NationStates Jolt Archive

WASHINGTON, Feb 17 (Reuters) - The United States has asked the Palestinian Authority to return $50 million in U.S. aid because Washington does not want a Hamas-led government to have the funds, the State Department said on Friday.

The money is being demanded as part of a review of all U.S. aid for the Palestinians which began soon after the militant group Hamas' surprise win in elections last month.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17244268.htm

That's silly. They can stop payments, but they can't ask for money back and actually expect it.

I don't think the PA has any contractual or legal obligation to give anything back, so they won't.

That's silly. They can stop payments, but they can't ask for money back and actually expect it.

I don't think the PA has any contractual or legal obligation to give anything back, so they won't.true but..

Abbas is Washington's man.. remember?
He will not contest his Masters

Abbas is Washington's man.. remember?
He's first and foremost Palestine's man, and I don't think he would stand for it either, as much as he might dislike Hamas.

Say, did the USA ask for their $$$ back from Saddam and Osama? ;)

He's first and foremost Palestine's man, and I don't think he would stand for it either....I wish.. but..

________________________________________
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the caretaker government of President Mahmoud Abbas had agreed to return the $50 million, which was given to the Palestinian Authority last year for infrastructure projects after Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank.

"In the interests of seeing that these funds not potentially make their way into the coffers of a future Palestinian government (made up of Hamas) ... we have asked for it to be returned and the Palestinian Authority has agreed," McCormack told reporters.

Source: Reuters
___________________________________________

I wish.. but..
Hmm. Strange tactic, that.

By the way - I don't think it's quite fair to call Abbas a lapdog of the States. Have you actually had a look at the man's history?

Hmm. Strange tactic, that.

By the way - I don't think it's quite fair to call Abbas a lapdog of the States. Have you actually had a look at the man's history?I am looking at his actions..

other thing my eyes do is "Follow the little green papers with Washington's face on" ;)

Anyone suprised? I'm not.

Anyone suprised? I'm not.would you be surprised if they ask back some 50 millions Aid from Bolivia? Ethiopia? Peru?

Hmm. Strange tactic, that.What is so strange??

I do wish Abbas was first and foremost Palestine's man (like you)
and... I do wish he would NOT stand for it either. (just like you)

But so far he is not quite such a "Man" .. Is he?

Uh huh. Return $50 million in aid. Might as well ask the Israelis to give back all the money and equipment they get off the US for all the difference that makes. In most cases, I figure they'd get the same response for both types of demands. A raspberry.

For some reason that seems a little counterproductive, simply because it takes money away from a place that desparately needs it. In reality, the probability of Hamas using that money for terror is low; if they really wanted to continue the war against Israel, they would have no problem getting many times that $50 million from other nations in the region.

I'd let them have it, because it's likely that the money will actually be used rather than stolen as was the case under the Palestinian Authority.

WASHINGTON, Feb 17 (Reuters) - The United States has asked the Palestinian Authority to return $50 million in U.S. aid because Washington does not want a Hamas-led government to have the funds, the State Department said on Friday.

The money is being demanded as part of a review of all U.S. aid for the Palestinians which began soon after the militant group Hamas' surprise win in elections last month.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17244268.htm

So...ah... how do we plan on getting this $50 million back?
I don't think its possible.

U.S. and Israelis Are Said to Talk of Hamas Ouster (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/international/middleeast/14cnd-mideast.html?hp&ex=1139979600&en=72330403b4aa5c56&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

They are playing a dangerous game, and a stupid one. Hamas benefits if it does not have to choose between dealing with the US/Israel and not. What Israel should do is offer to negotiate with them in the same way they did with Abbas, and force Hamas to choose one path or the other.

Say, did the USA ask for their $$$ back from Saddam and Osama? ;)
Aren't they still in employ of the U.S., for agitprop and consultatory reasons?
A contract is a contract ....

Why are people surprised by this?

I doubt the money will be returned and even wanted back.

Now the shrub can say "Hey, I asked to get the money back." if anybody says "hey you are supporting Hamas!"

snipFYI the money was promised and given to the "Lap-Dog" Gov. AKA "Abbas"

FYI the money was promised and given to the "Lap-Dog" Gov. AKA "Abbas"

Prove that he's a lap dog. And, to make sure you don't change your post, I've quoted you now.

I doubt the money will be returned and even wanted back.

The Palestinian Authority returned it.

Prove that he's a lap dog. And, to make sure you don't change your post, I've quoted you now.I was wondering when you were going to show up and say "Prove it" :D

I was wondering when you were going to show up and say "Prove it" :D

Assertions are not taken as fact on NS. Repeating the assertions over and over again isn't an argument, it's stupid.

Assertions are not taken as fact on NS. Repeating the assertions over and over again isn't an argument, it's stupid.Abbas is a Lap-Dog.

I call it like I see it.
It is my opinion, I owe you no proof.. You do not like it?

