You get what you deserve

The U.S. military is the world's delivery system for all relief efforts and humanitarian aid throughout the world...hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, famines, and so on. What other country or company can do this job? Are they absolutely, 100% perfect? What is?

Are they better than 99% of the other choices out there? Absolutely.

When there is a need for a rescue operation, I bet most people would pray for an American Marine or Special Ops of any branch. That kind of thing does cost $$.

I wonder if any of the countries who have received this help have reimbursed the United States for the cost?

Maybe somebody out there knows the answer to this question.

Let's face it. You can't negotiate with a man on a bus with a backpack full of explosives who isn't talking to you. He goes boom, and you die.

And you can't negotiate with an F16 pilot about to drop his load or fire his Gatling gun, nor can you negotiate with a sailer about to push the launch button on a cruise-missile because these are pawns in the chess game, nor could you have negotiated with a Soviet or American ready to turn the key releasing ICBM's, but the USA and the Soviet Union did negotiate and there was never a war. There was also strategy called MAD and it was both ingenious and insane, but it worked because both sides knew the consequences, but in this war, neither side seems to know or care, or maybe only one side knows, but the other doesn't care.

Either way, negotiations could take place if the USA wanted it. The USA must look at it's actions propping up the unpopular governments of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt. The USA talks of democracy, but would hate to see the election results in those countries. We claim them as friends and help them subdue their populace because we either want their oil or their strategic value.

Some will call me un-American or an America hater for what I write, but I want to see the USA live in peace. I just don't believe in "Peace through War". I do not believe you can beat love into a person or a people. No one is more of an American than I am because he thinks that peace comes at the end of a gun while I think that peace comes at the end of a discussion.

In the 34 days that Israel and Hezbollah fought, Israel won almost every battle (body-count and destruction wise) but it looks as if Hezbollah has won the war. The action of undiscriminating overkill by the Israeli army and the position of the USA not to allow the UN to stop the violence has united Sunni and Shiite. If Israel and the USA must kill 1.2 billion people to win, there will be no victory for anyone.

I have so much to say on this topic but I just don't have the time to get involved. But I did have to laugh at this one:

I love this country, but I am afraid that we have gotten too big for our bridges.

I think there may be some countries with bigger bridges . Perhaps you meant britches? :biggrin1:

And I do have a comment about communism. How many of you who think it's not such a bad idea practice it in your own neighborhoods? If your neighbor came over and said he liked your new car and could he drive it around instead of you for the next month, would you agree? Or perhaps if he wanted your house?

And for you students, this is a common analogy but worth revisiting anyway: if some students study hard and get A's, and others party all the time and get F's, would it be right for the professor to give them all C's?

Communism isn't a good idea, even in theory.

I think that peace comes at the end of a discussion.

OK, sorry, couldn't leave this one alone either. Do you, perhaps, think that the people on the planes that were taken down on 9/11 pled for their lives? That they didn't try to have a "discussion"? Have you ever tried to "reason" with a fanatic? Best of luck on that front!

I wonder if any of the countries who have received this help have reimbursed the United States for the cost?

Maybe somebody out there knows the answer to this question.

Mousecrazy, the answer is no. We help and help and help and just get attacked for it, both verbally and physically.

Gadgetlady, thanks for your answer.

I am hoping someone is doing some research and will give an example of another country who can deliver the type of aid that the US delivers...just one example?

Also, looking for examples of reimbursements for assistance delivered?

On communism: Why hasn't a pure form of Marxism/communism ever existed in a country? Theories? Anyone?

OK, sorry, couldn't leave this one alone either. Do you, perhaps, think that the people on the planes that were taken down on 9/11 pled for their lives? That they didn't try to have a "discussion"? Have you ever tried to "reason" with a fanatic? Best of luck on that front!

As I said earlier, you can't reason or negotiate with pawns.

