China Bans American Marxist Media: Wants Intelligent Media Instead

[Raithere]

Which ones? What laws? Please be specific, and please make sure that it's "government laws".

Baron Max

http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Section_Index.html

 

[S.A.M.]

Are you asking about the costs of political/military activities or economic ones?

~Raithere

Are they mutually exclusive?

 

[S.A.M.]

Which ones? What laws? Please be specific, and please make sure that it's "government laws".

Baron Max

Here is part of the list.

Undermining Democracy in Latin America

America has frequently supported undemocratic governments, coups, or insurgent movements in Latin America - see Guatemala, Honduras with John Negroponte, the Chilean coup of 1973, and Operation Condor - and has on many occasions even invaded Latin American countries for the stated reason of preventing the spread of Communism in the Americas or of stemming the drug trade. This self-appointed role as regional power has roots that go back to the Monroe Doctrine from 1823.

The US provided significant support for General Augusto Pinochet in Chile, who came into power in the Chilean coup and went on to commit many human rights abuses. The role of the CIA in this context is the subject of fierce debate. The coup was particularly resented by supporters of Salvador Allende, the elected Marxist president whom Pinochet deposed.

It has also been alleged that the CIA was involved with the military coups in Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, including military training in torture skills and political intervention.

The official American government view, which is shared by many, particularly more conservative, Americans, is that American influence (or interference) in Latin American countries was necessary to stop the spread of tyrannical Communism. Others, especially on the left, charge that America's main primary interest was economic, and that it was willing to do anything to further American corporate interests in the region. The Venezuela coup of 2002, taking place long after the collapse of the Soviet Union, can be read as confirmation of this view of US policy.

In Latin America, it has been alleged that the School of the Americas based in the US-owned Canal Zone taught Latin American officers torture techniques to combat subversion throughout the cold war, without concern for human rights.

[edit] Outside of Latin America

Another cause of resentment against America in the Middle East is that America supports regimes in many Middle-Eastern countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan that are unpopular with many people in those countries, and are seen as oppressive and tyrannical.

Critics have countered, however, that engagement with other countries is a way to promote democratic reforms. This approach is also adopted by European countries such as France and Britain. Though, of course, this has never been proven to actually work. And apart from that, 'engagement' and 'support' are not the same things; one can hardly claim that supporting oppressive regimes promotes democratic reform, for instance.

American support for the anti-communist government of George Papadopoulos in Greece (1967-1974), which many regarded as an oppressive military dictatorship and which compelled many prominent Greeks to flee Greece, has been a source of bad will across Europe. It is often held to have contributed to the split in NATO and the European Union over the US-led invasion of Iraq.

The United States was also criticized for meddling in the internal politics of some of its democratic allies. For instance, the US government funded some French unions through the National Endowment for Democracy, including some with links to far-right violent groups.

The CIA tried to assassinate democratically elected prime minister, Patrice Lumumba of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, until he was eventually killed by forces led by Joseph Mobutu, who was supported by the U.S.[1]

[edit] International institutions

America's treatment and use of international institutions such as the United Nations and World Trade Organization is often seen as self-serving and hypocritical in other countries. Critics point to non-payment of UN dues and refusal to heed to International Court of Justice decisions against America on the one hand, and to enthusiastic embrace of international trials against foreign war criminals and UN sanction mechanisms against official enemies on the other. America's veto power in the United Nations Security Council has repeatedly been used to prevent censure of Israel, thereby angering Arab countries and those supporting them in the Israel-Arab conflict. US unilateralism, or "going its own way" on issues varying from the International Criminal Court to the Kyoto Protocol (see below) is also a cause of criticism.

Some also complain about the fact that America has used the veto power in the United Nations Security Council more often than any other country, but considers it an offensive move when their allies use the veto against an American proposition.

It is also held against the United States that it refuses to sign the United Nations convention agreement from 1980 banning the use of napalm and other incendiaries against civilian populations. The same holds for the Ottawa Treaty from 1999 outlawing the use, production, stockpiling and trade in anti-personnel landmines.

[edit] International trade and trade embargoes

Some believe that America is not always as committed to free trade as it professes to be. The introduction of tariffs on steel imports in March 2002 was seen by many people outside the US as an instance of America failing to practice what it preaches in terms of free trade. Along with other western countries the United States evades free trade rules using non-tariff barriers to trade, such as antidumping and countervailing duties, and subsidizes its agricultural and textile markets while pressurizing poor countries to open up their markets to the West without any reciprocal trade agreements. A common argument is that subsidized American food exports are artificially cheap, making it impossible to compete against them in world markets, thus causing third world economies harm.

