View Full Version : Question for a research paper...

February 06, 2003, 12:00
Hey everyone,

I'm doing a research paper in my english class. The topic has to be something contraversial and I have to show both views. In other words a persuasive essay but I can't just persuade my view. My topic is U.S. military assistance in other countries. I'm against it to a certain extent. I think we need to focus our own countries problems before we address the problems of others. I don't think we need to help other countries especially if they don't want to be helped. Many G.I.'s have been killed in senseless missions because they had little support and were poorly equipped. I just wanted to hear some of your input or views on this subject. Either view is great. I may or may not use of your posts in my essay so don't reply if you don't want it repeated in a paper. I will write you later if I decide to use your quote to get your final approval. If you need me to be more specific on my topic I will try my best. I'm at school right now so I have to cut this short. Any reply's are greatly appreciated. Thanks.


February 06, 2003, 12:17
Why not do your paper on the country which receives the most US military assistance? I'd hate to try to give both sides of the issue,... but if you're looking for a challenge,... here it is.




February 06, 2003, 12:26
Of course,... you can't be thin skinned if you choose to approach this topic. You'll be labeled.

February 06, 2003, 12:36
Robert Fisk is the very highly acclaimed reporter who wrote the piece on the Qana massacre. He's spent many years covering the Middle East. This interview with him provides many insights into that situation.


February 06, 2003, 13:25
AS a combat Vet. I have this to say on the matter. I would rather do my fighting for my country on forien soil rather than native soil. because I don't want our homes and towns fall to ruin in the fighting. And I don't want our civillians to be killed, wounded, or maimed in the exchange. So as to senseless missions that is amatter of perspective. A small team of spec ops guys go out to take out some small and insignificant seeming target, and 2or 3 get killed. Who is to say how many lives were saved. Contain the situation when it is small, So it don't have to be contained with a large land campaign with thousands of casualties on either side. Or when something like 9-11 or embassy bombings happen, such as Kenya and Tanzaneia. So it is all a matter of perspective. As to senseless missions,and what one calls senseless missions.

February 06, 2003, 15:15
You can either be an isolationest country or globally proactive like we are. We were once an isolationest country - Pre WWI, and again between WWI and WWII. This was for a number of reasons, but the world was simpler then and the threats to the US from somewhere overseas were few. Mexico was our biggest concern, and not a formidable one at that.

With the rise of the 3rd Reich, and the ensuing world war, our leaders began to realize how much smaller the world was getting. Countries could easily bomb each other from air. Simple border wars were becoming a thing of the past, and not just armies, but whole countries and its citizens could become casualties of war. The world's farthest reaching cannons, powerful submarines, rockets, powerful aircraft, and ultimately the world's first nuclear weapon were developed during a span of about 8 years. The goal was to "reach out and kill someone" from a far away place, and this goal was more than met, just during WWII.

Following WWII, we were keenly aware that no country was safe any longer from war or agression, even halfway around the world. This is 10 times truer today. Today's world is much different than it was 100 years ago. There are a much larger number of very volitile regions in Africa, Middle East, Far East, Indonedia, and South America. Many of the countries in these regions have or can obtain weapons that can be used to attack our country. Many countries and their people as well are very jelouse of our country and of us. Their jelousey is reflected in their loathing haterid of us. It has nothing to do with us giving military or food aid to other countries. If we stopped all forms of aid today, we would have that many more enemies trying to kick down our doors, destroy us and steal our wealth.

Our position as a world "peace keeper" or world-cop is certainly not by choice. It is only to protect us as a nation. It is a part of our political and economic strategy, similar to a chess game, but where the goal is not to "check mate" the other side, but to sustain a long term stale mate which constantly needs to be finely tuned to counteract unforseeable world events.

Essentially, we have two choices, if we are to survive as a nation: 1) we can participate in world events, the world economy, making alies and economic partners - which requires that we protect not only our, but their interests; or 2) we can systematically destroy all other humans to the point that they cannot possibly pose a threat to us. The latter choice, although morally repugnant to many, would be quite effective and at this point in history is quite possible. Like it or not we are no less suceptible to "darwinian influences" than any other specise. The strongest tend to survive. The species that can more effectively eliminate, or at least nutralize its enemy survies and flurishes. The species that lives at the whim of others is destined to be destroyed when it no longer has any preceived utility.

