Well done! Some positive vybez for the day.

http://www.channel5belize.com/#a6

SIN, while I'm glad that the U.S. military is gaining credibility in some small way, I must remain intellectually honest here.

It would be hypocritical for me to decry U.S. funding of unethical wars and then support this action. Both are inappropriate uses of my tax dollars as a U.S. citizen.

I am not equating the building of schools with killing people, but both use my money for purposes not permitted by our constitution.

Sorry.

Well said OTTER.

However, being the realist I am, it will be long forgotten. The "Invasions" are the only thing that makes the news, and shapes the perceptions of the U.S. No one ( or nation for that matter) ever remembers, talks about, or appreciates the Humanitarian efforts we as tax payers fund day after day.

Giving foreign aid is against the US constitution?

seldom recognized that way, but most certainly YES!

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

And nowhere are the treasures of the U.S. to be given away in the constitution. Thus, unless approved by individual states or the people by direct authority, foreign aid is illegal.

I recognize both points of view as definitely valid. Pragmatically tho, I have seen my tax dollars so frequently pi**ed away on feel good/accomplish nothing projects domestically, that it refreshes me to see something which has a positive impact on the perception of the military. This benefits us as much as them. These people are not conscripted cannon fodder, they are our fellow citizens and talented individuals who have a decided regard for the welfare of others. My hat is off to them, bravo.

Agreed Bobber, and I'm not so naive as to believe our own laws are being followed otherwise.

However, to accept this is to accept the door remaining open for any number of efforts for which there is minimal oversight and accountability.

Americans give more of their personal income as a percentage than any other people on Earth. I would much prefer that taxes be lowered and our citizens be able to give even more. This is a very public story because it involves the U.S. military -- there are countless more stories of generosity that go untold because the givers do not seek the publicity paraded such that this is. Shame.

Agreed Otter. Think the change of power will lower the taxes? Doubtful. I think it has been proven in the last few decades that lowering the taxes rejuvenates the economy. Unfortunately, the new power base would rather get all the control they can, so they can dole it out to those who they deem need it (or party favorites, or entitlements, or whatever. Redistribution of wealth, by any other name is the same). Is it just me, or does this money more often go to those who want it, instead of those who need it?

Not just you at all. The latest Iraq funding bill is a perfect example this. The powerful placate others with power by redistributing the assets of the weakest.

"You give me my subsidy for beet farmers to aid my re-election campaign and I'll fund the troops."

Sick!

I don't believe that! Show us the stats.

It would be okay with me if the US military rebuilt some schools and housing in the lower ninth ward of New Orleans. Its still a horrible mess there.

google it Jesse, I'm sure those stats are available(and obvious).

Would have been really nice if the Mayor of NO and the Governor of La. had gotten off their asses and done ANYTHING! Talk about two useless human beings.

ANYTHING!

I totally agree Rykat, talk about sickos.

The key is "personal income", government aid however is one of the lowest of all western nations on a percentage of GDP.

You know what's even sicker, Beth, is that Nagin was re-elected.
Now that is incredible.

Go fight and die for nothing in Iraq -or- build schools in Belize? Easy choice. I'm surprized Haliburton wasn't contracted to build the schools and send the bill to Cheney's boy. Oh yeah, they're busy moving to Dubai.

Simon, just a quick googled quote,

"USA’s aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP has almost always been lower than any other industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically since 2000, their dollar amount has been the highest."

Whether or not you are judged by a percentage of GNP, or by amounts, some will criticize that you are not doing enough. Foreign aid is a gift, not a tithe, tho I will admit the gift usually has some strings attached. They always do. I wonder, if you send foreign aid to a dictatorship or socialist country, does the aid actually get to the people, or does it just enrich the leadership. Hmmm, I wonder. Haliburton? Same old rhetoric.

Believe it! The welfare state lulls people into a sense that big government will take care of everything. It poisons the soul and relinquishes individuals from a sense of responsibility for taking care of others. Period.

