Article

2005-01-03 Home Front: Politix

U.S. Tsunami Aid May Be Billions of Dollars - Senator

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-03 9:10:27 PM|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Reading between the lines, it is a fact that most recovery of bodies was being done by locals. Also, local food production facilities were cranking up supplies, which local truckers were shipping to tsunami victims. Indian pharmaceutical companies can supply any anti-cholera and anti-biotic medication needs, for the whole area. The only problem is that victims have no means to pay. Therefore, let's let the locals formulate distribution and reconstruction plans, and then help finance same, if these are realistic. Last Thursday, 20 planes were sitting on affected country runways, waiting for bureaucrat clearance, while Indonesian mullahs were fatwahing on hijab rules for US female soldiers. More assessment is needed before we open the vaults.

Posted by Glereger Criter5999 2005-01-03 1:26:07 AM|| 2005-01-03 1:26:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 The Liberal Loony Left may see this disaster as a time to claim entitlement to the purse strings of the U.S. -- but itâs not the people in the countries that have suffered that are doing all the clamoring. This is nothing new. The LLL has spent decades amassing and maintaining power as the Most Caringâ¢ head of its demented Malthusian world order. As Peggy Noonan recently noted, these âpeople are slyly asserting their own, higher sensitivity and getting credit for it, which is odd because what they're actually doing is using dead people to make cheap points.â

Even steeped in national tragedy, the Indonesian government took time to put out Press Release No. 94/PR/XII/2004 that included the following:

The Government of Indonesia highly appreciates the humanitarian assistance pledged and dispatched by friendly countries from all over the world as well as by international organizations, NGOs, and even individuals.

The people hardest hit are not the ones complaining. I say we just ignore the taunts and jibes of the LLL, and go about being the compassionate country weâve always been. Weâve never needed guilt trips before, and certainly donât need any now. Nor should we let guilt trips cause us to balk from our fine intentions.

In the face of scenes like this, which must be riddled with rotting corpses,

scenes like this are the only proper human response.

Nor will the message be lost on any but the LLL.

Posted by cingold 2005-01-03 1:27:42 AM|| 2005-01-03 1:27:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 while Indonesian mullahs were fatwahing on hijab rules for US female soldiers

In their dreams, and in Al-Jazeeraâs fantasies (Did you get your info about that from this article?). Al-Jazeera does not have a great track record for accuracy and truth. Indonesia does not have shariah law; not even in Aceh. Rather, Indonesia, which just held the first direct election for a president this past fall, has fairly western jurisprudence.

The simple fact is the province of Aceh has been decimated in a fashion that even a U.S. county would have trouble recovering from. The greatest problem to distributing aid right now in Aceh is that the roads and communication systems are gone. An "on the scene" fairly neutral assessment of the problems can be found in this article entitled Aid Distribution Crisis.

Posted by cingold 2005-01-03 1:44:20 AM|| 2005-01-03 1:44:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I read that you had a personal attachment to Indonesia, cingold, and I don't begrudge giving reasonable amounts of aid, but I do object to EXCESSIVE amounts give aways. You and other citizens who have personal links to the area can give privately to supplement the "reasonable amount" of taxpayer funded aid, of course, BUT IMO "$350 million in aid pledged so far by President Bush represents the entire U.S. foreign disaster assistance budget" is NUTS and I resent it. Let these media crazy US politicians dig deep in their family trusts to give more $. Not more $ from me thank you very much.

Posted by joeblow 2005-01-03 1:52:56 AM|| 2005-01-03 1:52:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Joe Blowhard,

You should be ashamed of yourself, you cold-hearted b!#ch. Youâd take that stance with people in these dire straits?

Or, are you just some jihadi scumbag hoping the U.S. takes the isolationistic bait, because you want the hearts and minds of the oppressed to know nothing but your version of religion?

Posted by cingold 2005-01-03 2:54:30 AM|| 2005-01-03 2:54:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 I don't give a rat's ass who gets credit. I don't give a rat's ass what other people think. I don't give a rat's ass about $350 million. I don't even give a rat's ass about these peoples religion or lack of it. If $350 mill is not enough we should pony up more. I do care about getting these poor people back on their feet as soon as we can. It's only money. We have proved we and our political economic can always make more.

You stupid isolationist bigots talking your racist and religionist crap can FOAD. Oh yea Lugar is a bumbling assclown too.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-01-03 3:05:13 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2005-01-03 3:05:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 "Let these media crazy US politicians dig deep in their family trusts to give more $. Not more $ from me thank you very much."

"Family trusts", my ass.

Three hundred fifty million dollars amounts to roughly $1.25 for every man, woman and child in this country. For me, one day's snack money-- hell, not even that.

The basic problem here is that you're a cheap, selfish bastard.

Posted by Dave D. 2005-01-03 3:22:59 AM|| 2005-01-03 3:22:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 The basic problem here is that you 3 are cheap and selfish socialists who want all taxpayers to go beyond REASONABLE aid because the onus would fall on you to dig deep in your bleeding heart liberal purses ( you are ex-liberals like I'm the man in the moon). Btw, I am neither racist nor isolationaist, but maybe that's your pathetic liberal method of cowing people into agreeing with your emotional rants. I don't like government to spend my $ like drunken sailors so politicians can look like Daddy Warbucks on national TV. If you 3 are so magnaminous and generous, then cut some checks from your personal bank accounts and send them to the tsunami victims. No one is stopping you. But get your paws out of my wallet and grow up while your doing it.

