Obama Signs Executive Order, Sends $500 million to Terrorists

[Fisher]

Laudable sentiment. But the problem is control of the money. More weapons are bought with our foreign aid once the locals get the cash, than ever bought food or medicine. Just pick a country, check the amount of foreign aid we give, and see where it actually went once they had control of the cash. For the most part, the people in power in most of the countries we give aid to, especially third word countries, are more concerned with lining their pockets or buying weapons than they are with helping their citizens.

The only way to ensure the money (food, medicine, etc.) gets to the people is for us to hand it out ourselves. Look at my avatar and you will see one example of us trying it that way (Somalia). That hasn't worked out for us very well in the past.

Somalia was a no win situation done because it sounded good. Thank God the same argument didn't get us dragged into Darfur. I think one of the big problems is that too many Americans do not get that while we see ourselves as some honest noble broker of peace, our policies lead quite a few in the region to justifiably see us as anything but that.

But sure, we shouldn't give the money directly, but we could pay more reputable companies from other countries to lead a lot of the projects where their people would not be in the cross hairs as readily as Americans. I was thinking things like desalination and irrigation projects; power plants; electrical grid type improvements and pretty much any European nation like France could handle those as our proxy contractors.

 

[ForcedAppeal]

Beaudreaux,

Just as an aside, per CRS (Congressional Research service)

Congressional holds on foreign aid are not legally binding on the executive branch. However,
since the late 1970s/early 1980s, successive Administrations have generally deferred to holds
placed by Members of pertinent committees.

relevant to the discussion only as an aside - just thought it of interest.

 

[ForcedAppeal]

Somalia was a no win situation done because it sounded good. Thank God the same argument didn't get us dragged into Darfur. I think one of the big problems is that too many Americans do not get that while we see ourselves as some honest noble broker of peace, our policies lead quite a few in the region to justifiably see us as anything but that.

But sure, we shouldn't give the money directly, but we could pay more reputable companies from other countries to lead a lot of the projects where their people would not be in the cross hairs as readily as Americans. I was thinking things like desalination and irrigation projects; power plants; electrical grid type improvements and pretty much any European nation like France could handle those as our proxy contractors.

China's been doing exactly this in African nations (building roads, schools, other direct and NOTICEABLE infrastructure) and getting wonderful oil, farmland, and other resource concessions that they so sorely need.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Somalia was a no win situation done because it sounded good. Thank God the same argument didn't get us dragged into Darfur. I think one of the big problems is that too many Americans do not get that while we see ourselves as some honest noble broker of peace, our policies lead quite a few in the region to justifiably see us as anything but that.

But sure, we shouldn't give the money directly, but we could pay more reputable companies from other countries to lead a lot of the projects where their people would not be in the cross hairs as readily as Americans. I was thinking things like desalination and irrigation projects; power plants; electrical grid type improvements and pretty much any European nation like France could handle those as our proxy contractors.

Been to Darfur, too. And a few other lovely places.

We're in almost complete agreement. I would use NGO's though, not another country and dang sure not a corporation. The International Red Cross, or the Red Crescent, or Doctors Without Borders, etc.

Potable water is the greatest need. Malaria drugs would be second. Prenatal medical care would be third, and children immunizations would be the fourth. That would be my starter list. Then I'd start on infrastructure. All weather roads to transport food and products to market. Water and sewer plants to control the spread of disease. Education of both children and adults to create a work force. Disarmament of gangs and tribal militias would be difficult, but would have to be done before external investment could begin. Once done, external investment could fund entrepreneurs to hire people and get the economies off of illicit markets like drugs, uranium, artifacts and animal slaughter (elephant ivory, etc.) as well as blood diamonds and so on.

 

[Fisher]

China's been doing exactly this in African nations (building roads, schools, other direct and NOTICEABLE infrastructure) and getting wonderful oil, farmland, and other resource concessions that they so sorely need.

