|
So ummm... you are advocating the use of armed force to orchestrate an ethnocentric cultural imperialism in the Middle East and - simultaneously - seek to decry the expense of your much vaunted 'human rights' by sneering at the fact that in the US we educate our felons in hope of reforming them. That we give aid and support to our poor in the hope that they can provide benefit to their society. Did I get that right?
This sort of petty, inappropriate, attack is the hallmark of a defeated debater. Please either concede now, or refrain from such derogatory commentary in the future.
What facts? It's your assertion, back it up. As for what countries we owe, perhaps a primer in macro-economics is in order. When the government needs money, they order the US Treasury to issue securities (bonds) which are sold to whomever wishes to buy them. Many Americans buy them as they are a very secure form of investment, and quite inflation proof, albeit not typically large earners. These bonds can also be purchased by financial institutions both here and abroad, as well as any other foreign interest as may desire them. Thus assembling a comprehensive list of 'who the government owes money to' is not very useful to this discussion. However, if you are really curious, here is an editorial on the topic .
This is pure semantics. There are plenty of valid points to discuss here, lets not get sidetracked with terminology.
It's exactly this kind of hypocrisy (if it is, in fact, occurring as I have no information on the topic either way) that leads me to believe that we shouldn't be overseas shoveling our values and way of life over other peoples' culture.
So by this you mean to say that we should go to the expense of capturing known felons just to let them run free to offend again? Which side of the law are you arguing?
In California unemployment benefits are paid for by witholding a portion of the workers wage and placing it into escrow against the chance that they will claim it. After a time (one year, maybe two?) the money reverts to the government. In this case I'd have to say it's the Unemployment office that is leeching off the Californian worker for their own existence.
This argument has no validity. It is indisputable that Bush is a warmonger. I'm sure I don't have to recount the entire list of wars the man has initiated to prove this point. Your argument that democrats are more likely to go to war than republicans is not relevant.
Okay, now here we have something to work with.
I don't believe that any interim government is possible in Iraq as long as the US refuses to surrender control. Currently we insist on dominating every decision made, and our efforts to stabilize the government have been toward the exact same flavor of 'stability' we've created in every other country we invaded... puppet governments. Maybe the EU is right to be more concerned with protecting their interests than with electing some marionettes in Iraq.
As for the difficulties of reestablishing services within the country, why did you pick 5000? Why not 5,000,000? Are the Iraqi's too busy, lazy, stupid, barbaric to repair their own sewers or power lines? For the sake of brevity I won't beat that horse any further. I would like to know where you derived that number however.
Actually, what they were supposed to create was a new state for the displaced Palestinians. Palestinians, evidently, haven't donated enough money to the election coffers of American politician however. (Okay, cheap shot, I admit it)
Silrathi
|