In light of this editorial, which is an official government organ, can someone explain to me why we're giving billions of dollar of aid annually to this country?

The link to this article does not work in my Mozilla browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030516 Mozilla Firebird/0.6
It works fine in IE. Hope you can fix that.

-- MattJ

Absolutely appalling. To make a baseless claim without a shread of evidence for the purpose of inciting hatred... how can these cockroaches even come out in the light of day?

I'm not sure what actions I'd support, but paying off our enemies is certainly not one of them.

You mean, why is the U.S. propping up the Mubarak government by providing aid?

Could it possibly be because if his government imploded and if a democratic election were held, even more anti-American "islamofascist" politicians would take over Egypt?

MARCU$

We give money to countries now, simply because we have in the past. No one on capitol hill has the testicular fortitude, to ask why!!

I was taught, when I was younger, that we gave money to these foreign countries so they would not go to the U.S.S.R. and get it. If they did get it from the communists it would further destabilize the world. WELL, the Soviet Union is gone kids, and still we give money to assholes like Mubarak.

I've said this before in this very forum, if we withheld our foreign aid for even 60 days from these twits, it would bring them screaming to us and we would have the upper hand for a change.

Giving money to countries like Egypt is like giving a new car to a drunken teenager, who trashed his last car by driving through crowd of people at a bus stop. The driver does not have our best interests in mind and certainly shows no regard for anyone else.

The bad part is Marcu$, is singing the party line here. Our own state department says the same thing, so do many of the talking heads from D.C.

How about we take some of the money we send to these already radical countries and use it to beef up our capability to detect bombs at airports, or to man our borders to keep out drugs and terrorism.

Because the two billion dollars per year is a bribe to stop Egypt from attacking Israel. It's a key provision of the Camp David Accords.

Now, why do we not use that $2 billion to try to push Egypt towards a more tolerant domestic policy that would allow the possibility of democracy without Islamic nutcases in charge? That's a far better question.

> can someone explain to me why we're giving billions of dollar of aid annually to this country?

Payments on Jimmy Carter's Nobel.

Our state department is part of the problem. They've forgotten whose interests they represent. Self interest is probably what it's come to. Has anyone done a survey of what happens to state department officials after they retire? I imagine a lot of second incomes provided by friends in foreign embassies.

"I imagine a lot of second incomes provided by friends in foreign embassies."

I don't know if this is true for Egypt, but it certainly is for Saudi Arabia.

> Because the two billion dollars per year is a
> bribe to stop Egypt from attacking Israel.

Interesting. I didn't know that. In any case, I think Egypt would be no match for Israel. The military gap is even wider now than it was 30 years ago.

> Now, why do we not use that $2 billion to try
> to push Egypt towards a more tolerant domestic
> policy that would allow the possibility of
> democracy without Islamic nutcases in charge?

I don't think $2B/year would be enough for that. It seems the Arab world (many countries, in any case) is like a pressure cooker, where the general population is a lot more anti-Israel/anti-American and more pro-fundamentalist than its (corrupt) leaders. E.g. Islamic fundamentalists would have won the election in Algeria unless the government had intervened a few years ago. Same story in nominally pro-American Jordan, where hundreds of women have voluntarily chosen to go to prison because they know their fathers/brothers would immediately kill them "to protect the honor of the family". Heck, Kuwait had the world's highest GNP per capita before Saddam invaded the country, but their political system remains almost medieval in terms of womens rights etc..
---
I think it is a mistake to try to impose Western "democracy" and "freedom" on these people at gunpoint, from the outside. Far better to initially focus on economic reforms, which is what got the ball rolling in Southwest Asia following WW II. Yes: corruption, illiteracy and other things will make it harder for capitalism to take root. But the necessary reforms would be more palatable to Arabs, producing a more affluent society and a bigger, secular middle class.
---
The Chinese communists are another case in point. Unlike the Soviets, they decided to implement economic reforms before changing their political system. I expect the Chinese eventually will join the democratic CAPITALI$M camp too, but I am less convinced about the near terms prospects of the Arab world (see comments about Kuwait above...). The Arabs have been exposed to Western TV and other forms of "cultural imperialism" across the Mediterranean for decades and millions of them live in the West. Yet our "laissez faire" values seem anathema to many of them. I do not know why, but if liberal democracy hasn't gained a foothold even in tiny homogenous Kuwait, how can we expect Iraq to be any different?

