[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by displaced

for every event in history, there's a conspiracy theory.

And for a good deal of them, there are facts to back them up with.

[roberto]

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

And for a good deal of them, there are facts to back them up with.

But as we all know your so called facts are fiction

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

But as we all know your so called facts are fiction

Only in your imaginary world where everything is the opposite of the real world.

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

The amount of aid that Egypt gets from the United States is a small part of the total economy and the total military expenditures. The relationship between the two governments is much more complex than the caricature you're making of it.

I'm not making a caricature out of it; ultimately, American foreign aid has been a strong vehicle for promoting American hegemony and American interests. That's inarguable. By your own admission, most of the aid that goes to Egypt from the US is military.

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

However, comfortable or uncomfortable as I may be with Egypt's current regime, the fact is that American aid does benefit Egyptians, and cutting off the aid would harm those who benefit from it. I've seen it myself.

Again, at what price? Is dependence on welfare from a non-Muslim nation (that has aided other nations in war against them) & accepting their commands necessary for the continued survival of Egypt?

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

The issue of aid to Egypt and the issue of reform in Egypt are related but neither one is dependent on the other. American aid could easily continue unabated and unchanged to a reformed regime in Egypt, and the dictatorship would certainly continue to hold power easily if all American aid was withdrawn

You're seeing everything in terms of Egypt & what's happening in Egypt. America would be withdrawing from more than just Egypt. The implications of that on the continued secular dictatorship of Egypt could be immediate.

Although, this is all sort of based on a false premise, since Dr Paul can't just assume office and cut off all aid immediately (and he doesn't really want to).

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

Millions, or probably more like tens of millions, of lives are at stake when it comes to American foreign aid. Understand that when Ron Paul talks about cutting off the aid to Israel, he is also talking about cutting off the aid to Egyptians, and many others along with them. For example, all those poor Africans dying of AIDS have benefited enormously from research efforts funded by the US government that helped them develop efficient and effective ways of tackling the disease.

They've primarily benefited from the UN's efforts, not from America's. Funding that has come from America has also come in the form of private donations/NGO work/etc.

Though US govt funding has undoubtedly helped, efforts will continue and flourish with or without it. In any case, Ron Paul is not going to end AIDS research.

FWIW I think your perception of American aid in Africa may be greatly exaggerated. I have a couple close family members who worked for the UN/UNICEF in Africa (my wife among them) who insist that the US has been mostly ineffectual there and caused more problems than they solved. That could just be their own bias, though.

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

Even though the investments were not large, countries like Malawi managed to significantly reduce their HIV prevalence and save millions of lives. Thats just one example, there are hundreds of sustained aid and development programs that pump billions of American dollars abroad and end up saving lives, extending lives, and improving standards of living for millions of people. There are many others that bring American experts and expertise to serve in the developing world, others still that bring foreigners from the developing world to the United States to train and take back valuable skills and expertise with them. All of that stuff would be on the chopping block with Dr Paul.

Again, aside from taking it to an extreme and assuming Ron Paul is going to immediately cut off the rest of the world from Day 1..

You yourself have acknowledged that the American govt engages in MASSIVE deficit spending. You have acknowledged that the US govt basically doesn't have any money. If that's the case, how can the US support the rest of the world, and why is it expected to? Can private citizens not donate to charities, research efforts, funds, etc if they so choose? Do you really think the average American is interested in being forced to pay for all of these programs abroad at the expense of watching their country go ever deeper into the hole?

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

to answer your question, about 30% of US aid to Egypt is economic, and 70% is military. however, some portion of the military aid is development aid that goes through the military which is a major business and employer in Egypt (unfortunately). I'm not sure how much this is, probably not alot

Nuff said

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

Now, moving on the UN, one of the main functions of the UN is as an aid organization and by far the United States is its biggest funder, which means the world health organization and UNICEF and the UNHCR would all lose their biggest source of funding under Ron Paul. Incidentally, UNHCR is one of the primary organizations that supports Palestinian refugees. On the subject of Palestinians, whom most Muslim-Americans seem to care about even if they dont care about Egyptians, those people are wards of the international community. They would starve to death without foreign aid, its that simple. This is because of the occupation, however even with open roads and a full Israeli withdrawal, they would still starve and die without foreign aid because the occupation has annhilated local economies in recent years and palestinian leaders bred dependence over the last decade or so. Palestine's main donors are the EU, but second after Europe is the United States. The two crises with Hamas have shown that Islamic countries are unwilling or incapable of filling the gaps in aid that are left when the Western countries pull out their aid. It should be noted that through both crises, the UN, America, and Europe continued to supply food aid and other humanitarian aid at normal levels to all accessible areas (which included the entire occupied territories till Hamas took over Gaza). So when doctor Paul comes to power and starts chopping the aid to Israel and Egypt, he will hardly spare Palestinian firefighters and mailmen and police officers and whoever else. What will the Palestinians eat?

First, this is all based on the premise that the UN is going to die without the US.

