US Cuts Military Aid to Friendly Nations

[Malachi151]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1001-01.htm

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration today cut over $89 million in military aid to 32 friendly countries because they refused to exempt U.S. citizens and soldiers from the jurisdiction of the new International Criminal Court (ICC)--the world's first permanent tribunal to prosecute the perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

Among the countries whose aid was cut were a number of new democracies in Central and East Europe--some of which have contributed troops to bolster the U.S.-led occupation in Iraq--as well as Brazil, Costa Rica, Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador, South Africa, and several other Latin American and African countries.

"This is the first sanction in U.S. diplomatic history targeted exclusively at democracies," said Heather Hamilton of the World Federalist Association (WFA), one of hundreds of non-governmental groups around the world that have joined in a global coalition in support of the ICC.

While the cuts were relatively small this year, they would come to just under $90 million in fiscal year 2004, which begins today, October 1.

The cuts were mandated by the 2002 American Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA), the purpose of which is to ensure that the ICC, which began operating at The Hague in the Netherlands last spring, can never gain jurisdiction over U.S. citizens.

Among other provisions, the ASPA gives the president authorization to use all necessary means, including force, to free U.S. servicemembers held by the ICC.

[Trollbane]

How come it is a sanction when USA decides to keep their own money instead of spreading it around?

Somehow I get the feeling that had the USA increased or maintained the same level of military aid to other countries Malachi would cry out against the evil gun running policies..

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Trollbane
How come it is a sanction when USA decides to keep their own money instead of spreading it around?

Somehow I get the feeling that had the USA increased or maintained the same level of military aid to other countries Malachi would cry out against the evil gun running policies..

Somehow I get the feeling you are right...

It really irks me when people say "the US is causing 1000000000s of people to die in Africa from AIDS by not giving enough money" Umm...riiiiigggghhhhhttt...... All these damned yanks runnign around africa killing people by not giving away thier money!!!

Theres an analogos situation with the withdrawal of US money to African family planning clinics that tell people about abortions.. now while I disagree with this approach very strongly indeed, the fact is its the US's dineros and they can spend it all on candyfloss and coca-cola if they so chose.

[glee]

Originally posted by Malachi151
The Bush administration today cut over $89 million in military aid to 32 friendly countries because they refused to exempt U.S. citizens and soldiers from the jurisdiction of the new International Criminal Court (ICC)--the world's first permanent tribunal to prosecute the perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
...


Who needs this International Criminal Court?
The World has President Bush, who will not hesitate to invade any country that has a 'despicable leader'.

So that's all right then. :rolleyes:

[Tony]

Good!!

Bush might re-gain my respect.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Trollbane
How come it is a sanction when USA decides to keep their own money instead of spreading it around?

Somehow I get the feeling that had the USA increased or maintained the same level of military aid to other countries Malachi would cry out against the evil gun running policies..

You know I think you might be on to something...;)

If the situation was the opposite, Malachi would be on here saying something like:

"The evil and impearilistic US miltary-industrial complex is now increasing its aid to opressive regimes around the world."
:p

[Malachi151]

I have no idea why everyone keeps dragging my name into this, but it's of no concern to me anyway.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I have no idea why everyone keeps dragging my name into this, but it's of no concern to me anyway.

Because you posted the thread you crusty cumrag!

[Zep]

It's no problem if the USA decides to spend/not spend its own money on stuff, but the concept of the USA attempting to remove itself from international courts while at the same time trying to exercise a unilateral military-backed policing role in foreign countries smacks to me of severe imperialism. Or, to put it more bluntly, bullying.

What if we say something wrong out here in Aussie-land! Will we get invaded? We've got Moslems too, y'know...

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Because you posted the thread you crusty cumrag!

Oh, intelligent responce....

BTW, Britain DID sign the agreement so I'm not sure why you are all over this issue anyway?

Clinton had signed the agreement, its like so many other things, Bush came in and totally screwed foreign relations up.

Its quite obvious what the implication is, "we are only willing to help democracies when they agree to do as we say"

That's not really being pro-democracy, but of course the US has never really been pro-democracy, in the past 50 years the US has played a role in the overthrow of more democracies than any other country in the world.

[Charlie Monoxide]

IIRC The US is the world's biggest arms maunfacturer. Military aid does not involve cutting a cheque to these "ungrateful" nations. It would involve shipping "Made in USA" arms and ordinance. This is a form of tax-payer subsidising the arms industry.

Charlie (I may be wrong - correct me) Monoxide

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I have no idea why everyone keeps dragging my name into this, but it's of no concern to me anyway.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Because you posted the thread you crusty cumrag!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, intelligent responce....



Fitting response to an assinine question. People keep 'dragging your name into this' BECAUSE YOU STARTED THE FECKING THREAD!!




BTW, Britain DID sign the agreement so I'm not sure why you are all over this issue anyway?


what agreement?


Clinton had signed the agreement, its like so many other things, Bush came in and totally screwed foreign relations up.


what agreement? you are becoming incoherent Malachi, ease off on whatever it is you are smoking/schnarfing/injecting/swallowing/drinking.


Its quite obvious what the implication is, "we are only willing to help democracies when they agree to do as we say"


Thats up to the US. The can help or not help whoever they want. Just like I can give money to a charity or not. Completely up to me.


That's not really being pro-democracy, but of course the US has never really been pro-democracy, in the past 50 years the US has played a role in the overthrow of more democracies than any other country in the world.


The US acts in its own best interests.

[Malachi151]

:rolleyes:

So first of all JIL, you didn't even read the link, then you proceed to just make jabs at my name for no reason instead of commenting on the content of the article.

Pure brilliance.

Positing a link to a news story is a way to bringing it to attention for discussion. I didn't write my opinion at first because I wanted to see what others had to say about it without them replying to my comments, I wanted to see fresh original perspectives, but instead it all just went to name calling right away even though I didn't even write anything.

Yeah, you're a real winner :rolleyes:

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Positing a link to a news story is a way to bringing it to attention for discussion. I didn't write my opinion at first because I wanted to see what others had to say about it without them replying to my comments, I wanted to see fresh original perspectives, but instead it all just went to name calling right away even though I didn't even write anything.



In other words you are doing a Nie Trink Wasser?

Once again, its the US's money and it can do whatever it wants with it. And again, if they increased the money you would accuse the US of bribery. The US is understandibly concerned about its servicemen and women being jailed for doing their duty. I wish Bliar cared that much about out troops.......

Originally posted by Malachi151
Yeah, you're a real winner :rolleyes:

And you are a loser.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Malachi151
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1001-01.htm



I heard about this too.

Some months ago the USA let it be known that if the new rules were adopted, then the USA would hold up certain military funding, and now the USA has actually carried through with this threat.

However, the USA does want to stay on good terms with these countries so I expect that what will happen is that the USA will find some other way to get the money to them. For example, foreign aid, as opposed to military aid, could be increased by a similar amount. Or perhaps some deal could be arranged to forgive a similar amount in their past debts. Or perhaps a very low-interest loan could be done. Or ... (well, you get the idea).

[Larspeart]

I get VERY happy any time i hear we are cutting foreign aid. Unfortunately, I hardly ever hear it.

We have enough budget and poverty problems, and our military is spend WAAAAAY too thin for us to be giving money to other nations.