:D Sue me © Copyright 2003-2006 OceanD.

Well, isn't it great that the US supports democracy by finaicially crippling democratically elected governments it doesn't like? Just as well we went into Iraq to promote democracy!

Abbas is a Lap-Dog.

I call it like I see it.
It is my opinion, I will not give you Proof.. You do not like it?

:D Sue me © Copyright 2003-2006 OCeanD.

You are missing the point of what goes on here on NS General.

You're trying to convince people through rational argument.

You seem to be doing nothing of the sort - in fact, you're spreading lies and disinformation at a breakneck pace, and then editing your posts to deny it.

You are missing the point of what goes on here on NS General.I am allowed to speak up my mind. (No Tubbygurl, No svastikas on the Flags.. and no picts of you Wife naked. ;) )

I am allowed to speak up my mind. (No Porn, No svastikas on the Flags.. and no pictures of you Wife naked. ;) )
And without evidence, we're allowed to say that your opinion is worthless.

And without evidence, we're allowed to say that your opinion is worthless.of Course.

You are allowed to say whatever you want (NoTubyGurl, No Svastikas, Or your Wife pics)
:)

Assertions are not taken as fact on NS. Repeating the assertions over and over again isn't an argument, it's stupid.

Ooh! Ooh!! ME? ME? ME!?!? *frantically raises hand*

"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
-George W. Bush, May 24, 2005 in Rochester, NY

Ooh! Ooh!! ME? ME? ME!?!? *frantically raises hand*

"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
-George W. Bush, May 24, 2005 in Rochester, NY

I was waiting for that.

Ocean doesn't get it - he's the OP, and the subject is Bush's revocation of aid, and he's got to throw in things like "lap dog", etc., as though it were a fact.

He's not even trying.

The Palestinian Authority returned it.

Did they? The article said it was promised.....

I was waiting for that.

Ocean doesn't get it - he's the OP, and the subject is Bush's revocation of aid, and he's got to throw in things like "lap dog", etc., as though it were a fact.Actually I did not "Throw" that in.. It was another poster (post#7).. What I actually said was "Washington's man".

But instead of telling him(that he changed my words).. I decided to go for it.

And without evidence, we're allowed to say that your opinion is worthless.

Damn, you beat me to it.:(

Anyway, this kind of gesture from the administration is both hypocritical and obviously self-serving. First they want democracy in the area, then they refuse to support the elected government. It's not as if they could somehow take back the money anyhow, so this really seems to be more of a "we won't support terrorists" kind of declaration than a case of mislaid funds.

I was waiting for that.

Ocean doesn't get it - he's the OP, and the subject is Bush's revocation of aid, and he's got to throw in things like "lap dog", etc., as though it were a fact.

He's not even trying.
Like i said, thanks for the opportunity. I'm not really going to get between the two of yours' argument, i don't mean to imply as much.
I am actually in support of the idea of revoking funding for a lot of other countries, for reasons that basically would be a 'jack of this thread, so i'll save it for another time.
I'm no big fan of the IMF and the World Bank, if that clarifies. *nods*

EDIT: *bolded*

Like i said, thanks for the opportunity. I'm not really going to get between the two of yours' argument, i don't mean to imply as much.
I am actually in support of the idea of revoking funding for a lot of other countries, for reasons that basically would be a 'jack of this thread, so i'll save it for another time.
I'm no big IMF and the World Bank, if that clarifies. *nods*By all means.. Do tell us your points of View.. What other Countries?

I am the creator of this thread and I say you should speak up you mind. (No Porn, Spam, personal Insults, etc..)

By all means.. Do tell us your points of View.. What other Countries?

I am the creator of this thread and I say you should speak up you mind. (No Porn, Spam, personal Insults, etc..)
No problem. I hope you have a little patience, i'm on my way out to get a meat thermometer (no joke) IRL but i'll be back in about an hour or slightly less.
Seriously.

No problem. I hope you have a little patience, i'm on my way out to get a meat thermometer (no joke) IRL but i'll be back in about an hour or slightly less.
Seriously.take your time.

Patience is with me today..

high time the us government did that. in funding the hamas they would not only be promoting a religion, since hamas is clearly a religious party (think about koran schools funded by us tax payers money), they would also be funding a terrorist organization, as it is on "Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" of the state department http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm
the us government would have to investigate itself for funding a FTO.

they would also be funding a terrorist organization...Oh My God.. we all know the US gov has never funded Terrorism. :rolleyes:

Did they? The article said it was promised.....

Yes, according to the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4726362.stm

they would also be funding a terrorist organization

They would be funding certain non-terrorist programs of a government controlled by a terrorist organization.

WASHINGTON, Feb 17 (Reuters) - The United States has asked the Palestinian Authority to return $50 million in U.S. aid because Washington does not want a Hamas-led government to have the funds, the State Department said on Friday.

