Unpaid Parking Tickets to cost countries foreign aid

aronkerkhof · Post by **aronkerkhof** » 2003-10-29 11:59pm

Soontir C'boath wrote:I would think they can try and trace the owner of the license plate number thereby extradited you for misdeamonor*sp* charges. ~Jason

That's it. I'm packing up and heading for Mexico. ?Donde esta bano?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-30 12:57am

The people who are getting US dollars.

Chosen by governments most either don't elect or have no say in.

Where not shutting off aid, where taking a small bit of it to pay debts they owe.

Which is a poor way of challenging individuals. At a time when the United States is percieved a heavy-handed, this will only seem a way to extort money out of people who insist that we too often leave them behind in the first place.

It's "petty satisfaction" to demand payment of unpaid bills, and to subtract the amount outstanding from money that the US is giving them for free?

It could be percieved as petty satisfaction by people who already view the United States as rice, ignorant, and hypocritical. The point is that we'll loose any ground we might have with certain groups whose influence couldn't oblige the construction of a public park, let alone the activities of singular diplomats overseas.

This from someone who insists that America shouldn't give a shit what any country thinks of its unilateral military actions. Rather ironic.

And again, you completely strawman my position.

We should be concerned what other countries think of us, Wong, but not to the point that it prevents action we deem necessary or worthwhile. I acknowledge the potential values of good, working relationships with the rest of the world - but I'm not about to abandon pursuit of self-interest in order to placate those others.

Methinks Axis is a fucking troll.

Not just a troll.

A fucking troll.

Why? Because I don't advocate levying fines on entire communities as the result of actions by inividuals? Great argument you've got.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-30 01:06am

Axis Kast wrote:
It's "petty satisfaction" to demand payment of unpaid bills, and to subtract the amount outstanding from money that the US is giving them for free?
It could be percieved as petty satisfaction by people who already view the United States as rice, ignorant, and hypocritical. The point is that we'll loose any ground we might have with certain groups whose influence couldn't oblige the construction of a public park, let alone the activities of singular diplomats overseas.

Oh right, they'll be much more upset at the deduction of outstanding traffic tickets from free international welfare money than they are at bombings, invasions, missile launches into countries based on sketchy supposition, destabilization of foreign governments, etc. Got to keep things in perspective

This from someone who insists that America shouldn't give a shit what any country thinks of its unilateral military actions. Rather ironic.
And again, you completely strawman my position.

We should be concerned what other countries think of us, Wong, but not to the point that it prevents action we deem necessary or worthwhile. I acknowledge the potential values of good, working relationships with the rest of the world - but I'm not about to abandon pursuit of self-interest in order to placate those others.

$21 million is "self-interest", unless you dictionary looks significantly different from mine. Not a huge amount, but then again, it's not as if it would be a huge amount deducted from the aid payments either. Action commensurate to infraction.

Methinks Axis is a fucking troll.

Not just a troll.

A fucking troll.
Why? Because I don't advocate levying fines on entire communities as the result of actions by inividuals? Great argument you've got.

Oh right, you don't advocate levying fines on entire communities as the result of actions by individuals, but it's OK to bomb or invade entire communities as a result of actions by individuals. Gotcha.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-30 01:37am

Oh right, they'll be much more upset at the deduction of outstanding traffic tickets from free international welfare money than they are at bombings, invasions, missile launches into countries based on sketchy supposition, destabilization of foreign governments, etc. Got to keep things in perspective

Red herring.

Some groups harbor bitterness over our war in Iraq; that doesn’t at any time negate the potential public relations damage we’d be doing ourselves by giving the general population a slap in the face.

$21 million is "self-interest", unless you dictionary looks significantly different from mine. Not a huge amount, but then again, it's not as if it would be a huge amount deducted from the aid payments either. Action commensurate to infraction.

That $21 million can be viewed from a great many perspectives. If it was slated for foreign aid in the first place, you can safely assume that our government thought it would serve a worthwhile purpose in that role.

To whom are the aid payments going to? To whom are the tickets going to? This will be seen as typical American ignorance: using a sledgehammer to crack an egg.

Oh right, you don't advocate levying fines on entire communities as the result of actions by individuals, but it's OK to bomb or invade entire communities as a result of actions by individuals. Gotcha.

Saddam Hussein technically had the resources of much of a nation at his disposal.