A long-standing irritant in relations between the United States and its neighbor Canada is the American refusal to abide by NAFTA and World Trade Organization decisions and admit Canadian softwood lumber without applying punitive duties.

The continuing embargo against Cuba is seen by a broad range of people as vindictive - and hypocritical in the face of mainland China retaining most favored nation trading status. In 1996 the U.S. passed the Helms-Burton Act, which included a controversial provision which, roughly, allows lawsuits against foreigners who do business with Cuban companies which use American property nationalized in the 1959 Cuban Revolution. Some saw this as an offense against other nations' sovereignty and a violation of World Trade Organization rules. And while President Clinton suspended the lawsuit portion of that act, and President Bush has continued its suspension, the act's mere existence is offensive to many.

The US government annually certifies whether other countries cooperate in its War On Drugs; countries which are judged uncooperative are sanctioned economically and diplomatically. This annual review is seen as offensive by many foreign countries, most notably by Mexico.

[edit] Arms trade and anti-proliferation measures

Many criticize the United States for boycotting the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Small Arms Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the anti-personnel landmine banning Ottawa Treaty. It is also known to hold the world's largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to continue development of new types of weapons although, along with many other powers, it campaigns against attempts to build weapons of mass destruction by countries such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea while ignoring similar alleged programs by Israel.

Many small and poor countries -- which lack nuclear weapons -- consider America's efforts to prevent the further proliferation of nuclear weapons to be a thinly veiled attempt to maintain its military advantage. America and most Western countries counter that these efforts benefit all because proliferation would destabilize many conflict regions, most of them involving poor countries.

Some countries, in particular the People's Republic of China, resent U.S. involvement in its internal affairs. For example, the U.S. selling weapons (all of it defensive type) to the Republic of China (Taiwan) and its deep involvement in the Taiwan issue has been seen as offensive by the PRC government. The PRC also has a conflict with the U.S. government that criticizes PRC's human rights practices. The PRC accuses the US of ignoring similar questionable practices in other countries, including the United States itself.

[edit] American funding of paramilitary groups

America has a history of supplying funds for paramilitary groups that may be called freedom fighters by the donors and their allies, but are usually regarded as extremists or terrorists by their opponents and critics. Such funding may be provided by the government, by private citizens, or by a combination of the two. The Contras in Nicaragua are an example of this.

Even a close ally like the United Kingdom has been the target of such action: there is a long history of Americans openly raising funds for both the Provisional Irish Republican Army and the Real Irish Republican Army. Funds for these groups are commonly raised by Irish-Americans, who feel a patriotic sense of involvement in The Troubles in Northern Ireland.

[edit] American support for government-sponsored death squads

The U.S. was responsible for arming and training the notorious Atlacatl Battalion in El Salvador. They were responsible for the rape, torture, mutilation, and murder of civilians, including children. A famous example of this was the El Mozote massacre. When word of this massacre got out, it was dismissed by the U.S. government as communist propaganda. In 1992, the United Nation Truth Commission investigated the site of the massacre and found 143 skeletons, including 131 children under the age of twelve. The ammunition found around the site of the massacre was manufactured in Lake City, Missouri.

Shortly after the massacre, Reagan signed Congress's amendment of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which said the El Salvadoran government "is making a concerted and significant effort to comply with internationally recognized human rights" and "is achieving substantial control over all elements of its own armed forces, so as to bring to an end the indiscriminate torture and murder of Salvadoran citizens by these forces."[2]

 

[Raithere]

Are they mutually exclusive?

Yes. They may be components of an overall strategy but they constitute very different types of actions.

~Raithere

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes. They may be components of an overall strategy but they constitute very different types of actions.

~Raithere

Could you explain that a little more expansively?

And what do you think of these strategies?

 

[Raithere]

Here is part of the list.

Not that I necessarily share Baron's position but the only "law" you cited in your reference was NAFTA. Much of what you did list is cold-war era activity (although I would agree that unfortunately some of our politcy is still influenced by it) and there is a shit-load of unproven allegation.

The part that diappoints me is that you seem to think that this type of activity is somehow exlusively American. I suggest you do a bit more research and try to get a broader view:

http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/index-eng
http://www.hrw.org/
http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/
http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/


~Raithere

 

[S.A.M.]

Not that I necessarily share Baron's position but the only "law" you cited in your reference was NAFTA. Much of what you did list is cold-war era activity (although I would agree that unfortunately some of our politcy is still influenced by it) and there is a shit-load of unproven allegation.