So, if we were to take our best shot at surviving as a nation (all morals aside) we should lash out and destroy the other nations, ruthlessly and quickly while we have this opportunity. Let there be no doubt that we do in fact have the capability of succeding in this endevor. You may try to refute this argument by using Hitler as an example of someone who tried this but failed. But these are different times, and we are ten fold more powerful and resourceful as a nation than Germany ever was. It's the difference between trying to set the forest on fire with a pack of matches after a hard rain; and igniting a tank of hydratetrazine with a flame thrower. We can accomplish our goal almost instantaniously, but for our moral predisposition against it.

The second best we can hope for is sustaining a balanced stalemate - and this requires us to be politicaly proactive and stay involved with other economic and political alies, even if that means standing with them in their fight against an agressor, or even preempting a direct threat to our nation.

February 06, 2003, 15:34
Robert Fisk is a European-styled liberal, pro-arab idiot! He would grab your guns as soon as you blinked. Anyone who quotes Robert Fisk is 100% anti-American, 100% anti-2nd amendment, and most likely of Arabic origin. He is ANYTHING, but a respected, unbiased reporter.

Just giving you the facts - I have no respect for anyone who quotes ROBERT (arablovergungrabber) FISK.

What, you don't believe me???- Fisk's article appeared in the magazine "The Progressive" - a very left-wing magazine. It appears he regularly publishes articles in this magazine. Which by the way, posts articles disparaging the NRA, and gun owners: read the article (and others like it) at http://www.progressive.org/ivins899.htm

John Randolph
February 06, 2003, 15:50
For an academic paper I wouldn't use sources like that.
First I would do research based on published figures found on places like www.usaid.gov, Export-Import Bank and the Treasury Department.
Make sure you make a distinction between Tied(Aid conditional on buying American Products) and Untied (non-Transparent Follow-on Sales) Aid, as well as Military, Humanitarian and Comercial forms of Aid.
Generally aid cannot be tied if its Commercially viable (ie the project can make money and is financed through traditional banking). Hydro-electric and bridge projects are generally in this category Aid dollars to China for the 3 Gorges. Humanitarian Aid is used to supply basic infrastructure and human needs in crisis. An example of this is the $5 billion dollars we've pledged to Afghanistan for road construction. Humanitarian Aid is almost always tied...meaning if America gives the aid...then American companies get the contracts.
Military Aid is a little of both, by law military aid must be financed privately, though it is often guaranteed by the lending government, despite this miltary aid is almost always makes use of tied and untied aid. Which is why Israel, Saudi Arabia, Japan and several other nations use American equipment almost exclusively, so it will benefit American Companies both in the sales of the weapon, and in later parts purchases as well.
Lastly while the US is the largest donor of aid in the world (use to be Japan up until a year ago), that doesn't mean that that money is just given away. The overhwhelming bulk of that aid takes the form of loans which need to get repaid. You may remember about 15 years ago, American Banks (Mellon) took a huge loss, because Brazil defaulted on their aid loans.

There is a lot to foreign aid, I know because its my job, in fact if you want I can send you a copy of a white paper I had to write on Tied and Untied Aid. I wouldn't cite is as a source, but it might give you some background info.

February 06, 2003, 16:37
Don't take this the wrong way, but, where's that damned smiley? You know, the one with the dead horse.:rolleyes:

February 07, 2003, 08:46
Try to focus in your topic - will you address US training programs for foreign nationals, or look at US weapons sold or given to friendly nations? Which ever topic you select, cite specific problems with US Military Assistance to other countries.

