interests is easier to swallow, it's not as easy to believe when you're a minor power. germany, france, korea, russia, and china are all countries that feel threatened by bush's path of apparent unilateralism. thus, whatever "support" that may have been forthcoming was quickly killed because they began to feel as if the us didn't need their support--or want it.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
makes sense for america to do this. we're protecting our own.

oh its always been bad. Trust me from the receiving end. u think the french liked us in vietnam?

actually, the french did. we supported them in their war for indochina in the aftermath of ww2; that support was what turned ho chih minh against us.

so now we goto iraq and no1 likes us there.

plenty do, but unless we get seriously crackin' on rebuilding it, the hopes will turn to displeasure and finally hate against us. in some areas, it's looking like that path is already beginning to arise.

u think neone liked reagan? I can't believe u liked clinton. he sent missiles into countries cuz he didn't want ppl knowing about who was blowing him. amazing what your capable of overlooking.

and you believe bush went into iraq purely for noble reasons?
saddam was bad. we took him out. we didn't go to iraq just to liberate the iraqis. nkorea supports terrorism. we haven't made any moves there. iran supports it. we haven't made moves there either.
the collapse of the iraqi threat proves what?
honorable intentions have very little to do with what we did in iraq.

it was obviously sympathy u felt for 9/11. not support.

remember, not everyone has the benefit of viewing 9/11 and bush's actions through the viewpoint of an american. proteus is german. thus, he'll see bush's actions quite differently than you, yavoon.
while for us, the rationale that it's in our best interests is easier to swallow, it's not as easy to believe when you're a minor power. germany, france, korea, russia, and china are all countries that feel threatened by bush's path of apparent unilateralism. thus, whatever "support" that may have been forthcoming was quickly killed because they began to feel as if the us didn't need their support--or want it.

it is true that minor powers don't like the major powers acting unilaterally. but it appears that the price of world support would be indecision and ass sitting. so I am glad we had bush around. I don't know why you are insinuating that I somehow need noble reasons to support things. since earlier in this thread I supported what is basically bribery(give aid, expect favor in return).


on somewhat of a tangent I appreciate that bush has done something. after suffering through 8 years of wheel spinning with clinton its nice to have a leader back who leads. let the naysayers shout from the balcony. it is where they belong after all.

[Q Classic]

it is true that minor powers don't like the major powers acting unilaterally. but it appears that the price of world support would be indecision and ass sitting. so I am glad we had bush around.

in some ways, i have to agree; a hegemon shouldn't bend over backwards to accomodate weaker nations if the hegemon needs to protect itself.
however, i'd have to say that in the past, our realist behavior has always been covered by a pretty good cover of idealism, which bush has shattered--meaning our naked grabs for power, which i the past were cloaked, are now visible for all to see, and the other countries don't much like that. neither do i--i think it's lacking in finesse.

I don't know why you are insinuating that I somehow need noble reasons to support things.

i brought that point up because you made the statement that clinton blew holes in pharmaceutical factories for less-than-noble reasons.
if you're going to take one person to task about his lurid/distractionary behavior, take everyone to task about it.
if ohno was going to complain that some guy cheated, he'd better not cheat himself; if coulter's going to say that liberals slander conservatives, she'd better not slander them herself.
it works both ways.
enron? what enron?

on somewhat of a tangent I appreciate that bush has done something. after suffering through 8 years of wheel spinning with clinton its nice to have a leader back who leads.

what has bush done except continue the expansion of the government, help create a ballooning deficit, and divide the people in the country into two parties: one following the demagoguery of the right-wing talk shows, and the other following the demagoguery of the leftist politicians?
i don't consider that good domestic leadership...

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

it is true that minor powers don't like the major powers acting unilaterally. but it appears that the price of world support would be indecision and ass sitting. so I am glad we had bush around.

in some ways, i have to agree; a hegemon shouldn't bend over backwards to accomodate weaker nations if the hegemon needs to protect itself.
however, i'd have to say that in the past, our realist behavior has always been covered by a pretty good cover of idealism, which bush has shattered--meaning our naked grabs for power, which i the past were cloaked, are now visible for all to see, and the other countries don't much like that. neither do i--i think it's lacking in finesse.