The money is being demanded as part of a review of all U.S. aid for the Palestinians which began soon after the militant group Hamas' surprise win in elections last month.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17244268.htm

You want your tax dollars funding Hamas? Well, I shouldn't be suprised.

You want your tax dollars funding Hamas? Well, I shouldn't be suprised.

The Palestinian Authority, not Hamas. The tax dollars you pay to the US Government do not go to the Republican Party.

The Palestinian Authority, not Hamas. The tax dollars you pay to the US Government do not go to the Republican Party.

They are going to further their political objectives, the only thing that we in the West should send to Hamas are some carefully aimed bombs.

They would be funding certain non-terrorist programs of a government controlled by a terrorist organization.like koran schools

They are going to further their political objectives, the only thing that we in the West should send to Hamas are some carefully aimed bombs.

Should Democrats withhold their tax dollars from the current US government because the money is going to further the "political objectives" of the Republicans?

like koran schools

Are you against US aid to the Jewish state, on similar lines?

The Palestinian Authority, not Hamas. The tax dollars you pay to the US Government do not go to the Republican Party.
*skepticism*
You might consider qualifying that statement, but maybe on another thread.

take your time.

Patience is with me today..
Thank you.
Although i'd been leery for a while of groups/panels of investors who intend to help quantify other economies in the world in order to make more sustainable conditions of economic prosperity, i had found shady the explanations of how much of it was due to the willing participation of taxpayers, which has to do with your thread topic.
After something i came across a while back, i got a bit more skeptical of the "noble" intent of said groups to be performing in the best interests of the countries they were "helping" ... more subsidizing to the point of dependence.
I live in an area, for example, where a group of people came and basically sat on the local populace and usurped the use of their local sustainable economy, the river. Some "amends" were put into place so that the people who didn't have so much to do anymore could go on a "credit" system with the fisheries, as well as some land ownership, and it basically turned out to be incorporating them into a system where the money they got went directly into other commodities that were brought, like alcohol. Whoop.
Maybe that isn't the best example, but it's a close one. The people basically had their resources exploited and were distracted into trading for goods that didn't quantify their lifestyles and cultural integrity, and now the only real hold they have on anything is holding land interests that the administration wants to get to for mineral exploitation.

Here's an interesting current link that might qualify how this POV extends to the IMF/World Bank issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/16/AR2006021601663.html

More of an example ...
http://www.dominicantoday.com/app/article.aspx?id=10504

Energy Consortium postpones signing agreement with generators till Tuesday

Santo Domingo.- The Dominican Energy Consortium (CDEEE) did not sign the payment agreement with the private energy agents. Notwithstanding, during Wednesday’s meeting, consensus was reached to elaborate a draft that could be signed next Tuesday.

The agreement to pay the current debt to the energy sector was required by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank as pre-condition for the financial entities to continue with the stand-by agreement and to disburse this year’s funds.

The government’s debt surpasses US$500 million owed to the sector and just this past year, arrears summed to US$100 million.

The IMF has demanded of the government to establish a payment agreement of the generators’ current debt. This same condition, along with three others, have also been imposed by the World Bank that has held up disbursing an initial allocation of US$50 million corresponding to a US$150 million loan approved last year for the energy sector.
---------
Although it may seem a smidge unfair, it smacks "loanshark" to me. I honestly don't have as solid a case as i like, since this kind of stuff almost NEVER makes news that the populace deals with ... admittedly i should be more intrepid. At this point, as i'd said, it's smelly to me.

Should Democrats withhold their tax dollars from the current US government because the money is going to further the "political objectives" of the Republicans?

How do the actions of US Government, in any reasonable way, compare to Hamas? Can't you tell the difference between the two?

How do the actions of US Government, in any reasonable way, compare to Hamas? Can't you tell the difference between the two?

Fair enough. The US has killed far, far more innocent people in Iraq than Hamas could ever manage in Israel; the comparison is indeed unreasonable.

Edit: But I didn't even raise the point originally, nor did I intend to. It's irrelevant, really. The point is that just because a government has policies you oppose doesn't mean that others of its policies should not be supported.

I do find your "World Bank" points very interesting..

I was also wondering what other countries you had in mind

I am actually in support of the idea of revoking funding for a lot of other countries..

Fair enough. The US has killed far, far more innocent people in Iraq than Hamas could ever manage in Israel; the comparison is indeed unreasonable.

So the US advocates for the killing of all Iraqis? They target innocent civilians? Really, how can you swallow all that bullshit?

How do the actions of US Government, in any reasonable way, compare to Hamas? Can't you tell the difference between the two?sure lets compare... lets start by the latest "terrorism"

The US Gov has invaded another Country.. provoking the dead of some 100000 Men, Women and Children

Hamas is trying to reclaim what they consider their country (Palestine).. other than that.. Hamas has never invaded another Country.

