Nuklear bomb

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

'Leftist' in comparison to what? How exactly was this astonishing revelation arrived at? Or is it just the opinion of someone on the right...

I notice you criticise Carter (an easy target), but don't actually answer the point raised about US foreign aid. Then again, you seem to do this with any objection to your comments.

Time out. I think I have answered just about everything. My post was about the fact that we should cut out foreign aid and anything that comes out of Carter's mouth should be taken with a grain of salt. Given his history as an abject failure, it's probably a good idea to no take anything he says seriously.

You make me repeat myself: we should cut off foreign aid because it gains us nothing....and we are too broke to afford such charity. After all, it's either a political tool (failure) or charity (which is unappreciated).

Now answer my questions from post 147 . They were mainly directed at you and you didn't answer. Of course, as you will probably tell me, you are under no obligation to answer....

Splitter

[AndyJWest]

Time out. I think I have answered just about everything.

I don't. Still, I'll let that pass for now, and deal with your post 147. I assume these are the questions you refer too - everything else in that post looks like an assertion dressed up as a question:

Do you think Iran is seeking nuclear power simply to supply their own energy needs?
Do you think Iran will use their nuclear capability to develop weapons?
Once they develop nuclear weapons, do you think they will use them to threaten their neighbours or the world's oil supply?
Do you think they would make good on their threats to bomb Tel-Aviv?
Does it appear sanction are working?

Let's deal with them one at a time:

Do you think Iran is seeking nuclear power simply to supply their own energy needs?

No. I think they are doing it mostly as an act of defiance.

Do you think Iran will use their nuclear capability to develop weapons?

Possibly. Though if the objective is deterrence, they don't need to develop such weapons, merely arouse reasonable doubt that they might have.

Once they develop nuclear weapons, do you think they will use them to threaten their neighbours or the world's oil supply?

This is a leading question. Let's rephrase it: "If they develop nuclear weapons, do you think they would..."
Which neighbours? What sort of threat? In any case, 'the world's oil supply' isn't confined to the middle east, and one assumes that such threats would be reciprocated.

Do you think they would make good on their threats to bomb Tel-Aviv?

Another leading question. I've seen no evidence that any such threat was ever made.

Does it appear sanction[s] are working?

Not particularly. Given all the uncertainties above, and the abject failure of the US to address the fundamental problems that lead to the situation in the first place, I don't see any alternative. Do you?

If your solution is 'bomb Iran' (or get your Israeli puppet state to do it for you), then the Iranian's supposed objective of acquiring a nuclear deterrent seems entirely logical under the circumstances.

[Friendly_flyer]

Originally Posted by Splitter

We have a group here in American that we call the "Blame America First" brigade. Some of you would love them . Carter is pretty close to the top of that list.
...
Even the recipients have no loyalty and, as you all have pointed out, it will never be enough to change the impression of the US in some parts of the world. We are beyond broke anyway.

Carter may not have been a splendid president, but in this case (the US as stingy) the cold numbers do bear him out. Yes, Northern European states generally give from 10 to 30 times as much foreign aid per capita. Not liking Carter is not a valid reason for brushing his argument aside.

Some of the problem with US aid is the context in which it is given. Often it is given to one side over another. While the recipients may turn friendly, the other side will hate you doubly, thus (at least partially) negating the diplomatic gain from the aid. Some aid is given all too clearly to buy support or compliance (here, take these X million dollars and look the other way while we screw you over). The aid given is very often in the form of money or weapons, non of which are suited to establish a civilian infrastructure that the civilian population will fear loosing. Finally, the much stick/little carrot politics destroys much of the potential gains from the aid. Saying "here, take these dollars/weapons and support us while we beat up your neighbour, or get targeted yourself" will not buy you friends. People generally do not like to be told what to do, 3rd World countries are no different from the US in that regard, and they have a lot less to loose.

Doing away with all foreign aid would certainly be an interesting move (I suppose you exclude the military aid for Israel and Egypt from that?). I think you would discover that the aid you give actually do have an effect.