"Osama Bin Murray" Doesn't Get It...

[Lost Cause]

If it weren't about their religion, Al Qaeda would be a corporation buying up Western interests, employing Muslims, and marketing Islam in a fancy package. If it were that simple, the killers on 9-11 would get teaching degrees to win the minds of our young. Instead, they kill us because of who we are not in their eyes, we are not mandatory Muslims!

VANCOUVER, Wash. — Why is terrorist leader Osama bin Laden so popular in some parts of the world?
Perhaps, said Sen. Patty Murray, it’s because he and his supporters have spent years building goodwill in poor nations by helping pay for schools, roads and day-care facilities.

At an appearance before a high school honors class, Murray, D-Wash., offered what her spokesman called an intentionally provocative challenge for students to ponder.

"We’ve got to ask, why is this man (bin Laden) so popular around the world?" Murray asked during an appearance Wednesday at Columbia River High School. "Why are people so supportive of him in many countries that are riddled with poverty?"

The answers may be uncomfortable, but are important for Americans to ponder — particularly students, Murray said.

"He’s been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven’t done that," Murray said.

"How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?"

Chris Vance, chairman of the Washington state Republican Party, called Murray’s comments offensive.

"It is absolutely outrageous and despicable to imply that the American government should learn a lesson from the madman who murdered thousands of American citizens," Vance said. "I know Senator Murray has a habit of sticking her foot in her mouth, but this goes way beyond a simple gaffe."

Murray’s comments "sent the message to these students that the United States somehow deserved or brought on the September 11 terrorist attacks," Vance said. "I think all decent people can agree that we most certainly did not, that this was an unprovoked attack of terrorism."

Vance called on Murray to retract her comments and apologize.

An expert on terrorism, who co-wrote a book profiling bin Laden and al-Qaida, said Murray’s comments, published yesterday in The Columbian newspaper, were mostly on the mark.

"That’s kind of a generalization, but mostly accurate," Michael Swetnam, chairman of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies in Arlington, Va., said yesterday.

Since about 1988, bin Laden, believed to be the mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, has been on a mission to build schools, roads and even homes for widows of those killed in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, Swetnam said.

There is even a rumor that bin Laden helped build an Afghani orphanage, although Swetnam said he has been unable to confirm that.

"Mostly he did underwrite — and so did many Arab charities — several fundamentalist Muslim schools throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan that teach a very, very, fundamentalist, right-wing version of Islam that preaches hatred for the West," Swetnam said.

Bin Laden’s version of Islam tells Muslims that "people in the West are trying to attack your religion (and) oppress you, and the only way to fight that is to rise up against the United States and its crusader buddies, Israel and Europe," Swetnam said.

Murray, in her remarks to students, said she doesn’t know where she comes down on the question of whether to try to counter bin Laden. Building infrastructure in Third World countries would "cost a lot of money, and we have schools here and health care facilities here that are really hurting," Murray said.

"War is expensive, too," she told the students. "Your generation ought to be thinking about whether we should be better neighbors out in other countries so that they have a different vision of us. It is a debate I think we ought to have."

Murray, the state’s senior senator, supported sending U.S. troops to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and al-Qaida. But she was among 23 senators who voted against a resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force in confronting Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The state’s junior senator, Democrat Maria Cantwell, voted for the resolution.

*When will she resign?

 

[tailfinz69]

where is the outcry

on this disgusting Murray woman's comments?

 

[Spinaroonie]

"It is absolutely outrageous and despicable to imply that the American government should learn a lesson from the madman who murdered thousands of American citizens," Vance said.

Like the fact that Americans are suceptable to terrist attacks? Like the fact that there are people who want to kill Americans?

Nope. Let's not learn a damn thing.

 

[Lost Cause]

I learned, Spin...

That you can't imprison them long enough, you can't change their minds, but you can kill everyone of them that attacks us!

 

[Spinaroonie]

Re: I learned, Spin...

That you can't imprison them long enough, you can't change their minds, but you can kill everyone of them that attacks us!

You're wrong on changing their minds.

 

[teddybear4play]

What does it take to do that, though?

TB4p

 

[Lost Cause]

Changing minds...