Posted by joeblow 2005-01-03 3:58:27 AM|| 2005-01-03 3:58:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 I'm not an ex-liberal.

I've never voted for a Democrat as far as I can remember. Iâve always voted fairly conservative, and fairly Republican. I even signed up for the draft without complaining as soon as the Selective Service was re-instituted. Yes, I have and will give. My guess is that the private U.S. contributions will outstrip almost every world government, save their own and maybe Japan. That doesn't mean that the U.S. Government shouldnât use tax dollars, as well, to help out at a time like this.

Joe, your reaction to human misery is pathetic. Like, youâre taking Darwin far too seriously. From a basic humanity kind of standpoint, Iâd be concerned that if this type of tragedy doesnât move you, nothing would. Do you feel much? When was the last time you had a feeling other than anger? Are you alone in life . . .

If youâre not emotionally stunted, you might just be jahadi troll-bait.

Posted by cingold 2005-01-03 4:24:37 AM|| 2005-01-03 4:24:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 You are a stupid troll joeblow. I already have dug into my wallet and given. I'll give even more if it's needful. You can call me alot of things but one you won't call me is a socialist. You ignorant little penis, how about you take your KKK troll show some place where your ignorance and insults are valued. FOAD.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-01-03 4:32:14 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2005-01-03 4:32:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 "If you 3 are so magnaminous and generous, then cut some checks from your personal bank accounts and send them to the tsunami victims."

I donated a hundred bucks. How much did you donate, Joe? I bet I can guess: not a damn thing, because you're too busy guarding your precious wallet.

Cingold had exactly the right word for you: pathetic.

Posted by Dave D. 2005-01-03 4:40:36 AM|| 2005-01-03 4:40:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Another cover blown. S-front refugee a lookin for a home?

Posted by Shipman 2005-01-03 6:44:35 AM|| 2005-01-03 6:44:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 SPOD: You stupid isolationist bigots talking your racist and religionist crap can FOAD.

Shipman: Another cover blown. S-front refugee a lookin for a home?

This sounds like something out of DU. What part of being generous with your own money don't you understand? (Read about Davy Crockett on charitable giving in this article). Charity isn't a shakedown racket. To say that you only ripped someone else off for a token amount to fund your pet cause isn't an excuse. It's the same kind of excuse used to fund huge numbers of other pet causes, a million dollars or so at a time.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-03 10:10:08 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-03 10:10:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Another cover blown. S-front refugee a lookin for a home
Excuse me,whatever your name is, sonny, shippy, chippy, whatever - children aren't allowed in this discussion. Get back in your crib.

I donated a hundred bucks. How much did you donate, Joe?
Goody for you. I donated nothing because a) I'm in a high tax bracket so it's suckers like me that bank roll all these gov't feel good programs in the first place and b) this is not a pet hobby horse that appears to be the case for you. I donate to other non profit programs throughout the year which I do not, btw, expect for you to fund c) I have no personal/family ties to this area of the globe but I do not begrudge any poster like cingold or yee that do want to give extra d) what may have not crossed any of your LIBERAL "it's for the little people" brains before because heck spending gov't's one big pot of $ is no big deal and heck it's only $1.50 each...blah, blah... giving $350 Million aid to Indonesia et al is spending out the entire foreign aid budget for this year. Capesh? And where do you think more aid $ is going to come from??? Do you bleeding hearts believe we just print up more $ at Ft. Knox whenever we run out? Catch this, geniuses - we borrow and go into a more GIGANTIC DEFICIT than we are already in due to re-building that shining city on the hill, Iraq. And I'm rather concerned that my kids and my grandkids and my great grand kids are going to have to pay off this GIGANTIC deficit that "ex-liberals" and RINO's like you seem to have no problem accumulating, because heck when you work it all out it comes out to $1.50 (plus $6,000 interest which you conveniently forget to compute).

P.S. And another thing, I may have another "good deed" use slotted for my $1.50 to spend on and I don't want socialists like you assuming that you can spend my $1.50 ( plus $6000 interest) on YOUR so called "heart felt" projects all the time.

Posted by joeblow 2005-01-03 10:13:19 AM|| 2005-01-03 10:13:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Here let me see if I have some spare change. Maybe in this pocket...

Nope. Maybe in this pocket...

Hmmm, s'funny. I coulda swore...

... I had something...

Nope. Guess not.

Posted by BH 2005-01-03 10:20:30 AM|| 2005-01-03 10:20:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 Boys, boys ...

Posted by Steve White 2005-01-03 11:25:04 AM|| 2005-01-03 11:25:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Damnit! My feelings are hurt you Nazi scum sucker! LOL! What a tool! Watch out for the neo under your bed boys, I hear The Mossad is still around.

5.6

Posted by Shipman 2005-01-03 11:26:08 AM|| 2005-01-03 11:26:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 Was those .jpgs from San Fransisco?

Posted by Shipman 2005-01-03 11:34:09 AM|| 2005-01-03 11:34:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 I don't see people who might have carried antiamerican posters.

I see people scrambling for a bottle of clean water and a handful of rice.

People who have lost everything and have nowhere to look to except for Western help.

I dug deep in my pockets. And every government cent spent to aliviate dire misery is a well spent cent. And yes, its my cent, too.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-01-03 11:35:33 AM|| 2005-01-03 11:35:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 Shipman: Was those .jpgs from San Fransisco?