So the US advocates for the killing of all Iraqis?

No. For the most part they are looking for a profit. The thrill of blowing up people manifests itself occasionally, but that is not a primary motive.

They target innocent civilians?

Yes, for intimidation purposes. More regularly, they simply don't care if they kill any.

I really don't want to argue about this, I shouldn't have responded the way I did to your earlier post. The blatant hypocrisy of the US and the EU on this question is clear from history, but is separate from the question of whether this particular course of action is correct or not.

I do find your "World Bank" points very interesting..

I was also wondering what other countries you had in mind
If i recall correctly,
Sierre Leone, Congo, Cote' d'Ivoire, Bolivia and Honduras.
Some of it is political props and their leaders, and the itchiness of that whole kind of scenario. I think the resources issue comes up for me.

sure lets compare... lets start by the latest "terrorism"

The US Gov has invaded another Country.. provoking the dead of some 100000 Men, Women and Children

Hamas is trying to reclaim what they consider their country (Palestine).. other than that.. Hamas has never invaded another Country.

Yet again, you pull that stupid 100000 figure out of your ass, even though it has been proven false. Why don't you ever talk about the innocent Iraqis Saddam killed? You only to seem to care about people when the US kills them, what the fuck is wrong with you? You don't care when Hamas kills innocent Israelis, you don't care abou the fact that Saddam killed well over a million (if not more) of his own people, you only seem to fucking care when the US kills people (by accident the majority of the time).

You have one hell of a fucked up mind.

Yes, for intimidation purposes. More regularly, they simply don't care if they kill any.

I really don't want to argue about this, I shouldn't have responded the way I did to your earlier post. The blatant hypocrisy of the US and the EU on this question is clear from history, but is separate from the question of whether this particular course of action is correct or not.

You find proof that a US Soldier was ordered to kill an innocent Iraqi, knowing that they were just an innocent Iraqi. I bet you have never met a US soldier, or even read one of their blogs, you know nothing about them.

even though it has been proven false.

There is considerable confusion about what the study actually stated, which has thus resulted in attempted debunkings that utterly miss the point.

It was not counting reported deaths of Iraqi civilians, as does IraqBodyCount.net (which, incidentally, as does George Bush's total, still puts those murdered at levels far greater than Hamas's) but rather those deaths resulting from the increase in the general death rate. Thus deaths from the humanitarian consequences of the war and from non-US terrorism are included.

Incidentally, the study was only counting deaths up to October 2004, as I recall; the current total is almost certainly far higher.

Yet again, you pull that stupid 100000 figure... Why don't you ever talk about the innocent Iraqis Saddam killed? because you challenged us to Compare the US Gov to Hamas.. remember?How do the actions of US Government, in any reasonable way, compare to Hamas? If you want to compare Saddam to Bush.. you should NOT say "compare to Hamas"

There is considerable confusion about what the study actually stated, which has thus resulted in attempted debunkings that utterly miss the point.

It was not counting reported deaths of Iraqi civilians, as does IraqBodyCount.net (which, incidentally, as does George Bush's total, still puts those murdered at levels far greater than Hamas's) but rather those deaths resulting from the increase in the general death rate. Thus deaths from the humanitarian consequences of the war and from non-US terrorism are included.

Incidentally, the study was only counting deaths up to October 2004, as I recall; the current total is almost certainly far higher.

Even if it is accurate, the death toll isn't anywhere near the number of Iraqis Saddam killed.

because you challenged us to Compare the US Gov to Hamas.. remember?If you want to compare Saddam to Bush.. you should NOT say "compare to Hamas"

You were the one that brought in Iraq, do I need to start showing you the quotes?

Yet again, you pull that stupid 100000 figure out of your ass, even though it has been proven false.Proven false by whom? George Bush? :D :D :cool: :D

You find proof that a US Soldier was ordered to kill an innocent Iraqi, knowing that they were just an innocent Iraqi. I bet you have never met a US soldier, or even read one of their blogs, you know nothing about them.

You ask me to meet an impossible standard. "Knowing they were just an innocent Iraqi"? If I randomly shoot someone in the street, I don't know if they are just an innocent American; it is possible they are a member of a murderous gang, or perhaps even al-Qaeda. Does that make my action acceptable?

Even if it is accurate, the death toll isn't anywhere near the number of Iraqis Saddam killed.

So it doesn't matter how many the US kills, as long as it's less than the number Saddam killed?

By the same logic, the London bombings - terrorist atrocities - would have been legitimate because they did not kill as many people as Bush/Blair have killed in Iraq.

"Two wrongs don't make a right."

You were the one that brought in Iraq, do I need to start showing you the quotes?sure we did because you were asking for.. can quote it if you want.. but in case you "forget" to do it.. ill post it again (post below #66)

You ask me to meet an impossible standard. "Knowing they were just an innocent Iraqi"? If I randomly shoot someone in the street, I don't know if they are just an innocent American; it is possible they are a member of a murderous gang, or perhaps even al-Qaeda. Does that make my action acceptable?
So your saying American soilders are intentionally shooting random people on the street?

