Hey, you know what they say about great minds ;-)

The mention of AlQaeda had the clear purpose of inciting an emotional response: “Oh no, no way!”

But you can replace it with whatever issue you happen to disagree with, and the fallacy is obvious.

And we choose which country we give foreign aid to. The Al Qaeda thing was a diversion tactic on his part.

I believe this mind set is what led to Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and Iraq, to name a few.

My thoughts exactly, except you gave them better voice than I did.

If your help comes with strings attached, better not give any help at all.

What you are suggesting is that other countries bow to the will of the people of the USA. Any people who dares defy those exceptional Americans, will find itself at the receiving end of America’s righteous wrath.

So much for spreading democracy around the world.

Do you really think we’d keep sending aid to a country that, for example, started publicly supporting Al Qaeda? Would that really be okay with you?

This implies that the money isn’t really Aid. It is being used primarily for those “implied” reasons you mentioned. Aid is Aid. Period. and should be given free of implication. Then it is given with understanding, caring, empathy and love. You assume that Aid should have an implied use, and are arguing from that philosophy.

One thing is influence and another interference or intervention. The distinction is clear, even for you, or you wouldn’t have to move the goal posts like you just did.

We live in a global community, and we need to be a part of it. Like I said, illegal “pre-emptive war” is way way out of line, but we can’t revert to being completely isolationist in response.

I see. There are only two choices: Foreign aid & overt interference in other countries’ internal affairs, or complete isolationism.

There is no respecting another nation’s sovereignty. And this is your version of “participation” in a global community.

I believe this mind set is what led to Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and Iraq, to name a few.

I’ve answered it several times in different variations:

If that’s the direction the Iraqis wanna go, so be it. They’re not babies; they’re grown folk.

Asserting that there’s no middle ground is just absurd. Of course there is. Yes, if countries want democracy their citizens will work towards it, but how we treat other countries affects their positions. If we’re hostile (like to Iran), it can hurt the development of democracy.

There’s no middle ground. When they’re ready for democracy, they’ll achieve it. And Iran is already a quasi democracy.

If we make it known that democracies with good human rights records get better trade agreements with us, then that will encourage governments to put more power in the hands of the people.

They already know this.

Right, there are (sometimes) no overt stipulations, but there’s always implied ones.

There’s no stipulation. It’s like giving alms (which is one of tenets of Islam).

Do you really think we’d keep sending aid to a country that, for example, started publicly supporting Al Qaeda?

Name a country that we give aid to that openly supports Al Qaeda?

Well you’re just addressing a specific and ignoring my point. If we knew that there would be damages to pulling out on a specific timetable, I don’t believe it would be responsible to pull out on that timetable even if Iraqi polls indicated they wanted it.

There’s no middle ground. When they want democracy, they’ll achieve it.

Asserting that there’s no middle ground is just absurd. Of course there is. Yes, if countries want democracy their citizens will work towards it, but how we treat other countries affects their positions. If we’re hostile (like to Iran), it can hurt the development of democracy. If we make it known that democracies with good human rights records get better trade agreements with us, then that will encourage governments to put more power in the hands of the people.

There is no stipulation on the foreign aid so the countries can do whatever they want. If they want to turn away from us, that’s fine with me. Likewise if they align themselves with us, that’s fine with me.

Right, there are (sometimes) no overt stipulations, but there’s always implied ones. Do you really think we’d keep sending aid to a country that, for example, started publicly supporting Al Qaeda? Would that really be okay with you?

Nat, excellent points. Bush likes to compare Iraq’s quest for democracy to our own in this country’s infancy. The difference is, we did it on our own. We didn’t have another army or another country holding our hands as we walked towards that goal. Sure, we had outside forces trying to stop us, but those who assisted us didn’t hang around for McCain’s 100 years.

If the Iraqis want freedom and democracy as bad as Bush says they do, then they will fight for it. But as long as we are there doing it for them, why should they? How many years and how many times have we been told by this administration that the Iraqi army will be taking over security for their own country? Well?