You mean the one that says Amerika Syarikat bukan polisi dunia tapi penjahat dunia? If my limited Indonesian is correct, it means the following: Uncle Sam isn't a global policeman - he's a global criminal.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-03 11:40:24 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-03 11:40:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 if y'all dont like MOOSLIMS, just give some $ to Sri Lanka, where most victims aint MOOSLIMS. Israel has given help, and so has the American Jewish World Service.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-01-03 11:46:48 AM|| 2005-01-03 11:46:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 LH: if y'all dont like MOOSLIMS, just give some $ to Sri Lanka, where most victims aint MOOSLIMS. Israel has given help, and so has the American Jewish World Service.

I just don't like the anti-American set - and that happens to include most of the world, including all of the countries affected. If something like this happened in France, I wouldn't be indifferent - I'd get a spell of schadenfreude.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-03 12:05:18 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-03 12:05:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Israel has given help, and so has the American Jewish World Service.
That's nice but how do those irrelevant factoids relate to what's under discussion?

What's being discussed is why we (the US taxpayers, not Israel taxpayers or a Jewish private organization) should bust the US's annual foreign aid piggy bank to give to one area of the world so we can look like the uber compassionate chumps we are to the squealing piggies at the UN? What about sticking to a REASONABLE amount of US taxpayer funded foreign aid, because we happen to have 2 costly wars and re-building efforts going on as we speak in MOOSLIM, to coin your word LH, dominated areas of the world already? Aren't we giving enough to the int'l world and Muslim countries specifically already?

Maybe other countries should send more aid this time round - like for example rich Muslim dominated countries like Saudi Arabia. Or perhaps rich Asian countries like China, yes that China who warms a seat on the UN Security Council for representing Asia in UN decision making, should dig deep in its successful Communist government wallet to send $ and military help to countries in its geographical region? Ever think of that Mr. & Mrs. Closet Bleeding Liberal Hearts?

Also, no one here has discouraged private donations or corporate donations on the virtue of these countries being Muslim countries. Some of us have said, thanks but no thanks, I have other priorities with my money much to the chagrin of do-gooders who see no difference between their money and others' money. It's one big socialist money pot to them.

What has been discouraged is the assumption by bleeding hearts who for a variety of reasons think it's A-OK to print more $ at Ft. Knox to finance all their pet hobby horses as they come up.

Posted by joeblow 2005-01-03 12:06:18 PM|| 2005-01-03 12:06:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 I find it so amazing that the Government of this country has to use taxpayersâ money to help in catastrophes like the Tsunami in question. There are so many Hollywood celebrities (Sarandon, Cameron, Garafalo, Oprah, etc, Robbins, Sean, Depp,Gere, etc), entrepreneurs like Soros, Turner, Heinz, etc., who by just giving up one million out of the hundreds they make everday could put together an aid budget that would surpass the entire US Government budget for foreign emergency relief in half an hour. How hypocritical these people are!

Posted by Anonymous4724 2005-01-03 12:09:54 PM|| 2005-01-03 12:09:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 David Crockett on the generosity of politicians (with respect to charitable aid after a fire in Georgetown - not exactly on the other side of the world): There is one thing now to which I wish to call to your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men --- men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased --- a debt which could not be paid by money --- and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificance a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-03 12:18:04 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-03 12:18:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 I agree with ZF. I'm not opposed to foreign aid, and I'm not really concerned with the price tag. What I object to is being expected to help out people who continually and gleefully spit in our face. They didn't even wait until they had the cash this time, because of course the Americans will pay! That's what they're there for!

And yes, I have a problem with helping MOOSLIMS. This goes back to the argument about whether our enemy is a small group of Islamic fundamentalists, or Islam in general. I'm one of those who believe the latter, based on what I've seen and read. I don't believe in giving aid or comfort to the enemy.

Shipman, LOL! I'm not sure if I'd send money to SF, either!

Posted by BH 2005-01-03 12:27:24 PM|| 2005-01-03 12:27:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 You guys who are criticizing the tsunami relief efforts remind me of a wonderful line delivered by Armand Assante in The Odyssey, that goes something to the effect of, âTo be angry is easy.â It is easy to paint all Indonesians with the same brush, but just as stupid to do so as it would be to say all Americans are well represented by the likes of these jerks:

More than one group out there claims we Americans are still bigots, even bigots against Muslims. See this link and this link, for example.

To say that Indonesia is diverse is an understatement. I gave my .02 cents worth about that topic in this link. Indonesia is about as diverse as the U.S., and has just as many extremes, extremists, and nutjobs as does the U.S. As previously noted, sure there are Islamic extremists in Indonesia (and, Boy, arenât you proud, you got some fine pictures of them), but these extremist nutjobs are only a fraction of the 12% of the overall Indonesian population that profess to be Textual Muslimin. These idiots are more than capably kept in check by the other 88% of Indonesians, the Abangan, Priyayi, and Syncretic Muslimin -- not to mention that 11% of the Indonesian population are either Christian, Hindu or Buddhist. If you read the news, Indonesia is still keeping the pressure on islamofascists in Aceh, even during this current crisis. See for example this link.

The bottom line is that NO COUNTRY other than the U.S. has captured, killed, convicted, and sentenced to death more islamofascists than has Indonesia since 9/11. As noted by Bushâs choice for our Ambassador to that country, âIndonesia has taken vigorous actions to pursue and prosecute those responsible for the Bali and Marriott bombings, and the Indonesian police have made significant progress in combating the indigenous terror network responsible for these attacks, Jemaah Islamiyah.â B. Lynn Pascoe. Accordingly,

The United States views Indonesia as the cornerstone of regional security in Southeast Asia and a key trade partner. U.S. interests in the region depend on Indonesia's stability and economic growth.