From GlobalIssues.org
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

While Adelman admits that “there are no complete figures for international private giving” she still says that Americans are “clearly the most generous on earth in public—but especially in private—giving”.

From taemag.com
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18404/article_detail.asp

Americans donate like no other people, the researchers note, whether you look at total donations, per capita giving, size of gifts, or types of giving. "The European country with the greatest tradition of giving, Britain, gave approximately $14 billion in 2003. Even after adjusting for population differences, British giving constitutes less than one third of American philanthropy. And Britain's levels are not matched in the European Union. France follows with just over $4 billion, and then Germany with approximately $3.5 billion."

And, according to some sources, everyone hates us. Hmmm, guess you can't buy friends. It's just a good thing it is not done for the old fashioned "thank you", and it's a shame that many of the recipients say instead "is that all?"

Primarily where do the funds come from to operate the schools on AC??? Just a hunch, but I bet private U.S. dollars constitute the majority (or at least plurality) through religious charitable contributions. I admit I may very well be wrong in this, but I know for a fact it is true in other caribbean nations.

I would like to see even more of this from private individuals than one or two high profile media events with the U.S. military AND MY TAX DOLLARS!!!

I just hope nothing happens to the US, the World may just stop spinning! We'll all starve!

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

yep, those damn churchs have a hidden agenda. No, wait, they seem pretty clear what their agenda is. They talk about it pretty openly on Sunday mornings I hear.

I am not a self-absorbed American, SIN. You know that through our many conversations. I simply find myself having to defend the U.S. because of all the bashing. This defense is obviously warranted as evidenced by Jesse thinking there's no way in hell the U.S. could be more giving than an E.U. nation.

The US is great! But not the World's self appointed policeman or neighborhood busybody. The other 90% of the planet may see things differently than this relatively new nation dictating the World's actions. Mexico is great too and Jamaica!!! We aren't bombing brown people all the time and we are surviving, making our own mistakes (like the US Civil War) and making our own strides forward also.

SIN

Agreed. So why can't you just say that? Instead you parade conspiracy theories, criticize our values, our people, our history, our institutions -- and the list keeps going.

I agree with so much of what you say when you simply try to make a lucid argument.

But that would be no fun for him, otter!

Too bad I met SIN at Pedros and think he's pretty cool. Familiarity makes it too hard for me to hate people -- kinda sucks actually

When someone claims to be the best, you have to take the heat of criticism.

The US is made of numerous ethnic groups with various values. US history is also full of terrible mistakes and glorious homeruns. The institutions are a mixed bag as well, like "Columbus Day".

It's just another country full of imperfect people like you and me. The ability to recognize this, reveal transgressions and make the proper changes is what I see critical in these times.

My life is too short to hate anyone. We all have our opinions and values and I would never impose mine on anyone. My Dad tried, and I moved to Belize at 18.

SIN

And I'm envious of you for it.

I wish everyone debated with the same intent you obviously have to simply question assumptions. I'm afraid there are too many blind people entrenched on either side of the debate. They read what you say and take it as fodder against everything the U.S. has to offer. Thanks for your willingness to engage in the conversation and just be aware of that effect I believe you have on some people.

Someone sent this to me....

Leave it to Robin Williams to come up with the perfect plan... what we need now is for our UN Ambassador to stand up and repeat this message.

Robin Williams' plan...(Hard to argue with this logic!)

I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here's one plan:

1) The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past & present. We will promise never to "interfere" again.

2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No more sneaking through holes in the fence.

3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them.

4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 day visits unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself, don't hide here. Asylum would not ever be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers.

5) No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home, baby.

6) The US will make a strong effort to become self sufficient energy wise. This will include developing non polluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.

7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go someplace else.

8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere". They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides, most of what we give them gets "lost" or is taken by their army. The people who need it most get very little, anyway.

9) Ship the UN Headquarters to an island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, it would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

9b) Use the buildings as replacement for the twin towers.

10) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer.