I don't know why you are insinuating that I somehow need noble reasons to support things.

i brought that point up because you made the statement that clinton blew holes in pharmaceutical factories for less-than-noble reasons.
if you're going to take one person to task about his lurid/distractionary behavior, take everyone to task about it.
if ohno was going to complain that some guy cheated, he'd better not cheat himself; if coulter's going to say that liberals slander conservatives, she'd better not slander them herself.
it works both ways.
enron? what enron?

on somewhat of a tangent I appreciate that bush has done something. after suffering through 8 years of wheel spinning with clinton its nice to have a leader back who leads.

what has bush done except continue the expansion of the government, help create a ballooning deficit, and divide the people in the country into two parties: one following the demagoguery of the right-wing talk shows, and the other following the demagoguery of the leftist politicians?
i don't consider that good domestic leadership...

yes well clinton my objection is his reasons were not only innoble but they were of no national interest. it was just slick willy getn head and tryin to get away w/ it.

bush has pushed tax cuts through and invaded two countries. other good things include a minor blow to affirmative action in michigan(u can be racist, but only slightly!). telemarketers are on the run. hopefully the single largest contributor to the democratic party(the tort lawyers) will get their ass kicked and doctors insurance premiums can come back down to earth. and in maybe a more ethereal way he has been the leader. its hard in the world of slander to do things that ur convictions tell u too and not be roasted for them. its far easier to poll watch and do nothing.


tho I would have liked mccain as president a lot I imagine.

[Q Classic]

yes well clinton my objection is his reasons were not only innoble but they were of no national interest. it was just slick willy getn head and tryin to get away w/ it.

a lot of people believe a war in iraq had no beneficial national interest.

bush has pushed two tax cuts through. the rationale for the first one was the economy was doing so well. the rationale for the second one was to stimulate the piss-poor economy.
the tax cuts coupled with a lagging economy, increased spending, and ballooning government size -- all under bush's administration -- have created the makings of a financial disaster which will come to head once bush leaves office.

the telemarketers thing was not bush's baby at all.

as for his campaign promises, two really stick out at me. one was the "if america is humble, it will gain the respect of the world" comment... and the other was "i'm a uniter, not a divider".

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

yes well clinton my objection is his reasons were not only innoble but they were of no national interest. it was just slick willy getn head and tryin to get away w/ it.

a lot of people believe a war in iraq had no beneficial national interest.

bush has pushed two tax cuts through. the rationale for the first one was the economy was doing so well. the rationale for the second one was to stimulate the piss-poor economy.
the tax cuts coupled with a lagging economy, increased spending, and ballooning government size -- all under bush's administration -- have created the makings of a financial disaster which will come to head once bush leaves office.

the telemarketers thing was not bush's baby at all.

as for his campaign promises, two really stick out at me. one was the "if america is humble, it will gain the respect of the world" comment... and the other was "i'm a uniter, not a divider".

I'm not gna demand that u say bush was a great president. I say he led the country despite the opinion of the world and in some cases polls at home. and that takes conviction, and that impresses me and is sorely lacking in politics.

also campaigns made before 9/11 become quite moot wouldn't u say? a lot of my views took radical skews because of 9/11, why wouldn't bush's?

[Q Classic]

also campaigns made before 9/11 become quite moot wouldn't u say? a lot of my views took radical skews because of 9/11, why wouldn't bush's?

the one campaign promise that should NOT have gone out the window was the assurance that bush was a uniter, not a divider.

had bush had far more tact and political skill, i daresay we could have avoided the entire anti-war fiasco.

division of this nature is the last thing we need in these rough times.

[Saras]

IIRC, Lithuania was not getting any money. Not that we need any. Cross training with badass americans will be missed. Especially the periodical total wipeouts of deltas and seals in American traing grounds. Oh well, someone got pissed off over that, I guess.

[Dis]

hmm, err...hmmm I'm too druink to understand this now. I willl get bak to you tomorrow

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

also campaigns made before 9/11 become quite moot wouldn't u say? a lot of my views took radical skews because of 9/11, why wouldn't bush's?

the one campaign promise that should NOT have gone out the window was the assurance that bush was a uniter, not a divider.

had bush had far more tact and political skill, i daresay we could have avoided the entire anti-war fiasco.

division of this nature is the last thing we need in these rough times.

I don't hold that perspective. sure division isn't good. but we need to act asin our interests. we'd like to bring ppl along cuz I personally feel that our interests are shared with lotsa other ppl.

but I dare say the more ppl u bring on and give ear to the slower everything goes. especially if france was in. I think it might be presumptiuous to assume someone of amazing tact or asskissing would have won over the UNSC. europe has been very apprehensive about doing things. its often the americans that go in unilaterally.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


.......
I would consider the relations between USA and Germany at the moment the worst ever.

Worse than in 1945? You must really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, hate us now.