See U.S. -- Indonesia Relations. But, if you think you know better, why donât you try to set G. W. Bush straight?

For me, those who hold the suffering masses accountable for the sins of extremists are pathetic and unfeeling idiots. To do so is to take up the opposite, and equally despicable, extreme.

Posted by cingold 2005-01-03 12:29:40 PM|| 2005-01-03 12:29:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 cingold: It is easy to paint all Indonesians with the same brush, but just as stupid to do so as it would be to say all Americans are well represented by the likes of these jerks.

Americans have lynched hundreds - perhaps thousands - of blacks (and whites), many of them known criminals. It was a kind of frontier justice (and a visible deterrent) in a time and place where the law was thin on the ground - before tax rates skyrocketed to pay for large police departments. Indonesians slaughtered hundreds of thousands of ethnic Chinese in the 1960's (a lot more recent than the lynchings) and have slaughtered tens of thousands of Christians on East Timor, Sulawesi and the Moluccas. All of them completely innocent of any crime except being ethnic Chinese or Christian.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-03 12:42:34 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-03 12:42:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 cingold: For me, those who hold the suffering masses accountable for the sins of extremists are pathetic and unfeeling idiots.

Tell it to the former denizens of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. As long as they're not our friends, helping them is akin to feeding rattlesnakes. As far as I'm concerned, as long as any country, Muslim or non-Muslim, opposes the limited measures we have taken in our self-defense, they are at best neutrals, if not the enemy. It is my view that our hard-earned cash should not be squandered on the undeserving.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-03 12:50:07 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-03 12:50:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 This thread is getting mighty angry and personal. Let's cool down a little.

I agree with TGA: people need help, and we have the means to alleviate at least some of that misery. We in the West have the means to help, the ability to get the help where it is needed, and the knowledge and experience to make that help effective. I really don't care if the help is delivered via governmental or private means, as each has its advantages. WorldVision doesn't have an amphibious ship with helicopters to deliver aid, and Uncle Sam doesn't have indigenous links and a deep understanding of certain aspects of the culture in that part of the world.

Both governmental and private aid are needed, and both are being delivered. I dug into my own pocket and will do so again, and I agree with GWB's efforts to date.

That certain parts of the world hate us does not excuse us of our own moral need to help where we can, when we can, with what we do best. That same moral imperative drove us to liberate Afghanistan and Iraq, to try and help the starving in Somalia, to help the refugees in Liberia, and to help the victims of the last umpteen hurricanes in our own southeast. The moral issue is that we are required, by our religious beliefs and by our national culture, to help people who need help.

In short: we're Americans. We help because it's what we do.

TGA is making the same point as a German.

So okay, some of the folks in Indonesia hate us. More of them don't, and right now I'm not going to bother sorting out who's who. Help them all, and if someone later picks up an AK and aims it at us, blow his head off.

But right now, there are hundreds of thousands of people who are injured, starving, homeless, naked: in some dire need of help. So we help. We're smart enough to know that governmental aid and private aid are synergistic in their effect, so we fund both.

Throwing verbal bricks at each other on Rantburg doesn't solve problems. It certainly doesn't solve the problem in Indonesia.

Posted by Steve White 2005-01-03 12:50:47 PM|| 2005-01-03 12:50:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 What makes you so perfect to sit in judgement of other people's actions? If some people don't want to go over board with taxpayer aid to the tsunami area of the world and have their own reasonably thought out arguments for reaching this decision, what gives you the right to paint them with a "broad brush stroke" as "pathetic and unfeeling idiots?" Who is stopping you from making additional individual contributions as you see fit? Go for it - mortgage your house, sell your BMW, give to your heart's content.

What this emotional rant of yours evidenced by bold lettering with goofy name calling is the typical petulent reaction of a liberal who is not getting her way. The common "plebs" in the RB audience, who are not as imminently intelligent or compassionate as you obviously are, are not all saying: "I'm your man - how much do you want for your pet hobby horse, cingold?"

Posted by joeblow 2005-01-03 12:51:29 PM|| 2005-01-03 12:51:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Funny how CNN focuses on the generosity of any people but Americans-with Americans, it comes down to our greed, heartlessness, immorality. The CNN bunch wants to GUILT Americans into giving, instead of having Americans give from their own consciousness, their own abilities, from a genuine urge to help. Did we cause this tsunami? No. Where is this 350 million coming from? Stingy Americans-350 million dollars is stingy? You don't want it then? Cause I'm sure there are some vets who would be highly grateful for it.

This is an unearned guiltiness about what happened-Americans are not at fault for the tsunami or its aftermath, they are not at fault for governments deciding not to alert people in the area or purchase warning systems. They do NOT have to give a set amount. To push guilt off on people when they are being generous is disgusting. The motivation behind such thinking is an affectation of caring, not real caring. We saw some of that after 9/11-many people on foreign TV channels writhing in fake sympathy for dead Americans-they put on a public show to showcase their empathy, to win the accolades of others. It's ugly.

BH-I'm about where you are. It may be in 'poor taste' to show those photos, but I for one am glad you posted them. Every time some country in the world decides we're their enemy and yet expects, DEMANDS, that we help them when they are in dire straights, needs to be reminded of these. They should be utterly ashamed of viewing Americans with such hatred, when we help wherever we can.