Yep. When it comes to economics, they are playing chess and we are looking under the sofa for the missing checkers. Love them or hate them, but China is really deservedly leading the world in economic development. There is some indication that they are starting to change their focus from producing crap to sell in the US toward developing internal services and goods to start drastically improving their own standard of living.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Beaudreaux,

Just as an aside, per CRS (Congressional Research service)

Congressional holds on foreign aid are not legally binding on the executive branch. However,
since the late 1970s/early 1980s, successive Administrations have generally deferred to holds
placed by Members of pertinent committees.

relevant to the discussion only as an aside - just thought it of interest.

Agreed. I wasn't referring to Congressional holds, but rather the Foreign Assistance Act, as amended, which is a law and is binding on everyone.

Good point though. And as I said, I agree.

 

[Beaudreaux]

China's been doing exactly this in African nations (building roads, schools, other direct and NOTICEABLE infrastructure) and getting wonderful oil, farmland, and other resource concessions that they so sorely need.

China's been taking huge risks that our government hasn't been willing to take to the same extent. However, USAID has been funding railroads and other infrastructure in Africa for decades. I have a buddy that has a contract with USAID to clear the rights-of-way for a railroad in central Africa. US law doesn't allow for the Quid Pro Quo that China is demanding for their assistance. Unless the military is involved, and then we give it back for free after we make it usable.

My point, is that the US is doing great things in Africa and other regions around the world. We just don't get credit for what we do, and we dang sure could do more.

 

[Redress]

Doesn't really do the same thing, but for debate's sake... Okay? How does that bolster your argument? Hamas won election in 2006. Two years after 2004, if we're counting that is.

My opinion and yours are not that far apart. I'm just looking at it from a neutral stand-point.

My position is quite simple. Claiming Obama is being "sneaky" and "bold" for doing the same thing that happens every few months for years on end since long before Obama was president is kinda sad. Claiming to be "coming from a neutral standpoint" when you do that is ****ing hilarious.

 

[Beaudreaux]

My position is quite simple. Claiming Obama is being "sneaky" and "bold" for doing the same thing that happens every few months for years on end since long before Obama was president is kinda sad. Claiming to be "coming from a neutral standpoint" when you do that is ****ing hilarious.

And on that note...

 

[greyhat]

My point, is that the US is doing great things in Africa and other regions around the world. We just don't get credit for what we do, and we dang sure could do more.

The anti-HIV/AIDS program of the Bush Admin is worthy of notice.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Obama Guts Child Soldier Act In Favor of Shipping Cash & Arms to Middle East​

Posted by Ed Brown
Feb 8, 2013


On September 28, 2012 U.S. President Barack Obama issued a presidential memorandum which completely gutted former President Bush’s Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008(CSPA or CSAA, the name was changed to Child soldiers Accountability Act prior to finalization), a Bill which made it a federal crime to recruit or use soldiers under the age of 15 and a measure which forbade our government from selling weaponry and providing financial assistance to countries who enslave child soldiers. The law also gave the US authority to “prosecute, deport or deny entry to individuals who have knowingly recruited children as soldiers.”

Judging from the verbiage of the memorandum, which you will find in a screen clip below, the newly white listed countries include Libya, South Sudan, Yemen and the Democratic Republic of the Congo – all countries which are notorious for their use of child military labor.


Clipped from Presidential Memorandum -- Presidential Determination with respect to the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008 | The White House


(Share Clip)

While I was perusing the White House web site searching for other references to Child Soldiers I quickly discovered TWO(2) other memorandums which accomplished the same thing, one from 2010 relinquishing the sanctions on Chad, and another from 2011 in reference to the Congo only – making this 2012 measure Barack Obama’s 3rd and most sweeping and egregious free pass for countries enslaving children as child soldiers – and once again allowing the United States to continue funneling arms and cash to those countries. To add insult to injury, 2010 represented the first year that the Bush inspired CSPA bipartisan measure was to go into effect.