Now, ain't that a winner of a plan.

"The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses.' She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'You want a piece of me?'"

- Robin Williams

Actually, the Constitution does allow the use of Federal monies for foreign aid, it's called "providing for the common defense." The same principle was used when the framers deeded US lands as well as gold to France for help during the revolutionary war. The same principle was used by President Wilson and later Roosevelt during those two wars (it was called the "lend/lease" program by Roosevelt). This all falls under national security and helps protect US interests abroad that directly/indirectly affect our security. Some people claim it was the Monroe Doctrine that started this but foreign aid has been around since the first three nation states formed.
Treaties are nothing more than deals or contracts between nations that guarantee some sort of mutual payment whether it be monetary, military or some such. The same goes for foreign aid just think of it as a pre-emptive marketing campaign that later may help protect the interests (general welfare) of the citizens of the US. Also, most nations we offer aid to do have treaties with us of one sort or another. . .

Just a sideline: Unfortunately, the US being the only superpower, per se, in the world does have its obligations. Rawanda comes to mind: When does the situation escalate to such a level that someone has to do something? Over 800,000 dead later UN "peacekeepers" stood watching the melee with loaded rifles and surrounding nations watched as well.
Iraq? First and foremost from a military point of view, Iraq was a brilliant idea (though the sectarian issues were severely overlooked). The key to any military campaign is logistics (ask Rommel in Africa, Hitler and Napoleon in Russia,Hypolites in Persia, etc) and terrain, the key to keeping your own civilians safe is fighting a war outside of your own country (Machiavelli would be proud). Why Iraq and not Afghanistan? Supplies and terrain. We also had more intelligence on Iraq and direct access to oil for running the war effort (it was the oil but not the reason everyone in Hollywood thinks). What better way to reduce the chances of having them bring the war to the US than to have them focus their assets in Iraq? Unfortunately, the cultural issues were not assessed properly (the same occurred during WWII with the Japanese) and the Shias, who you think would be greatful to be able to practice their religion openly after forty plus years decided that killing each other to get back at the US would be a great marketing plan for their cause to end the great satans reign. Interestingly, if Radical Islam were a political group it would fall under the category of Fascism (I guess that's why the Grand Mufti backed Hitler during WWII).
Look at any powerful nation throughout history and you will see similar traits as you are seeing in the US (and I'm speaking in general), peacekeeping, aid and determining cultural norms. The intentions are good but they just don't work with human nature. . .

The differences between the Iraqi conflict and WWI, WWII, and the Revolutionary war are too numerous to mention. Suffice it to say, one could very easily define a compelling national interest in each of the later cases.

I am not saying we should not assist in humanitarian efforts such as tsunami victims in Indonesia or famine in Rwanda. It is hard to compare these episodes with Iraq.

I agree that the intent with Iraq was to take the war to them. I even wrote as much here:

http://www.purplethink.com/epinion/IraqiPissingMatch.asp

However, do you believe the benefit of such engagement has been worth the cost?

Awwww, what's the matter Jesse, hurt your Liberal feelings? On the cutting room floor again? Typical LIB!

History will be the judge of that, O, as it will be the judge of GWB.
One more time, thankyou,Thurston or Lovey for the discourse.(-:

agreed Rykat. Unlike some for whom American defeat is the best outcome -- I hope history proves GWB to be a true visionary