The part that diappoints me is that you seem to think that this type of activity is somehow exlusively American. I suggest you do a bit more research and try to get a broader view:

http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/index-eng
http://www.hrw.org/
http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/
http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/


~Raithere

Oh I don't think its exclusively American. But Americans seem to me to be particularly unaware of what their government does. Plus no single country abuses power on a world wide scale as much as the Americans do and still pretend to stand for human rights.

Notwithstanding the short attention span of most Americans, people in those countries are still suffering from the effects of the Cold War policies. Victims have longer memories anyway.

 

[Raithere]

Could you explain that a little more expansively?

I’m not sure what needs explaining. Drafting trade agreements, investing in foreign business, and assisting US companies in establishing themselves in other countries is significantly different than sending in troops, wouldn’t you agree?

Mostly what I would like to get at, however, is this notion that the US is some kind of economic leech that causes poverty.

And what do you think of these strategies?

Depends upon which one you’re asking about. Overall I think the US is too heavy handed and unsubtle which is the primary reason for the widespread negative opinion people have of us. We tend to operate from ideology rather than pragmatism, but that’s just the way politics works. We tend to let ourselves get mired too quickly into issues that we should let the local people sort out themselves. And we allow both local and international politics to blunt the decisiveness and direction of our actions.

But I also find most of the criticism to be intensely hypocritical. Most of the world seems to think that the US should act to preserve everyone’s interests but our own. They are quick to request our involvement during a crisis but then resent our ongoing interest after we are already invested. Their own activates are also largely ignored. I also see a tremendous amount of revisionist positioning where the inception of the situation is recast much later on to create the impression that the opposing position was untenable from the start.

~Raithere

 

[S.A.M.]

Mostly what I would like to get at, however, is this notion that the US is some kind of economic leech that causes poverty.

I think what I object to is their basic goals.

i.e. they invest in a Third World country not to minimise poverty but to maximise their own profits. One does not expect the US to invest at a loss, but to completely overwhelm the local economy for profit making shows a callous disregard for the fate of the people that exist there.

e.g. a refusal to sign forced labour and child labour, paying 11 cents an hour for a product with a net cost of 2 dollars which sells for 200 dollars etc.

Depends upon which one you’re asking about. Overall I think the US is too heavy handed and unsubtle which is the primary reason for the widespread negative opinion people have of us. We tend to operate from ideology rather than pragmatism, but that’s just the way politics works. We tend to let ourselves get mired too quickly into issues that we should let the local people sort out themselves. And we allow both local and international politics to blunt the decisiveness and direction of our actions.

I think it is the other way around. The US goes into countries and ignores human rights violations if they are able to get the local politics to be helpful in their goals of maximising profits. It is only when locals refuse to play ball or demand accountability that the US uses its military power to get what it wants anyway.

So its either dictator regimes or war. The only thing that can and does regulate US action is the public opinion, especially American public opinion, as seen by election results. Power ultimately is the goal of both the political parties and they like to be seen to be apparently doing what the public wants.

But I also find most of the criticism to be intensely hypocritical. Most of the world seems to think that the US should act to preserve everyone’s interests but our own. They are quick to request our involvement during a crisis but then resent our ongoing interest after we are already invested. Their own activates are also largely ignored. I also see a tremendous amount of revisionist positioning where the inception of the situation is recast much later on to create the impression that the opposing position was untenable from the start.

~Raithere

Thats because the US is the one with the money and power.
Do people have a right to expect help without being rewarded by dictator regimes and economic hardship?

 

[Raithere]

Oh I don't think its exclusively American. But Americans seem to me to be particularly unaware of what their government does.

I disagree. I try to keep an eye on international news and I do not see internal discussion and debate anywhere else in the world that compares to what goes on within the US. That being said, I will reiterate that most people everywhere have little knowledge or interest in what goes on.

Plus no single country abuses power on a world wide scale as much as the Americans do and still pretend to stand for human rights.

I believe we would disagree on what we consider abuse. But I would point out that this is also a function of how much power one has as well as selective sampling. I find your sourcing to be extremely biased.

Notwithstanding the short attention span of most Americans, people in those countries are still suffering from the effects of the Cold War policies.