Some topics to consider:

Human Rights violations resulting from US supplied training or equipment

Illegal transfer of US weapons to undesirable third parties

Influx of the latest US hight tech weapons creating regional destabilization (a mini arms race between two traditionally rival nations)

For more info suggest checking out the Federation of American Scientists - Arms Sales Monitoring Project website


February 07, 2003, 09:47
I have to apologize about the "sensless mission" remark. I didn't really mean that. Everything has a purpose. I do agree that we should strike at the enemy before they come into power. It just seems to me that we wait until they are a powerful enemy and then try to do something about it. One of my main arguments in the paper is not really against helping other countries, but our government sends them overseas undersupplied and undertrained sometimes. On some occassions they were not given proper support on a raid or were sent in knowing they were extremely outnumbered. I know our military technology is growing and we have better and smarter weapons and missles, but when they send a small special ops. team in they can't use those large weapons. If they don't get the training they need or are undersupplied then it seems our men get killed due to our government thinking they know what our military needs to carry out these operations. If a General or someone asks for certain support or so many men to carry out an operation, I think he knows what he needs. But when a polotician in D.C. refuses that request, he might not have a clue what the extent of this mission is and could send our boys in to death trap. It just kind of makes me mad. Sorry I rambled on there. thanks for all the input guys. It nice to have adult wisdom to turn to. My young mind is still learning. It may just not be learning quick enough. See ya.


February 07, 2003, 10:59
lol,.. as I said, lilFALshooter. If you tackle the topic that I mentioned,.. you'll be labeled and verbally attacked. See some of the above responses as an illustration of that,... and all for posting a few URL's. But also know that there are MANY who can see the conditions in the middle east for what they really are, but choose to remain silent.

It's a very strange phenomenon which is unique to the situation. To question "why" it is the way it is to open up a can of worms which will change the way that you see the media and the political processes which govern our country,... especially Congress.

February 07, 2003, 11:02
Originally posted by ThunderGod
Don't take this the wrong way, but, where's that damned smiley? You know, the one with the dead horse.:rolleyes:

He asked for a controversial topic concerning foreign military aid. I suggested one. Sorry if it doesn't meet your criteria for being a proper subject to discuss.

John Randolph
February 07, 2003, 11:02
Though I missed the part where you were attacked...I think the goal here is that in an academic environment the standards for making a thesis are a lot higher than simply quoting Sobran or some other partisan website. While they are good for providing background on the arguments of both sides of an issue, generally speaking their research is half-assed and easily discredited...much in the same way that Bellesiles was discredited.

February 07, 2003, 11:05
Originally posted by jbaderts
Yes Temp...but we want him to pass.

,.. just like *you* passed,.. eh?

John Randolph
February 07, 2003, 11:05
Temp its pretty clear you don't know one thing how foreign aid is allocated or disbursed. You don't know the law...you don't know the system...and you don't understand the reasons...except what your "sources" tell you. How can you possibly give him good academic advice?

February 07, 2003, 11:06
Unless the course that he's taking is "Historical Revisionism 101",.. he should pass.

John Randolph
February 07, 2003, 11:08
Of course sweetheart...cause you know everything.

February 07, 2003, 11:13
Originally posted by jbaderts
Though I missed the part where you were attacked...I think the goal here is that in an academic environment the standards for making a thesis are a lot higher than simply quoting Sobran or some other partisan website. While they are good for providing background on the arguments of both sides of an issue, generally speaking their research is half-assed and easily discredited...much in the same way that Bellesiles was discredited.

I'll be right here when you decide to discredit a man who was an eyewitness.

John Randolph
February 07, 2003, 11:14
Excuse me...eyewitness to what? his bunghole?

February 07, 2003, 11:17
You're a very good example of an Israeli apologist, jabberts,..constantly looking for any critisim of Israel and will distort whatever is said through any means necessary. Tell me again about how you're an episcopalian. LOL!

At least tell the truth about yourself. That is,.. if you can tear yourself away from that matso ball long enough to do so.

February 07, 2003, 11:20
Originally posted by jbaderts
Excuse me...eyewitness to what? his bunghole?

Exactly what I've come to expect from you.

Actually, I'd like you to tell me the "real" events concerning the massacre of 106 civilian Lebanese men, women and children who had been housed inside a UN compound for their safekeeping.

I'm sure that you have a "take" on the matter.

John Randolph
February 07, 2003, 11:23
Who said anything about Israel?
More to the point...what Israeli action have I apologized for. Even if I had...I'm somehow less Christian. So how is that any different from when people call you a racist?
Thats it keep slinging mud. You're only embarrassing yourself in your desperation.
Every statement you've made in this regard has easily been discredited by easily checkable facts. Why not just admit you don't know everything...and you could in fact be wrong?
You have a right to your point of view...but that does it mean you've got the monopoly on truth.

John Randolph
February 07, 2003, 11:25
I'd like you to tell me the "real" events concerning the massacre of 106 civilian Lebanese men, women and children who had been housed inside a UN compound for their safekeeping.
Sigh...the worlds a bad place...Bad things happen. So let me get this straight Sobran witnessed Israeli soldiers massacreing 106 lebanese women and children?
Perhaps its the UN that has something to answer for.

February 07, 2003, 11:37
Originally posted by jbaderts

Sigh...the worlds a bad place...Bad things happen. So let me get this straight Sobran witnessed Israeli soldiers massacreing 106 lebanese women and children?
Perhaps its the UN that has something to answer for.

*As jabberts wipes a bitter tear from the corner of his eye* I can tell that you're very concerned.

No,.. not Sobran,..Robert Fisk.

Yeah,.. the UN takes civilian refugees into their compund to protect them from the Israelis and the Israelis send a spotter drone over to locate them,.. then shells them INSIDE the compound in full view of the UN members present,..

,.. and you try to place the blame on the UN.

You're sickening,... truly, man,.. as I said,.

You're an excellent example of the type of behavior which first called my attention to this situation a few years ago.

John Randolph
February 07, 2003, 11:43
*As jabberts wipes a bitter tear from the corner of his eye* I can tell that you're very concerned.
Never said I was concerned. These camps hid terrorists and guerillas. Life sucks, but don't whine to me when you get spanked.

So the Israelis shelled a UN compound and managed to killl 106 innocent civilians with arty...but didn't harm a single blue helmet?

Things that make you go hmmm.

And if it did indeed happen that way I'll blame the UN...just like I blame them for what happened in Srebrenica, Mogadishu and Monrovia.

So man...where's his proof...surely he has a photo somewhere of a drone...or an artillery burst...I mean he was there wasn't he? I mean...report filed by the UN commander...anything?

Anyways this thread digresses...Temp if you care to illuminate your ignorance any more perhaps you should start another thread.

February 07, 2003, 11:44
seek and ye shall find,... you *DO* know how to do a word search,... don't you?

John Randolph
February 07, 2003, 11:45
Yes I do know how to do a word search...but you're the one that made the statement. The burden of proof is on you.

February 07, 2003, 11:53
Originally posted by Skans
You can either be an isolationest country or globally proactive like we are.

Negative, ghostrider.

Isolationism is defined as "A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries." There are other alternatives between Fortress America and Global Nanny. Armed neutrality, for instance, was our policy for much of the US' early history. The US did not go in search of monsters to slay, but instead was a beacon of liberty to other nations, setting an example for them to emulate.

If you don't agree, go read Pres. Washington's farewell address.

February 07, 2003, 12:00
Originally posted by jbaderts
Yes I do know how to do a word search...but you're the one that made the statement. The burden of proof is on you.

The information is out there for anyone who wants it. I posted enough links at the beginning of the thread to get you started. You're not interested in truth,... you're interested in distortion of facts and doing you own little part to protect the Israeli agenda.

Good for you!

Go tell your boss what a good little boy you are.

I'm through with you, jabberts. You're a lying dog pekker gnat. I see through people like you and so do many others,.. but thank you for your thorough demonstration of an obfucationist in action. You're a novice at it, but you show the intent very well.

John Randolph
February 07, 2003, 12:02
oh so when you can't face up to facts you reort to insult.

Temp...the only liar here is you...the only one distorting the truth is you...the only one name calling here is you...the only one pushing an agenda is you. And you only try and hide your ignorance by making a hypocritical accusation.

Dog pecker gnat? what are you in kindergarten?

"Insult is the last refuge of the cretin."

February 07, 2003, 12:09
Ok,.. once again,.. cut and paste that which you claim is a lie that I've stated.

Lets hear it.

February 07, 2003, 12:14
I'm waiting

John Randolph
February 07, 2003, 12:16
I thought you were done with me.

You accused me of lying.
You accused me of putting out a singular point of view. He asked about foreign aid and sources for a paper. I gave him general information, not concentrating on Israel or any other nation, but aid in general.
You on the other hand only gave him biased and opinionated sources, exclusively dealing with Israel, and all with a decidedly anti-Israeli bent. Here's a newsflash Temp, we give military aid to lots of nations, and as a whole, the Arabs get far more military aid than the Israelis. So you've obviously tried to obfuscate that.
This is fine in academia if you're trying to give background on a side, but it will not help him proove anything about the nature of US Foreign Aid.

Now I said you're lying, and I'll stick by that because on some level, complexity is fraud. You present opinion as fact, you deride anyone who contradicts that opinion, and you don't bother to back up any of your assertions by more than one independent source.
By not giving the whole story, you hope to muddy the waters and cloud the issue, hoping people won't dig to deep into your so-called "facts". This is fraud. Sorry perhpas you didn't mean it to be, but it is.

February 07, 2003, 12:18

February 07, 2003, 12:24
lilFalShooter,... please read the links that I provided,... and by all means!,.. read anything else on the matter that you care to. Give them all a lot of thought,.. then form you OWN conclusions based on what you find. Whatever your conclusion is, people should respect it if you arrive at it honestly.

But don't allow yourself to be swayed by those who would choose to keep *some* of the information away from you.

I think that you know who I'm referring to.

Good luck on your paper.

John Randolph
February 07, 2003, 12:41
ditto what he said. :devil:

February 07, 2003, 13:48
It is an absolutely amazing thing to behold. This young man calls for our help on an English paper and Temp converts it to a bash the Jew forum. Amazing! I'll bet he can't go to sleep at night without looking under his bed to ensure no Jews are hiding there.

February 07, 2003, 13:52
bash?,... lol,...I posted an eyewitness account of the Qana massacre and an interview with the journalist who wrote it.

Aknowledgment isn't "bashing",... ephv,..

February 07, 2003, 13:54
If I had posted an eyewitness account of the fall of Saigon and an interview with a journalist who witnessed it,... would you see it as "Vietnamese bashing"?

You're so silly,...

February 07, 2003, 14:52

Not quite sure if you have a page or word limit. I would choose a simple issue such as the Beer commercial with Two Woman fighting and the Good and Bad of what it means.

Or Canned or Bottled beer which tastes better

English Class :eek:

Anyhow here is a Templator Lie statement (he is just is not smart enough to know this is not a fact) "Illnesses from chemical exposures would not be contagious" :p

Also another classic lie from Templator (he is just is not smart enough to know this is not a fact) "Antibiotics would have no effect on damage from chemical exposure." :p

Here is a lie from Me: Monkeys do not know the difference between a Red or Green Button.

Once again I done with this Thread.

February 07, 2003, 15:09
I'm sure that your posts have some deep, hidden meaning, Mauserdude,... well,... maybe they don't,..

curious,.. do you have a neurological disorder?

February 07, 2003, 15:11
There's a guy who sits on a park bench near here who, in between rapidly thrusting his tongue in and out of his mouth, sounds just like you!

February 07, 2003, 15:27
Templator, you never addressed my coment about WHO and WHAT Robert Fisk (your preceived hero) is. Your Quote from Fisk comes froma Journal called THE PROGRESSIVE; i.e. totally liberal, gun-grabbing, left wing paper that is well known for it's fringe left-wing perspectives. I posted the link to some of the other articles from this paper that so much loves to post Fisk's rantings. You like guns, right? Then why are you apparently supporting the anti-gun agenda by quoting Fisk and the Progressive????????

Is it perhaps, that Fisk, a very pro-arab journalist, happens to take YOUR side on this matter. I have seen pleanty of Arabs quote this man, Fisk, and you don't appear to be any different. In fact to even advocate this guy or the paper he writes for on this board is totally hypocritical of you. If you want to be a peace-loving gun-grabber - that's fine, pay your dues to the ACLU. Why even come here, where there is so much talk of spooky ISRAELI FAL'S, and IZZY Heavy barrels - why do you want to be hanging around this jew-rifle place anyway? Maybe we should advocate gun-grabbing legislation that bans jew-guns like the Desert Eagle, Galil, UZI, IZZY FAL and Parts Kits? Let us know your thoughts on that - would you support such a ban????

February 08, 2003, 02:27
hooooo-EEEEE!,.. that's a pretty bizarre string of logic that you cooked up there, Skans.

As far as Fisk being pro arab,.. *shrugg*,.. maybe he is,.. maybe he isn't,.. either way, pro arab, pro israeli,.. there really isn't any difference. Neither are Americans,.. both are violent middle easterners,... near as I can tell, they're cut from the same mold. It's just that Israelis can afford better clothes.

I feel no kinship to either of them and feel no obligation to support either of them.

Maybe you should ask yourself why *you* do.

February 08, 2003, 08:32
I don't care if you are anti-Israel or anti-jew - makes no difference to me. I do care when anyone on a gun board starts quoting known liberal anti-gun sources to support any cause. I just question what your interest is in Fisk or The Progressive?

I read alot of the gun-grabber bull$hit mainly because I like to know my enemy. So, I seek out writing by liberal biased left-wing reporters to read in order to hone my skills, and know their angle backwards and forwards. The gun-grabbers run in the same circles as Fisk and those who write for the Progressive. It is all part of their same agenda.

February 08, 2003, 12:22
I made no comments about gun grabbers,.. the links that I listed made no reference to gun grabbers.

Virtually every main stream media outlet in the US is a liberal, anti 2nd amendment rag. Does this mean that I discount *EVERYTHING* which appears in them?

Lies *and* the truth appear in print everywhere. Each individual has to learn to discern what is fact and what is propaganda,.. sad but true.

There's many links which document the Qana massacre. It was well reported in the European press, but with many things concerning Israel, it was pretty much omitted from our domestic media.

I linked the interview with Fisk because it gives us a good look at his motivations and inner workings. I found him to be very candid and creditable. He's seen the Middle East up close and personal for many years and I'm interested in what he has to say about it.

If you read reports of the Middle East from those who are outside of the US propaganda machine, you'll begin to realize that his prospectives and opinions are not unique.

February 08, 2003, 12:31
I especially liked this response from him.

Fisk: In the past in Britain, letters have been published that suggest this, but if it happens again, Iíll
take legal action. Because in Britain to be called a racist is grounds for slander. And I wonít accept
that by anyone because it is a lie. However, there are ways of implying it without saying it. Youíll
get a comment that goes, ďMr. Fisk, you are writing from the dark side of journalism.Ē So that must
mean subversive, bad, terrorist, racist, etc. Listen, if criticizing Israel is anti-Semitic, which is
bullshit, what is criticizing Mr. Blair? Is it anti-Anglo Saxon? I mean, that is a ridiculous situation,
immature, and I donít think that kind of argument is going to work. Well, it might be sustained here
in the States for all kinds of reasons. But itís not going to work elsewhere for much longer, I think.
Itís not acceptable

February 08, 2003, 12:42
Templator, do me a favor, read The Progressive. Then do a a bunch of research on Robert Fisk - read about him, who he writes for, what he stands for. Don't just read what he writes, check him out. Check out the people who like to publish his articles and quote him as an "authoritative" source.

Then, If you still think I'm wrong, when I refer to him as an anti-gun advocate, ultral-liberal left wing journalist, so be it - we can just agree to see things differently on this.

February 08, 2003, 13:18
What does all of this have to do with his report on Qana?,..:confused:

The vast majority of the American journalists and media outlets who reported the World Trade Center attack are liberal, anti second amendment hacks.

Does that mean that it didn't happen?