Sorry cingold-it's great that you have sympathy for the people affected (we can all have that). I think we are a good people that gives generously to everyone in the world-even people who drag our soldiers' mutilated bodies through the streets of Mogadishu or blow up tourists in Indonesia. We will give, as we always do, but now we will show a more complete picture.

Posted by Jules 187 2005-01-03 1:05:53 PM|| 2005-01-03 1:05:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Joeblow, when Dr. Steve asks the commenters to cool it down, he means Cool. It. Down. This means don't keep throwing wood on the fire. You have made your point.

Posted by Seafarious 2005-01-03 1:09:32 PM|| 2005-01-03 1:09:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 i dont want to add any fuel to the fire, but Indonesia has NOT declared itself our enemy. On the contrary, it has worked WITH us, and been attacked by our enemies. We nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but we were at WAR with Japan. We are NOT at war with Indonesia, much less Sri Lanka or anyone other state in that region.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-01-03 1:16:54 PM|| 2005-01-03 1:16:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 when Dr. Steve asks the commenters to cool it down, he means Cool. It. Down
I started my comments before Dr. Steve posted his remarks in #30, Seafarious, and so when I posted my last remarks at my "submit" level the last comment I had read or could read were Cingold's remarks in #27. I was not "throwing wood on the fire."

It's obvious we can't always agree in every political discussion, but it would be nice if disagreement, if or when it comes up, could be expressed without the fear of being flamed on a personal level.

Posted by joeblow 2005-01-03 1:29:28 PM|| 2005-01-03 1:29:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 What Steve said...

A little history. Americans weren't exactly popular in Germany in 1945 (except with those who truly were liberated by them). Dresden and all that, black monsters who would rape innocent German girls and mothers (Goebbels propaganda).

And Americans who had just paid a heavy life toll, had seen the horrors of Buchenwald and Dachau, didn't have many reasons to find the Germans very charming.

Then came the hunger winter of 1946/47 and John Doe in Smalltown America got the idea that starving German children wasn't something ok. The CARE parcels from America arrived and saved many lives.

In 1948/49 the Berlin airlift cost the lives of many U.S. pilots.

This is what made America popular in Germany, its noble, kindhearted spirit. Americans only kill if they are forced to. If they are not, they will help.

I know this often is forgotten in these days. We are just getting a new reminder about what America is truly about. Not Lindy England but the pilot who risks his life to deliver help to people who might, and mind you, might have shouted in a rally how bad America is.

All the help provided is good for the U.S. But this is not the reason America gives that help.

The reason is because America is the country that could.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-01-03 1:29:40 PM|| 2005-01-03 1:29:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 All the help provided is good for the U.S.

Comments precisely like these are why some Americans are getting agitated-when you say we give because we get something out of it, we see that our contributions are not appreciated for what they are and our generosity is sh*t upon. It makes us wonder about the motivations of others who give.

The reason is because America is the country that could.

No, the reason is not only ability, it is because we try to do the right thing.

Posted by Jules 187 2005-01-03 1:42:17 PM|| 2005-01-03 1:42:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 How does anyone know where his tax money actually goes? Does someone in the IRS look at everyone's tax return and declare that this person's money goes to defense, this one goes to highways, etc. The fact is that only a small fraction of anyone's tax money goes to any one government program so how can anyone say "I don't want MY tax money to go this or that." These people desperatly need our help and I will continue to do what I can.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2005-01-03 1:44:25 PM|| 2005-01-03 1:44:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 I have other priorities with my money much to the chagrin of do-gooders who see no difference between their money and others' money.

Did you object to the use of liberal taxpayers' money who might have objected to the War in Iraq in funding that war?

If you didn't object there, then your concern isn't the division between your money and other people's money, and it's not the division between socialism and libertarianism.

It's the division between the causes *you* favour and the cause you *don't* favour.

But if you are a consistent libertarian that objects consistently to the use of other people's money in funding either aid or war, then atleast yours is a defensible position.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-03 1:51:43 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-03 1:51:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 But if you are a consistent libertarian that objects consistently to the use of other people's money in funding either aid or war, then atleast yours is a defensible position

I dont think so ;)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-01-03 1:55:09 PM|| 2005-01-03 1:55:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 I dont think so ;)
Are you objecting to Aris's definition of libertarian or are you answering on what you think I may have objections to re: use of tax money. If it's the latter, thanks but I can handle my own responses to questions.

Libertarian is someone who likes little government control except in terms of defence or national security. That should answer your question Aria. And btw, you might care to read my posts more carefully in this thread. I am not opposed to giving REASONABLE amounts taxpayer supported aid to the tsunami victims. Nor am I opposed to corporate or individual unreasonably high amounts of aid, which I consider comes under the libertarian's positive view of "free will."

I am opposed to breaking the US aid piggy bank and spending the whole 2005 wad as of January 03 2005 on one area of the world, and just printing up new $ at Ft. Knox(ie. passing new Congressional spending to replenish the foreign aid account)to deal with new disasters that will certainly come up sometime in the next 11 months and 28 days.

I have no more to say on this subject. Carry on, but please don't "interpret" my motives. Speak for yourself.

Posted by joeblow 2005-01-03 2:07:49 PM|| 2005-01-03 2:07:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 it's a thread-a-thon!

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-03 2:16:07 PM|| 2005-01-03 2:16:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 joeblow: Libertarian is someone who likes little government control except in terms of defence or national security.

