board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Iraq and the depersonalization of soldiers

Post Reply   Page 4 of 6  [ 106 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Author Message
Lord_Morningstar
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 27 Apr , 2007 1:37 am
Offline
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia
 
Some other comments:
Alatar wrote:
Most Europeans would like to see the US out of Iraq and in general, behaving like a member of the United Nations and not the self styled "police force for the world". Particularly when it becomes increasingly obvious that the only places that the US believes need "defending" or "liberating" happen to have oil.
Europe’s moral authority on these matters is a little lessened of late – it was unable to deal with Slobodan Milosevic, a threat in its own backyard, without U.S. support. Also, I wasn’t aware that Yugoslavia had oil…
halplm wrote:
I tend to believe that if you give a terrorist everything they want, they will then continue to be terrorists, because it's an effective strategy.
This is exactly right. What is often overlooked is that Europe and the U.N. played a large role in leading to 9/11 by constantly rewarding the PLO with attention for its every terrorist attack. Worse, it made little effort to prosecute terrorists or help Israel do so – take the release of the Munich gunmen by German authorities, for example. This made terrorism a strategy that paid off.

The outcomes from this are fairly simple. When the Kurds tried terrorism against Turkey, they were killed and got little publicity from it. Kurdish terrorism is not a problem today. When the Palestinians tried terrorism against Israel, their cause was pushed into the international spotlight and their leaders (such as Arafat) hailed as heroes. Terrorism in Palestine and against Israel is a huge problem today.
yovargas wrote:
what we call 'terrorists' the call 'freedom fighters'.
Broadly true, but their concept of freedom is different to ours. They believe that people are only truly free when totally submissive to Islamic Law and the will of God.

_________________

[Space for Rent]


Top
Profile Quote
elfshadow
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 27 Apr , 2007 2:14 am
Kill the headlights and put it in neutral
Offline
 
Posts: 5407
Joined: Tue 09 Aug , 2005 2:27 am
 
Lord_Morningstar wrote:
halplm wrote:
I tend to believe that if you give a terrorist everything they want, they will then continue to be terrorists, because it's an effective strategy.
This is exactly right. What is often overlooked is that Europe and the U.N. played a large role in leading to 9/11 by constantly rewarding the PLO with attention for its every terrorist attack. Worse, it made little effort to prosecute terrorists or help Israel do so – take the release of the Munich gunmen by German authorities, for example. This made terrorism a strategy that paid off.
Yes, but I haven't heard a single person here advocating that we "give a terrorist everything they want." To argue that would be absurd. Of course we can't give them everything they want, but we have to realize that while terrorism is by no means the fault of the Western world, the Western world (in particular the United States) has acted in certain ways that have intensified the anger and dislike of the terrorists and their supporters. So no, we can't do everything the terrorists want. Conversely, we can't just do everything they don't want out of some twisted form of stubbornness or "show of force".






And the US certainly picks and chooses the countries that it decides to "liberate" with its own interests in mind. As far as I know, the US hasn't sent soldiers to liberate the people of Darfur--of course, "save" would be a better term as they're being slaughtered. There are reasons that the US hasn't, of course, but from what I can see there are more reasons to liberate Darfur than there ever were to "liberate" Iraq.

I think that a huge problem the US has with its image around the world is its inconsistency. Why, for example, does the US support nondemocratic regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia but cries "liberation" when toppling Saddam Hussein's nondemocratic regime in Iraq? Why does the US eagerly espouse the values of democracy around the world yet cries bloody murder when the Palestinian people democratically elect Hamas as the leaders of their government? Inconsistencies like that perpetuate the beliefs that the US acts only for its own interests. Which, in many cases, it does.


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 27 Apr , 2007 2:28 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
I'm ok with giving terrorists what they want if what they want is for us not to kill anymore of their civilians.


Top
Profile Quote
elfshadow
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 27 Apr , 2007 2:43 am
Kill the headlights and put it in neutral
Offline
 
Posts: 5407
Joined: Tue 09 Aug , 2005 2:27 am
 
yovargas wrote:
I'm ok with giving terrorists what they want if what they want is for us not to kill anymore of their civilians.
Okay, I guess I'll modify my statement to add that we cannot just give terrorists what they want unless it is in our mutual interests.


Top
Profile Quote
vison
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 27 Apr , 2007 3:00 am
Best friends forever
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6546
Joined: Fri 04 Feb , 2005 4:49 am
 
I think, sadly enough, that "the terrorists" don't much care what the US says or does. Iraq, for instance, will settle out one way or the other eventually and "the terrorists" on the "right side" will benefit and the rest won't. When the US leaves Iraq, and it will, sooner or later, the dogfight will end with one top dog and a bunch of underdogs. Only, I don't see much "terrorism" in Iraq then, whatever regime takes over will be ruthless as Saddam was ruthless. It's not going to be a Western-style democracy, no matter how long the US stays there and no matter what pronouncements come out of Washington.

The US made so many stupid mistakes after 9/11, beginning with squandering nearly universal sympathy and going on to the insanity of invading Iraq. Honestly, if "the terrorists", specifically OBL, had planned it all, they couldn't have done better for their cause.

"The Terrorists" are not, as many people have pointed out, a homogenous bunch with one leader and one goal. But certainly seeing the US stuck in the quaqmire of Iraq, spending men and money on a spectacular scale, must warm the cockles of many anti-US hearts.

The US has many problems at home. As I said either earlier on this thread or somewhere else, terrorism isn't the biggest problem of the USA, it isn't close to being the biggest problem. It is a diversion, a distraction, a means of keeping the people frightened and on edge.

I've never bought into the conspiracy ideas around 9/11, but in the cold hard light of reality? Conspiracy or not, the events suited certain people right down to the ground.

_________________

Living on Earth is expensive,
but it does include a free trip
around the sun every year.


Top
Profile Quote
Lord_Morningstar
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 27 Apr , 2007 8:40 am
Offline
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia
 
yovargas wrote:
I'm ok with giving terrorists what they want if what they want is for us not to kill anymore of their civilians.
I would be too, but sadly they want more than that (Spain, for example).
vison wrote:
I think, sadly enough, that "the terrorists" don't much care what the US says or does.
I’m inclined to agree with this as well.

Of course no-one advocates giving the terrorists what they want. But we need to be very careful with what we do give them. Under no circumstances can our concessions be seen as being linked to their attacks. It’s probably inevitable that this will be the result of the Iraq War, but can only lead to more terrorism. If terrorism works, it will be used again. Appeasement is a dangerous game, as we learned the hard way in 1939.

_________________

[Space for Rent]


Top
Profile Quote
Wilma
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 27 Apr , 2007 9:39 am
Takoyaki is love
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2994
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:55 pm
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
 
Just to echo some of what Elsha said, the Western world, including Canada, Europe and the US, didn't think Rwanda needed "liberating" either even though they were warned of a genocide. Many countries don't do what is "right" They do what is in their best interests and tell their people what they are doing is out of some lofty altruism if they tell their people at all.

Edit: I especially agree with Elsha on the whole inconsistency thing. She hit the nail on the head there.

_________________

Itoshiki Sensei from Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei. Avatar by: sparklessence

"There is no such thing as coincidence in this world, only hitsuzen." - Yuko Ichihara and Kimihiro Watanuki - xxxHolic

"I'm modest, I'll keep my knickers on and die!" - My sister Grace commenting on Bear Gryllis on an episode of Oprah :rofl:

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 30 Apr , 2007 3:00 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
halplm wrote:
What I can't believe is that all you people arguing with me believe any of what you say! They want us dead, because they think that will make them rich and powerful in the afterlife. They will stop at nothing in their attempts to kill us, and recruit more people to kill us.

We threaten them because we threaten to expose that their rationale is barbaric and evil.

They want to kill us because we say women and men are equal.

They want to kill us because we say you should be allowed to believe any religion.

They want to kill us because we say you have a right to a trial, and can't just be tortured and executed at a given leader's whim.

They want to kill us because we say your sexual orientation shouldn't result in a death sentence.

They want to kill us because if they don't want to kill us, they and their beliefs mean nothing.

So yeah, I find it frightening that you all think it's our fault they hate us...
There is a reason the Bush administration switched early on from talking about terrorists to talking about Islamic terrorists. It was too easy to see through Bush's hokum back then. Why? Because simply saying "terrorists" gave those who thought critically about the war an avenue to argue against it that was effective.

Simply saying "terrorists" enabled people to look at a terrorist group much more familiar than Al Qaeda. It enabled people to look at the IRA.

Of course everyone is familiar with the IRA. That puts a human fact on terrorism, the last thing those who want war wish to happen.

Did the IRA want to cause the fall of Britain? Actually, no. They just wanted Britain out of Ireland.

Did they want to kill all British? Actually, no. They just wanted Britain out of Ireland.

Did they want to kill all Protestants? Actually, no. They just wanted Britain out of Ireland.