Not to promote one ideology over another and not to put anyone down but war is war is war. True the start of WWI was based, for the most part, on treaties however war is always directly related to territory, finance (power) or defense otherwise if their was no potential for gain treaties would be worthless and protecting ones assets would be a waste of time. The only difference, in general terms, between Iraq and WWII was that the initiator was a nation-state vs a non-affliliated ideology but the outcome is the same, death, destruction and political posturing.
The revolutionary war? My God, The US were the terrorists with the Brits protecting land garnered by the queen. That was the law of the land at that time whether you believe in colonialism and power by might today or not. The Brits were protecting the loyalists from the "wackos" like Samuel Adams whose escapades got Americans (one being 11 yrs old by the way in Boston) shot by skittish Brit soldiers (read Letters of J. Adams, Vol I, Page 8 Letter III).
I am not saying it was not justified but the line between a partriot and a terrorist is a fine line which depends on a war won.
I would think that the Kurds would have a differing view (http://www.kurdishpoint.com/) as well as many of the Shiites that intervention was necessary. How do we determine the arbitrary level of heinousness? Is it 1,000, 10,000 1,000,000 casualties? is there a different level to intervene for whites as opposed to other colors? These lines do not exist today so what does Bush have to go by?
The benefit alone in combat expertise makes Iraq, hands down worth the cost let alone the potential to garner another ally in the Middle East. It amazes me that the American population, following the battle of Tarawa were reconsidering the war effort after photos were released of the Marines floating in the water and on the beaches. When you consider that on DDay at Iwo Jima 300+ Marines died within six hours vs 2,646 Military personnel killed in combat in Iraq since 3/19/03 (for complete numbers of WWII go to http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/battles.htm). Four plus years in Iraq vs four years in WWII (I know you are saying that they don't compare but Islamic extremism is likened to Fascism and 1930s era Asian colonialism in that it is a similar virulent ideology that produces a caste system where some are lesser and therefore expendable). I am not trying to belittle the deaths of these soldiers only pointing out that war, though disgusting and unfortunate, is a human trait that will not be purged easily from our genes and one must weigh the outcome with the cost.
also remember that more lives were lost because the US was not militarily prepared for situations such as Kasserine, Pearl Harbor, Chosin, Mogadishu, etc.

Take care!

So much truth in what has been said! I particularly like what Robin Williams said.

Changing tack slightly, I find it amusing how much the US tries to rule over areas it has no rights over. I was in Oxford (England) when Clinton came to visit his daughter who was a student there. His bodyguards muscled their way around, openly carrying firearms, until someone (an academic, but it could have been anyone) pointed out that these were all private citizens in the UK and their behaviour was therefore illegal. Once the truth of this was realised their guns were taken away, and they were informed of the rights of the citizens they had earlier been manhandling. The rest of the visit went far more smoothly. To be fair to Clinton, it seemed to be the secret agent "machine" that was operating rather than any conscious will of his.

I also love it when I see the FBI warning me of dire consequences if I don't observe US law. I do hope readers won't be offended if I tell them to "stuff it".

Howells -- great to spar with someone so knowledgeable of history. Refreshing and enlightening!

It will be interesting to see if this new kind of warfare with a new kind of enemy can be compared to enemies of old.

I see two separate issues here:

1) A key differentiator is that all the above mentioned conflicts were the result of a declared war -- except Iraq. The precedent set allows for unimaginable abuses regardless of the justification for the war itself.

2) I agree that our perspective of this conflict is woefully out of whack when compared with the realities of WWI and WWII. There's no comparison when looking at human casualties and financial losses as a percent of GNP. While I do feel this perspective is a problem in the American consciousness that must be dealt with, the bigger issue is that the majority of Americans do not see Islamo-fascism as a comparable threat to Nazism or Communism. Until then, everything else is academic.

I, for one, DO see this as an ideology on par with Nazism and Communism. I DO believe the battle needs to be fought, and on our terms if we care to win. However, Iraq was the wrong front to open at the wrong time. You can cite those who love us and those who hate us over there -- both viewpoints have relatively little use when arguing whether or not this was the right thing to do to win the wider war. In my mind anyway, it clearly was not. Mostly for reasons stated here:

http://www.purplethink.com/epinion/Playing.asp

This has been a very interesting topic. Everyone seems to be able to agree or disagree without getting nasty. Just a quick opinion though. I don't think the the revolutionary war can be compared to a terrorist act by todays standards. Our greatest enemy, in my opinion are the US citizens. We can teach Muslim prayers after 9-11 in our class rooms all the while tearing down Christian crosses. Soon we will stop teaching historical facts about the holocaust because it may offend Muslims. Also we are apparantly the only country in world without a immigration policy. We are turning our country over slowly and willingly without a shot ever being fired. And our future president is over in Syria now, just a few heartbeats away. Scary

Have to agree with you, O and Danza. However, if this country takes a tack that far to the left, (Pelosi?) then the beginning of the end will be in motion for the USA.
I pray the values of San Francisco spread no further through this country than San Francisco. May those values wither on the vine.

