money to egypt

craigsmith

Cherished Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Posts
1,045
Media
0
Likes
428
Points
98
Location
Sikeston Missouri
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
What do you think of out President giving jets and tanks to Egypt now 250 million and then 60 million. Why are we giving so much money away when we could be using it here to feed our children and pay down our debt instead of borrowing from China and then giving it away. Any idea.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
cause it is still less expensive as to send your own troops...

At first, egypt is a partner of the USA. A strong egypt is needed against a strong Iran... Or against any other current "partner", that could become an enemy.

Did you remember how the oil price reacted doring the "arabian spring"? - a "stable" goverment, in this area, is always supportable for the US goverment

Its an often used way to bind a vassal, by leting him use your weapons and technology - egypt wants "protection" by an own army. If the usa isnt able to offer it, russia or china would. This includes presents, from time to time

At the end, the US gov. spends egypt american war machines... Its some sorte of subsidi.
 
Last edited:
5

554279

Guest
cause it is still less expensive as to send your own troops...

At first, egypt is a partner of the USA. A strong egypt is needed against a strong Iran... Or against any other current "partner", that could become an enemy.

Did you remember how the oil price reacted doring the "arabian spring"? - a "stable" goverment, in this area, is always supportable for the US goverment

Its an often used way to bind a vassal, by leting him use your weapons and technology - egypt wants "protection" by an own army. If the usa isnt able to offer it, russia or china would. This includes presents, from time to time

At the end, the US gov. spends egypt american war machines... Its some sorte of subsidi.

Great if China and Russia want to be such world players, let them pay to maintain "stability".

Egypt used to be predictable and stable, they are now just as much of wild card as Libya or Syria.

With the sequester the US needs to cut its losses on piss poor allies that stick their hand out and while yelling jihad in the same breath. Let them have Jihad and sharia without US military aid. No sense giving them M1A2's if we have to take them out 10 years from now.
 

Bighardcockcam

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Posts
13
Media
7
Likes
127
Points
63
Location
Toronto (Ontario, Canada)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Providing Egypt with military expenses helps the USA maintain a strategic ally in northeastern Africa and allows them atleast some say in their military affairs. Egypt has gone to war with Isreal a couple times in the modern era and the USA does not want this to occur again. It's really too bad the US government couldn't have spent this little on the Iraq and afghanistan wars. Also, a country which makes a better argument for this case would be Pakistan. Pakistan receives a lot more military funding than Egypt and less likely ally to the USA. Have to admit the Libya issue was handled very well, good call by both Obama and ofcourse Mrs. Clinton.
 
5

554279

Guest
Providing Egypt with military expenses helps the USA maintain a strategic ally in northeastern Africa and allows them atleast some say in their military affairs. Egypt has gone to war with Isreal a couple times in the modern era and the USA does not want this to occur again. It's really too bad the US government couldn't have spent this little on the Iraq and afghanistan wars. Also, a country which makes a better argument for this case would be Pakistan. Pakistan receives a lot more military funding than Egypt and less likely ally to the USA. Have to admit the Libya issue was handled very well, good call by both Obama and ofcourse Mrs. Clinton.

No argument on Pakistan.

But Egypt I would watch which way the wind blows with Moslem Brotherhood before betting the farm.

From the US position if its not a secular government, then no cash. I am tired of seeing my money pissed away on religious crazies that kill the innocent, for the sake of some strategic vision by academic dipshits that have never left the US, nor been involved in security or diplomacy prior to their stint in public office.
 

ColoradoGuy

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Posts
1,170
Media
35
Likes
1,467
Points
308
Location
Denver (Colorado, United States)
Verification
View
Gender
Male
What do you think of out President giving jets and tanks to Egypt now 250 million and then 60 million. Why are we giving so much money away when we could be using it here to feed our children and pay down our debt instead of borrowing from China and then giving it away. Any idea.

It's funny (considering the 'tilt' of your various posts) that you would have a problem with international security assistance which has been a component of US foreign policy since WWII and part of US law since the early 1960s. Or, do you only have an issue with security assistance when it's applied by a Democratic president?

