Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hakan Falk
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 4:27 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country
Tim,
There are many of the top 20 industrialized who,
per capita, give more foreign aid than US. The
fact is that the most of them do. This both in
percentage of GDP and in absolute numbers. Most
of them have a behavior of quite high standard
and without corruptive and reciprocal rules. They
are not avoiding foreign entanglement, on the
contrary. I suggest that US look closer to those and learn.
Drug-trafficking is a problem that starts with
the demand and the definitions. The demand is a
social problem, not a criminal. With a targeted
and reality based legislation, a lot will
disappear. I must be something very wrong, with a
country that have 21 years as legal sexual age,
which make most Americans criminals already when
they start their adult life. Laws should be
reasonable, adopted to realities and regarded as
fair by the majority, then it will be anchored
and followed by most of the population.
The laws of any country are the concerns of that
country and is only when laws are matching
between countries, that cooperation can be
established. To help with an other country's
immigration, laws about leaving a country must be
established and emigration can be controlled. Any
country who establish laws about the rights to
leave the country, will be branded as suppressive
by US and might be invaded by US (subject to sufficient oil reserves). LOL
Counterfeiting is an area with intensive
international cooperation and your complain is
baseless. It does not matter where he $´s are
produced, it is criminal. US $ and Euro are
attractive money, but US currency is far easier to counterfeit.
Hakan
At 05:34 15/08/2005, you wrote:
>Hakan,
>
>Yes, that is quite immoral to export our dirty
>work much less support oppresive regimes for any
>reason. My question is how can we avoid foreign
>entanglements, regardless of methods, without
>being completely discompassionate? At the same
>time if we refrain from taking advantage of
>foreign sub-standards and lenient laws, they
>should help us enforce our laws such as
>immigration, drug-trafficing and counterfeiting.
>
>Tim
>
>________________________________
>
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Hakan Falk
>Sent: Sun 8/14/2005 5:13 AM
>To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country
>
>
>
>
>Tim,
>
>This is not really the question form and maybe many others. It is not
>the question of that US is engaged, it is the way US does it and
>traditionally did it. It is immoral to support activities by their
>corporations, that are not up to their standards and laws for US at
>home. It is not morally justifiable to support oppressive regimes, in
>order to support US financial interests. We can only mention The Shah
>of Iran, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, etc. as a few of a long list that
>were helped to power and then maintained by US.
>
>Iraq is the result of a misunderstanding, Saddam Hussein asked for
>the US permission to invade Kuweit and thought that he got it.
>
>
>
>Hakan
>
>At 02:45 14/08/2005, you wrote:
> >There seems to be general agreement on this list that the U.S.
> >should avoid "foreign entanglements," at least when it comes to some
> >of the uglier tenets of foreign policy. Shouldn't we be just as
> >concerned about so called benevolent tenets as well? Even feeding
> >and clothing the oppressed will upset the oppressors. Perhaps what
> >a "foreign entanglement" refers to is a personal decision driven by
> >that person's views toward any one particular governmental involvement?
> >
> >Tim Schlueter
> >St. Louis
> >
> >________________________________
> >
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Fri 8/12/2005 11:45 PM
> >To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country
> >
> >
> >Mike,
> >
> >Where do I start?
> >
> >First, I have a real problem with any government (U.S., state,
> >local) taking my hard earned money (in the form of taxes) and
> >redistributing it to others. Now, there are legitimate things that
> >each of these levels of government can spend taxpayer dollars on,
> >namely, those outlined in their constitution or charter. In the
> >case of the U.S. Government, these include national defense (not
> >necessarily offense, though), minting currency, postal services,
> >etc. When the U.S. Government (or perhaps the state governments)
> >start spending my money outside the bounds of the Constitution, it
> >is no longer legit. I would like to see Congress try and pass an
> >Amendment to allow giving loans to foreign nations and never
> >expecting repayment of those loans. How much support do you think
> >they would get from the populace?
> >
> >Second, some people may consider giving funds or supplies to help
> >poorer nations or refugee groups as charity, which it is. But
> >charity is you or I freely donating my money to others for the
> >purpose of helping those in need. I have given money to help
> >victims of 9-11, I have helped feed the homeless in soup kitchens, I
> >have given my old clothing and furniture to Goodwill, Salvation
> >Army, etc. Governments, such as our federal government, do not own
> >the money they give to others - the money belongs to the taxpayers
> >(and bond holders) who provide the money. How can the U.S.
> >Government consider giving money to poor African countries as
> >charity, when it isn't their money to give? As I mentioned
> >previously, if the U.S. Government would stop taking my hard earned
> >money and "donating" away, perhaps I would have more money that I
> >could freely give to organizations like the Red Cross (this is only
> >one example, there are others) as charity.
> >
> >Third, the idea of giving for the sake of giving is lost on most
> >politicians. Inside the "Beltway," a politician's power is measured
> >by his or her ability to fundraise - accepting money from some
> >"generous" sole to support some "Cause of the day." Have you ever
> >met a political donor that didn't expect something in return? The
> >President and Congress are just as guilty of wanting something in
> >return for helping other nations. How much money have they pumped
> >into the poorer nations of the Iraq War Coalition?
> >
> >Socialism and true communism may have its value to some and will
> >thrive in some places of the world, but I prefer not to live under
> >it. Or at least, if I have to, please call it as such - The
> >Socialist Unoin of America.
> >
> >The same goes for the United Nations.
> >
> >Thanks for the opportunity to explain myself.
> >
> >Earl.
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Michael Redler <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:35 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country
> >
> >
> > Earl,
> >
> > Earl wrote: "It seems to me that be requiring wealthy
> > nations to "donate" any portion of
> > their GDP is just another form of socialism, except on a
> > global scale."
> >
> > Giving it a name (i.e. socialism or ...ism), doesn't
> > explain why you disagree. Please include
> something to support your position.
> >
> > There are people in this list who (despite McCarthy's
> > legacy) understand the value of socialism and even communism (not
> > to be confused with Stalin's mislabeled brand of fascism) as a
> > theoretical model for democracy.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >________________________________
> >
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> > Sent: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:48:58 -0300
> > Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country
> >
> > Dale,
> >
> > I don't mean to deflate your dream, but why do we need the
> > government
> > beauracracy (of which the UN most certainly is) to
> > guarranty these basic
> > human rights? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of every
> > person on the
> > planet to protect his or her basic rights?
> >
> > It seems to me that be requiring wealthy nations to
> > "donate" any portion of
> > their GDP is just another form of socialism, except on a
> > global scale.
> >
> > Your other point about not getting involved with those
> > poorer nations is
> > right on the money. The biggest terrorism problems in the
> > US today are a
> > direct result of our meddling in other nations' affairs. If
> > we spent less
> > time and money on controlling other countries, we could
> > spend less time and
> > money on counter terrorism measures. Maybe then my taxes
> > will go down and I
> > would be able to donate my own money to those poorer
> > nations. But that, my
> > friend, is truly just a dream.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Earl Kinsley
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > ----------------------------------
> > "That government is best which governs least." -- Thomas Paine
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
