The U.S. government has no moral obligation to help anyone in the world except US citizens. Not sure why people confuse aid from private organizations and aid from the US federal govt. As Otrap pointed out, private US citizens, organizations and companies can contribute aid all they like, that is their choice. The US govt, however, has no moral obligation nor should it be aiding anyone but the US.

Hell, I go so far as to say that those individuals who think they can give should feel a moral obligation to do so. Not so with the US government, which was never set up to be a charitable organization, and as such is not even permitted to function as one.

Just returned. No desire for page two. I read all I had to with Class A's in the bar and A.R. 6-9. Whew!!! That was funny. If you've ever read the wrestling side of this forum, you'd know I like me some jokes. And that was a couple of doozies right there.

As it turns out, I wear on my wrist, as dwccrew put it, the name of some other heroes if the war. Ones that didn't make it back alive. It just so happens, one of my dear friends did make it back because one of his leaders stepped up and volunteered to ride in the lead humvee, all because he knew his men were worn out from the last three days of battle.

SGT. Jeremy M. Hodge, US Army, KIA 10OCT2005, Iraq.

O-Trap;928806 wrote:Hell, I go so far as to say that those individuals who think they can give should feel a moral obligation to do so. Not so with the US government, which was never set up to be a charitable organization, and as such is not even permitted to function as one.

It's a real stretch to consider cluster bombs as part of a charitable even.

Cleveland Buck;928748 wrote:What on earth makes you think we can? We should just print money until we destroy ourselves so that we can help other countries? We have no money and the federal government will absolutely default in the next 10 years without ending the wars or ending entitlements.

the federal goverment will default within 10 years even if all wars were ended and the military completely pulled back inside our borders.

O-Trap;928761 wrote:From a Federal government standpoint, yes. Mostly because it is not the right or responsibility of the Federal government to do so.

in a global economy with the information age bringing the world closer, i disagree.

O-Trap;928761 wrote:Now, as far as privately owned and operated non-profit organizations, charities, philanthropist, and the like, I am in full support of such people fulfilling a humanitarian obligation to help however they can. I don't like standing by while others are in need either, but it is astonishing to me that people assume that the Federal government is the only way to go about that.

those private organizations get no where without the help of the US Navy and US Airforce.

Glory Days;929234 wrote:the federal goverment will default within 10 years even if all wars were ended and the military completely pulled back inside our borders.

You realize that isn't a compelling argument to continue our massive military spending and support our bases abroad and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan?

I Wear Pants;929290 wrote:You realize that isn't a compelling argument to continue our massive military spending and support our bases abroad and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan?

and its not a compelling argument to stop the military spending either.

Glory Days;929439 wrote:and its not a compelling argument to stop the military spending either.

Yes it is, unless you've already relegated us to default.

Also, mind my troll of you in the other thread if you will.

Glory Days;929234 wrote:in a global economy with the information age bringing the world closer, i disagree.

In a sovereign nation whose central government is dictated by a constitution, it's not a matter of agree or disagree. It's a matter of fact. The US Constitution ... the document which defines what the central government is and is not permitted to do ... does not permit such action by said central government.

As such, whether you like it or not, not only is it not the Federal government's responsibility ... it isn't even the Federal government's right. It is not allowed.

And again, we're broke anyway. We have no money, so I'm not sure where you think the money for relief will come from anyway.

Glory Days;929234 wrote: those private organizations get no where without the help of the US Navy and US Airforce.

In recent history, we wouldn't know, because it hasn't been allowed. Truth be told, it can be done without the military, but not if the military imposes itself (complicating, not streamlining, the relief).

Glory Days;929439 wrote:and its not a compelling argument to stop the military spending either.

So you believe default is a forgone conclusion, then? I disagree, and I think we should attempt to prevent default.

I Wear Pants;929110 wrote:It's a real stretch to consider cluster bombs as part of a charitable even.

The US just gives different charity to different countries. :thumbup:

dwccrew;929813 wrote:The US just gives different charity to different countries. :thumbup:

It's like Santa!

"Israel? A couple of nukes and some defense for you.
Pakistan? CARPET BOMBINGS! LOL!"

O-Trap;929727 wrote:In a sovereign nation whose central government is dictated by a constitution, it's not a matter of agree or disagree. It's a matter of fact. The US Constitution ... the document which defines what the central government is and is not permitted to do ... does not permit such action by said central government.

As such, whether you like it or not, not only is it not the Federal government's responsibility ... it isn't even the Federal government's right. It is not allowed.

so every war/conflict/whatever since the War of 1812 has been wrong?

Glory Days;929888 wrote:so every war/conflict/whatever since the War of 1812 has been wrong?

No. WWI and WWII were definitely things done to defend the country.

But shit like the Mexican War was most certainly wrong.

I Wear Pants;930010 wrote:No. WWI and WWII were definitely things done to defend the country.

But shit like the Mexican War was most certainly wrong.

i would give you WWII only because of japan. however WWI we only had the mexicans to worry about if anyone.