Secondly, the US gives very little aid to Palestine. As you yourself acknowledged, most of the aid comes from the EU.

Thirdly, under Ron Paul, it would not be a "terrorist act" to donate money to Palestine itself, as it currently is now.

In any case, I'm pretty certain the Palestinians would rather have independence and their own state than the half a mil a year (or whatever it is now) the US gives them.

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

We can talk about long term development for the palestinians under Khalifa Beardy McOne-Eye after destroying Israel with Pakistani nukes and Sudanese wildebeest riders but the fact is that this election is in 2008, not 2046.

blah blah blah

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

Ron Paul would basically give the finger to everyone that depends on American aid on planet Earth. Whether he cuts it off with one executive order or phases it out over 3 or 4 years, these are millions of people who would be deprived, and Americans should care about that.

see above

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

nobody, however if we're going by the principle of harm reduction and picking the lesser evil, then Ron Paul is by far the greatest of the evils when it comes to immigration issues. Picking just about anybody over Ron Paul is picking the lesser of two evils when it comes to immigration.

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

Dude, come on. Charity can never cover the expenses of the American welfare state. We all know this.

OK. What can? The US government certainly can't. Who pays for it?

Is forced taxation a better option? You want to force people pay for the American welfare state, the state that funds the entire world even though it has no money itself?

Does no taxation without representation mean anything to you?

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

Ron Paul is probably a very generous, nice, and compassionate guy, because he helped people at his practice and so on. But this cannot be the basis of national policy. Either people will receive these services or they wont. And when we defer to charity and the private sector to provide all necessary social services, while at the same time calling for very considerable tax cuts (as Ron Paul does), then the whole thing becomes pretty untenable. The prime engine of charitable giving in the USA is tax deductions, but if the income tax is abolished in favor of a sales tax, then what will you be subtracting from? Without tax deductions the main incentive for charity is gone and all those poor people are literally left to the mercy of others. I'm sure there are alot of good Americans who would give, but would it be enough?

[sixpakistan]

First of all, there's no basis for you saying that the prime engine of charitable giving in the USA is tax deductions. That's nothing more than an assumption & it can't really be proven.

Secondly, people with higher incomes provably give greater amounts of charity than those with lower incomes.

Thirdly, Ron Paul is far from entirely sold on the Fair Tax proposal (which is what I assume you're referring to) to begin with.

Finally, less taxes on middle class = more spending and investing by middle class (spending of wealthy would remain more static, though investment would probably increase), which has obvious and immediate benefits on the economy.

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

Ron Paul was heavily influenced by Ayn Rand and other similar philosophers, and their

Ron Paul was influenced by Ayn Rand's writing, but his views really have very little in common with Ayn Rand - who was anti-religion, pro-war, and whose current followers reject Ron Paul. He himself has rejected Ayn Rand's views as "excessively militant."

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

philosophy was all about sink or swim and faith in the market that goes much deeper than any suicide bomber's faith in God or in C4. I'm sure that in his mind, the market would sort everything out so that with no taxes and no regulations,

You're a bit given to hyperbole. See above, re: such philosophies being rejected as excessively militant. In any case, there were/are many economists who support the Libertarian perspective fiscally, and I guarantee you Wall Street would JUMP if Ron Paul were elected.

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

wealth and labor would naturally flow in such a way that there would be no poor people and healthcare would find its way to everyone who needed it.

Again, this is a ridiculous oversimplification of a philosophy that many credible and well known economists have been behind.

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

Finally, to answer your question, the UN isnt a world government, and it isnt good at stopping powerful countries from doing stuff, but it does alot of good for millions of people

Which would come to a grinding halt without the US?

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

by being a doctor and choosing to serve needy people, he definitely has done alot. I have alot of respect for him, and i think libertarians and objectivists like him have a useful role in a democracy. They can be watchdogs for civil liberties infringements and creeping tyranny. but not heads of state. just my opinion

Just fyi, President of America != dictator

God, I think that was the longest post ever

Apologies if I jumped around or left anything out, I'm at work and I've been writing it in sections between doing work & such

This was actually too long to post in one post, so I had to post it in sections

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

America doesnt have surplus, we run a massive deficit and have the biggest debt on earth. The question is whether it is worthwhile to spend American money on Africans with AIDS and food and paychecks for Palestinians rather than letting these people starve, suffer, or die and spend that cash on other things here in the United States. Ron Paul says no, I say yes.

ws

The question is whether it's worthwhile to spend money we don't have through forced taxation on Africans with AIDS to little effect and such. The idea that the US funds paychecks for Palestinians is just dumb and completely false.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by GOTFIVEONIT

the truth is that over-paid doctors drive up health care costs, and leave millions without health insurance to cover those costs. i mean if were going to be importing cheap foreign labor, im sure we can import plenty of cheap foreign doctors from the middle east and india and pak who would be more than happy to work for $40K a year and do it with a smile on thier faces.

why give them 40,000 dollars every year when you can make them slaves and feed them only bread and water and cut off their genitals so they can never marry desi girls

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

The question is whether it's worthwhile to spend money we don't have through forced taxation on Africans with AIDS to little effect and such.

