Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (70355)	1/2/2005 10:26:45 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

I don't think we are sending military weapons over there that could be turned against us. What we are sending is disaster relief- food, water, water purification systems, and later maybe we'll help rebuild homes and businesses. Could terrorists benefit? Sure. Indonesia has quite a few terrorists, and since they live there, they could benefit. But the whole world is giving- and many countries are giving large amounts- why would Bush be singled out? Obviously many people in the world do not approve of Bush's policies in certain parts of the world- but I don't see how anyone can single out our aid as being THE aid that helped terrorists. Obviously certain kinds of aid are more able to be used against us than other kinds. I'm hoping we aren't sending nuclear secrets as part of our aid, or anti aircraft guns, or even machine guns. Money will be diverted. You just have to accept that there is no 100% safe way to give money- especially in places with levels of corruption that we in the US do not really appreciate. The only thing you can do is give carefully to orgnaizations that aren't liable to be corrupted- and understand that some of the money will go astray anyway. But I don't see how anyone (rational) can blame Bush for normal types of aid.