And as for the terrorists wanting to take away our freedoms…I say bullsh*t. First of all, just what freedoms would they like to take from me? Killing our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is a terrible thing, but it does not take away our freedoms. If they wanted to do that, then they surely wouldn’t be in Iraq; there would be an overwhelming invasion of our borders and we’d be fighting them in our streets.

If that’s the path they choose, so be it.

Well that sounds nice, but it’s not realistic IMO. Money is power. It’s going to influence behavior, whether we want it to or not.
Comment by EvilCornbread — January 22, 2008 @ 9:48 pm

There is no stipulation on the foreign aid so the countries can do whatever they want. If they want to turn away from us, that’s fine with me. Likewise if they align themselves with us, that’s fine with me.

First of all, there’s no way in hell all the troops can be pulled out tomorrow. We’re probably looking at a six month timetable.

Again, the Iraqis are grown folk; they’re not babies.

Obviously there’s some middle ground. We can be encouraging without being militaristic. As an example, Bush’s posturing against Iran certainly HURT the growth of Democracy in that country.

There’s no middle ground. When they want democracy, they’ll achieve it.

Sure we do — or do you suggest that we pull all foreign aid?

We don’t have a right. No stipulations were placed on that foreign aid.

A purely isolationist stance isn’t healthy or realistic. We need to be involved to some degree.
Comment by EvilCornbread — January 22, 2008 @ 8:30 pm

Once they’re ready for democracy [on their own], they’ll look to us or better yet Europe.

Bush, Bremer, and Powell have all said that if the Iraqis ask us to leave, then we leave. Unconditional. Not one whimper about the generals making that decision…not one worry about Iraq falling into the hands of the terrorists and the Middle East collapsing.

As one of them said, “We aren’t going to stay where we are not wanted” or something like that.

I mean, they’re going to be wary of doing things that are counter to our positions, at the very least, for fear that we’d reduce aid.

Sounds like you are playing Clinton’s game of “what is, is.” It sounds like a way of justifying selfish actions by dressing them up in pretty words. Better to be flat out open and say, “look, we will buy your “fill in the blank” (secrecy, vote in the UN, etc.) by giving you this amount of money.

Sorry, but this being sneaky and selfish Aid “gift” while trying to appear like Mother Theresa is simply crap. Call it “politics” or what ever name you want. It still stinks. Would you accept this kind of attitude from your kids?

Comment by EvilCornbread — January 22, 2008 @ 9:48 pm

Is that a reason for us to use it that way? A justification?

Even if (hypothetically, I’m just making a point here), we knew that leaving tomorrow would likely result in a civil war that would leave thousands more Iraqis dead? I just don’t see things being that cut-and-dried.

Foreign aid is not necessarily interference, although it can be used towards that goal.

Depends on your definition of “interference”. Foreign aid clearly influences other countries. We live in a global community, and we need to be a part of it. Like I said, illegal “pre-emptive war” is way way out of line, but we can’t revert to being completely isolationist in response.

It is my view that foreign aid be given totally free and not used, as you imply, in order to influence the country in any way. Toward democracy or anything else. If we can’t do that then we should not give the aid at all.

Well that sounds nice, but it’s not realistic IMO. Money is power. It’s going to influence behavior, whether we want it to or not.

Sure we do — or do you suggest that we pull all foreign aid? A purely isolationist stance isn’t healthy or realistic. We need to be involved to some degree. Clearly not to the “pre-emptive war” level, but it’s clearly not true that we shouldn’t involve ourselves in other countries affairs either.

No we don’t.
Foreign aid, used as it is, and has been, is a manipulative tool used by the one up nation to get its “legal” foot in their door. There is always a price to pay, because the “aid” is not given freely and for truly benevolent reasons. There is always a selfish reason lurking behind foreign aid. In my view, the Coalition of the Coerced… er Willing had the “Aid” card pulled on them in order to get them to join the invasion.

It is my view that foreign aid be given totally free and not used, as you imply, in order to influence the country in any way. Toward democracy or anything else. If we can’t do that then we should not give the aid at all.

No, the US does not have the right to interfere in another country’s internal affairs, as it violates the principle of national sovereignty. Claiming so also contradicts American pretenses of “spreading” democracy in the world.

Foreign aid is not necessarily interference, although it can be used towards that goal.