There is such thing as a cost/benefit analysis. In this case, we might unnecessarily tarnish our image by appearing as money-grubbers. There are clear benefits to bombing the population centers of countries during wartime. The same can’t be said for this policy over parking tickets.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-10-30 04:27am

Sea Skimmer wrote:Then they'd simply never pay and send other people.

No, I mean refuse to host their diplomats until they pay us back.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-10-30 04:33am

Let's put it this way: these nations' diplomats are abusing the "diplomatic immunity" concept. This is unacceptable. If a nation wants to send their diplomats here, it should be under the pretense that they'll at least try to obey our laws.

If a nation will not rein in it's diplomats from their irresponsibility, I see no reason to welcome them when they have no intention of honoring our laws. I would certainly not want United States diplomats acting in such a fashion overseas; indeed, I would find such conduct embarrassing and outrageous. Why should we tolerate it from others?

Proposing that we bend over backwards in order to appease everyone else over blatant disregard for our laws on the assumption that not doing so will severely damage diplomatic relations smacks of the ridiculous Federation appeasement so often seen in Star Trek.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-30 11:15am

Let's put it this way: these nations' diplomats are abusing the "diplomatic immunity" concept. This is unacceptable. If a nation wants to send their diplomats here, it should be under the pretense that they'll at least try to obey our laws.

American aid is symbolic. In each of the three nations mentioned as being in specific violation (Egypt, Kuwait, and Nigeria), you'd be hard-pressed to make an argument that any legitimate democracy exists at all.

The presidential or ministerial institution is responsible for appointing ambassadors; common people - to whom the aid is ostensibly going - have little or no control over that process. Again, the "cracking an egg by using a sledge-hammer" impression comes to mind.

If a nation will not rein in it's diplomats from their irresponsibility, I see no reason to welcome them when they have no intention of honoring our laws. I would certainly not want United States diplomats acting in such a fashion overseas; indeed, I would find such conduct embarrassing and outrageous. Why should we tolerate it from others?

There's a difference between welcoming diplomats and cutting off aid to ensure their proper civil behavior.

Proposing that we bend over backwards in order to appease everyone else over blatant disregard for our laws on the assumption that not doing so will severely damage diplomatic relations smacks of the ridiculous Federation appeasement so often seen in Star Trek.

You make it sound as if we're Potidaea, tearing down our walls to provide Athens with satisfaction. This is hardly an issue of appeasement. Rather, it is a matter of cost-benefit calculations at a time when America's image overseas is already tarnished by accusations of greed and uncaring.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-10-30 11:53am

Axis is right. It's unfair to punish a nation for the transgressions of dickhead diplomats. The US should just wear it.

Xisiqomelir · Post by **Xisiqomelir** » 2003-10-30 02:15pm

Axis Kast wrote:
A diplomat is the chosen representative of a nation, and if they don't losing aid then they can recall them and or revoke their diplomatic status. The fact that they don't do that in the first place is an insult to the US.
Chosen by whom? Leadership whose touch with the people is often quite minimal?

You're attempting to punish an aggregate group for the crimes of singular individuals. I agree we should do something to get our money, but not necessarily begin closing the doors to aid money.

No nation has an intrinsic entitlement to foreign aid.

Axis Kast wrote:
Yet you would not hesitate to shoot a caged animal for the massive risk it poses to human life!
That is absolutely correct. And I didn't see you at that argument, smartass. If you've got an opinion on the topic, at least show up in a timely fashion.

I posted, so you must be delusional. In fact, you QUOTED me, so that confirms it.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-30 02:24pm

No nation has an intrinsic entitlement to foreign aid.

That's absolutely correct. It is however stupid to disregard the consequences of revoking what has already been given and is already expected. As I made clear before, Washington obviously thought it worthwhile that these countries be assigned aid in the first place; why challenge a public gift because of individual crime?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-30 02:28pm

Axis Kast wrote:
No nation has an intrinsic entitlement to foreign aid.
That's absolutely correct. It is however stupid to disregard the consequences of revoking what has already been given and is already expected. As I made clear before, Washington obviously thought it worthwhile that these countries be assigned aid in the first place; why challenge a public gift because of individual crime?

A similar argument can be made against wanton invasion and destruction, funny how you flip-flop.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-10-30 02:29pm

You know, if the country owed like seventy-five bucks, I'd say this was going overboard, but when someone racks up 1.2 million dollars in parking tickets, it's time for drastic action.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-30 03:28pm

A similar argument can be made against wanton invasion and destruction, funny how you flip-flop.