...and how many American soldiers are practicing Muslims? How about the many facts regarding the Holocaust that offend Catholics. Strange how those have been burried a bit over the years.

Is it a war on Muslims? Scary. How about give Palestinian, Egytpian and Lebanese lands back and end most problems in the region? A war on Jews?

SIN

SIN -- very naive to think going back to 1969 borders will find Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda respecting Israel's right to exist and "end most problems in the region." Probably should happen just the same.

I know. Just retorting to the minor attack on Muslims, an integral ethnic thread of the United States.

I am in the mood for some falafel, hummus, tabouli and a lil' baba ganoush. Ali Baba's it is for lunch.

SIN

lol -- pick-up some couscous for me!

Yummy... that's what I had for dinner last night! Gyros and hummus! YUM!

Yes and what a great way to become a US citizen by serving in our military. But I'm talking about the millions that are coming illegally. It would be very naive to think that the lack of controlling our borders hasn't been exploited by our enemies.
Millions of muslims seem to be very silent and allow the radicals to speak for them. They want Israel driven into the sea, destroyed and then the US. We can't control Iraq's borders and we don't seem to want to control our own. Not sure where that is going to lead us.

Not the only country, my friend. Have you seen what's happening in Britain? It's now illegal to say anything which a muslim might find offensive, and believe me they are easily offended. Many swimming pools (paid for from public funds) have days or evenings when men are banned, so Muslim women can go there without offending their sensitivities. And many schools have dropped all celebrations of Easter or Christmas so as not to offend muslims. Where is this all going to end?

At the same time, I do have considerable sympathy for the Palestinians who were unceremoniously booted out of their land by the British and allies after WW2 so that Israel could be created there. Many of these people started out as moderates, just requesting compensation for what they had lost, but became hard-liners when it became clear nothing would ever be done.

Israel itself is one of the most unpleasantly racist states on earth, with non-Jew inhabitants treated much worse than the blacks were in apartheid South Africa. Israel has created its own problems and by supporting them America (and to a lesser extent Britain) has become tarred with the same brush. Israel is a very wealthy country, but until it can find a way of working with and placating the people who were displaced by its creation, and their descendants, this mess will continue to grow both in magnitude and extent. Taking the world closer to the brink.

I mentioned a while ago in these columns an excellent book on muslim extremism, by a British journalist called Jason Burke, called "Al Qaeda". I have a copy in SP if anyone wants to borrow it. It's not an easy read, but it shows convincingly how much more serious the situation we are getting into really is, compared with the simplistic view expressed by people like Bush. He makes it clear (without saying so explicitly) that finding the individuals responsible for incidents like 9-11 and bombing the hell out of them is totally and fundamentally counter-productive - for every extremist killed, 100 more are created to replace them. He believes the world is facing its most dire crisis for centuries.

1) A key differentiator is that all the above mentioned conflicts were the result of a declared war -- except Iraq. The precedent set allows for unimaginable abuses regardless of the justification for the war itself.

How do we define a war with no boundaries, no nation/states, international law has no precedent nor does Congress and the President has every right to pull the national security card. yes, scary but a necessity given the potential dissension among a large body such as the legislative branch. Take a look at what happened dring the war of 1812, Congress fled, the President was not at the White House but his wife was. Left decisions to be made by the President and his cabinet with only a few other Legs and Juds adding their input from afar and sporatically.
By the way Chosin was in Korea which was a conflict not a declared war either, however the President will open the door for impeachment and possible removal from office so he better pray his intelligence and Generals are correct in their assumptions.


