Senate Foreign Relations Committee votes to give President Obama the power to launch

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Stinkum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

so let me get this straight

because pakistan borders afghanistan (which is also NOT a middle eastern country) and iran is involved in afghanistan makes pakistan a middle eastern country?

this is literally the stupidest single thing i have ever read on this forum

i am cringing for you

are you slow? read what i wrote.

it's a bordering country that's playing an obvious role in the regional conflict. yes, it is accurate to call it south asia. and no, it's obviously not geographically a part of the "middle east". the term "greater middle east" was coined for this reason, but it's ultimately irrelevant. the point is that pakistan is an actor in the regional conflict, which has expanded beyond the traditional geographic confines of the middle east

[Lojik]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

theoretically, of course. but that's obviously not how the world works. "aid" is really just buying influence. in critical regions, we buy as much as we can. israel just more readily sells influence than most of the region

I feel like in one sense you answered my question, but on the other hand I don't. Maybe I didn't really ask the right way, or I'm not really sure what my question is. I understand that naive notions of countries ruling in entirely in their self-interest are not really true, and that whoever is in charge will make decisions based on their interests or whatever special interests they cater to. But why should we "buy" influence from this country? How does it benefit the people of the United States? Does this make them less anti-Israel? It seems like us sending aid to them is to appease them slightly since we aid another country that regularly antagonizes the rest of the region. I find it hard to believe that if we had no presence at all in the middle east and stayed completely neutral in these conflicts that Egypt would take an anti-American economic policy.

[Stinkum]

o ok so its bordering a country that's playing a role in conflict not located in the ME, therefore it is middle eastern

we got a genius over here

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by aowen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You can totally tell this guy is sold on American exceptionalism, and views us as the metropole of the great empire. Let me point out something, we lost our strongman in Egypt, and while they are in the midst of trying to get their shit together, I can assure you that they don't give a fuck what we think.

Your breakdown of aid is thoughtless. We are trying to setup governments in Afghanistan and Iraq so we dont have to have our own military keep the peace, why you would link our funds towards the two countries we started wars in with another separate one that is holding steady and using it to go against our wishes is a just a testament to your lack of understanding. See, when you fund a country to set something up, or for development, or humanitarian aid, it is different than funding an established government which signifies support for the current status quo. And seeing as 2.99 billion of the 3 billion went to the Israeli military, have a reasonable think about it.

if they don't give a fuck about what we think, then why did their islamist, vocally anti-israel new government continue to cooperate with israeli troops and in fact defend the israeli border by mobilizing tanks and military personnel? why did they continue to respect the peace treaty with israel? because money talks and not even anti-israel islamists want to pass up on $1.5 billion in annual aid.

and yeah, i think it's pretty obvious why we gave military support to iraq/afghanistan. i think it's pretty obvious why we gave it to israel, too. i didn't realize the obviousness of our interests was a consideration in discussing our foreign aid. we funded a stable, oppressive government in egypt for a long time. was that support for the status quo? or was it acquiescence to the fact that we can't really change the status quo, but we can buy influence? what worked out better for us? buying mubarak's cooperation or replacing saddam hussein's oppressive regime?

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Lojik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I feel like in one sense you answered my question, but on the other hand I don't. Maybe I didn't really ask the right way, or I'm not really sure what my question is. I understand that naive notions of countries ruling in entirely in their self-interest are not really true, and that whoever is in charge will make decisions based on their interests or whatever special interests they cater to. But why should we "buy" influence from this country? How does it benefit the people of the United States? Does this make them less anti-Israel? It seems like us sending aid to them is to appease them slightly since we aid another country that regularly antagonizes the rest of the region. I find it hard to believe that if we had no presence at all in the middle east and stayed completely neutral in these conflicts that Egypt would take an anti-American economic policy.

I'm not sure what Egypt would do if America was totally absent and objective re: the Middle East. I think it's impossible to say. We're so far removed from a time when we didn't have our finger in the middle of it that there's no telling what kind of progress Egypt would have made. We undoubtedly supported a dictator that stunted progress with Mubarak. Assuming the Islamist theme was still prevalent in our absence, I don't find it hard to believe Egypt would still be at least moderately hostile toward the West.

But that's a hypothetical dream world. Reality being what it is, we can't undo what's done. We've been fixing the oil game for 35+ years, and we've propped up indefensibly backward regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, and elsewhere for a long time. And oil is as important or more important now than ever before. Buying influence is the cheapest way we can retain our power and ensure favorable results. Going to war is much more expensive. And backing out entirely would leave us at the mercy of whatever power source filled the vacuum.

[aowen]

False dichotomy, funding may either change or solidify the status quo depending on the situation. Funding mubarak was the same as funding Israel, funding 2 shitheads to garner cooperation. Iraq was a totally different story. Another false dichotomy: you can either buy em or replace em. Don't confuse yourself there, what you just wrote is all sideways fucked.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

it's not grammar nazism when you're condescendingly recommending precision of language as you make third grade grammatical errors

Nah, it's grammar nazism. You had no problem understanding what I was saying, while your imprecise use of words was leading to misunderstanding. I'm sorry if you can't see the difference between the two situations.

[Barkingturtle]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nah, it's grammar nazism.

You guys are just arguing semitics now.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nah, it's grammar nazism. You had no problem understanding what I was saying, while your imprecise use of words was leading to misunderstanding. I'm sorry if you can't see the difference between the two situations.

My use of words was not imprecise. Any misunderstanding came from your inability to comprehend or your lack of experience with the subject. President Nixon referred to biological and chemical weapons as uncontrollable. The UN General Assembly has referred to biological and chemical weapons as indiscriminate and uncontrollable. The Red Cross's IHL refers to chemical and biological weapons as uncontrollable. You're trying to play gotcha with accusations of imprecise language when a) the language was accurate, and b) you can't even express your accusation with precise language.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My use of words was not imprecise. Any misunderstanding came from your inability to comprehend or your lack of experience with the subject. President Nixon referred to biological and chemical weapons as uncontrollable. The UN General Assembly has referred to biological and chemical weapons as indiscriminate and uncontrollable. The Red Cross's IHL refers to chemical and biological weapons as uncontrollable. You're trying to play gotcha with accusations of imprecise language when a) the language was accurate, and b) you can't even express your accusation with precise language.

Hey, it's Friday and I'm off work now. Time to get some drinks. Don't take yourself too seriously, if that's possible.