How do the actions of US Government, in any reasonable way, compare to Hamas? sure lets compare... lets start by the latest "terrorism"

The US Gov has invaded another Country.. provoking the dead of some 100000 Men, Women and Children

Hamas is trying to reclaim what they consider their country (Palestine).. other than that... Hamas has never invaded another Country.

You ask me to meet an impossible standard. "Knowing they were just an innocent Iraqi"? If I randomly shoot someone in the street, I don't know if they are just an innocent American; it is possible they are a member of a murderous gang, or perhaps even al-Qaeda. Does that make my action acceptable?

I meant, if they were every ordered to target innocent Iraqis. If a random American soldier killed innocent Iraqis, it would not represent the whole Coalition force doing it, merely the one crazy soldier.

sure lets compare... lets start by the latest "terrorism"

The US Gov has invaded another Country.. provoking the dead of some 100000 Men, Women and Children

Hamas is trying to reclaim what they consider their country (Palestine).. other than that... Hamas has never invaded another Country.
You already said that. Is there any reason that you are posting it again?

So your saying American soilders are intentionally shooting random people on the street?

In most cases, no.

In certain cases, such as the aerial bombardment of Falluja, it amounts to the same thing.

sure lets compare... lets start by the latest "terrorism"

The US Gov has invaded another Country.. provoking the dead of some 100000 Men, Women and Children

Hamas is trying to reclaim what they consider their country (Palestine).. other than that... Hamas has never invaded another Country.

You brought it up, thus I brought in my POV.

In most cases, no.

In certain cases, such as the aerial bombardment of Falluja, it amounts to the same thing.

The Aerial Bombardment of Falluja? Was that before or after the US gave enough time for innocents to leave the city?

You brought it up, thus I brought in my POV.

Let's stop arguing over who brought it up, and just end this debate. It is off-topic.

Do you have a problem giving funds to entities controlled by people you oppose, when those funds will go to programs that should be supported?

Let's stop arguing over who brought it up, and just end this debate. It is off-topic.

Do you have a problem giving funds to entities controlled by people you oppose, when those funds will go to programs that should be supported?

We have no way of knowing where the funds will be going, the fact remains, they will be supporting a Hamas government. Which is unacceptable until they disarm.

This is the last post I will write on this subject on this thread.

The Aerial Bombardment of Falluja? Was that before or after the US gave enough time for innocents to leave the city?

Before, after, while. Note that men were forbidden to leave, and the refugee camps were so horrible that many innocents who could have left chose to stay.

You already said that. Is there any reason that you are posting it again?sure.. Post 60 and 64.. and because Novoga likes to edit my posts sometimes

This is the last post I will write on this subject on this thread.



Before, after, while. Note that men were forbidden to leave, and the refugee camps were so horrible that many innocents who could have left chose to stay.

It is well that war is so terrible— otherwise we should grow too fond of it.

In most cases, no.

In certain cases, such as the aerial bombardment of Falluja, it amounts to the same thing.
Yes, but in such cases one could bring up the Doctrine of Double effect (not sure if I'm getting the name right I'm thinking of the philosophical ethics doctrine regarding intended vs forseen consequences, wherein if one has good intensions in taking an action it out weighs the negative consequenses that could be seen as coming from this action.) Of course that depends to a great extent on how one sees the fighting of insurgents and terrorists in Iraq.

We have no way of knowing where the funds will be going, the fact remains, they will be supporting a Hamas government. Which is unacceptable until they disarm.I agree.. we should give Aid.. only to countries that disarm.

We have no way of knowing where the funds will be going, the fact remains, they will be supporting a Hamas government. Which is unacceptable until they disarm.

True, there is always the chance of corruption.

They will be supporting government services offered to the Palestinian people, at least in theory. Without those services, the Palestinian people are likely to rely more on Hamas the organization, not less, and a good deal of the progress towards peace that has gone on recently will be eroded.

I agree.. we should give Aid.. only to countries that disarm.

Now what country is that directed to?

True, there is always the chance of corruption.

They will be supporting government services offered to the Palestinian people, at least in theory. Without those services, the Palestinian people are likely to rely more on Hamas the organization, not less, and a good deal of the progress towards peace that has gone on recently will be eroded.

It is also possible that the Palestinian people will realize that Hamas shouldn't govern, forcing Hamas to step down and new elections to occur. Risk is involved no matter how this situation is dealt with.

It is also possible that the Palestinian people will realize that Hamas shouldn't govern, forcing Hamas to step down and new elections to occur. Risk is involved no matter how this situation is dealt with.

The vicious Israeli response to past Hamas actions didn't stop the Palestinian people from electing them.