Most of today’s situation was precipitated by post WWII politics and that was precipitated by pre-war imperialism. American’s aren’t the only ones with short attention spans. Are you asserting that the US was the only participant in the cold war? Shall we investigate the historical background of, let’s say, the Middle East to determine just how the current situation arose? How many of the problems in Africa today can be attributed to European imperialism? Shall we examine the agressiveness of post-war communism or Muslim nations? You've isolated US activity from all historical perspective and then hold it to an idealistic measure.

~Raithere

 

[S.A.M.]

I disagree. I try to keep an eye on international news and I do not see internal discussion and debate anywhere else in the world that compares to what goes on within the US. That being said, I will reiterate that most people everywhere have little knowledge or interest in what goes on.

I believe we would disagree on what we consider abuse. But I would point out that this is also a function of how much power one has as well as selective sampling. I find your sourcing to be extremely biased.

Most of today’s situation was precipitated by post WWII politics and that was precipitated by pre-war imperialism. American’s aren’t the only ones with short attention spans. Are you asserting that the US was the only participant in the cold war? Shall we investigate the historical background of, let’s say, the Middle East to determine just how the current situation arose? How many of the problems in Africa today can be attributed to European imperialism? Shall we examine the agressiveness of post-war communism or Muslim nations? You've isolated US activity from all historical perspective and then hold it to an idealistic measure.

~Raithere

If you see relative contributions of single countries to any aspect of Third World politics, economy and quality of life, which country has the capacity to bring about the maximum change? And which one has had the maximum negative impact?

 

[Raithere]

I think what I object to is their basic goals.

Which are?

they invest in a Third World country not to minimise poverty but to maximise their own profits.

First off, you’re talking about corporations, not the US government, and the function of a corporation is to generate profit. Nor is this exclusive to US corporations; would you like to examine the diamond trade in Africa or the gold trade in South America and who owns these companies? How about manufacturing in China?

Secondly, I believe you are largely wrong. While there have been many abuses most often it comes about through companies taking advantage of the lack of rights and protections in the county, not as a violation of existing rights. It is the government’s responsibility to protect its citizens not that of foreign businesses. You don’t see sweatshops in America because US law prohibits them, not because US or foreign firms are out to protect Americans.

Additionally, international corporations typically bring in higher than standard wages and rights simply because they are operating at an international level and must consider the legal positioning in all countries, often taking the highest common denominator as their official standard.

One does not expect the US to invest at a loss, but to completely overwhelm the local economy for profit making shows a callous disregard for the fate of the people that exist there.
e.g. a refusal to sign forced labour and child labour, paying 11 cents an hour for a product with a net cost of 2 dollars which sells for 200 dollars etc.

You’re showing a naiveté of economics here. First of all, a large corporation coming in to a 3rd world country and raising the average wage to US standards would be tremendously destabilizing to the local economy and cause all kinds of problems. Secondly, it eliminates any incentive to invest in a 3rd world nation at all. How is no investment better?

I think it is the other way around. The US goes into countries and ignores human rights violations if they are able to get the local politics to be helpful in their goals of maximising profits. It is only when locals refuse to play ball or demand accountability that the US uses its military power to get what it wants anyway.

Show me where the US has acted with the purpose of reducing human rights.

Thats because the US is the one with the money and power.

So then it’s not a difference in what we do that you object to, only our ability to do it when contrasted to other nations? In other words, it's okay for France, China, and Russia to support a tyrannical, genocidal dictator because they have less influence and ability to do so.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

If you see relative contributions of single countries to any aspect of Third World politics, economy and quality of life, which country has the capacity to bring about the maximum change? And which one has had the maximum negative impact?

And which has had the maximum positive impact?

This reminds me of the story I read about an international AIDS conference a few years ago. The US was thoroughly lambasted for its less than progressive stance on AIDS. Of course, the US also contributed more to AIDS research and aid than all the other participating countries combined.

http://coburn.senate.gov/ffm/index....Store_id=99547cc4-248a-4642-8011-e540f1b74e70

~Raithere

 

[S.A.M.]

Which are?

First off, you’re talking about corporations, not the US government, and the function of a corporation is to generate profit. Nor is this exclusive to US corporations; would you like to examine the diamond trade in Africa or the gold trade in South America and who owns these companies? How about manufacturing in China?

The corporations are set up as a condition of aid. i.e. the Third World countries have to open up their markets to US imports and corporations- these are the strings tied to the aid. Setting up of cash crops at the expense of local produce is also part of the conditions.