Glory Days;930117 wrote:i would give you WWII only because of japan. however WWI we only had the mexicans to worry about if anyone.

But Europe falling to an aggressive force would be a threat to us. And we had treaties with those countries that were attacked didn't we?

I Wear Pants;930144 wrote:But Europe falling to an aggressive force would be a threat to us. And we had treaties with those countries that were attacked didn't we?

and the oil fields falling to saddam would be a threat. afghanistan (and yes, even iraq) as a base of operations for terrorists would also be a threat. we also have a friendship with israel.

I Wear Pants;928488 wrote:Isadore is going to come in here and call you all terrorists for daring to question our military policies.

I thought Izzy just focused on you and your horrible terrorist-supporting ways. While standing outside your window naked with peanut butter smeared over his body.

I Wear Pants;930144 wrote:But Europe falling to an aggressive force would be a threat to us. And we had treaties with those countries that were attacked didn't we?

Aggressive force being the key. The force was acting in such a way as to be building an empire that threatened more than just the American pocketbooks.

Glory Days;930149 wrote:and the oil fields falling to saddam would be a threat. afghanistan (and yes, even iraq) as a base of operations for terrorists would also be a threat. we also have a friendship with israel.

Oil fields falling to Saddam would have been an economic crisis (which could be said to be our own fault for becoming so dependent on resources we have no inherent claims to) to be sure, but it would not have been a threat to America as a sovereign nation.

As for Israel, they are an ally, so I say we cheer them on, but I don't babysit friends who can fight for themselves. Israel probably has the most robust military in the region, with I'm guessing the most nuclear capability. We've equipped them and we've given them innumerable resources for the purpose of defending themselves.

What was the point of equipping them to defend themselves if we're never going to let them defend themselves?

O-Trap;930230 wrote:Aggressive force being the key. The force was acting in such a way as to be building an empire that threatened more than just the American pocketbooks.



Oil fields falling to Saddam would have been an economic crisis (which could be said to be our own fault for becoming so dependent on resources we have no inherent claims to) to be sure, but it would not have been a threat to America as a sovereign nation.

As for Israel, they are an ally, so I say we cheer them on, but I don't babysit friends who can fight for themselves. Israel probably has the most robust military in the region, with I'm guessing the most nuclear capability. We've equipped them and we've given them innumerable resources for the purpose of defending themselves.

What was the point of equipping them to defend themselves if we're never going to let them defend themselves?

How much oil do we even get from Iraq? Not a whole lot last I looked so I don't see how it would be an economic crisis.

O-Trap watch what you say there, if you don't completely support every move by Israel or in support of Israel around these parts you're an anti-Semite who sympathizes with the Palestinian terrorist scum.

I Wear Pants;930415 wrote:How much oil do we even get from Iraq? Not a whole lot last I looked so I don't see how it would be an economic crisis.

O-Trap watch what you say there, if you don't completely support every move by Israel or in support of Israel around these parts you're an anti-Semite who sympathizes with the Palestinian terrorist scum.

You should meet my clients, the Sekulows. If you think people on OC support guarding Israel ...

I Wear Pants;930144 wrote:But Europe falling to an aggressive force would be a threat to us. And we had treaties with those countries that were attacked didn't we?

Germany WWI had no problem with us until we started covertly aiding their enemies. Then eventually actively doing so. This is going against your ideology when it comes to foreign policy. We had no defense treaties with those nations.

I Wear Pants;930010 wrote:But shit like the Mexican War was most certainly wrong.

Since it was wrong when do you propose we give the land taken in that war back? At least that war got a formal declaration.

If it would not be for the Mexican war and the Indian wars we would be a narrow strip of land up the east coast. We would have had our ass kicked half a dozen times by now. You idealists amaze me.

majorspark;930868 wrote:Since it was wrong when do you propose we give the land taken in that war back? At least that war got a formal declaration.

If it would not be for the Mexican war and the Indian wars we would be a narrow strip of land up the east coast. We would have had our ass kicked half a dozen times by now. You idealists amaze me.

Too late for that now.

Once again your "might makes right" attitude.

majorspark;930855 wrote:Germany WWI had no problem with us until we started covertly aiding their enemies. Then eventually actively doing so. This is going against your ideology when it comes to foreign policy. We had no defense treaties with those nations.

If an aggressive country starts having a problem with the United States selling things to another country they can fuck off. It doesn't go against my ideology at all. I believe that Germany and it's allies in WWI did pose a real threat to the US should they have been allowed to take Europe which they may have without our intervention.

Very different then "we like the shit that's buried in their ground so we'll just carpet bomb the fuck out of them and say the place was covered in terrorists."

I Wear Pants;930967 wrote:Too late for that now.

Same argument I use in other places of the world. And the correct one I might add.

I Wear Pants;930967 wrote:Once again your "might makes right" attitude.

Do you think if we would have huddled on our strip along the east coast all would have been well?