BTW, isolationism doesn't work; we tried that a couple of times.
 

slurper_la

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Posts
5,860
Media
9
Likes
3,687
Points
333
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I was just asking to try to get some insight into all this. thanks for the input. I may not agree with it but at least I can understand it. Thanks

Do you? Do you understand it's not our president who makes foreign aid decisions unilaterally? The federal budget is controlled by Congress, so your original question might have been more truthful had you asked... "What do you think of John Baehner giving..."
 

craigsmith

Cherished Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Posts
1,045
Media
0
Likes
428
Points
98
Location
Sikeston Missouri
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
I will say this. I don't agree with the President on most matters, and I also don't agree with the democartic party on their stance either. I am a very conservative person and believe we are headed down the wrong path with all the policies this present adminstration has put into place. I ask a question and then get rude comments. I can understand where your thinking is but may not agree with it. That is my choice as a U.S Citizen. I ask questions as to enlighten my understanding and yes my ideas on these matters can be changed, but being rude about it wont help. Helping me understand your point of view helps me not to be judgemental but accepting. There are areas where I am liberal in my thinking ( i.e. gay marriage, etc) All my views are not completely conservative. I do believe our congress needs to work together more than they do and both side seem unwilling to work together for the good of our country. I am not blaming it all on the GOP or all on the Dems or all on the president. They all need to work together to get us out of the mess we are in. There is plenty of blame to go around.
 

houtx48

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
6,900
Media
0
Likes
308
Points
208
Gender
Male
I think people need to look who really owns the debt....................and then ask why Wall Street gets by with the crap they do.
 

B_SeattleYo

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Posts
500
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
53
Location
SeattleYo
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
BTW, isolationism doesn't work; we tried that a couple of times.

The U.S. tried it with WW I? Spanish American war? Philippine-American war?

And exactly how do you mean, "doesn't work". What is "work"?


I think people need to look who really owns the debt....................and then ask why Wall Street gets by with the crap they do.

Glad to see someone can see through the entire bullshit scam of "debt".

Anyway, we shouldn't be funding anybody abroad. The returns are not worth it, and often detrimental... ..at least to the common man, American or otherwise.
 
Last edited:

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The U.S. tried it with WW I? Spanish American war? Philippine-American war?

And exactly how do you mean, "doesn't work". What is "work"?
Till WW2 the usa didnt had a real foreign agenda, nor had they any interest to influence foreign nations. As long as it hadnt a direct connection to the usa... I guess, thats what coloradoguy was saying...


Glad to see someone can see through the entire bullshit scam of "debt".
wrong... Thats maybe one of the most polemic statements and proofs that the author didnt thought mutch, while posting...
Anyway, we shouldn't be funding anybody abroad. The returns are not worth it, and often detrimental... ..at least to the common man, American or otherwise.
right, the past 70 years didnt payd off for the usa :rolleyes:
 

B_SeattleYo

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Posts
500
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
53
Location
SeattleYo
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Till WW2 the usa didnt had a real foreign agenda, nor had they any interest to influence foreign nations.

WWI, Spanish American War, Philippine American War.

As long as it hadnt a direct connection to the usa... I guess, thats what coloradoguy was saying...
How was WW I directly connected to the USA? What about the Philippine American War or the Spanish American war? Do you still actually believe the Spanish attacked the U.S.S. Maine? What do they teach you about the United States in Germany, regarding WW I, I wonder.

wrong... Thats maybe one of the most polemic statements and proofs that the author didnt thought mutch, while posting...
Using the word "polemic", impressive as it may be to some, is not enough proof for you to declare somebody wrong.

right, the past 70 years didnt payd off for the usa :rolleyes:
I didn't say USA. I said, common man, foreign or otherwise.

Every American, common or otherwise, has about $52,200 in debt to pay, and that number just keeps going up. Not too mention a world seething with hostility against the United states.

Whilst large swaths of the common men of the world, have been even worse off, being forced to live under the dictatorships funded by the United State's bribes.
 
Last edited:

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
WWI, Spanish American War, Philippine American War.
with WW1 your in parts right.
But as the names say "american spanish war" and "philipine american war" had a direct connection to the usa. And at least the philipinean war didnt followed a real agenda, at the beginning. It was supported by the previous war.

Till WW2, the american politicans and the people never thought of america as an international power, who had to "defent" their interests...
Maybe your school system didnt works well, if they dont teach you that in both WW's the people of america werent interested in any kind of participation...
The usa was (and saw it self as) a hegemonial power
How was WW I directly connected to the USA? What about the Philippine American War or the Spanish American war? Do you still actually believe the Spanish attacked the U.S.S. Maine? What do they teach you about the United States in Germany, regarding WW I, I wonder.
why should they teache us anything about the american spanish war? :wink: Wasnt that importent... But, i do believe that it was an exident, that started the war, and used to attack spain

As i confirmed, WW1 is the only exeption.
Using the word "polemic", impressive as it may be to some, is not enough proof for you to declare somebody wrong.
The "wrong" was refering to your quote of his statement... That its polemic is the proof, that you are wrong.
I didn't say USA. I said, common man, foreign or otherwise.

Every American, common or otherwise, has about $52,200 in debt to pay, and that number just keeps going up. Not too mention a world seething with hostility against the United states.

Whilst large swaths of the common men of the world, have been even worse off, being forced to live under the dictatorships funded by the United State's bribes.

You would have these debts, no matter if you would have spend it for military or not - the politic would have found a way to spend the money. Sure, its bad that america and europe supports dictator... But if we wouldnt support them others would... If you dont want to spend money for your army, how will you stop the support of dictators by others?
If the usa wouldnt had the military controll over the middle east, doring the cold war. Russia defenetly would have - its quite doubtfull, that we would had won the "war"
 
Last edited:

B_SeattleYo

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Posts
500
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
53
Location
SeattleYo
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
with WW1 your in parts right.

Indeed I am

But as the names say "american spanish war" and "philipine american war" had a direct connection to the usa. And at least the philipinean war didnt followed a real agenda, at the beginning. It was supported by the previous war.
You are basing your arguments on the name of the war? That's really not a good way to judge history. If WW I was named the Anglo-American-Franco-Germano-Russian War would you then claim because America is in the name, it was directly related to America?

Till WW2, the american politicans and the people never thought of america as an international power, who had to "defent" their interests...
This simply is not true. Its just what was taught in schools to justify American exceptionalism and deny America's rising role as an empire. And America made quite a splash 25 years earlier in WW I as an international power, and quite a splash before that during the Spanish-American war as an international power.

Maybe your school system didnt works well, if they dont teach you that in both WW's the people of america werent interested in any kind of participation...
My school system was a university, I majored in history.


The usa was (and saw it self as) a hegemonial power
why should they teache us anything about the american spanish war? :wink: Wasnt that importent... But, i do believe that it was an exident, that started the war, and used to attack spain
Huh? Your logic is bad. Who is "us"? Were you brought up in the German school system or the American school system?

As i confirmed, WW1 is the only exeption.
Saying you confirm something doesn't make it true.

The "wrong" was refering to your quote of his statement... That its polemic is the proof, that you are wrong.
illogical.

You would have these debts, no matter if you would have spend it for military or not - the politic would have found a way to spend the money.
Simply not true.

Sure, its bad that america and europe supports dictator... But if we wouldnt support them others would... If you dont want to spend money for your army, how will you stop the support of dictators by others?
Again, not true. And many of these dictators were put in power through CIA destabilization and coups of popularly elected governments who answered to no-one.

You are using the "If I didn't rape her, someone else would have" fallacy.

If the usa wouldnt had the military controll over the middle east, doring the cold war. Russia defenetly would have - its quite doubtfull, that we would had won the "war"
Says who? Is it possible these countries could have ruled themselves through their democratic institutions? Mossadegh was not toppled to stop the influence of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, Russia has a long history of conflict with the middle east. Their expansion in the middle east was limited.

