The U.S. Threat – Do Countries Care Anymore?
Hard to believe there was once a time when losing financial support from the U.S. actually mattered. Those days are obviously over. Threats of sanctions to Iran have them laughing. Hamas gives a metaphorical middle finger to us over pulling funding from them due to their stance on Israel. They have no intention of mellowing and will seek funding elsewhere. Sucks to be irrelevant. Sucks worse to have genocidal maniacs like these regimes being allowed to draw breath.
posted by Esther @ 11:16 AM
12 comments
12 Comments:
i read an article about Iran getting money from China and i think it said Russia. i'm sure Hamas has many benefactors as well.
Drummaster,
You are absolutely correct.
There is one problem though (for Iran, which the Iranians and to a certain degree the Chinese also do not get..
Most of the capital invested in China is actually American/Western.
Furthermore the US is one of the greatest consumer of the goods produced in China.
Take away these two factors from China and bang ....the domino effect takes place.
There are limits to how far China and Russia will support either Iran or Hammas. Both have their own troubles with Islam
Yes, China and Russia both have their own troubles with Islam--Russia, so far, as the more serious problem. But China has another agenda--its own superpower status, which is in competition with the U.S.'s status.
Iran is moving more and more to the radical end of the spectrum. In fact, Iran has been at the end of the spectrum for a long time, but the saber-rattling is even worse now. There is no worse rattle of the sable than a nuclear warhead.
Remember a few months back? IAEA's ElBaradei said that Iran was SEVERAL YEARS away from developing a nuke. I think that he might believe otherwise now! Iran test-fired a missle with a range of 2000 kilometers on January 17, and shortly thereafter, Chirac made his hawk statement about France's power to defend and retaliate with a nuke. No coincidence, IMO.
I just read that Iran has now removed the monitoring cameras. God, what are we in for?
Good question!
As the 21st Century developes, it's tough to "buy friends" anymore?
Cut off all foreign aid for awhile, see who really appreciates our largesse ... In the meantime, tend to our own citizen's needs and rebuild our Nation's infrastructure.
Thowing good money after bad serves what useful purpose in a "World seemingly gone mad?"
always on watch:
you are absolutely correct- China is looking to become a superpower. they have deals with Iran: 'China scratches Iran's back and Iran scratches China's back.' a lot of money is invested in one another and each get something out of it- oil, natural gas, and jobs for China and weapons plus the technology and equipment for other weapons for Iran.
Russia is also looking for a piece of the action by building more billion dollar nuclear reactors. they also have agreed to sell $1 billion in arms including $700 million worth of advanced air-to-surface missiles. they are also in discussing the sale of billions of dollars in other weapons.
sergeant america:
"As the 21st Century developes, it's tough to "buy friends" anymore?"
for America, yes. if you have the technology to make extremely lethal weapons and are willing to sell it to the devil, then no.
The latest figures I've seen show that United States contributed 1.5 billion to the Palestinian government and this doesn't include private donations to NGOs. Iran has contributed somewhere between 3 million and 30 million. I say the let Islamic countries be responsible for all money sent to Palestine. I've already heard that some government workers will not be paid for a couple of weeks already. What will Hamas spend the money it gets from other countries on...bombs or food? Russia can hardly afford to purchase weapons for itself and in China doesn't want a nuclear Islamist state on its border.
China won't be a superpower until it loosens the thumb on its people. Hong Kong is a capitalist cancer; capitalism and communism just don't get along.
(*)>
Hard to believe there was once a time when losing financial support from the U.S. actually mattered. Those days are obviously over.
Huh? I'll prove you wrong when I'm President in 2008 and America no longer exports 80% of the food consumed by non-Americans and I'm passing the savings on to you at the grocery store.
Bush won't use food as a weapon. I will.
beamish:
i never thought about doing something like that, but i think you're on to something.
Think about it DM2K+1,
The federal government subsidizes American farmers to grow crops (or not grow crops, as the case may be) to create trade capital with other countries, many of which recieve food FOR FREE once the considerations of foreign aid and government agricultural subsidies are factored in. Our government essentially pays our farmers and livestock ranchers to feed other nations' people.
Just look at what the current Japanese ban on American beef has done for market prices in the US. We've got so much beef lying around we can't put it on sale in grocery stores fast enough. I've been eating steak and hamburgers all week long, and at under 3 bucks a pound, the deep freezer is stocked up for spring / summer barbecues.
Now imagine if America continued to produce as much food or more as it does today, but didn't sell (or give) other nations any of it. The supermarkets of America would slash prices to keep food flying off the shelves, and we'd have hella grain crops left over to convert to ethanol fuels so we could tell the Middle East to have fun eating their oil.
Other countries don't care about the U.S. threat, but only because we tuck them in at night and promise them breakfast in the morning.
The only thing tragic about intentionally starving the world to death to affect policy changes in other nations is that no one will film the bloody revolutions that would take place across the globe for our personal entertainment.
beamish:
its ideas like that that get you my vote in 2008.
Post a Comment
<< Home