It is worthwhile, and the effects of HIV programs in Africa are not minimal, in fact they have effectively and substantially reduced the prevalence of the disease in various African countries (saving millions of lives) and have extended the life-spans of those living with the disease considerably in other countries (saving millions more)

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

The idea that the US funds paychecks for Palestinians is just dumb and completely false.

No, actually its completely true. Every paycheck that an employee of the Palestinian Authority receives come primarily from funds given to the PA by the European Union, by the United States, and by the UN. Remember that when America and Europe cut off funding to the PA after Hamas won their election, the Palestinian government ran out of money in a couple of weeks and witheld paychecks from their employees for several months, even after frozen Palestinian assets in Israel (much of them derived from aid as well) were unfrozen. The PA cannot pay its bills without foreign aid. More importantly, a large and growing proportion of Palestinians are dependent on UN, European, and American food aid to stay alive. They get bread and staple products for survival on a daily basis. They're dependent

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

It is worthwhile, and the effects of HIV programs in Africa are not minimal, in fact they have effectively and substantially reduced the prevalence of the disease in various African countries (saving millions of lives) and have extended the life-spans of those living with the disease considerably in other countries (saving millions more)

The effects of HIV programs in Africa are not minimal, but the effects of US money and how crucial it was to that effort is at least very questionable

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

No, actually its completely true. Every paycheck that an employee of the Palestinian Authority receives come primarily from funds given to the PA by the European Union, by the United States, and by the UN. Remember that when America and Europe cut off funding to the PA after Hamas won their election, the Palestinian government ran out of money in a couple of weeks and witheld paychecks from their employees for several months, even after frozen Palestinian assets in Israel (much of them derived from aid as well) were unfrozen. The PA cannot pay its bills without foreign aid. More importantly, a large and growing proportion of Palestinians are dependent on UN, European, and American food aid to stay alive. They get bread and staple products for survival on a daily basis. They're dependent

The example you cite is a great example of the correlation between American influence/meddling and American foreign aid. Thanks.

In any case, US/American aid is the least important and most expendable figure in this equation. American aid to Palestine began as of the establishment of the Palestinian Puppet Authority For 50 years before that, it was nonexistent.

Further, under Ron Paul, donating to Palestinian NGOs/charities would be considerably easier for American Muslims than it is now.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

There is only one party; the war party, with its right and left wings. The only alternative is Ron Paul, and the 3rd parties as far as I'm concerned. If I can't vote for the former in the elections, then I can just vote for the latter, or not vote at all.

but look at what happend in 2000. in key battleground states, bush won florida and the election by only 500 daam votes, out of more than 50 million votes casted nationwide. 500 daam votes propelled him to the white house. can people from our community who live in these battleground states, afford to cast wasted ballots? look at the democratic primaries right now. if i really believed hillary could in in november, i would be like hey great. but she cant. in my view, a vote for hillary is a vote for a republican in november. and i dont want to see the repugs end up back in the white house for another four years.

and you cant really say that the war camp has two wings. the 06' mid term elections showed that the democrats must end the war because that is THE issue that propelled them to capture a majority in the congress. if a democrat comes in, they have to end the war, because thats what the people who are voting for them want. its what they are making as a key issue in the election.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

why give them 40,000 dollars every year when you can make them slaves and feed them only bread and water and cut off their genitals so they can never marry desi girls

aww did i touch a raw nerve there? after all you see nothing wrong with importing cheap foreign labor to work in the I.T. industry, so i think its only fair that with an issue of such vital national importance, that cheap foreign doctors should be imported in and that will cut down rising health care costs. im glad the politicians are finally taking note of that fact.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

ron paul cant win, but i say go ahead and vote for him in the primaries. however, if you truley dont want to see the repugs back into the white house, go vote in the democratic primary and vote for someone who can actually beat them in november. at least for those of you who live in the 22 states that are holding thier primaries on super tuesday, feb. 5th. its a dead heat between hillary and obama, and the latest nationwide polls show them at dead even, at 33%. and thats only for the people who live in the 22 states that i speak of. excluding IL, since obama is going to win here hands down, and thats why IL moved up its march primaries to super tuesday to help propel obama to the november ballot.

Michigan and Florida are being boycotted by the DNC so your primaries and votes really dont count for much. and as far as Nevada and South Carolina is concerned, while the political pandits are declaring an Obama victory, i still think its going to be a heated race between them in the SC primary and Nevada Caucasus.

and in case you do happen to live in Nevada, let me explain it is not a secret ballot vote. Where you can just walk in, cast your ballot and walk out. it is a 'caucaus'. meaning your vote is not secret, it is not ballot, and you have to show up at your local polling place, stand in a certain section for your candidate, and then a HEAD COUNT is done. So you might end up being there throughout the evening.