Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    23 May '09 01:54
    originally posted by scherzo
    I saw him today in Lebanon, and he promised to cut US support for the country if the Opposition won. Isn't this a little ridiculous? Why should the US State Department dictate the sovereignty of other sovereign nations with relatively (but in no way truly) democratic elections? There seems to be a trend of American leaders promising to support Third World countries only if they elect a pro-US or a US-backed government, and promising to cut support to these countries if they elect a government perceived by the US to be anti-American (which the Opposition is not -- their leading member did condemn 9/11). How is it that Biden thinks he can just do that?

    I think the answer that many Americans would give you would be that the U.S.A. can give its money to whomsoever it wants to give its money to.
  2. 23 May '09 03:47
    Originally posted by FMF
    originally posted by scherzo
    [b]I saw him today in Lebanon, and he promised to cut US support for the country if the Opposition won. Isn't this a little ridiculous? Why should the US State Department dictate the sovereignty of other sovereign nations with relatively (but in no way truly) democratic elections? There seems to be a trend of American leaders ...[text shortened]... e you would be that the U.S.A. can give its money to whomsoever it wants to give its money to.
    Such as billions upon billions to Indonesia
  3. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    23 May '09 03:53
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Such as billions upon billions to Indonesia
    Mostly to Indonesia's military and - back in the day - to one of the 20thC's worst dictators, Soeharto. Helped him to keep murdering people who didn't help his and the U.S.'s concept of an "investor friendly environment" for 30 years. Yes, "...billions upon billions to Indonesia". Thanks for that.
  4. 23 May '09 14:47
    Originally posted by FMF
    originally posted by scherzo
    [b]I saw him today in Lebanon, and he promised to cut US support for the country if the Opposition won. Isn't this a little ridiculous? Why should the US State Department dictate the sovereignty of other sovereign nations with relatively (but in no way truly) democratic elections? There seems to be a trend of American leaders ...[text shortened]... e you would be that the U.S.A. can give its money to whomsoever it wants to give its money to.
    Kinda corrupt, isn't it? The prospering parties will be determined solely on their support for the US.
  5. 23 May '09 14:48
    Originally posted by scherzo
    Kinda corrupt, isn't it? The prospering parties will be determined solely on their support for the US.
    Will people only vote on that basis?

    Should US aid be unconditional?
  6. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    23 May '09 15:04
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Will people only vote on that basis?

    Should US aid be unconditional?
    Absolutely. The US tax payer should be free to play politics in any region it chooses, and their money should be funnelled into as many projects as may compete with her own corporations. I mean competition is good, and the market always decides well.
  7. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    23 May '09 15:10
    Originally posted by scherzo
    Kinda corrupt, isn't it? The prospering parties will be determined solely on their support for the US.
    You do live in this world don't you?
  8. 23 May '09 15:17
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Will people only vote on that basis?

    Should US aid be unconditional?
    US aid should be to the parties that deserve it. I don't consider the Alliance to be an alliance that deserves US aid.
  9. 23 May '09 15:38
    Originally posted by scherzo
    US aid should be to the parties that deserve it. I don't consider the Alliance to be an alliance that deserves US aid.
    So it's not so much a complaint about the US interfering with another country's sovereignty, but more that they aren't interfering in the direction you would like?
  10. 23 May '09 16:38
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    So it's not so much a complaint about the US interfering with another country's sovereignty, but more that they aren't interfering in the direction you would like?
    Correct.
  11. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    24 May '09 16:03
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    So it's not so much a complaint about the US interfering with another country's sovereignty, but more that they aren't interfering in the direction you would like?
    Multiply that out by 10.5 million and make yourself welcome to the chaos principle that is the Palestinian question.
  12. 24 May '09 16:31
    Originally posted by scherzo
    Correct.
    double-standards?
  13. 24 May '09 18:55
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    double-standards?
    Perhaps. But the Opposition's case is far stronger than that of the Alliance.