Ironically it was President Obama himself who deemed child soldiers a form of “slavery” less than a week after issuing his latest memorandum:


DALLAS, October 3, 2012 – “When a little boy is kidnapped, turned into a child soldier, forced to kill or be killed — that’s slavery. It is barbaric, and it is evil, and it has no place in a civilized world. Now, as a nation, we’ve long rejected such cruelty.” -Barack Obama

The addition of Libya to the list of countries now allowed to enslave children and be rewarded for it is of particularly disturbing. During the Libyan revolt of 2011 US-backed rebels used children as young as seven to assist in their war effort.


[Excerpt]

See more at:
Obama Guts Child Soldier Act In Favor of Shipping Cash & Arms to Middle East | DCXposed

The Memorandum signed by Obama recently dovetails with the above memorandum in September 2012. Are we to believe that these Memorandums bypassing Congress are just happenstance, or calculated?

 

[greyhat]

Do you have any of your own original analysis on any issue or do you simply post articles and regurgitate the masticated talking points they give?

I get it, you don't like POTUS, but at least try to come up with your own analysis...

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Do you have any of your own original analysis on any issue or do you simply post articles and regurgitate the masticated talking points they give?

I get it, you don't like POTUS, but at least try to come up with your own analysis...

Perhaps there are different interpretations of the Progressive Left like the idea of what is being done in the M.E. Isn't it immoral to supply regimes that use children to kill? If that is the case why has Obama gone back on his original efforts to stop these crimes. Is Hamas above innocence in this fact? I say no, they inculcate their young to kill Israelis. By Obama using personal memoranda in subsidizing Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood supplying financing and weapons, what does that say about this Administration, their aims and ideology?

 

[shrubnose]

My position is quite simple. Claiming Obama is being "sneaky" and "bold" for doing the same thing that happens every few months for years on end since long before Obama was president is kinda sad.

Claiming to be "coming from a neutral standpoint" when you do that is ****ing hilarious

.

I hear you,but for some reason I'm not laughing.

 

[MMC]

And on that note...

Yeah.....nothing new with that note. Some don't think Obama is capable of being sneaky and bold. Nor do they like to hear any smack-talk about him. Even if it is the flat-out Truth.

Course.....go ask Carol Mosley Braun if Obama is sneaky and bold. :lol: Then ask Hillary. :lamo

 

[Redress]

Yeah.....nothing new with that note. Some don't think Obama is capable of being sneaky and bold. Nor do they like to hear any smack-talk about him. Even if it is the flat-out Truth.

Course.....go ask Carol Mosley Braun if Obama is sneaky and bold. :lol: Then ask Hillary. :lamo

No one claimed he was not capable of being sneaky or bold. Reading comprehension is gud. Do you think he was being sneaky and bold for continuing to do what he has been doing, and what Bush did, and what Clinton did? Can you explain how it was sneaky and bold in this case?

 

[ReformCollege]

We have been sending the PA assistance since the 90's after Olso. So if "Obama is aiding Muslim terrorists" (and just an FYI not all Palestinians are Muslims, this shows just how narrow your world view is), so was Clinton, and Bush.

You're right. Doesn't make it the correct thing to do.

 

[MMC]

No one claimed he was not capable of being sneaky or bold. Reading comprehension is gud. Do you think he was being sneaky and bold for continuing to do what he has been doing, and what Bush did, and what Clinton did? Can you explain how it was sneaky and bold in this case?

Were you attempting say that he could never do so thinking of such on his own?......JUST because some others were doing so before he came along?

I know mine is and definitely doesn't have any limitations such as your does.....do you need to count to 5 to gather your thoughts once more?

 

[Redress]

Were you attempting say that he could never do so thinking of such on his own?......JUST because some others were doing so before he came along?

I know mine is and definitely doesn't have any limitations such as your does.....do you need to count to 5 to gather your thoughts once more?