MARCU$

History has shown that Arab nations seem unable to fight conventional wars. A good chunk of the money the US provides to Egypt is in military aid designed for their conventional forces. Thus we are allowing them to maintain a shiny new military that they will be incapable of winning wars with.

Still, I think we'd be better off cutting nearly all aid around the world and removing restrictions to the US markets. Let them sell us stuff, not rely on welfare. The US might even have more pull then because it takes the dictators out of the money loop, somewhat.

A classic example of what the aid is for can be shown by looking at our "friends" in Pakistan. Low aide payments and tight IMF and International Bank requirements have lead to a virtual complete break down of state schooling leaving the only available option for the majority to be the Madrasses which are proving so effective at churning out the people we need to protect ourselves from.

> History has shown that Arab nations seem unable
> to fight conventional wars.

The Arab armies are are a joke -- and I am saying this as a European. Their combined military spending is less by a factor of three than even the European Union's. They do not threaten Western Europe at all, let alone the U.S.. Now, *terrorism* is a different story of course. But it's not clear how this problem can be eradicated by the use of military force...Israel has been trying for decades. Al Qaeda & co. are popular at the grassroots level and receive financial support from individuals; getting rid of a few dictators won't solve this problem. E.g. Saddam's financing of Palestinian terrorism wasn't that significant.

> Still, I think we'd be better off cutting
> nearly all aid around the world and removing
> restrictions to the US markets. Let them sell
> us stuff, not rely on welfare.

Well, the basic concept is sound. But 100% free trade wouldn't work. For example, it would probably destroy the environment since Third World peasants are not bound by the same environmental regulations as American or Western European farmers.

MARCU$

The comment about Jimmy Carter's Nobel Prize is right on. Hey, at the cost of Sadat's life and US$2B/year, that's cheap!!

That's about one percent of Egypt's GDP. They have a population of 75 million, and a workforce of only 20 million; because they won't let their women work.

So we pay them an ongoing bribe to not go and get themselves killed by the Israelis, and to keep their women in bondage.

NONE of the Muslim countries would need aid if they would just crawl out the middle ages, and let women have jobs.

Actually, MARCU$, it is clear how to eliminate this threat through military means, we are just unwilling to do so. See your history of Rome in the central hills of Italy and in Spain. As others have said, the Islamic world should be worried foremost about fanatics in their midst convincing us to take the Roman approach to the problem.

As for free trade, the third world isn't subject to environmental regulation now, but why do you presume that they, unlike every other society that has grown wealthy, wouldn't spend that wealth on environmental protection? That seems rather bigoted.

Marcus, you are right terrorism is a more difficult threat to counter. All the more reason to encourage Arab states to continue wasting their time on conventional armies. They can brutalize their own people with them but are generally not a threat to neighbors.

Your point on the environment is upside down, in my humble opinion, in that it looks at the short term rather than the long term. It has been shown time and time again that wealthy nations have better environmental records than poor nations. The best thing possible to help the environment is to help poor nations become wealthy.

A guy on welfare is unlikely to get rich. A guy able to make and sell stuff just might.

> As for free trade, the third world isn't
> subject to environmental regulation now, but
> why do you presume that they, unlike every
> other society that has grown wealthy, wouldn't
> spend that wealth on environmental protection?

Of course they would -- EVENTUALLY. How long would it take, though? I have no idea, but the price to pay might conceivably be quite steep in the near term.

> It has been shown time and time again that
> wealthy nations have better environmental
> records than poor nations. The best thing
> possible to help the environment is to help
> poor nations become wealthy.

Indeed, but see comment above.
---
BTW, what would happen if the remaining 95% of humanity released as much carbon dioxide per capita as the United States currently does?

MARCU$

...what would happen if the remaining 95% of humanity released as much carbon dioxide per capita as the United States currently does?

No one knows, but if they did, it would mean that the world was more than wealthy enough to handle whatever the consequences would be. It's a very dynamic system...