You do not see BuSh, Blaire, Bin Laden, Syrian president Al-Assad, Iran's president Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, Shiite Militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr or kim Jong-il on the firing line. Do you?

At least in a game of chess, the pawns shared the same board as the King and Queen, but in modern war-fare, the King and Queen get to stay home and watch while spinning the news to their favorite cable TV station.

The leaders must talk because the pawns are only silent partners. And as they die they become even more silent.

I am hoping someone is doing some research and will give an example of another country who can deliver the type of aid that the US delivers...just one example?

ROFLOL! Thanks for the laugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On communism: Why hasn't a pure form of Marxism/communism ever existed in a country? Theories? Anyone?

Yes, that would be because . . .

DRUM ROLL PLEASE . . .

IT DOESN'T WORK! No one would collect the garbage. And there are too many corrupt people in the world.

On communism: Why hasn't a pure form of Marxism/communism ever existed in a country? Theories? Anyone?

Because human nature is greed. If people were as pure as the Bible wanted them to be, Communism might work.

Maybe comminists were ungodly, but then again, so are capitalists.

Communism = theory

communism = practice

And as they die they become even more silent.

Here's to silencing them :clap2:

And the last time I checked, we couldn't "find" Bin Laden to have a discussion. Next time you chat with him, have him give the White House a call. It'd be nice if he didn't block his caller ID when he did it.

Exactly.

We do not live in a theoretical world.

Thank you for attending this seminar.

If people were as pure as the Bible wanted them to be, Communism might work.

Which Bible are you reading? Aside from Jesus, show me one pure person in that Book? The Bible CLEARLY indicates that we are ALL sinners and that we have no HOPE, other than through the blood of Jesus Christ, to be anything but.

Exactly.

We do not live in a theoretical world.

Thank you for attending this seminar.

Short, sweet, and to the point. Thanks, Mousecrazy! Would that everyone might earn an "A" in your class

Speaking of other country's military forces, and speaking of UN peacekeeping "forces", perhaps this would be an interesting illustration of reality:

France is considering providing only a symbolic force for the United Nations contingent in Lebanon, and not the thousands of troops UN officials had hoped, Le Monde newspaper said on Thursday.

If true, such a move could seriously delay the UN mission, seen as vital to securing peace between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas, or even scupper the whole operation.

Quoting UN and diplomatic sources, Le Monde said France might send just

a dozen officers

and

around 200 personnel from an engineering division

for the

beefed-up

UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

President Jacques Chirac’s office said the military options “were still under review.”

I understand they would also like "safety guarantees".

Here's to silencing them :clap2:

And the last time I checked, we couldn't "find" Bin Laden to have a discussion. Next time you chat with him, have him give the White House a call. It'd be nice if he didn't block his caller ID when he did it.

I believe the quote that fits that statement is:

Thats funny right thar, I don't care who you are!

I think the most critical point about this is, Al Qaeda has never been interested in negotiation. I think rather than terrorist "fundamentalist" is a more suitable term.

Let's play how the conversation would almost certainly go:

US / The rest of the world: So, Al Qaeda, what would you like from us to settle this peacefully?

Al Qaeda: Your suicide and enternal torment in hell would be good.

US / The rest of the world: Alright. we'll get right on it.

Al Qaeda: Thanks, but we'll take care of it.

Yes, they "nominally" stand for the total disengagement of US (Infidel) involvement in any "Muslim" country.

I'm half inclined to say "lets give it to them". No involvement whatso-ever. No oil purchases. No humanitarian aid. Nada. Close the boarders. No flights out, no flights in.

You want the real irony? When Al Qaeda formed, it was to fight Soviet involvement in Afghanistan. Something which we, the infidel, helped them do.

Hell, we even spent time showing them how to set up IEDs!

When terrorism is founded in religion, negotiation isn't going to cut it. If terrorism was only based on territorial matters, negotiation would be entirely possible.

They don't want us to "leave" the Middle East. They want us to stop living.