Is the IRA a special case? Actually, no. Most terrorists are local people fighting in a local area over a local cause. When the terrorists is local-local-local, then it is not frightening to say that it is our fault. It's a simple fact. To say that to take our finger out of the hornet's nest will cause the hornets to come to our house and sting our entire family is absurd.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
Wilma
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 30 Apr , 2007 4:24 pm
Takoyaki is love
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2994
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:55 pm
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
 
:love:
I love that post C_G.

_________________

Itoshiki Sensei from Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei. Avatar by: sparklessence

"There is no such thing as coincidence in this world, only hitsuzen." - Yuko Ichihara and Kimihiro Watanuki - xxxHolic

"I'm modest, I'll keep my knickers on and die!" - My sister Grace commenting on Bear Gryllis on an episode of Oprah :rofl:

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
vison
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 30 Apr , 2007 4:38 pm
Best friends forever
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6546
Joined: Fri 04 Feb , 2005 4:49 am
 
But, C_G, they did come to your house and sting you!!

It's just that your government went after the wrong hornet's nest in response.

The comparison to the IRA is not apt, in the case of September 11, is it?

And it isn't in Iraq, either.

Not excusing the insane invasion, the illegal and immoral war started by the BA, but I think you should compare apples with apples, not potatoes.

_________________

Living on Earth is expensive,
but it does include a free trip
around the sun every year.


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 30 Apr , 2007 5:17 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
The "apples" here, I think, are merely that "terrorism" doesn't automatically equate to "crazy & illogical". Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

I my mostly-uneducated opinion, Osama - who did come and sting us - does seem like he belongs in the "crazynut" category.


Top
Profile Quote
Ara-anna
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 30 Apr , 2007 5:31 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
Here's an idea....perhaps, maybe just perhaps, some other country can step up against the terrorists, send troops and money to Darfur to stop the blood shed, make sure Iran and Korea don’t produce nuclear arms (most of which, if ever unleashed, could reach US soil), worry about the current industrial revolution in China and the availability of building materials, police the middle east so Israel is not destroyed, and do all of this and many other world saving actvities while maintaining and running the their own government. Don’t forget that this country will also have to fork out billions of dollars every year in foreign aid.

I as a US citizen would love it if someone else would step up, then I could come on here an complain about everything too. But as it is………anyone out there besides the US want to step up, send troops, do the right thing, save others from genocide? stop terrorists? save Israel? send metric tons of food to starving people? make sure Iran doesn't make nuclear bombs? Prop other countries economies up? Any takers? Come on you can do it...it's so easy you already tell the US how to do it, so putting into action should be way easier right? Anyone?

listens to crickets chirping...

If you don't like the way the US does things in the world, do it yourself. Don't like that the US is not sending troops to Darfur, well send your own troops. Don't like the way the US is handling the Iraq war, send your own troops. Don't like the way the US is handling the middle east, send own your troops. Don't like the way the US is sending tons and tons of food to Darfur to help starving people, step up, send the same amount of food. Don't like the way the US handles Iran having the possiblity of nuclear weapons, then step up and figure out how to disarm Iran yourselves. Good luck, have fun. I would appreciate it happening sooner rather than later as I would love to spend my money on my country, thanks.

Its rather pathitic actually that the US did get rid of a man who did kill hunderd of thousands of people in Iraq, and we get no credit for that. YET, yet when we do follow the UN lead in Darfur, we aren't doing enough. We don't invade Darfur because NATO and the UN want to do sanctions and work on a diplomatic procedure to end the killing. We get called imperlists for invading Iraq, but then get told to invade Darfur. Which is it you want us to do?

So the world didn't want us to invade Iraq, but the world wants us to invade the Sudan. Strangly enough though the same people we are fighting in Iraq support the current killers in Sudan. The terrorists we are going after in Afganistan send money and guns to those killers in Sudan.

Yet the biggest area of concern is the US 2nd Amendment.

_________________

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in

Five seconds away from the Tetons and Yellowstone


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 30 Apr , 2007 6:21 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
vison wrote:
But, C_G, they did come to your house and sting you!!

It's just that your government went after the wrong hornet's nest in response.

The comparison to the IRA is not apt, in the case of September 11, is it?

And it isn't in Iraq, either.

Not excusing the insane invasion, the illegal and immoral war started by the BA, but I think you should compare apples with apples, not potatoes.
My point is that Osama is quite the exception instead of the rule with regards to the quesiton of "what is a terrorist". Ten minutes of thinking about the IRA will reveal that to anyone who cares to consider. Even with him being an exception - where does Osama get his support? Where does Osama recruit?

He can only get support from the local-local-local. Without that support, he would not have been able to come over here and sting us. It is because we have for so long been stirring hornets that the hornets struck back.