Coercion works sometimes, I don't think it will here.

Anyway, as I already pointed out, a better tactic would be to force Hamas to choose, instead of making the choice for it.

Now what country is that directed to?Almost all.. besides Countries suffering catastrophe.. like Tsunami, Earth-Quake, or Famine.

Internatinal welfare-Aid should be only for emergencies.

The vicious Israeli response to past Hamas actions didn't stop the Palestinian people from electing them.

Coercion works sometimes, I don't think it will here.

Anyway, as I already pointed out, a better tactic would be to force Hamas to choose, instead of making the choice for it.

Well we are, in a way, forcing them to choose. If they dont' disarm no Aid money.

Almost all.. besides Countries suffering catastrophe.. like Tsunami, Earth-Quake, or Famine.

Internatinal welfare-Aid should be only for emergencies.

Each Country is a different case, you always seem to forget that.

My question is why did the U.S. government steal $50 million dollars from taxpayers to give to a government that has no effect whatsoever on those taxpayers.

Well we are, in a way, forcing them to choose. If they dont' disarm no Aid money.

Hamas is not going to disarm.

Negotiations should be offered, without preconditions - unless Hamas seeks to impose its own, in which case they should be matched.

If they refuse outright, or make absurd demands, then perhaps the aid money should be stopped, or at least cut back.

My question is why did the U.S. government steal $50 million dollars from taxpayers to give to a government that has no effect whatsoever on those taxpayers.

Because the World is a very small place nowadays.

Well we are, in a way, forcing them to choose.We tried to Force the people to vote for "our guy"..

Palestine, Bolivia, Egypt, Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Algeria, etc,etc,etc...

Soon to come Peru.

My question is why did the U.S. government steal $50 million dollars from taxpayers to give to a government that has no effect whatsoever on those taxpayers.

Middle East stability. They want this conflict out of the way, preferably on Israel's terms.

Each Country is a different case, you always seem to forget that.I prefer to treat all Countries equally.. No special favoritisms.

Hamas is not going to disarm.

Negotiations should be offered, without preconditions - unless Hamas seeks to impose its own, in which case they should be matched.

If they refuse outright, or make absurd demands, then perhaps the aid money should be stopped, or at least cut back.

Since Hamas is a terrorist group, negotiations with it are all but impossible. Should they happen? Perhaps, under the condition that Hamas stop all attacks and training of new terrorists.

We tried to Force the people to vote for "our guy"..

Palestine, Bolivia, Egypt, Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Algeria, etc,etc,etc...

Soon to come Peru.

Two parallels to this particular case that come to mind are Cuba - where the US attempts failed - and Nicaragua - where the US attempts succeeded, but after ten years and with the inclusion of far more force and money than is being invested in this case.

My question is why did the U.S. government steal $50 million dollars from taxpayers to give to a government that has no effect whatsoever on those taxpayers.not only 50 millions..

Foreign Welfare is on the billions (not millions)

I prefer to treat all Countries equally.. No special favoritisms.

Well I have a very big problem with treating North Korea the same way as New Zealand. Afterall, New Zealand doesn't have deaths camps and it isn't a regime on par with Hitler or Stalin.

Since Hamas is a terrorist group, negotiations with it are all but impossible.100X:rolleyes:

100X:rolleyes:

Oh, I forgot. They only kill Israelis, so it is alright.

Well I have a very big problem with treating North Korea the same way as New Zealand.So now.. you want to give Welfare Aid to New Zealand?

we are talking about Foreign Aid.. Remember?

So now.. you want to give Welfare Aid to New Zealand?

we are talking about Foreign Aid.. Remember?

I was replying to what you said about treating all countries the same, not discussing Aid to New Zealand. Do I need to starting showing you the quotes?

Oh, I forgot. They only kill Israelis, so it is alright.Your post.. Your words..(emphasis is mine)

Your post.. Your words..(emphasis is mine)

You forced me to this....

It is alright to kill Israelis since they are supported by America.

See, that is what you really meant.

I was replying to what you said about treating all countries the same, Treating them the same.. on the issue of Foreign Aid.

the Issue is Foreign Aid.. remember?

I prefer to treat all Countries equally.. No special favoritisms. Except America, which should is evil and should be treated as such.

Again, the truth can be shocking!

Treating them the same.. on the issue of Foreign Aid.

the Issue is Foreign Aid.. remember?

You meant treating all countries the same on all issues.

It is alright to kill Israelis since they are supported by America.See, that is what you really meant.You are doing it again.. Your fraudulent use of my name is not going to help you.

Kat gave you a free pass last time.. Lets see her do it again

You are doing it again.. Your fraudulent use of my name is not going to help you.

I am merely showing everyone what you really want to say.

Kat gave you a free pass last time.. Lets see her do it again

You are inciting me to do it.

The only thing I can say about President Bush is, he is tough, a true Texan LOL.