Again, you are using the "if I didn't rape her, somebody else would have." argument.

There are other ways to support a country than propping up dictators. Much of the foreign aid had nothing to do with stopping the influence of the USSR and everything to do with extracting resources.

Plus the "we" you are using is nebulous. Who is this "us" that was fighting the "them" Russkies? Why is it America's job to tell nations how they rule themselves? The overthrow of Allende in Chile and Guzman in Guatemela proves that this "we" you are talking about has nothing to do with democracy and freedom America, and everything to do with imperialist America.

If America is going to be "we" by destroying democracy around the world for the sake of democracy, how exactly is that a victory?

Essentially you are arguing it is good "we" installed and funded dictators around the world because it made sure Russia didn't install dictators around the world.

If you beleive this is a good thing because it meant more resources and supplies for America, then you may be right. Americans got more goodies for it.

But I find it morally wrong, because it came at the cost of cheapening what America supposedly stood for. And America's greatest strength is the inspiration its culture gives to the world. That is the real reason "we" beat the soviet Union. As bad as America looked, the Soviet Union looked worse.
 
Last edited:

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Indeed I am

You are basing your arguments on the name of the war? That's really not a good way to judge history. If WW I was named the Anglo-American-Franco-Germano-Russian War would you then claim because America is in the name, it was directly related to America?
dont try to act stupid... Why do you think its named american spanish war? Cause it was a war between these two nations. How could it be a more direct involvement? The war in europe, doring WW1 and WW2
(till the point japan attacked the usa and germany declared the war) had NOTHING to do with the usa. They didnt even joined any "defence coalition" like france and britain, doring that time...

And to notice these difference, you just have to take a look at the names (cause in this case, it fits)...
This simply is not true. Its just what was taught in schools to justify American exceptionalism and deny America's rising role as an empire. And America made quite a splash 25 years earlier in WW I as an international power, and quite a splash before that during the Spanish-American war as an international power.
you mix two thing... Yes, around 1900, economicaly the usa was already a super power. Military, since WW1... But its still a difference if you think of yourself as a nation with international "administration" powers and interests. And this developed past WW2.

And no, the spanish war wasnt real splash. Maybe for america, but for no one else... If you remember, 50 years earlier america nearly lost the american mexican war...
My school system was a university, I majored in history.


Huh? Your logic is bad. Who is "us"? Were you brought up in the German school system or the American school system?
your question was, what they teache us (germans)... My answer was: why should they?

No bad logic... I just used the way you asked your question, to answer in a different way as it was expected by you. (you were refering to WW1, i answer to spain/america)

Saying you confirm something doesn't make it true.

illogical.
not really... If you name something a "good post" cause it "sees through", but in reality its just pure polemic. THEN you are wrong...

But no problem, if not dont wanna get it
Simply not true.
In this case, you should believe me... I have studied economy :wink:
Again, not true. And many of these dictators were put in power through CIA destabilization and coups of popularly elected governments who answered to no-one.

You are using the "If I didn't rape her, someone else would have" fallacy.

Says who? Is it possible these countries could have ruled themselves through their democratic institutions? Mossadegh was not toppled to stop the influence of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, Russia has a long history of conflict with the middle east. Their expansion in the middle east was limited.
believe me, im the last one who would deny that the usa did a lots wrong and bad, doring the past 60 years and even befor...

And no, i dont use these argument.

Your point is, that the usa should have spend less for their army.
My answer is, with a smaller army, the usa werent able to fight any dictator... Also do other "super powers" exist, like china and russia... They defenetly will support dictators, if its to their benefits. Without the usa even more. How do you wanna stop them to support dictator, without an army?


A whole different point is, how the usa use their military power...
Again, sure would it be better without dictator. But thats sadly not the reality.



About arabia, do you believe they would have developed democracies past WW2, if the usa, britain and france would have left the area and never cared again?

More likely is, that caos would have ruled, cause there werent single nations for 1000 years befor. This caos and war would have made it easy for russia to conquer the area, doring the 50's...
In this case, someone else defenetly would have raped them... (it doesnt justifys that the usa, britain and france didnt supported democracy) - but again, its about militar influence, and not if we use it wise...

Again, you are using the "if I didn't rape her, somebody else would have." argument.

There are other ways to support a country than propping up dictators. Much of the foreign aid had nothing to do with stopping the influence of the USSR and everything to do with extracting resources.

Plus the "we" you are using is nebulous. Who is this "us" that was fighting the "them" Russkies? Why is it America's job to tell nations how they rule themselves? The overthrow of Allende in Chile and Guzman in Guatemela proves that this "we" you are talking about has nothing to do with democracy and freedom America, and everything to do with imperialist America.

If America is going to be "we" by destroying democracy around the world for the sake of democracy, how exactly is that a victory?

Essentially you are arguing it is good "we" installed and funded dictators around the world because it made sure Russia didn't install dictators around the world.

If you beleive this is a good thing because it meant more resources and supplies for America, then you may be right. Americans got more goodies for it.

But I find it morally wrong, because it came at the cost of cheapening what America supposedly stood for. And America's greatest strength is the inspiration its culture gives to the world. That is the real reason "we" beat the soviet Union. As bad as America looked, the Soviet Union looked worse.
"We" "us" "them" - it doesnt care whom im talking about... You can use it for every kind of combination. Cause its always "us" against "them" or "me" against "you"... And at the end at least one of them act like machiavelli discribes.
 

B_SeattleYo

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Posts
500
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
53
Location
SeattleYo
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
dont try to act stupid...

Stupid is differentiating wars by their names.
America involved itself int he Spanish American war for the sake of empire and hegemony. Same reason for the Mexican American war, same reason for WW I, same reason for the Philippine-American war.

And to notice these difference, you just have to take a look at the names (cause in this case, it fits)...you mix two thing... Yes, around 1900, economicaly the usa was already a super power. Military, since WW1... But its still a difference if you think of yourself as a nation with international "administration" powers and interests. And this developed past WW2.
Past WW II. Thank you.
Now what was this argument about in the first place? Ahh yes, "isolationism doesn't work". You make this argument as if America was isolationist, it never was.

And no, the spanish war wasnt real splash. Maybe for america, but for no one else... If you remember, 50 years earlier america nearly lost the american mexican war...
Maybe for America but no-one else... what about Spain, and all the colonial territories it lost to America. That was quite a big splash.

:confused: America nearly lost the Mexican war? News to me.

your question was, what they teache us (germans)... My answer was: why should they?
Huh? So you learned American history from German schools. I am jsut wondering what they taught you about America's reason for joining in on WW I. It's a question I do not know the answer too.

But I will tell you this, America's entrance into WW I was a huge blunder. It was unnecessary intervention. American intervention led to Germany's defeat, and the rise of Hitler. A German victory in WW I would have not been disastrous for democracy and the world. The Hapsburg Empire and the Turks were already wobbly, they would have fallen anyway.


not really... If you name something a "good post" cause it "sees through", but in reality its just pure polemic. THEN you are wrong...
Just because you say it is pure polemic, doesn't mean it is.
Just because you say "in reality it is pure polemic" does not mean it is.
Just because you say "in reality its just pure polemic. THEN you are wrong" does not mean I am wrong.

Even if it were pure polemic, it still doesn't mean I am wrong. I just didn't want to get into the world banking system. So I just gave him kudos for understanding it.

Your point is, that the usa should have spend less for their army.
My answer is, with a smaller army, the usa werent able to fight any dictator... Also do other "super powers" exist, like china and russia... They defenetly will support dictators, if its to their benefits. Without the usa even more. How do you wanna stop them to support dictator, without an army?
No, my point is, the United States could have supported democratic institutions, regardless of their political and economic philosophies. And if the United States believed capitalism and the free market were the better forces in the world, they could haev engaged in free trade with these countries, regardless how the democracy regulated their domestic politics and internal trade.

