NO.
But the real question is: Can we not to financially aid certain countries in terms of the potential consequences of failing to do so? No one knows what the blanket answer is. That is my concern.

I don't think an across the board, wholesale cut, all at once, would be smart. Each foreign country needs to be promptly evaluated on its own merits with a strong eye towards reduction and/or cuts. I am not talking about prolonged phase-outs, just well thought decisions.

I don't find it acceptable to stop aid to certain countries that truly need it for strategic political matters or certain social matters such as acts of god (earth quake, typhoon, etc.) famine and the like....

rfenst wrote:

I disagree with you rfenst.
IMHO, that is pie in the sky, naive, UN speak.
Our decision-making is generally based on $$$$. We are not imperialistic in the sense of exploiting the vanquished for natural resources. Instead, we introduce billion dollar entities into hidden agenda trade agreements through force and or strongarm tactics. Any altruistic pretenses for military intervention and/or political manipulation such as regional balance of power, defense against genocide, opening up of oil trade routes, etc. is eventually exposed as sham and is nothing more than market manipulation & re-positioning of big players.

bloody spaniard wrote:

I could support a drone war aainst Canada. We're eventually going to run out of targets in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen and then the military industrial complex will go lean unless fake a reason to attack Iran. Ron Paul will screw that up so he is being systemattically destroyed.

I'll run the idea past the next globalist agenda meeting if I can get it slotted. Right now everything is about rigging the election to be Romney vs Obama so I may have a tough time getting this topic slotted.

A war with Iran and Canada would make me almost feel greedy!

HockeyDad wrote:

make an example of someone first

Rclay wrote:

Look, I want the same things/ultimate results for this country that everyone else hear does. I just think aggressive-cautious approach is best. I think that there are certain elements of foreign aid and military presence are necessary. We may not see instant results or even direct results, but there definitely could be secondary results that offset the cost to our bennefit.

For simple example and hypothetically: Presume none of our oil comes through the straight. Not one single drop. Should we care if a country completely blocks the straits, even thou we are getting our oil elsewhere? Perhaps. If for example blocking of the straight significantly reduced the amount of available oil and the price were to skyrocket, our oil from elsewhere would skyrocket in price too. That is a hypothetical example of analyzing cost benefit ratios and secondary gain.

Now, all the foreign aid we give and military presence around the world is the last vestige of the 20th century itself and the type of war warfare available at the time, its wars and countries and blocks with competing interests. I don't care how many troops we have stationed anywhere as those troops could do nothing to alter a border skirmish between two countries- if the very serious threat of nuclear destruction is present. Tat is where I believe we are heading towards our during our lifetimes and our children's.

Times have changed and will continue to. We simply need to update our strategies, efforts, military presence and foreign aid regarding all of this. I just don't think an immediate blanket cease is necessarily the best method.

Now, as to all the pork built into those bills, the solution is easier: Line item veto authority. Plain and simple. It ultimately makes the Presidency accountable.

Bloody, you have commented in the past that I am a pragmatist. That is true. i always look for peaceful, careful decisions where every one benefits- or at least gets hurt less. Having said that, i am no less a military hawk than any other person here- when the circumstances appear to dictate.



(Sorry, but I have to go to my doctor right now to get my first set of hearing aids fitted. :-&)

rfenst wrote:

Like who? The Iraqis? Bosnians? Somalians?...

rfenst wrote:

...

One more opinion: If Ron Paul would loudly state, "Any enemy of the U.S. had better watch their back when I'm president" He would win.

Rclay wrote: