Re: Bush budget has 0 dollars for Afghanistan

From: avatar (avatar@renegadeclothing.com.au)
Date: Tue Feb 18 2003 - 16:41:47 MST

  • Next message: avatar: "Re: META: Banning Iraq discussion"

    Mez wrote as at end:

    Thanks Mez: Think you're very right about this! I also think it's
    unbelievable how little money has been put into reconstructing Russia,
    considering how much was being put into the Cold War. Democracy there is a
    little quivery and they still retain equal numbers of nuclear weapons.

    I think the lack of Marahall Plan is linked to the lack of support for
    democracies worldwide. You can see this in Australia's attitude to SE Asia,
    where democracies like Thailand and South Korea are rater lower than racist
    pseudo-democracies like Malaysia or Fiji and recent autocracies with
    blood-soaked genocidal generals still wandering around like Indonesia.
    Australia has little notion of rewarding democracies and sticking together,
    unless they are white and speak English (with the exception of Japan).
    Instead Australia goes resources as the primary motivational factor. Even
    with East Timor, I can remember our current Prime Minister in 1982 railing
    in favour of Indonesia instead of the East Timorese - his conversion to
    assisting East Timor coincides with forcing a better deal on it for oil - I
    worked on the Timor Gap treaty for a bit in 1989 - so now Australia stands
    to gain well over two-thirds of the oil [as opposed to its previous deal
    with Indonesia, which was going to give it about half, and international
    law, which says Australia should get nothing - but we withdrew from the
    jurisdiction of the relevant international court in order to ignore
    international law]. Thus Australia pays for its troops salaries (we didn't
    expend any munitions) and takes back a hefty several-billions dollar profit.
    East Timor's population is low (1 million) compared to Australia's (20
    million), so their remaining billions (several) might seem fabulous anyhow,
    but Australia is a continent and they are a tiny island - they will have to
    wait for assemblers once that oil money goes, and it will barely be
    sufficient to establish an infrastructure for them. In contrast, Australia
    will use up it's billions on one single item of line expenditure.

    Avatar

    34 After Armstrong

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Ramez Naam" <mez@apexnano.com>
    To: <extropians@extropy.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 5:52 AM
    Subject: RE: Bush budget has 0 dollars for Afghanistan

    > From: Dehede011@aol.com [mailto:Dehede011@aol.com]
    > > Then you really have to look at a bigger picture. If
    > > going into Afghanistan saved us being hit a 2nd time
    > > by the Al Qaeda what is the cost for that relative to
    > > the cost of going into Afghanistan?
    >
    > The bigger pictures is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not
    > complaining about the cost of going into Afghanistan. Rather, I'm
    > pointing out the huge disparity between the steps the US is willing to
    > take to address problems in the short term (invading a country, taking
    > out a current terrorist group) vs. addressing problems in the long
    > term (spreading democracy, stabilizing fragile areas, stamping out
    > global poverty, ignorance, and oppression).
    >
    > I believe that terrorism is more dangerous than individual terrorists.
    > We can kill all the terrorists we want, but unless we go after some of
    > the root causes of terrorism, it's pointless.
    >
    > Conversely, so long as the US props up dictators who oppress their own
    > populace, the US is investing in future terrorism. So it seems to me
    > that we're taking short-term action against terrorists at the same
    > time that we're promoting terrorism in the long term. Not very
    > clever.
    >
    > mez
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 18 2003 - 16:42:44 MST