But instead, the United States raped these countries so that the Soviet Union could not rape them. Yes, the United States planted its seed instead of the Soviet Union, but at the cost of being no better than the Soviet Union.
In your earlier posts, you said the Untied States should have, or the Soviet Union would have won the cold war. In the bigger scheme of things, it doesn't matter who won. The United States ended up being rapist number 1.

This has caused international animosity and resistance to the United States. And the Untied States could have instead made sweet fair-trade love with these nations, without having to resort to violence just because a democratically elected leader was a tad socialist. It was as much a lie then as it is now that socialist countries automatically invite communism. China and the USSR were both communist, and they didn't like each other. There is a whole lot more at play in geopolitics besides capitalism vs communism., And the degree of totalitarian brutality is also far more complex than "what economic system did they choose?"

A whole different point is, how the usa use their military power...
Again, sure would it be better without dictator. But thats sadly not the reality.
Yes it is. I went to John Birch camp when I was 13, in 1990. They were convinced the whole world was going communist. They had a big world map, with all the "socialist" countries painted red. Canada and Mexico were red. You are telling me we had to install dictatorships in Canada and Mexico, or the soviets would have installed dictatorships. This simply is not how history works. It is far more complex than that.

About arabia, do you believe they would have developed democracies past WW2, if the usa, britain and france would have left the area and never cared again?
Iran did. Lebanon did. And the entire area was carved up to be weak and unstable anyway.

More likely is, that caos would have ruled, cause there werent single nations for 1000 years befor. This caos and war would have made it easy for russia to conquer the area, doring the 50's...
You greatly overestimate the USSR's strength. And once again, you are saying, if we didn't rape them, the USSR would have. So I say, Who cares?, a brutal regime is a brutal regime, am I suppose to be glad that Western powers were behind brutal dictators instead of the USSR? Why should I care? The USSR invaded Afghanistan to worldwide condemnation. It did not do to well there, and would have had a horrible time without the US helping, as the Taleban is demonstrating right now. The Taleban does not have Russian support, in fact all the world around Afghanistan is trying to defeat them, and they can't. (including Iran, whose proxy was the Northern Alliance which helped greatly in the first victories) Imagine the NATO defeat if Russia were supplying the Taleban with stinger missiles this time around.


In this case, someone else defenetly would have raped them... (it doesnt justifys that the usa, britain and france didnt supported democracy) - but again, its about militar influence, and not if we use it wise...
It's just simply not true. You can not install brutal dictatorships without some kind of support from collaborators, and the worse your reputation gets, the harder it becomes to install puppet regimes.

"We" "us" "them" - it doesnt care whom im talking about... You can use it for every kind of combination. Cause its always "us" against "them" or "me" against "you"... And at the end at least one of them act like machiavelli discribes.
Machiavelli was an immoral view of the world. Definitely a rape or be raped kind of mentality. That was before nuclear weapons, and was based on autocratic worldviews, where the "us" is the autocracy, and the "them" is the other autocracy. Machiavelli never took into consideration the rest of the people of the world, nor considered them as valuable except as pawns.

It was a flawed view, you can rule through force, or you can rule through popularity. Force is a horrible way to do it. America was some kind of beacon of hope, but after ww II it became more and more apparent it was out to do the same as everyone else, enslave the world.

So why should my tax money be taken to enslave the world? So somebody elses doesn't. How about let them reap the horrors of megalomania: wars, hatred, terrorism and higher taxes and a burgeoning unpayable debt. That's what I personally get out of the deal. I don't want it. Let somebody else try that game, and see what happens. It will not be a happy ending for them, just like it will not be a happy ending for the United States.

The United States has nuclear weapons. We will never be anybody's slaves. Which is exactly why Iran wants them, and who can blame them?
 
Last edited:

Fuzzy_

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Posts
4,253
Media
0
Likes
1,105
Points
258
Location
Wuziland
Gender
Male
Do you? Do you understand it's not our president who makes foreign aid decisions unilaterally? The federal budget is controlled by Congress, so your original question might have been more truthful had you asked... "What do you think of John Baehner giving..."

slurper you don't have to be so rude about everything.

How was Slurper "so rude"?