Why are you making **** up I did not say? Let me go slow for you: is it "sneaky" and "bold" to continue to do something that has been done routinely since long before he was in office? Since that was my point, that should be what you actually argue instead of randomly made up stuff that has jack **** to do with anything.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

You're right. Doesn't make it the correct thing to do.

Im just saying this whole "oh Obama supports terrorists" thing is kinda outrageous, people seem to only complain or hold back their complains depending on the D or R next to their name. A little consistency would be nice.

 

[MMC]

Why are you making **** up I did not say? Let me go slow for you: is it "sneaky" and "bold" to continue to do something that has been done routinely since long before he was in office? Since that was my point, that should be what you actually argue instead of randomly made up stuff that has jack **** to do with anything.

Again.....you say he is capable. Yet for some reason you can't figure out that he could do so in his own way. Talking about how he was doing what others had done before hand. As if arguing about doing something that was wrong.....is Right. Which would make it different in the way he brought it out. Wouldn't it? Do you think he would know about what the others had done in the first place?

So in his own way.....going about things. You don't think he could think he was sneaky and bold enough to get round things like those who came before him. That he could outdo his predecessors?

Does being sneaky and bold.....mean doing anything illegal? Or is this where you have some confusion about things?

 

[Redress]

Again.....you say he is capable. Yet for some reason you can't figure out that he could do so in his own way. Talking about how he was doing what others had done before hand. As if arguing about doing something that was wrong.....is Right. Which would make it different in the way he brought it out. Wouldn't it? Do you think he would know about what the others had done in the first place?

So in his own way.....going about things. You don't think he could think he was sneaky and bold enough to get round things like those who came before him. That he could outdo his predecessors?

Does being sneaky and bold.....mean doing anything illegal? Or is this where you have some confusion about things?

OK, since this is still going over your head and apparently actually reading the thread is hard: I was responding to a claim that this was "sneaky" and "bold" on Obama's part. Can you show where this was "sneaky" or "bold"?

 

[MMC]

OK, since this is still going over your head and apparently actually reading the thread is hard: I was responding to a claim that this was "sneaky" and "bold" on Obama's part. Can you show where this was "sneaky" or "bold"?

Well, :lol: since you cant get past when Obama knew about the Budget and what stop gap measures WERE in place despite already being told prior to,(which really you should go back to that part on reading the Whole thread and not just your Simple posts.) Then waited after sequester cuts to bring out More money to overseas. One would have thought that even those with most basic intelligence of the subject. Could see how such could be construed as sneaky and bold. :roll: Especially with all that trumped up rhetoric from Obama himself. Which that would also go back to the sequester cuts.

Were you still lacking understanding now? Or were you looking at for whatever reason it was, on what you thought.....Sneaky and Bold is or isn't?

 

[Redress]

Well, :lol: since you cant get past when Obama knew about the Budget and what stop gap measures WERE in place despite already being told prior to,(which really you should go back to that part on reading the Whole thread and not just your Simple posts.) Then waited after sequester cuts to bring out More money to overseas. One would have thought that even those with most basic intelligence of the subject. Could see how such could be construed as sneaky and bold. :roll: Especially with all that trumped up rhetoric from Obama himself. Which that would also go back to the sequester cuts.

Were you still lacking understanding now? Or were you looking at for whatever reason it was, on what you thought.....Sneaky and Bold is or isn't?

Ummm, this has been issued every few months the entire time Obama has been in office, and before. Facts seem to be a problem with you.

 

[MMC]

Ummm, this has been issued every few months the entire time Obama has been in office, and before. Facts seem to be a problem with you.

No, not at all, considering the money that was allocated for Foreign Affairs, for this year.....the only problem is when you have trouble determining what you think Sneaky and Bold.....is. As clearly.....you interpretation doesn't mean a damn thing when it comes to others and their interpretations.

Seems that fact you just can't get around.