Of people that will shave their bodyhair, hijack a plane, and ram it and 200 innocent people into the side of a building? They're mentally unstable.
Only one way, a 7.62X51mm match load at 2600+fps, at 600yards entering and exiting said brain pan.

 

[busybody..]

Until last October I worked for the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva. My job was fundraising. I wrote funding requests and financial reports for one donor: the European Union. My division was one of six that secured funding for ICRC activities. Each year our divisions tallied the total amount of donations coming from the various nations and organizations. We then produced a bar graph that listed the largest donors beginning with the most generous. And each year, first place in donations went to one nation: the United States. Indeed, in terms of the bar graph, American contributions towered above all others. Before working for the ICRC, I also worked for the United Nations. The case there was similar to the Red Cross. The US alone stood out ahead of all other donors.

Of course, Murray is correct to note that Osama bin Laden has used his vast family fortune (one he did absolutely nothing to earn) to win converts to his cause. By comparison, the money provided by the American government comes from taxpayers of various degrees of wealth, from American billionaires to the guy selling hot dogs on the street.

And Murray is also correct to point out that America did drop bombs on Afghanistan. But perhaps in her smug wisdom she might go further and ask another question. What were the results of bin Laden’s stewardship in comparison to those American bombs? Again I can refer to my work at the Red Cross. During my time with the ICRC I wrote funding requests and reports on Afghanistan both prior to September 11 and after. Prior to September 11, Afghanistan had experienced periods of sustained drought especially in Ghor province and Herat. This situation was complicated by an interminable civil war. After September 11 and the eventual attack on Afghanistan, I had the opportunity to talk with people who worked directly in Afghanistan. All told me about the incredible change in Afghanistan. Almost overnight, the country went from a land living in fear of the Taliban and al Qaeda operatives to one where children were playing in the streets, often kicking around soccer balls given them by American, British or French soldiers. And what about the activities of the Red Cross? Well, as my source in the field told me, the Red Cross now had access to areas previously prohibited by the Taliban. The humanitarian activities of the Red Cross were ultimately aided by those American bombs. . . .

Incidentally, my source in the field quipped, half jokingly half seriously, “I wish the US would invade a few more countries, it would make our job a hell of a lot easier.” He wasn’t an American by the way.

 

[Don K Dyck]

One Gutsy US Senator Speaks Out . . .

Congratulations to Senator Pat Murray for speaking out against the current madness that is afflicting the Dubyah Shrub Administration. With the U$ government spending more on "defence" than ALL other countries combined, re-direction of just 1/10th of this amount to humanitarian projects would do more than any war . . . except provide unlimited profits to the NE military-industrial complex and undeveloped Middle East oil reserves for the Oil Corporations.

The U$ outstanding assessment OWING to the UN is now about $US56 BILLION and growing . . . if the UN moved from NY to some other location the loss in revenue to NYC would amount to about this amount in any one year. No doubt about it, the U$ government is attempting to stifle or control UN policy by unreasonably withholding their assessment . . . and being handsomely rewarded for this by intransigence by all other nations sending delegates to UN conferences in NYC.

Perhaps it is time for the U$ government to understand that many nations of the world have had enough of this high-handed meglomania, and are no longer impressed by the lies and disinformation being spread by the biggest secret police service in the world.

<pssst . . . LC . . . the correct spelling is "Usama">

 

[teddybear4play]

Re: Changing minds...

Of people that will shave their bodyhair, hijack a plane, and ram it and 200 innocent people into the side of a building? They're mentally unstable.
Only one way, a 7.62X51mm match load at 2600+fps, at 600yards entering and exiting said brain pan.

Yeah, that'll change their minds . . . into a gelatinous mess scattered over several square feet.

With the U$ government spending more on "defence" than ALL other countries combined, re-direction of just 1/10th of this amount to humanitarian projects would do more than any war . . .

You know, there's been one thing that's always bugged me about when you say this, and I just now put my finger on it. (Note to all readers: here comes an avalanche of raw thought. Stand back.)

It takes a lot of fucking money to defend, always always always more than the crimes they're designed to prevent cost in logistics. Think about it. On a personal basis, in order to break into a house, you'd need dark clothes and a crowbar. In order to stop it, unless you want to take your chances with a dog, or a gun, you'd need a home security system. The cheapest one at one of the country's most well-known security groups costs $200.

In order to hold up a gas station you need a gun and a ski mask. In order to stop it, you need a police force equipped with a lot of men paid for their services, guns, cars, a station house, computers . . . not to mention the entire cost of the criminal justice system.

In order to perpetrate the September 11 attacks, al-Qaeda needed to train 19 men, establish them in the U.S., give them enough money to live for several months, flight training, boxcutters, and plane tickets. I'm no expert, but I'd say that took less than $5 million. In order to stop that, you need a massive infrastructure: the FBI, CIA, NSA, border patrols, Coast Guard, INS, and all the things they need to communicate between them . . . not to mention the military expenditures devoted to stopping them overseas.

So you say that the U.S. spends too much on defense. Fine. But simply because America spends more than every other rogue nation combined — remember, we went over the numbers together on this, I proved this to you, we do NOT spend more than all other countries put together — is irrelevant, since clearly we are the target for the world, and it takes more to defend a nation than to attack it. The raw dollar total is unimportant unless you can prove that most of it, or at least a significant portion of it, is not justified.

Can you? Do you have a working knowledge of how much defense expenditures cost? It takes a lot to build a tank, a battleship, an F-14; a lot to train the people who are stationed on them; a lot to equip them with uniforms, three square meals a day, a sidearm; and a lot to keep them in communications with each other. Fuck, I don't even know how much that shit costs. I really doubt anybody here truly does, not even those people who've been in the U.S. military.

And it takes a lot to keep that whole unit that represents our defense to be the best-equipped, finest-trained, best fighting force in the world, which, clearly, we have to be.

Furthermore, you also have no clue of what our humanitarian efforts would cost, and how much money it would take to fix them. Domestically, we've poured trillions of dollars into eradicating poverty here — to no avail, as the problems of economic justice are no better than they were in 1964, when Lyndon Johnson commenced The Great Society.

Likewise for foreign aid. We've given away billions there, too, and I can't think of one country that has significantly bettered its situation over the long term through U.S. foreign aid. Those countries we've given money away to have deeper, more significant problems that can't be fixed by anything that starts with a dollar sign.

So simply because you think that the money we spend on our defense could better be served elsewhere, or that the money that AM General receives to produce the Hummer vehicles, a business that employs 1000 people in my hometown, is wrong because it serves a military-industrial complex, is an incredibly specious and flawed argument. You can't possibly have enough knowledge of the global situation to so blithely make that claim out of thin air.

End rant.

TB4p

 

[busybody..]

So if throwing MONEY at the world would make us loved...Then how come

We spend more in Foreign aid.....and hated?

We send $1.3 Billion to Egypt and get nothing in return.....and hated?

We liberate Kuwait.....and protect Saudia Arabia.....and are hated?

We sent "peace keepers" To lebanon....and are hated?

We liberate Afghanistan....and are hated?

We protect the Muslims in Serbia.....and are hated?

We are always asked to do the HEAVY LIFTING thruout the world....and are hated?

Since the path of LOVE and APPEASMENT havent worked.....Lets BOMB the FUCKERS.

Look for my next post for THE answer!

 

[busybody..]

Why are we hated? BECAUSE WE ARE BETTER THEN THEY ARE....and they are JEALOUS!

It's dangerous to take ideas which work in one place and try to use them somewhere else. We prefer to deal with our fellow countrymen in a spirit of friendship and fairness, and to have each of us deal with all the others as equals.

But if you try to negotiate with a bear, you'll get eaten. Bears don't think like that.

And if you try to negotiate with a wild man, he'll leave a trail of dead bodies and raped women behind him. With some people, only force will do.

There's no fairness or symmetry in international affairs. There never has been. Within our nation we try to live as civilized beings, but the world is a jungle, and despite what we'd all like to believe, it is a hostile and dangerous place where only force or the threat of force are truly effective. In a better world this would not be so, but we don't live in a better world. We live in a world full of Mugabes and Saddams.

Asking what "right" the US has to attack Iraq is not a meaningful question. Wars aren't based on right and wrong, or on entitlement. Participation in wars is always, always based on rational self interest by the nations in question.