2) I agree that our perspective of this conflict is woefully out of whack when compared with the realities of WWI and WWII. There's no comparison when looking at human casualties and financial losses as a percent of GNP. While I do feel this perspective is a problem in the American consciousness that must be dealt with, the bigger issue is that the majority of Americans do not see Islamo-fascism as a comparable threat to Nazism or Communism. Until then, everything else is academic.

Agreed, however if we, for once, remember the past. . .
Take for instance Nazi Germany, due, in large part to the French and old Neville Chamberlain (diplomacy at all costs) we entered a war that could have been stopped short of the atrocity it became if the three powers (French, Britain and the US) had just reduced some of the horrendous reparations placed on Germany with the Treaty of Versaille or even stopped Hitler when he entered Sudentland or even Poland. Then we repeated it again when Stalin took East Germany and various islands by just ignoring it (except for the airlift of foods). Even Japan could have been nixed early on by Roosevelt if he would have sent aid and troops to China but instead he just fought the war covertly using US forces and funds without the knowledge of Congress(except for the lend/lease program), i.e. radioing where-abouts of Axis ships, restricting production materials to Axis countries, not allowing Axis ships to unload goods and on and on. So why not nip this in the bud early instead of later? I think anyone using their ability to reason can say that the Islamic extremists have been around a lot longer than the 60s. Look at Trans-Jordan, the Jordanians didn't even want the Palestinians around due to their brutality toward the Jews and fellow Moslems (the Jews didn't have Israel then and it wasn't even a twinkle that Israel would arise).

Great discusiing this matter with you as well!

By the way Pedro 2? The Brits took well over three hundred years to learn from their mistakes and they still make them (Falklands) so give the newbies a break and by the way if you guys wouldn't have screwed around with the various borders all over the British Empire we would be having less issues now (one being Belize and Guatemala. . ) Arrogant British Bastards :-)

Take care!

Actually Pedro 2 the Palestinians were given a chance before Israel came to be, it was called trans-Jordan and they still caused tremendous problems for everyone including the Brits and the Jordanians who finally nixed that deal. Not to benefit the Jews but to stop the killing of British soldiers and Moslems who tried to give them a land of their own following the Ottomans who also really hated the Palestinians as well.

I think we might be missing something here. When I first came to Belize 28 years ago and met my wife here on Ambergris and married her at the government primary school (because that was the church then) there were perhaps 125 kids attending classes there.

I never realized that the successive Governments of Belize would not spend one cent on expanding and improving the school to any degree during that 28 year period. Just about all of the add-ons and extra classes have been donated by private individuals and charitable donations. Most of the extra classes are little more than wooden shacks.

As far as I am concerned it is the Government of Belize who should be building schools in Belize. Given the outrageous wealth and excesses of various government ministers and their cronies it is outrageous that 27 years of governments here have not put any substantial funds into bringing our GOVERNMENT primary school up to a decent standard. It is also more than a little sad that we, the people of Ambergris Caye are not more...er....OUTRAGED by this clear neglect of our children.

FYI, the child population of our basically-unimproved-in-27-years GOVERNMENT primary school here on Ambergris Caye is now over 1000 kids.

I can't blame the U.S. government for building schools here in Belize. It's just that they shouldn't have to. The responsibility lies much closer to home.....

Hmmm....you always have private schools, like public schools are good anyway? Hijack! Do your kids go to public schools? My kids do. I bet you they are smarter than their friends up north.

anyway, I like this Mr. Howell.

It might be interesting to see how much of the tourist generated income and taxes go to the mainland from AC, versus how much is returned back to the island.

SIN, if you are referring to the public schools up north in the USA, I will agree with you 110%. Not necessarily that your kids are any smarter, but they are probably getting a much more functional education.

And, I agree with Mr. Howell also.

International education

Cool site

Soccer leaves no time for the much required commercials.

lol- true!

http://hbo.eprize.net/sopranos

FUN!!!