The corporations do not act on their own. They receive tax benefits and are heavily subsidised by the government (and hence the US taxpayer)

Secondly, I believe you are largely wrong. While there have been many abuses most often it comes about through companies taking advantage of the lack of rights and protections in the county, not as a violation of existing rights. It is the government’s responsibility to protect its citizens not that of foreign businesses. You don’t see sweatshops in America because US law prohibits them, not because US or foreign firms are out to protect Americans.

So a Third World country with a dictator or a puppet government that has strings tied to aid and funding will protect the local population?

Additionally, international corporations typically bring in higher than standard wages and rights simply because they are operating at an international level and must consider the legal positioning in all countries, often taking the highest common denominator as their official standard.

Is that why the US refuses to sign the international treaties against forced labour and child labour ?

-because they are setting such high standards?

You’re showing a naiveté of economics here. First of all, a large corporation coming in to a 3rd world country and raising the average wage to US standards would be tremendously destabilizing to the local economy and cause all kinds of problems. Secondly, it eliminates any incentive to invest in a 3rd world nation at all. How is no investment better?

How about investing in a country to create jobs instead of supplanting them?

How about not flooding the market with cheap American produce putting local farmers out of a job (aka food dumping)?

Will that help?

Show me where the US has acted with the purpose of reducing human rights.

There are whole books on it.

Here is one example:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061127/school_of_the_americas

Founded in Panama in 1946 and moved to Fort Benning in 1984, the SOA has trained more than 60,000 Latin American soldiers in military and law-enforcement tactics. The Pentagon has acknowledged that in the past the SOA used training manuals advocating coercive interrogation methods and extra-judicial executions, and over time SOA alumni have been linked to many of Latin America's most heinous human rights atrocities, from widespread torture to massacres of young children.

Congress renamed the SOA the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation in 2001; since then thousands of foreign soldiers have journeyed to Fort Benning for training. However, with political change currently sweeping through Latin America, several countries have cut ties with the SOA in recognition of its notorious track record. "Many of the governments here in South America are now made up of people who were thrown in prison and tortured in the past," says Lisa Sullivan, a Caracas-based organizer for SOA Watch, "so they're taking a very different look at the role of their armed forces and their military relations with the United States."

So then it’s not a difference in what we do that you object to, only our ability to do it when contrasted to other nations? In other words, it's okay for France, China, and Russia to support a tyrannical, genocidal dictator because they have less influence and ability to do so.

Not ability so much as the scale.

 

[Raithere]

The corporations are set up as a condition of aid. i.e. the Third World countries have to open up their markets to US imports and corporations- these are the strings tied to the aid. Setting up of cash crops at the expense of local produce is also part of the conditions.

So you think it is the US’s responsibility to give something for nothing?

The corporations do not act on their own. They receive tax benefits and are heavily subsidised by the government (and hence the US taxpayer)

This is support, not direction of activity. And how is this different than any other country?

So a Third World country with a dictator or a puppet government that has strings tied to aid and funding will protect the local population?

Care to show me a government that does not have its economic interests at heart? All politics works this way.

Is that why the US refuses to sign the international treaties against forced labour and child labour ?

The US signs some such treaties and does not sign others. Just like all other nations. It has championed much of this type of legislation. You need to examine the treaties to find out who signs or does not sign them and why. A blanket statement that the US simply refuses to sign child and forced labor treaties is a lie.

How about investing in a country to create jobs instead of supplanting them?

Not sure what you mean here. Can you site an example?

How about not flooding the market with cheap American produce putting local farmers out of a job (aka food dumping)?

So we should reduce the global food supply in order to subsidize inefficient farming techniques? Make certain that more people will starve so that those that survive can earn a better living?

There are whole books on it.

Show me where the purpose of the action was to reduce human rights?

Not ability so much as the scale.

So really your entire argument is that the US is too powerful.

~Raithere

 

[S.A.M.]

So you think it is the US’s responsibility to give something for nothing?

Only if it is claiming to be working towards that goal, i.e. foreign aid

This is support, not direction of activity. And how is this different than any other country?

Its not but as a condition of foreign aid, it defeats the purpose of the aid.

Care to show me a government that does not have its economic interests at heart? All politics works this way.

How many train foreign political groups in torture techniques?

The US signs some such treaties and does not sign others. Just like all other nations. It has championed much of this type of legislation. You need to examine the treaties to find out who signs or does not sign them and why. A blanket statement that the US simply refuses to sign child and forced labor treaties is a lie.

They ignore the ones they sign anyway, so whats the difference?
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/04/16/global179.htm

Not sure what you mean here. Can you site an example?

What can actually be done?

So we should reduce the global food supply in order to subsidize inefficient farming techniques? Make certain that more people will starve so that those that survive can earn a better living?