To add to joeblow's point, punitive expeditions fall under the heading of national security, whatever we might choose to call them for public relations purposes. The strong defense posture means that the correct policy is to take the war to the enemy, not wait for the enemy to disembark on one's shores. The old days, when to inflict large numbers of American civilian casualties, the enemy had to cross an ocean with his army, are long gone. In the ballistic and cruise missile range, with nuclear weapons being sold like small arms and common industrial processes and chemicals being usable for mass casualty attacks, we no longer have the luxury of waiting for the enemy's army to come to us. The enemy must be engaged wherever he is, even as he plausibly denies he was behind previous attacks on Uncle Sam. The libertarian believes that of all the liberties we have, the right to life (as is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - as stated in the Declaration of Independence) is the most important right of all.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-03 2:20:01 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-03 2:20:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Well, I could dispute your definitions of libertarianism (I have studied it, my brother's one, and I know that definition is far from the only or even the primary) but there'd be no point.

Only thing I'll say is that this strain of libertarianism that doesn't mind the occasional war overseas is a variety that has seemed to evolve from Conservatism rather than from views on individualism or liberty -- and that's why it doesn't seem to have broken away from Conservative pet-projects for "national security" purposes.

Because the mainstream libertarian view on defense seems to be isolationist instead, taking Switzerland as its model -- where there's a strong army inside, but it never acts outside its borders:

http://www.impel.com/liblib/Libertarianism.html

"One view that has occasionally expressed is that in a libertarian society *everyone* would be heavily armed, making invasion or usurpation by a domestic tyrant excessively risky."
...
"On the other hand, the mainstream libertarian view is that national defense is one of the few legitimate roles that exist for government and any arguments to the contrary are still in the realm of obscure theory and speculation. So for all intents and purposes the libertarian view is that there should be a government-provided national defense, but that defense should be limited to protecting Americans in America. Even that much-reduced military role would cost less in a libertarian society than it does today, as a non-interventionist libertarian state would over time acquire fewer enemies than we do today (again, think of Switzerland),

Also:

(fixed link...ed)

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-03 2:34:25 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-03 2:34:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 Sorry about that. Should have judged long URLs better.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-03 2:34:55 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-03 2:34:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 Hattip to www.right-thinking.com and their photos on that wonderful combination of ability and doing what's right:

http://www.navy.mil/view_photos.asp?page=8&sort_type=0&sort_row=1

Posted by Jules 187 2005-01-03 2:35:49 PM|| 2005-01-03 2:35:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 to print more $ at Ft. Knox

Posted by the shaky hand of adam smith 2005-01-03 2:38:28 PM|| 2005-01-03 2:38:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 AK: Only thing I'll say is that this strain of libertarianism that doesn't mind the occasional war overseas is a variety that has seemed to evolve from Conservatism rather than from views on individualism or liberty -- and that's why it doesn't seem to have broken away from Conservative pet-projects for "national security" purposes. Because the mainstream libertarian view on defense seems to be isolationist instead, taking Switzerland as its model -- where there's a strong army inside, but it never acts outside its borders

Mainstream libertarianism? A tiny nation of 5 million defines mainstream? And what the heck does mainstream mean anyway - is that some indication of moral worth?

The Swiss approach to defense is not libertarianism - it's called running away from reality and hoping that others get eaten first. Switzerland would not have stayed independent if Napoleon, Hitler or Stalin had gained a stranglehold on the continent. It was one thing for the US to stay aloof during WWII, before modern capabilities had evolved. Today, that is no longer an option.

The Swiss style of self-defense consists of relying on a benign power like the US to keep the wolves at bay. The last time we did a Swiss-style defense, WWII happened.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-03 2:52:24 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-03 2:52:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Jules wrote: Comments precisely like these are why some Americans are getting agitated-when you say we give because we get something out of it, we see that our contributions are not appreciated for what they are and our generosity is sh*t upon.

Jules, I don't TGA meant it that way. TGA (I think) is saying that a) it's morally good and b) it rebounds later to our benefit. There's nothing wrong with that or with saying that. Of course I hope it rebounds to our benefit later, and TGA's example, of how American aid changed the opinion of the average German, is an excellent example. We didn't fly planes into Templehof to change German opinion, we did it to fly in food -- but the fact that average Germans came to see that Americans were not German-mother-raping-monsters was a real good thing for us the next fifty years.

My support of American aid, governmental and private, to the countries affected by the tsunami is predicated on what is morally right. So we help as best we can. If that means that the average Indonesian, Thai, Bengali, Sri Lankan and Indian come to think better of us, all the much better. I don't mind a beneficial side-effect.

Posted by Steve White 2005-01-03 3:01:04 PM|| 2005-01-03 3:01:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 Because the mainstream libertarian view on defense seems to be isolationist
I suggest to you that the US version of libertarianism is different than the European's view, than Switzerland's.

The following are the best definitions of what the American libertarian philosophy means to me:
Libertarianism emphasizes individual freedom, small government, and low taxes. Libertarians stress personal responsibility, with minimal government intrusion on the individual's ability to succeed or fail.