The insurgency in Iraq is a perfect comparison to the IRA. The Shiites and the Sunnis can barely agree on anything, but they agree that they don't like foreign occupiers. The various militias all have different conflicting ideologies, but they all agree on removing the foreign occupier. Not only is this apples to apples, it is granny smith apples to granny smith apples.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
vison
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 30 Apr , 2007 6:22 pm
Best friends forever
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6546
Joined: Fri 04 Feb , 2005 4:49 am
 
While the US does a lot, the US is the richest and most powerful nation. A version of noblesse oblige is appropriate here: much is expected of those to whom much is given. Nonetheless, many other nations give and do more in proportion to their population and wealth, which is something Americans don't seem to realize.

To imply, as your post seems to imply, that only the USA concerns itself with the well-being of the other people on this planet is to betray a monumental ignorance that leaves me gasping. It is so far from the truth that I suspect you are just saying it to be a devil's advocate. If you are serious, then there isn't much a person can say except: what planet do YOU live on?

With something like 6% of the world's population, the USA uses 25% of the world's resources, just for example.

After 9/11, the USA, as part of NATO, sent troops to Afghanistan. But the focus of the American government shifted oddly --- very oddly, indeed --- to Iraq. Meanwhile, Osama got away. And also meanwhile, not only are there still some Americans in Afghanistan, so are Canadians, and military from other NATO nations. Canadians have been getting killed and maimed in Afghanistan all along. We are a small nation, compared in population to the USA, but our military is stretched to the limit right now, because we are part of NATO and we honour our NATO committment.

The USA did not invade Iraq out of concern for the Iraqi people. The first "pathetic" excuse for the illegal and immoral invasion was that Hussein had WMD. He didn't, which became immediately apparent. Suddenly the excuse was "regime change". What incredible bullshit. The USA had been instrumental for years in propping up Saddam Hussein, just as it has propped up vile dictators in many nations over the decades. The USA acts only out of its own interests: do not think otherwise. There is nothing wrong with acting out of self-interest, not until you cross the line into criminal acts, which the USA has done countless times.

The USA is not the world's policeman. Every time the USA acts as the world's policeman and moral arbiter, it gets it wrong. When the USA acts in concert with the treaty organizations it belongs to, this is not usually the case.

The USA has neither the right nor the duty to plod around the world "setting things right". The USA has many problems at home, right now the biggest one is: how are you going to pay for the insane invasion of Iraq?

You would love to spend your money on your own country? Tell that to the moron in the White House. He's the one blowing it all on a little adventure overseas.

As for the rest of us, we would like to see the USA realize it is but one nation among many, not more worthy, not more moral.

_________________

Living on Earth is expensive,
but it does include a free trip
around the sun every year.


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 30 Apr , 2007 7:22 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8273
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeeping_Force


Even Ireland, a neutral country, has many soldiers in the UN Peacekeeping Forces.

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 30 Apr , 2007 7:26 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
vison wrote:
With something like 6% of the world's population, the USA uses 25% of the world's resources, just for example.
This quote is interesting in relation to those numbers:
wiki wrote:
The United States provided 26% of the UN peacekeeping budget in 2006.[3] As of February, 2006, there were 372 US personnel (8 troops, 347 civilian police, and 17 observers)[2] in worldwide UN peace operations, accounting for 0.5% of the total UN peacekeepers.

...

The lack of US involvement in UN peacekeeping operations has drawn criticism from other member states. The comparatively small investment of personnel in UN peacekeeping operations is attributed to "the Mogadishu factor"—a deep reluctance by US administrations to incur casualties in military operations that do not serve US strategic interests, a lesson supposedly learned in the Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia.


Top
Profile Quote
Ara-anna
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 30 Apr , 2007 7:28 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
vison wrote:
A version of noblesse oblige is appropriate here:
Why? Honest question, why?

And if you don't want the US to be the 'worlds policmen' then do it yourselves. Pony up the troops to keep the peace in the entire world.

_________________

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in

Five seconds away from the Tetons and Yellowstone


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 30 Apr , 2007 7:34 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8273
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
Ara-anna, are you deliberately ignoring the UN Peacekeeping Corps?

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
Ara-anna
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 30 Apr , 2007 7:53 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
screw it, I went and got the actual numbers.