We will attack Iraq because Iraq is dangerous to us, and because if we don't fight there, then we'll fight them or their weapons here and a lot more of us will die. Since I am partisan for my nation and since I don't want my countrymen to die, I'd prefer that if fighting must be done that it be done elsewhere. No fighting at all would be even better yet, but that's no longer a choice available to us.

The problem is that Saddam is a monster, and he is set to be followed by a son who is even worse. He has weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and despite certain claims to the contrary, we cannot be sure that he will not give, or otherwise provide, them to groups who will smuggle them into the US. I do not want 500 kilos of VX being released in downtown Atlanta. I do not want Pittsburgh getting nuked. I do not want thousands of people in Seattle dying from anthrax. And I don't want New York to bleed anymore.

Nothing in the future is certain, but in my opinion the chance of this happening is too high if the Baath regime in Baghdad is permitted to continue to rule. So we'll have to go take it out, and put a better (for us) regime in place. We did that in Japan, too, and it's a damned good thing both for us and for the Japanese. Yes, we meddle in the world. It's part of the role one takes on by being rich and strong. And it does make us hated.

But that's not why we were attacked last September.

It isn't American politics, or American military power, or American economic influence which motivated al Qaeda. What they really fear is much deeper, much more subtle, much much more insidious.

Their leaders are (or were, since many are now dead) religious zealots. Their goal is to establish a world-wide Islamic republic, with everyone everywhere living according to the tenets of their faith. Their view of the world is the Islamic equivalent of millennialism; and in a sense they think of themselves as fighting a holy war.

The Q'uran tells them that God will fight on their side, and that Islam will eventually rule the entire world. It is both the inevitable destiny of Islam to rule the world, and the duty of all good Muslims to work to that end.

The problem is that Americans permit freedom of religion; Islam is tolerated and even celebrated here, along with many other religions. We certainly are making no important attempts to suppress it. But it doesn't seem to be dominating, and there's no sign that their attitudes are affecting us in any significant way. On the other hand, American ideas and attitudes are infiltrating their own societies and eating away at the foundation of Islamic practice. We offer things which are attractive to individuals, and they find them irresistible. Their young people want to wear blue-jeans. They want to listen to loud music. They like the idea of dating one another, just like young people do in the west. To reactionary Islamic zealots, it's not just that they don't seem to be spreading the faith, but that the faith is being eaten alive by a sinful attraction to our heathen ways. Islam is actually in retreat. It can't even be secure in its own nations, let alone try to take over ours.

The Q'uran also tells them that their nations should be powerful and important, and there was a time when it was true. The golden age of the Islamic empire was glorious. It also ended 600 years ago, and these days the reality is that the only reason that Saudi Arabia isn't a terribly impoverished third world nation is that it's sitting on reserves of oil. But among the Islamic nations, the only ones who have managed to succeed at anything other than selling natural resources have been those which have adopted western ways, western technology, western attitudes. The more devoutly Islamic a nation is, the more it seems to be a failure in all other ways. To be devout should mean being strong, but it seems to make them weak. It's almost as if the Q'uran was wrong – but the Q'uran cannot be wrong; it's the word of God.

So we (you and I) are a living, walking, talking heresy. We're not even trying to spread our culture to the Islamic nations; it just happens on its own because, quite frankly, they are not very fun places to live. Irrespective of whether a devout Islamic life might be good for the soul, it's boring and unpleasant for the body and mind. The people there prefer our lifestyle; they eagerly seek it out. We seem to have no interest at all in their culture, however, except as an intellectual curiosity. There's zero chance of American women adopting the abaya, for example.

Indeed, it's our women who are the worst problem of all. They insist on being equal to men, and most of our men like it that way. They drive cars. They walk alone in the city. They go where they want, and they wear whatever they feel like. They show immorally large amounts of skin (i.e. their elbows and knees) and walk around with their heads uncovered. Many of them live alone, and have jobs and careers. They bear arms; they serve in our military; and many of them are officers and give orders to men. This is unholy; God tells the Islamic extremist that women must be subservient to men at all times.

And the women of the Islamic world want the same, and it scares the men running al Qaeda. And it's important to note that they are all men. Our culture attracts their young, and it attracts their women of all age. It even attracts some of the older men. Islam is losing the war for the Arab mind.

The extremists wish a return to the glory of Islamic dominance of the world, because it is what God told them would happen. And every year that passes makes this seem less and less likely, as the Islamic nations fall further and further behind the west in nearly every way that can be measured. 600 years ago, Islam was a great and glorious culture, but 600 years ago there was no humanist, liberal democracy combined with capitalism and science. Now those things exist, and no nation combines them better than we in America; and in every possible way that can be objectively measured, secular liberal democracy and capitalism and science are kicking Islamic culture's ass. They're being buried, and we don't even seem to be doing it deliberately. We are so much more powerful, and our culture so much more vital and vibrant, that we don't even notice theirs.

They call us devils, because they truly see us as evil. We are the embodiment of the forces fighting against God and Islam, and we're winning. We win in terms of economic might; in terms of military power; in all forms of temporal power in fact. And we're winning the fight for minds and souls; our ideas are infecting the Arabs even in Holy Saudi Arabia, the very core of Islam, home of the two Mosques. We profane their faith just by breathing.

We have no problem living side by side with them, but to Islamic extremists we are a stark danger – and we would remain a stark danger even if we militarily disengaged from the world, stopped supporting Israel, and made all the other concessions that some suggest we should. Because it isn't the Third Armored division which they fear; it's television and radio and fashion and the Internet. It's bikinis and Saturday night dates; it's rock-and-roll. It's comfortable clothing. It's Saturday in the park, and hanging out at the mall after school. And it's our women, our damnably independent women, who not only demand equality with men but have proved that they deserve it by performing just as well as men. They fear our women, because they fear their own women.

In actuality, they attacked us out of self defense, as they viewed it. They were attempting to defend their faith against the heretical influence of our culture, and the slow but sure way that it is destroying what they see as the true practice of Islam. And as long as we believe in things like freedom of expression, and freedom of behavior, then to a greater or lesser extent we will continue to eat away at the roots of Islamic culture simply by existing.

Their culture has been thrown into competition with ours and it is losing. They only way they can win is by destroying us. Their actual demand was that all traces of influence by us be removed from contact with their culture, so that it will stop seducing their own people away from devout practice of the true faith, and that isn't possible as long as we exist.

As long as all they did was to be angry at us, we largely ignored them. We don't generally concern ourselves too much about angry speech. Even their previous attacks didn't seem to be very serious; they were just a fringe group, their attacks just pinpricks. September 11 changed all that; the threat became too great to ignore. It's clear that if they could, they'd have struck an even harder blow against us. Given that last September was the fourth attack against us by al Qaeda, they had no intention of stopping with that one if left alone. If they could get their hands on WMDs, they'd unquestionably use them against us.

But their leaders are deluded. They truly expected that as a result of last September's attack that we would crumble, economically and culturally and militarily. We have many weapons but no guts, or so they thought, and besides which when war really came God would fight on their side and smite us. They thought we would surrender. They didn't expect us to come in and crush them. But their evaluation wasn't based on understanding of us and how we think; it came from a reading of holy words. They thought we would surrender because God told them that they were guaranteed to win.

Unfortunately, their delusion continues, and it remains their need to destroy us to protect Islam from our influence. From our influence as the source of dangerous ideas which threaten the foundation of Islam, ideas about freedom and independence and diversity and the ability of people, especially women, to make decisions for themselves and to talk about what they want to and go where they want and do what they want. That is what they fear most about us. Those ideas are a deadly threat to Islam itself.

Which means that they would have attacked us eventually no matter whether we had troops in Saudi Arabia, no matter what we did or did not do in Israel, no matter what else we did in terms of foreign policy. They will attack us in future even if we don't attack Iraq. Their deep hatred of us doesn't stem from that.

And now that we've recognized this, then it becomes clear that a war has been thrust upon us all unwillingly. We didn't pick this fight, but we're not going to back away from it. Our enemies are determined to fight us. Since we must fight, it is best that we fight enough now to make sure we don't have to fight this war again, later, and if war must take place it is better that it not happen here. But since we must now fight, we must fight to win. We owe it to our children to not bequeath to them a deadly peril we could have removed.

And part of that is taking out Saddam. He represents a source of weapons which truly can harm us seriously, and has demonstrated a willingness to use them. He used his nerve gas against the Iranians, and he used it against the Kurds. He's threatened to use it against Israel. He might give some surreptitiously to the extremists, and we can't take that chance. If he'd actually been willing to cooperate with the arms inspectors over the course of the last ten years and truly given up all his supplies of WMDs and demonstrated the willingness to not try to develop them again, then it would not be necessary to take him out, and we'd be willing to continue a policy of isolation.

But the record of the last ten years is clear: he has WMDs and he fully intends to keep them. Surely it's not just because he considers them some sort of trophy; he has them because he can conceive of circumstances where he might use them, or give them to others to use. And we might be the target.

So what gives us the right to go attack Iraq? The right of survival, the fact that if we don't go to Iraq to fight, there's an unacceptably high chance that Iraq's WMDs might come to us.

We need no other justification.

 

[Lost Cause]

Like I said, "Osama".....Bin Lately..

What bugs me almost worse is Bin Murray is a huge feminist. I'm sure she's aware of the absolutely no rights a female has under their rule! I guess Bin Murray thinks it's reasonable for a woman to get stoned for not obeying her husband. Fucking hypocrite!

 

[Sillyman]

Senators normally tend to slip below radar. The difference between Murray and Lott is Lott was Majority Leader.

 

[SINthysist]

Her attitudes are indicative of the success of the 60's counter-culture movement. This is it's blossoming. The celebration of everything deemed wrong before and the elevation of that, "If it feels good do it," philosophy that drove said movement.

This Senator, like so many others in her camp, dreams of another Viet Nam in a REDWAVIAN sense, to wit, that it will bring them glory as they once again fight the just cause for the oppressed people's of the world. Their enemy is, ironically, now themselves as they have copped out and joined up with the bad guys in government.

Someone needs to tell the Senator that Revolution from within is called Civil War...

 

[teddybear4play]

God damn it.

My most recent post in this thread was probably the most brilliant exposition I've ever written on this board, and it's been blocked by a bunch of C&P.



TB4p

 

[SINthysist]

I'd like to pat myself on the back over several recent, deep, meaningful, world-course altering posts myself...

 

[busybody..]

Teddy CreepPete

 

[teddybear4play]

CreepPete? What the fuck is that?

TB4p

 

[busybody..]

Yeah

You know

Three play

Four play

So I call you CreepPete....3play

BTW.....I tried to send you a PM....

I enjoy your intelligent posts

This is ALL in fun

 

[teddybear4play]

OK. I still don't get it, but oh well.

Is my box full again? Son of a . . . *stomps off*

TB4p

 

[Don K Dyck]

Good One, TB4p!!

God damn it.

My most recent post in this thread was probably the most brilliant exposition I've ever written on this board, and it's been blocked by a bunch of C&P. TB4p

Yep, TB4p . . . it was a good rave . . . well done!! . . .

Now!! . . . if we can just get the U$ to pay its overdue UN assessment of about $US 56 Billion then we can get on with the important business of saving the world . . .

<Sorry this reply took so long, but somebody stuck in a long, unintelligible, illogical c&p after your great rave . . .>

 

[busybody..]

Donald Duck

The US in in "arrears" to the UN to the tune of LESS THEN $500 million.
'
Plea$e dont let fact$ get in the way of your Bull $hit

 

[SINthysist]

ClEaN uP yOuR...tYpInG $tYlE y'Re AbOuT FAWKING iMp0$$1BlE tO READWAVE...

 

[teddybear4play]

Re: Good One, TB4p!!

Yep, TB4p . . . it was a good rave . . . well done!! . . .

Now!! . . . if we can just get the U$ to pay its overdue UN assessment of about $US 56 Billion then we can get on with the important business of saving the world . . .

<Sorry this reply took so long, but somebody stuck in a long, unintelligible, illogical c&p after your great rave . . .>

Thanks Don.

I also want to make one minor correction to said rave:

Likewise for foreign aid. We've given away billions there, too, and I can't think of one country that has significantly bettered its situation over the long term through U.S. foreign aid.

The Marshall Plan.

But the only reason it worked was because the nations of Europe that requested our aid did so because they were committed to freedom and democracy. So the corollary of my argument still holds:

Those countries we've given money away to [without significant improvement] have deeper, more significant problems that can't be fixed by anything that starts with a dollar sign.

TB4p