And why would we want to do that?

I thought we are the country that promotes the ideas of "freedom" and "democracy"? Democracy means the people in each country decide things for themselves. It does not mean that the USA has "greater control" over the world.

Please don't quote me out of context, you left off the part where I mentioned foreign policy. Meaning greater control of our overall affairs.

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Sorry. I interpreted your statement as saying we would have greater control over the world if.....(the rest of your statement)

Perhaps you meant something else.

I think our foreign policy should be such that we help the world and ourselves. It should not be "controlling" in nature.

Yemen and Pakistan bought their airplanes.

Now you'll tell me how they didn't and it was all an accounting scam...

__________________
2010 528Xi
I demand justice.
Or, if there must be injustice, let it be in my favor.

Reynold's Wrap: it's not just for hats anymore.

If you look at the Federal Budget, you'll notice how much "foreign aid" we give other countries. The last few years, that number has roamed around $11-13 billion per year. What you probably are not aware of, is that just about all of that aid comes with strings attached -- usually that they must use the money to purchase goods from American companies, and usually those goods are weapons purchased from American arms manufacturers. In both the cases of Yemen and Pakistan, the weapons were purchased under such foreign aid agreements.

The money never even is given to these countries. Usually it is simply transferred from one American bank to another in order to pay for the arms.

Until the year 2003 (when Yemen, serving as a temporary member of the UN security council, voted against military action in Iraq), the US gave Yemen $70 million in foreign aid per year. The F-16s were purchased during these years using that money.

With regard to Pakistan, most of the fighers were purchased during the late 1990s, but when General Musharraf seized power by overthrowing a democratically elected government, the Clinton Administration cut off aid and most of the fighters they had ordered were never delivered. After the 9/11 attacks, the aid package was restored and the fighters were delivered in exchange for General Musharraf's apparent cooperation in the War on Terror. Pakistan now receives over $800 million per year in foreign aid -- most of which is used to purchase arms.

Here's some other such cases... Over the past 5 years we have "given" (in foreign aid) $1.2 billion worth of fighter jets and missiles to Oman, and $400 million worth of missles to Egypt.

So yes, it comes from our tax dollars. The Federal Budget lists this as "foreign aid", but to me this is nothing more than corporate welfare. It serves 2 purposes: 1) bribes these countries to cooperate with the US in things such as UN votes, foreign policy, etc. 2) gives large no-bid contracts to the arms manufacturers who in turn give huge campaign contributions to those in office.

What about malaria and smallpox eradication, AIDS and female circumcision awareness, irrigation and sanitation projects, along with money that goes to USAID and AmeriCorps?

If US tax dollars are being handed out to build a dam, I see no reason why Caterpillar (CAT NYSE) products should not be used.

And while it may appear to be a Hobsons' choice, I would prefer that if foreign, potentially less than savory countries are going to buy arms, they buy arms whose strengths, weaknesses, and spare parts are understood or controlled by us.

I vote that foreign aid and domestic supplementals be tied to the deficit and the national debt...no deficit, we send money abroad. No surplus, no foreign aid.

Washington would have to decide if they want to fund a MLB stadium in our nation's capitol http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=1728 or help rape victims in Darfur.

__________________

Very small amounts are being given for humanitarian purposes. I don't have the numbers in front of me right now, but typically less than 20% of the foreign aid budget is for things like that. To begin with, about 55% of the total foreign aid budget goes to Israel, Egypt and Columbia, and 95+% of that money is spent on arms.

As for things like HIV, Bush gave that wonderful speech 3 years ago where he said we would give $15 billion over 5 years for HIV/AIDS prevention & research in Africa, but that was nothing more than talk as nothing ever happened with his proposal.

As for your Dam/Caterpillar statement, since this is our tax money, Caterpillar should submit a bid just like other companies, and if a foreign company can do the job for half the price, we should go with the foreign company. Instead, the current process is that Caterpillar, Becktell, Haliburton, or some other large company will be given the job without ever submitting a bid, and they will vastly overcharge for the job. The government of the country where the dam is being built could care less since they are not paying the bill, and the politicians taking care of the contracts all receive nice campaign contributions from these companies. So everyone is happy except the taxpayers, who are being robbed blind. Like I said, this is "corporate welfare" with an excuse. They might as well say they are going to pay Caterpillar to dig ditches and fill them in. The only reason for these jobs is to find a way to divert our tax money to corporations. If they could just give these corporations our tax money without needing a reason or an excuse, you would see the foreign aid budget shrink to nothing overnight.