Overseas, the US has launched an ambitious $15 billion, five-year Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Since the announced Emergency Plan in 2003 the United States has provided $5.2 billion for the fight against global HIV/AIDS. The 2006 Budget requests an additional $3.2 billion for this effort. The U.S. Government has made remarkable progress during the Emergency Plan's first year of implementation. In the first eight months of President Bush's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the United States supported training for more than 312,000 service providers and supported more than 14,000 sites where prevention, treatment, and care services are provided in 15 countries in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean.

Under the Emergency Plan, the Administration is committed to preventing seven million new HIV-infections; treating two million HIV-infected people; and caring for 10 million people affected by HIV/AIDS, including orphans.

As part of these efforts, the United States is also working with international organizations like UNAIDS, the World Health Organization, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The Bush Administration provided the founding contribution to the Global Fund, and the United States remains the world's largest donor.

While the United States response to the HIV/AIDS crisis is an outstanding example, this Nation has always been a world leader in providing hunger, disaster, and other humanitarian relief. When an earthquake and tsunami struck the Indian Ocean basin in December 2004, the United States led recovery efforts with a coordinated response with our armed forces deployed to the region. Assistance included food aid, medical assistance, water filtration, temporary shelter, airlift support, and long-term development assistance.

The United States has traditionally been the most generous of the donor governments in providing humanitarian assistance in disaster relief, and this recent display of assistance was no different. The Department of Defense and the United States Agency for International Development conducted one of the largest relief efforts in the agency’s history to save lives, to lessen suffering, and to reduce the economic effect of the disaster.

The United States, which comprises roughly 25 percent of the world's economic output, provides more than 40 percent of the world's food aid. In 2004, U.S. food aid protected vulnerable populations around the world, with more than $700 million donated to the food emergencies in the Darfur region in Sudan, as well as crises in Ethiopia and southern Africa. In 2004, the United States led the world—both in timeliness and funding levels—in assisting more than one million internally-displaced persons in the Darfur region of Sudan and 200,000 Sudanese refugees in Chad. The 2006 Budget continues this strong level of support, addressing food and non-food needs of victims of the conflict in Darfur. The 2006 Budget supports the Administration’s continuing efforts to prevent widespread famine and proposes major new efforts to make food aid more effective by requesting a portion of it as cash assistance, which allows emergency food aid to be provided more quickly and more flexibly.

In 2002, the President proposed the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) to provide new incentives for developing nations to pursue successful economic growth policies and democratic reforms. Through MCA, contributions are linked to responsible actions by developing nations. MCA rewards nations that root out corruption, respect human rights, adhere to the rule of law, invest in better health care, better schools, and broader immunization, and have more open markets and sustainable budget policies. Using funds in the MCA, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) works with eligible countries to support proposals with clear objectives to help those countries’ poorest citizens lift themselves out of poverty. While the President’s proposal has not received the funding initially envisioned, the Budget would keep it on track to reach $5 billion in annual funding by 2007. The Congress increased MCA funding from $1 billion in 2004 to $1.5 billion in 2005. The 2006 Budget provides $3 billion to help participating countries help themselves become prosperous democratic states. These investments aid our national security by helping nations avoid becoming havens for terrorists, who thrive in failed states. But these investments also respond to the humanitarian needs of people who have known only poverty and dependence.

The 2006 Budget also reinforces the Administration’s commitment to finding durable solutions for the more than 12 million refugees worldwide in need of protection. The United States continues offering permanent resettlement to the most vulnerable among these populations. Refugee admissions rose by more than 80 percent in 2004. The United States is the world's largest donor to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the world's leader for accepting them . The 2006 Budget provides a funding increase of $85 million to support the growing number of refugees being resettled in the United States.

President Bush is committed to increasing American volunteerism overseas and, accordingly, has asked for increases over prior year’s appropriations in Peace Corps’ budget every year since taking office. The Administration's budget request of $345 million continues that support. Peace Corps volunteers—7,733 strong in 2004—are at their highest level in 29 years. These dedicated individuals reflect the best of American values and compassion by working in such diverse fields as education, health, information technology, business development, the environment, and agriculture. The 2006 Budget will help Peace Corps open at least two new posts and maintain the existing number of volunteers.

_________________

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in

Five seconds away from the Tetons and Yellowstone


Top
Profile Quote
Ara-anna
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 30 Apr , 2007 8:29 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
Alatar wrote:
Ara-anna, are you deliberately ignoring the UN Peacekeeping Corps?
No, not ignoring them. Not really sure what they are doing.

The 26% is because of the UN cap, because the US congress refuses to pay for a useless broken machine, so yes the US is in arrears. Fix the machine or find other funding.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 935_2.html

_________________

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in

Five seconds away from the Tetons and Yellowstone


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 4 of 6  [ 106 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Jump to: