Possibly ANOTHER War?

[AFPheonix]

To be somewhat fair to Russia, it's not like they started it. I don't know what Saakashvili was thinking when he sent troops into Ossetia. It's not part of Georgia and most of the people in that region want to rejoin Russia.
Both sides are producing a lot of propaganda and misinformation along with some kernels of truth.
In the end, this is what Balkan states do: fight a lot. These two have been duking it out since time immemorial.

[CancelMyService]

Actually, Ossetia is/was a self-autonomous province of Georgia. Most of the population identifies itself as Russian, but the area itself was in Georgia proper.

[AFPheonix]

Actually, Ossetia is/was a self-autonomous province of Georgia. Most of the population identifies itself as Russian, but the area itself was in Georgia proper.

And yet he knew that he'd be stirring some poop by ordering troops in there. I still think there are multiple motives going on on both sides.

[daleduke17]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

And the US cannot keep out of something. The United States cannot even take care of citizens, yet can send aid all over the world. What is wrong with that picture?

[protege]

The United States cannot even take care of citizens, yet can send aid all over the world. What is wrong with that picture?

Simple. We voted too many idiots into Congress. They're too busy worrying about someone in a far-off land, rather than someone here...who, depending on their age, not only has the power to vote them into office...but can vote their ass out as well.

[Greenday]

Interesting to see Russia given the opportunity to do whatever the hell it wants in Georgia within these new "boundaries" given to it. Russia isn't pulling out, that's for sure.

[Boozy]

The United States cannot even take care of citizens, yet can send aid all over the world. What is wrong with that picture?

It is through foreign aid and foreign involvement that the US spreads its influence. This must be the most misunderstood government policy.

By helping others, you are helping yourselves. The US trade deficit is currently hovering at about $60 billion dollars. The United States do not produce enough commodities (ie lumber, oil, etc) or cheap labour to support their current way of life. You are utterly and completely dependent on other nations to maintain this lifestyle. But you have to pay the piper. If China starts throwing more money at other countries than you, then those commodities are heading their way. We're already starting to see this is certain oil-rich nations. That's just basic capitalism.

More importantly, nobody wants your exports. They're expensive and can be made cheaper and easier by other countries. Unfortunately for you, thousands of industries would collapse if the US didn't find international markets for these products. So your government uses a combination of bribes, financial strong-arming, and military threats to get the world to buy your exports. Loans, by the way, are more common than aid. You want those countries to owe you big, or the threats to turn off the tap doesn't work.

Your way of life is entirely dependent on foreign aid. You've painted yourself into a corner whereby funneling money earmarked for foreign aid and loans towards your own nation's poor would be completely pointless. Your economy would suffer, creating more poverty than there was to begin with.

[daleduke17]

By helping other countries, the United States is not paying attention to the decaying infrastructure in the States or horrible conditions in a lot of places (including Veteran's Hospitals). The United States, by helping other countries, is not allowing help to be available when disasters strike (The National Guard was stretched pretty thin in 2007 when the Greensburg Tornado struck, as well as when the 2008 Iowa/Illinois Floods struck). Are the US citizens being helped when the US cannot get a control on the illegal immigration that is happening?

How are those things being taken care of because the US is out helping other countries?

If the US doesn't try to fix itself, then the US is going to look a lot like a termite infested house. Looks good on the outside, but falling apart inside.

[Boozy]

How are those things being taken care of because the US is out helping other countries?

Because US foreign involvement and trade is the source of your wealth. Without resources, you can't fix anything.

I would be angrier that your country has decided to piss away their resources on tax cuts for the wealthy and the war in Iraq before getting outraged over an aid package to Africa.

[daleduke17]

Because US foreign involvement and trade is the source of your wealth. Without resources, you can't fix anything.

So, that means Iraq, Afghanistan and Georgia are going to pay the United States for services rendered then? Or is it just going to be money pissed away? The trading I have no problem with. At least the US is getting something in return.

I would be angrier that your country has decided to piss away their resources on tax cuts for the wealthy and the war in Iraq before getting outraged over an aid package to Africa.

The United States has a problem and it should be fixed before the US tries to go out and play babysitter to the world. That includes Iraq. I remember posting on a different thread of the amount of money spent on Iraq and Afghanistan and how it could be better used in the states instead of there. Why shouldn't I be upset that aid is being spent in Africa when the same aid is needed at home?

The tax cuts are a whole different issue. The wealthy have the US government over the same barrel as the foreign nations pretty much. If the US doesn't give the wealthy tax cuts, they threaten to pull out and leave.

[Rapscallion]

The tax cuts are a whole different issue. The wealthy have the US government over the same barrel as the foreign nations pretty much. If the US doesn't give the wealthy tax cuts, they threaten to pull out and leave.

They kept threatening that over here, or similar things. Heh - doesn't happen.

Where would the wealthy go? The UK? Sure, very similar culture, but "oh noes, no guns!" or something else would really piss them off. Very few wealthy people who could move actually would. Leave all their friends behind?

I can't remember who it was (memory suggests an actor of some note) who said that if labour got voted in over here they'd emigrate, but we're still waiting.

It would also take a large number of wealthy people to move to make much of a difference, and it's just not going to happen. There are investments rooted in the country where they're living, and though they can be controlled from afar it's just not the same.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

It would also take a large number of wealthy people to move to make much of a difference, and it's just not going to happen. There are investments rooted in the country where they're living, and though they can be controlled from afar it's just not the same.

Rapscallion

Not really. In America, there are a few people so wealthy that a good amount (not the majority but a huge chunk) of all the money in America. They leave and it'd really hurt the American economy.

[CancelMyService]

Just to throw some fuel on the fire, Iraq's government has a surplus thanks to their oil revenues and the US has a huge deficit. It's kind of apples and oranges, but if nothing else it's something to point out.

Also, the US economy is basically one giant shell game where they keep moving the debt from one pile to another and if a country like China ever called in their debts it would cause a collapse that would make the Great Depression look like a minor blip on the radar.

[AFPheonix]

Not really. In America, there are a few people so wealthy that a good amount (not the majority but a huge chunk) of all the money in America. They leave and it'd really hurt the American economy.

Where would they go? Anywhere that could provide the standard of living to which they are accustomed would have far higher taxes than we do here. Otherwise they're stuck going to developing nations that don't offer the same sorts of opportunities and amenities they could find in a first world country.

[daleduke17]

Where would they go? Anywhere that could provide the standard of living to which they are accustomed would have far higher taxes than we do here. Otherwise they're stuck going to developing nations that don't offer the same sorts of opportunities and amenities they could find in a first world country.

There's all sorts of island nations in the Atlantic that they could go to that are first class that could give them all of that and still be close enough to the United States.