Quote Originally Posted by Blodrast
Now this would seem a bit hypocritical of the US, wouldn't it ?
First we're giving you a bucketload of money, and then we're bombing you...
That doesn't make any sense. If they're "the enemy", don't give them money. If they're not the enemy, don't threaten to attack them.

I understand cases where giving money to your "enemy" makes sense, such as North Korea, where hopefully that money goes to help the poor people who are starving, and the reason you're giving it is because their fearless leader needs to save face. I get that. But this is nowhere near the same case...
The problem has always been the backward nature of U.S. foreign policy since Wilson. The U.S. has embraced the "super power" role and all its trappings and sadly so has the population. To the point where some even believe its devine mandate (**cough** Cheney/Bush **cough**).

The U.S. constitution makes no provision for foriegn policy, it dosent make a distinction between it and domestic policy. We do have founding fathers who did give us a sniff of direction:


Jefferson in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none."

George Washington "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments."

Source: Written by Ron Paul.

We have made a major mess of foreign relations with our payouts and wars of ideology, and while I am not a big obama fan he at least gets the notion that if your going to war you go to total war, find the enemy and kill him.

Not pay his hosts money for thier partial assistance.