AND
"Libertarianism" is usually defined as the view in political philosophy that the only legitimate function of a government is to protect its citizens from force, fraud, theft, and breach of contract, and that it otherwise ought not to interfere with its citizens' dealings with one another, either to make them more economically equal or to make them more morally virtuous. Most libertarian theorists emphasize that their position is not intended to be a complete system of ethics, but merely a doctrine about the proper scope of state power

So there you go. The American Libertarian Party btw has a very small official membership. American libertarians usually have found themselves supporting the GOP voter wise because there's more commonality in the Republican Party than in the Dimwits, obviously, though in terms of spending like drunken sailors, this particular GOP Admin. is as bad as any Democrat Admin. and I don't mean military spending - defense spending is fine by libertarians. This GOP Admin. is heavy on compassionate like the Dimwits ( feelings first)and very light on the conservative - fiscal conservativism and small gov't have not introduced themselves as Republican concepts to this GOP Admin.

Posted by joeblow 2005-01-03 3:04:05 PM|| 2005-01-03 3:04:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 It's a different era. Isolationism's no longer an option. In addition to the long-range and asymmetric threats discussed, there's also the phenomenon of global capitalism, specifically cross-border ownership. If you're a major economic power, you can't retreat into your fortress without sacrificing control over enormous concentrations of assets in distant countries. Swiss companies like Nestle and Hoffman-Roche are as much French or American or British or German as they are Swiss. And Swiss banking secrecy laws are unlikely to hold up for more than another decade or two.

Posted by lex 2005-01-03 3:10:54 PM|| 2005-01-03 3:10:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 Steve-How do Germans see us today? If we are to believe their own press, they are anti-American (for those who attempt to differentiate us from our president, I can only point out that the president was voted in by us-he is the representative of our views and beliefs).

This was not meant as an attack on TGA, who always writes with balance, restraint and intelligence. It is most definitely intended to point out that all that money, all that work and sacrifice and energy put into Germany may have paid off in the short run (50 years), but where are we now with the Germans-does anyone remember the anti-American antics of the last German election? Where were we in the Germans' eyes predating 9/11? Is their current hostility to us not despicable, considering how we have sacrificed to help them?

Posted by Jules 187 2005-01-03 3:12:22 PM|| 2005-01-03 3:12:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 I once thought I might be a libertarian, after reading a bunch of their stuff. Then I met one.

Posted by .com 2005-01-03 3:18:30 PM|| 2005-01-03 3:18:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 Zhang Fei> I didn't say Switzerland is libertarian, I said that mainstream libertarianism seems to be taking it as a model on defense issues. Atleast where the taxes-paid military is concerned.

There's even more extreme views, where even taxation in matters of national defense seems to be utterly rejected. See here. That's "true" absolute libertarianism, I think, where taxation is seen as aggression regardless of how the money is used.

And no: "mainstream" isn't a moral judgement. But when talking definitions it's best to know what *most* people mean with the word, and likewise with descriptors of political opinions. The Libertarian Party objected to the War on Iraq for example. That doesn't mean that *all* Libertarians do, but just another data-point about where most libertarians seem to be.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-03 3:19:28 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-03 3:19:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 joeblow> On the other hand you may have a point: the "activist" vocal libertarianism I've seen on the net, may be different in attitude than a non-vocal majority of self-defined libertarians. This may have misled me.

If that's true (not sure about it) then your belief about the "mainstream libertarian" attitude on defense spending may be more accurate than mine.

But in that case I think they've fallen behind in propagandizing their views and making them ideologically clear. This brand of libertarianism sounds so similar to plain old conservatism to me that they seem almost undistinguishable.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-03 3:31:33 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-03 3:31:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 Used to know a guy who was a member of the Libertarian party. Weird cat, and somewhat tainted my view of them. I find myself reluctantly agreeing with a lot of their views, but usually there's something that I oppose too strongly to count myself among them. When I read their literature it's like, "Yes... yes... exactly... uh-huh... right... NO! WTF are you thinking?!?"

Posted by BH 2005-01-03 3:31:58 PM|| 2005-01-03 3:31:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 BH - Well put. The isolationist thingy, in particular, seems to be a universal sentiment and is, of course, a non-starter - it's obsolete sans building a physical "fortress America", which will never happen, no matter how many times I ask about the progress on those "Friendship Fences", lol...

Posted by .com 2005-01-03 3:35:36 PM|| 2005-01-03 3:35:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 AK: I said that mainstream libertarianism seems to be taking it as a model on defense issues.

I'm trying to figure out what you mean when you say mainstream libertarianism. Do you mean the American Libertarian Party? That's organized libertarianism, which is a fringe group in America. There are a lot of libertarians out there, but few that subscribe to the views of the Libertarian Party, especially on defense issues. The mainstream American libertarian is someone like Barry Goldwater, who was strong on defense and law and order and big on laissez faire (small) government in non-defense areas.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-03 4:05:35 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-03 4:05:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 Most American libertarians vote Republican, because Democrats are weak on defense and crime. Border control is also an issue for libertarians, because as Milton Friedman pointed out - open borders and the welfare state (free medical care, schooling, welfare payments) are mutually incompatible policies.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-03 4:08:47 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-03 4:08:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 Ron Paul is a Republican/libertarian. There are plenty of libertarians in the Republican party.

You might be suprized where you fall politically.
World smallest political quiz.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-01-03 4:14:03 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2005-01-03 4:14:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 AK: I said that mainstream libertarianism seems to be taking it as a model on defense issues.

Calling the American Libertarian Party's views mainstream libertarianism is a lot like calling the Democratic Socialists of America's (DSA) views mainstream socialism. The Democratic party is the true home of mainstream socialism in America, not the DSA.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-03 4:19:09 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-03 4:19:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 Thanks SoPD, that was fun. Centrist, edge of Libertarian.

Posted by Jules 187 2005-01-03 4:31:37 PM|| 2005-01-03 4:31:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 We give because that's who we are. True charity doesn't ask to be rewarded or thanked. We brawl fight and spit at each other, but we're the ones there when it's needed. I could care less if they're muslim, buddhists or animists. If they hate or love us, it's all the same. We're on this ridiculous mudball for a short enocugh time without being pissy about it.

Posted by Weird Al 2005-01-03 6:13:15 PM|| 2005-01-03 6:13:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 A-men, Weird Al. SoPD, I can't believe it, I'm a Libertarian! No wonder the guys at work gave me a coffe mug that has "Heartless Libertarian" on it. Woe is me!

Posted by Deacon Blues 2005-01-03 6:32:01 PM|| 2005-01-03 6:32:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#65 Libertarians are conservatives who smoke pot. No fundamental diffs btn the two re national defense.

Posted by lex 2005-01-03 6:44:25 PM|| 2005-01-03 6:44:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#66 Maximum Libertarian. Colour me unsurprised ;) .

Posted by Bulldog 2005-01-03 7:05:10 PM|| 2005-01-03 7:05:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#67

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-03 7:15:00 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-03 7:15:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#68 In my declining years I can't see small things as easily. Especially with a checked background like the one they use on blogs particular about whose comments they accept. Is the label on the box below libertarian, Fascist? And the one below that Stalinist?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-03 7:22:18 PM|| 2005-01-03 7:22:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#69 I wonder, Mrs. Davis, whether you would be illiberal enough to restrict Fred's inalienable right to ban from his forum anyone he doesn't want around, or other people's inalienable right to petition him to the same. ;-)

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-03 7:27:08 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-03 7:27:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#70 I wonder, Mrs. Davis, whether you would be illiberal enough to restrict Fred's inalienable right to ban from his forum anyone he doesn't want around, or other people's inalienable right to petition him to the same. ;-)

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-03 7:27:08 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-03 7:27:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#71 psshwah. These things are always BS because they require answers that are absolutes. Should the government EVER/NEVER be involved in issues of free speech?

NEVER? EVER? OK to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. OK to put bogus news shows on the air that aliens have invaded? Sexual Harrassment ok??

I don't mean to be a party pooper - but I'd prefer that we all just use a little common sense and forget the labels. No issue is ever completely black or white.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-03 7:29:43 PM|| 2005-01-03 7:29:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#72 It's Statist Mrs. D.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-01-03 7:31:09 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2005-01-03 7:31:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#73 Oh. Thanks, SPoD

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-03 7:39:36 PM|| 2005-01-03 7:39:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#74 "Why yes, I can," said Midas Mulligan, when he was asked whether he could name a person more evil than the man with a heart closed to pity. "The man who uses another's pity for him as a weapon."
-Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Posted by Asedwich 2005-01-03 7:46:56 PM|| 2005-01-03 7:46:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#75 Agree 71. Another part of the problem is that we are essentially social animals. We're programed by our DNA to interact with others of our species. This "all for me and to hell with everybody else no matter what" doesn't feel right because we know it isn't. Suffering in others brings out the need to protect, no matter who it is. At least it should if our wiring is right.

Posted by Weird Al 2005-01-03 7:49:35 PM|| 2005-01-03 7:49:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#76 Many modern libertarians might do well to balance their theory with a little more reading of Ludwig von Mises, and a little less of Murray Rothbard.

Posted by Asedwich 2005-01-03 7:50:48 PM|| 2005-01-03 7:50:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#77 I wonder, Mrs. Davis, whether you would be illiberal enough to restrict Fred's inalienable right to ban from his forum anyone he doesn't want around, or other people's inalienable right to petition him to the same. ;-)

No ban, unless the poster puts up the same comment twice....

Posted by Pappy 2005-01-03 8:21:46 PM|| 2005-01-03 8:21:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#78 I treasure your right to petition Fred. I just think you're a pussy for doing it. Enjoy your grapes...I think they're sour?

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-03 9:35:50 PM|| 2005-01-03 9:35:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#79 For petitioning him to clarify whether I'm welcome in the forum or not, rather than accept your harassment as expression of that judgement?

No worries, Frank, the worst I've petitioned in regards to *you* was an admonishment against your practices, not your presence.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-03 9:55:18 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-03 9:55:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#80 *whew*, thanks! - I was sweating that one

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-03 9:58:06 PM|| 2005-01-03 9:58:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#81 Given how your baiting of me in random threads seems to have been drastically reduced last couple days, it seems you quite possibly indeed were.

Either way don't care for your reasons, only the results.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-03 10:05:49 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-03 10:05:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#82 tired of the chew toy, so to speak. Don't flatter yourself :-)

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-03 10:16:30 PM|| 2005-01-03 10:16:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#83 On it wandered, until he came;
Then they left, so what's the game?

Posted by Asedwich 2005-01-03 11:41:11 PM|| 2005-01-03 11:41:11 PM|| Front Page Top

17:23 Liberalhawk
17:23 Liberalhawk
00:07 joeblow
23:58 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:45 lex
23:43 tipper
23:41 Asedwich
23:39 Zenster
23:35 Zenster
23:26 Zenster
23:20 lex
23:17 lex
23:16 lex
23:14 lex
23:13 Mark Z.
22:41 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:16 Frank G
22:12 Seafarious
22:09 2b
22:05 Aris Katsaris
22:02 Frank G
21:59 2b
21:58 2b
21:58 Frank G