I prefer to treat all Countries equally.. No special favoritisms. Except America, which should is evil and should be treated as such.Again, the truth can be shocking!YEAH I remember you using that line..a week ago. (last time you used this stunt multiple times.)

YEAH I remember you using that line..a week ago. (last time you used this stunt multiple times.)

In that case you also incited me to do it.

How about a public investigation into this?

In that case you also incited me to do it.
Ahem...misusing the quote function is pretty much the worst thing you can do on a forum, short of impersonating someone else.

"Incited me into it" is hardly a justification.

Ahem...misusing the quote function is pretty much the worst thing you can do on a forum, short of impersonating someone else.

"Incited me into it" is hardly a justification.

OceanDrive2 is a special case, it is my theory that he is in fact Kim Jong Il.

OceanDrive2 is a special case, it is my theory that he is in fact Kim Jong Il.
Rules are rules.

I've met plenty of people I violently disagreed with on this forum, but I have never resorted to something as low as this. And I have actually had my nation deleted once, and despite my pleas, context does not matter when it comes to the rules.

Rules are rules.

I've met plenty of people I violently disagreed with on this forum, but I have never resorted to something as low as this. And I have actually had my nation deleted once, and despite my pleas, context does not matter when it comes to the rules.

I would hope that they allow me defend my position if it comes to that.

I would hope that they allow me defend my position if it comes to that.
They didn't let me.

Here's what happened, by the way. As you can see, I was pretty angry with the poster and the topic.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450508

So stick to the rules, and don't expect a fair trial, because they made it abundantly clear to me that this is not a democracy.

They didn't let me.

Here's what happened, by the way. As you can see, I was pretty angry with the poster and the topic.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450508

So stick to the rules, and don't expect a fair trial, because they made it abundantly clear to me that this is not a democracy.

I stand by what I did.

Two parallels to this particular case that come to mind are Cuba - where the US attempts failed - and Nicaragua - where the US attempts succeeded, but after ten years and with the inclusion of far more force and money than is being invested in this case.Yes ..

I think the Peruvian people is having the same dilema rigth now.. Just like Bolivia, Palestine, and Egypt just went tru

I stand by what I did.
Stand by this then.

Official Warning, flamebaiting. Your alterations are misleading, misrepresentative, and designed to provoke the original poster into a personal argument. That's the definition of flamebaiting. It will result in forumbans or deletions if you continue this technique. Are we quite clear on this?

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

The only thing I can say about President Bush is, he is tough, a true Texan LOL.
Yeah, he sure gave that pretzel, the Segway, and the Italian police escort the ol' Texas what-for! :rolleyes:

If i recall correctly,
Sierre Leone, Congo, Cote' d'Ivoire, Bolivia and Honduras.
Some of it is political props and their leaders, and the itchiness of that whole kind of scenario. I think the resources issue comes up for me.The only Situation I am aware of is Bolivia (I was discussed in this Forum)..

Why S.Leone, Congo, C-d-Ivoire or Honduras?

ans what resources?

You know, rather than take away the money, why don't we simply chain it to Hamas' performance?

If they meet certain economic/political reform targets and reduce or eliminate terror attacks against Israel, they should get more money, and if they fail to meet targets or terror attacks continue, the money is cut off...a reward/punishment system is the best means of moderating a group like Hamas.

You know, rather than take away the money, why don't we simply chain it to Hamas' performance?All the Aid we give to the Arabs and Palestinians is already heavily "Chained"..

The only American President I know... who happens to give Free(unchained) help is.. Chavez.

He gives you the money only because he feels you (are in a bad situation) really need it.. No preconditions.. No bullshit. (actually he is a cunning politician.. But still more generous than Most American Presidents)

All the Aid we give to the Arabs and Palestinians is already heavily "Chained"..

The only American President I know... who happens to give Free(unchained) help is.. Chavez.

He gives you the money only because he feels you (are in a bad sutuation) really need it.. No preconditions.. No bullshit.

"Chained" in the sense that we take it away when people we don't like go against us...if we're going to give aid, let the UN set the standards and the allocation plan, and let neutral organizations (like the UN) set the targets for social and economic reform. Aid should be aid, not a weapon to intimidate nations in to caving in to our (or any nation's) interests besides that nation itself. Otherwise, it's just going to look like a bribe to put in US-friendly leaders.

As much as I dislike Chavez, he does do quite a bit of good with his nation's oil wealth.

The only Situation I am aware of is Bolivia (I was discussed in this Forum)..

Why S.Leone, Congo, C-d-Ivoire or Honduras?

ans what resources?
Other than Honduras, oil area.
Honduras seems an irritating political scheme.

Otherwise, it's just going to look like a bribe to put in US-friendly leaders.This is why I started this thread..

The level of "activity" (AKA Freedom-Fighting AKA Terrorism) From Hamas affiliated groups is going to be the same.. Regardless of who is sitting at the Palace..

