For what it is worth

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually, he said that he would like the Arabs to treat us the same way.>>

Same thing.  He's imputing a benevolence to it that just isn't there. 

Obviously, by asking to be treated "the same way," he did't mean, "Give us some cheap throwaway that you produce in overabundance and can afford to sell us at a loss,  and then in return for such "benevolence,"  force a government of crooks and sell-outs down our throats so you can rip off our natural resources."

[Amianthus]

Same thing.  He's imputing a benevolence to it that just isn't there. 

I've long advocated that the US stop throwing away money on charitable works in other nations.

Instead of sending $24 billion a year to other countries in the form of aid, that money should just be spent within our borders.

You realize that 40% of the total of charitable aid to other countries comes from the US government? The whole rest of the world together - plus US private contributions - account for the other 60%?

[Michael Tee]

<<I've long advocated that the US stop throwing away money on charitable works in other nations.>>

Well, I'd certainly differentiate between hand-outs to repressive dictatorships (including Israel for its dictatorial rule over the West Bank) and charitable works to end disease and poverty in the Third World.  It's the right thing to do, in the first place, and we all know that unchecked diseases in Africa don't stay in Africa forever.

<<Instead of sending $24 billion a year to other countries in the form of aid, that money should just be spent within our borders.>>

There were studies that show that most of the "foreign aid" the U.S. gives is in fact spent in the U.S.A.  As a matter of fact, I think there might be legislation mandating that a minimum percentage of foreign aid given be spent in the U.S.

<<You realize that 40% of the total of charitable aid to other countries comes from the US government? The whole rest of the world together - plus US private contributions - account for the other 60%?>>

Yeah but in most cases of foreign aid to the Third World, the U.S. has probably ripped off more than 40% of whatever was ripped off from those countries by First World exploitation.  I really think Americans should stop patting themselves on the back for their "foreign aid."  It's a drop in the bucket compared to the devastation and rip-offs they've committed against Third World countries and the focus should really be set on the actual poverty and misery that exists, not on how "wonderful" America has been.  Somebody should start to ask the hard questions, IF America really has been so consistently wonderful and beneficient to those poor countries, how come they keep sinking deeper and deeper into the shit?

[Amianthus]

There were studies that show that most of the "foreign aid" the U.S. gives is in fact spent in the U.S.A.  As a matter of fact, I think there might be legislation mandating that a minimum percentage of foreign aid given be spent in the U.S.

Needless to say, you make vague claims and then don't bother to provide more detailed information. Weren't you complaining about this type of argument just yesterday or the day before?

[Michael Tee]

<<Needless to say, you make vague claims and then don't bother to provide more detailed information.>>

Admittedly my information was vague, but I gave out as much as I know.  Anyone's free to contradict with his or her own opinion, or, even better, with facts that run counter to what I just said.  This isn't a scientific research foundation, it's a forum for the exchange of opinions.  If I offer an opinion that won't stand up, feel free to shoot it down, hopefully with facts.

<< Weren't you complaining about this type of argument just yesterday or the day before?>>

Possibly, but in what context?  My complaint was probably justifiable in context.  Otherwise I wouldn't have made it.

[Amianthus]

<< Weren't you complaining about this type of argument just yesterday or the day before?>>

Possibly, but in what context?  My complaint was probably justifiable in context.  Otherwise I wouldn't have made it.

It was in this thread, IIRC. I said something, and you claimed it was an invalid point because it was vague and included no hard data backing it up.

Pretty much the same situation you just created.

[Michael Tee]

<<It was in this thread, IIRC. I said something, and you claimed it was an invalid point because it was vague and included no hard data backing it up.>>

Yeah, but I mean specifically in what context?  For example, was my position backed with facts and yours devoid of facts?  Or were we both arguing without any real supporting facts?  Or should it have been relatively easy for you to find supporting facts that were missing from your argument?

Normally, I wouldn't criticize a post for vagueness unless some justifying factor were present.

[Amianthus]

Yeah, but I mean specifically in what context?  For example, was my position backed with facts and yours devoid of facts?  Or were we both arguing without any real supporting facts?  Or should it have been relatively easy for you to find supporting facts that were missing from your argument?

Actually, I had presented SOME facts, and you had presented none. I made a post which didn't include any facts, and you made your "zinger".

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually, I had presented SOME facts, and you had presented none. I made a post which didn't include any facts, and you made your "zinger".>>

Yeah, you cited some facts like the percentage of its food that Egypt imports and that "most" of the imports were from the U.S.A. and nothing on prices other than "below" or "substantially below" market.  The amount of the cut that the U.S. took was never defined.

I don't believe I delivered any zinger on this one, merely that I disagreed with your take and plane's take on the benevolence of the U.S.A. based on its food shipments to the Middle East.    Or even disagreed on the extent of the alleged benevolence. 

If I have specific facts to back an argument, I'll put 'em in.  If I don't, I've made a weaker argument.  Where is it written that every argument I make has to be of uniform strength?  If I couldn't make a strong argument about the U.S. not selling food at bargain basement prices, how could that possibly affect the strength of another of my arguments where I do produce facts in support of an opinion on  a totally different subject?  Conversely, how does my failure to produce facts in an argument about food prices affect the validity of my complaint that facts are lacking in a totally different topic?

You would be correct in pointing out a weakness in my post on food prices charged by the U.S. to Egypt and I would still be correct in pointing out the weakness in a piece which quotes Zoellick's opinion without any supporting facts.

You are taking nit-picking to ridiculous extremes.  I feel like I've just written a treatise on logic for three-year-olds.  What I've taken the trouble to set down shouldn't even require explanation to any thinking adult.

[Amianthus]

You are taking nit-picking to ridiculous extremes.  I feel like I've just written a treatise on logic for three-year-olds.  What I've taken the trouble to set down shouldn't even require explanation to any thinking adult.

Sorry if you feel that my quoting your comments back to you requires a treatise on logic for three-year-olds.

Perhaps you should think that through.

[Michael Tee]

It's a dead horse, Ami.  Flog it as long as you like.  It's not worth another second and a half of my time.