Re: Should the U.S. be paying other countries to do their pa I can think of a few reasons why not: Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Noriega and every other leader or government or "resistance movement" our government has chosen to buy off with money or weapons who later conveniently disremembered from whom they got that crucial grub stake at one time long ago! On the other hand, our Congress members are paying one another off constantly for favors at voting time, so maybe it is simply an american tradition? Allies-of-convenience are informal alliances, and not to be trusted...too much is at stake this time, but the deed has already been done. Maybe the better question would be, "Now that the U.S. has paid off other countries to do their part in the war on terrorism, what are the double-crosses likely to be in the coming years?"
Bluehawk

Re: Should the U.S. be paying other countries to do their pa What ever happened to 'G.W.'s' "you are for us, or against us" speach right after Sept.11 ??

Just wondering how much we have FORGOTTEN over the last several months.

If France isn't for us, they are against us. Same with Germany, Belgium, and any body else that doesn't want US on their side later on.

Terry

Re: Should the U.S. be paying other countries to do their pa

Throughout history, deals of convenience have been made by the United States. Some come back to bite us, true, but most are the only way to get things accomplished. If bribing a foreigh official, or government, can save American Lives, do it! The goal is too great to let misguided political purity stand in its' way. If Saddam provides a nuclear weapon to a terrorist for use on an American City, the devestation would hurt too much. Get this thing done!

Re: Should the U.S. be paying other countries to do their pa

A qualified yes. If another country can help, but does not have the money, then we should assist them. There must, however, be a quid pro quo and the US should monitor the use of the money.