How does taking away someones livelihood make him more food secure?
Name one country where US investment in foreign aid has reduced starvation.

Show me where the purpose of the action was to reduce human rights?

You mean training militant groups in torture techniques (after many of them have been shown to be involved in the torture and massacre of children) protects human rights?

So really your entire argument is that the US is too powerful.

My argument is the US repeats the same cycle over and over, with devastating consequences to whole countries and populations.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/06/04/usint196.htm

 

[S.A.M.]

And which has had the maximum positive impact?

This reminds me of the story I read about an international AIDS conference a few years ago. The US was thoroughly lambasted for its less than progressive stance on AIDS. Of course, the US also contributed more to AIDS research and aid than all the other participating countries combined.

http://coburn.senate.gov/ffm/index....Store_id=99547cc4-248a-4642-8011-e540f1b74e70

~Raithere

The positive impact is why people have expectations of the United States to begin with. Does the government invest in AIDS research ?

I hope the 200+ delegation had a good time in Barcelona, even if it was at the taxpayers expense.

 

[Roman]

Most people are unaware of almost everything, whether they be American or some other nationailty.

If you're asking me I need clarification. Are you asking about the costs of political/military activities or economic ones?

~Raithere

I've always found people from other western nations, and even some eastern ones, to be far more educated and knowledgeable of the world than the typical American.

Of course, there may be some selection bias, as I could really only converse with those that knew English, which would make them educated. But I hear learning english is part of compulsary education in most countries these days.

 

[Roman]

I’m not sure what needs explaining. Drafting trade agreements, investing in foreign business, and assisting US companies in establishing themselves in other countries is significantly different than sending in troops, wouldn’t you agree?

Supporting oppressive regimes through money and arm sales is virtually the same. It's our hardware keeping their countries economically viable for us.

 

[Raithere]

Only if it is claiming to be working towards that goal, i.e. foreign aid

Seems to me that the goals are typically stated quite clearly. We will do x and y if you do a and b.

Its not but as a condition of foreign aid, it defeats the purpose of the aid.

So it’s only wrong when the US does it. How do you justify such a statement?

How many train foreign political groups in torture techniques?

The question is not who is guilty of “torture” but who is not:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-313/index

They ignore the ones they sign anyway, so whats the difference?

It’s fun to watch you wiggle sam. Where in that article does it show the US ignoring agreements on forced or child labor?

What can actually be done?

To create jobs instead of supplanting them? Once again, I need clarification about what you mean here. Do you mean that instead of offering manufacturing jobs and having the local population leave farming we should offer farming jobs? That kind of thing?

How does taking away someones livelihood make him more food secure?

I wasn’t proposing that it did. The US has unbalanced some areas and displaced some people with poorly considered aid attempts. Unfortunately, politicians often make decisions without properly considering the long term effects.

Name one country where US investment in foreign aid has reduced starvation.

You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. Are you daft or just brainwashed?

* Food aid. The United States annually provides more than half of total global food assistance, most of it as grants. In fiscal year 2001, U.S. international food assistance totaled over 6 million tons, including more than 4 million provided by USDA. A large portion of this assistance was distributed through private voluntary organizations (PVOs) and the World Food Program of the United Nations.
* Food safety. The United States provides technical assistance to countries participating in international standard-setting bodies; developing national science-based measures for animal and plant health and food safety; improving capacity in food pathogen control, pest and disease management, surveillance, risk assessments, and inspections; improving infrastructure for processing plants and laboratories; developing optimal manufacturing practices; and conducting research.
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0901/ijee/usda.htm

More than half of ALL food assistance in the world but you know, I’m sure none of it has helped anyone. It’s all just a US plot to destabilize foreign economies. Your wanton ignorance pisses me off sam.

You mean training militant groups in torture techniques (after many of them have been shown to be involved in the torture and massacre of children) protects human rights?

Debatable issues sam not to mention more selective data picking. Training groups in interrogation techniques does not mean national approval of massacring children. And in most instances brutality and human rights violations are being committed on both sides so no matter who we support we’re indirectly supporting such atrocities. So should we support the bad guys who will deal with us or the bad guys who won’t?

My argument is the US repeats the same cycle over and over, with devastating consequences to whole countries and populations.

Oh BS. You have no point as far as I can see. You don’t care if every other country does the same thing, you cherry pick your data, you ignore anything positive the US does. How can you possibly claim to have a more objective understanding about any of this than the average American?

~Raithere