2 main things Drive the level of activity..

#1 IDF own activity. (Yes a lot of it is ongoing back and forth retributions).
#2 Progress(or lack of) for the resolution of the Palestinean Nation "issue".

The Blue Helmets have lost their credibility over there.
Hamas will never unilaterally disarm. Just like the US army will never disarm (They will not trust others with their national security.)

So, I wonder if we US taxpayers should ask the Bush Admin to give us back the money they have been using to terrorize the Iraqis? Fair is fare...:mp5:

Stand by this then.

Official Warning, flamebaiting. Your alterations are misleading, misrepresentative, and designed to provoke the original poster into a personal argument. That's the definition of flamebaiting. It will result in forumbans or deletions if you continue this technique. Are we quite clear on this?

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

And I consider all off OceanDrive's posts to be flamebaiting, I am merely responding in kind. I request that the warning before removed.

The only Situation I am aware of is Bolivia (I was discussed in this Forum)..

Why S.Leone, Congo, C-d-Ivoire or Honduras?

ans what resources?
Ah, this came up, definitely worth mention ...

Nigerian Militants Attack Oil Pipeline

By EDWARD HARRIS
The Associated Press
Monday, February 20, 2006; 4:05 PM

LAGOS, Nigeria -- Militants holding nine foreigners hostage launched attacks Monday on a pipeline and a boat in Nigeria's swampy delta region, vowing to spread their campaign across the petroleum-rich south from where most of the African oil giant's crude is pumped.

Attacks on oil installations in recent days by the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta have now cut about 20 percent of daily oil output in Nigeria, an OPEC member and Africa's leading producer of crude.

The latest violence didn't cause further production cuts but helped send oil prices higher on international markets.

Nigeria is Africa's leading oil exporter and the United States' fifth-largest supplier, usually exporting 2.5 million barrels daily.

There were no reported casualties in the attacks Monday on a Shell-oil operated oil pipeline switching station and a boat the militants claimed housed Nigerian military personnel. "Both were destroyed with explosives," the militant group said in an e-mailed statement.

Shell Spokeswoman Lisa Givert confirmed the oil-pipeline attack and said the houseboat was abandoned when the attackers blew it up. It was unclear who owned the boat. Military officials could not be reached for comment.

The West African nation is reeling from weekend attacks in which militants blasted oil and gas pipelines and sabotaged a key oil loading terminal belonging to Royal Dutch Shell PLC. That and an earlier attack has forced the company to halt the flow of about 455,000 barrels a day _ about one-fifth of daily output.

The weekend violence sent crude prices higher in international markets.

April Brent crude futures rose $1.47 to $61.36 a barrel on London's ICE Futures exchange. Trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange was closed for the Presidents Day holiday. Oil prices had jumped more than $1 and settled near $60 a barrel Friday over supply concerns.

The militants, who are pressing for release from prison of two of the region's leaders and greater control of oil revenues, have threatened to fire rockets at any ships transporting crude oil from Nigeria.

On Monday, they said they were planning to widen their campaign across the vast region of swamps and creeks, where people remain deeply impoverished despite the great oil riches being pumped from beneath them.

"We are going to continue with the destruction of oil facilities in Delta State while concluding arrangements for our wider attacks on the entire region," the group said.

The militants also warned they would kill President Olusegun Obasanjo if he entered the region. The government did not comment on the threat.

"We are declaring a war on Obasanjo. We will attack and kill him should he venture into the Niger Delta for any reason," the militants said.

In one assault in the swampy delta's Forcados estuary, dozens of armed militants seized nine foreigners after storming a barge belonging to the Houston-based oil services company Willbros Group Inc., which was laying pipeline for Shell.

The hostages include three Americans, two Egyptians, two Thais, one Briton and one Filipino, militants and Willbros officials said. There was no word on their fate Monday.

Violence and sabotage of oil operations have been common in the oil-rich Niger Delta for the past 15 years amid demands by the region's impoverished communities for a greater share of the oil revenue flowing from their land.

Hostage takings are also a common occurrence in the volatile delta, but most are released unharmed. Last month, militants held four foreigners for 19 days before releasing them unscathed.

The militants say their key aims are winning the release of the delta's two most prominent leaders, Mujahid Dokubo-Asari and former Gov. Diepreye Alamieyeseigha.

Dokubo-Asari, who waged a struggle for autonomy for 8 million Ijaws that dominate the Niger delta for years, was jailed on treason charges in September. Alamieyeseigha was arrested recently in Nigeria after fleeing Britain on money laundering charges.

Militants are also demanding Shell pay local communities $1.5 billion to compensate for environmental pollution. Shell has rejected the demand.
------

Pertinence to the thread:
http://lists.essential.org/stop-imf/msg00228.html

Now why did they give it in the first place to those murderers?