Can it? So now anybody advocating the invasion of Iraq is unable to put forth legitimate criticism of so hair-brained a scheme as this?

Invasion and destruction of nations for purposes of national security are far different than punitive civil action. Funny how you go out of your way to dog somebody you don't even know.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-10-30 07:45pm

HemlockGrey wrote:You know, if the country owed like seventy-five bucks, I'd say this was going overboard, but when someone racks up 1.2 million dollars in parking tickets, it's time for drastic action.

If a country only owned $75, we'd withhold $82.50, not the entire package!

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-10-30 08:58pm

Axis Kast wrote:You make it sound as if we're Potidaea, tearing down our walls to provide Athens with satisfaction. This is hardly an issue of appeasement. Rather, it is a matter of cost-benefit calculations at a time when America's image overseas is already tarnished by accusations of greed and uncaring.

I did not advocate withholding foriegn aid. I advocated expelling the diplomats (which, by the way, would prevent them from attending the UN General Assembly) and refusing to let them back in until we at least got some form of reparation. Hell, even just a pledge that the diplomats they sent would at least try to obey the laws of the land here would be better than nothing at all.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-30 09:05pm

Axis Kast wrote:
A similar argument can be made against wanton invasion and destruction, funny how you flip-flop.
Can it? So now anybody advocating the invasion of Iraq is unable to put forth legitimate criticism of so hair-brained a scheme as this?

The way you argued for it? No. Central to your argument was 'FUCK 'EM ALL! WE RUN THE SHOW!'. This gets applied to aid for a legitimate reason, and you start bitching. Ironic. I can only assume your ambassador has racked up some serious tickets.

Invasion and destruction of nations for purposes of national security are far different than punitive civil action. Funny how you go out of your way to dog somebody you don't even know.

'Out of my way'? You have delusions of adequecy. One line in my passing through a thread barely registers as knowing what your login name is.

SpacedTeddyBear · Post by **SpacedTeddyBear** » 2003-10-30 10:26pm

They're probably gonna contest those tickets in order to delay payment. That's what I'd do, hell that's what I'm doing right now. I've got a $51 parking ticket being reviewed right now.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-31 03:18am

As always, the issue boils down to one of morality, which realistically has no place in politics.

It isn’t a simple matter of declaring an ambassador to be in violation and following up on his individual transgressions; rather, we must be prepared to suffer the anger and potentially harsh criticism of people whose perception is one of greedy injustice rather than legitimately imposed consequence.

My rationale for the invasion of Iraq is grounded in a cost-benefit analysis. The same can be said of my treatment of this situation. There is no hypocrisy in that.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-31 03:23am

Axis Kast wrote:As always, the issue boils down to one of morality, which realistically has no place in politics.

It isn’t a simple matter of declaring an ambassador to be in violation and following up on his individual transgressions; rather, we must be prepared to suffer the anger and potentially harsh criticism of people whose perception is one of greedy injustice rather than legitimately imposed consequence.

You honestly think that deduction of parking tickets from free handouts to other countries is going to generate "anger and potentially harsh criticism" in other countries while simultaneously being a happy-face supporter of bombings and invasions of other countries, not to mention a continuing flow of support for Israel?

My rationale for the invasion of Iraq is grounded in a cost-benefit analysis.

Ho ho ho ho ha ha ha ha hee hee hee hee ... *chortle* ROTFLMAO ... that is the funniest thing I've heard all day.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-31 12:36pm

You honestly think that deduction of parking tickets from free handouts to other countries is going to generate "anger and potentially harsh criticism" in other countries while simultaneously being a happy-face supporter of bombings and invasions of other countries, not to mention a continuing flow of support for Israel?

Invading Iraq ensures the United States will avoid criticism for lesser transgressions elsewhere? Excellent. Let's invade Togo next; obviously, nobody will mind.

Moron.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-10-31 12:54pm

Axis Kast wrote:Invading Iraq ensures the United States will avoid criticism for lesser transgressions elsewhere? Excellent. Let's invade Togo next; obviously, nobody will mind. Moron.

Why hasn't Axis been banned yet? He has obviously degenerated in to a mere troll.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-10-31 02:37pm

I think Axis wants us to appease the offending nations and keep us in good standing with their respective populaces so that when time comes to invade another country, we can drum up support from those nations!

I say ban the top three offending nations' diplomats from U.S. territory for a year and make an example of them to other nations: the U.S. isn't your diplomats' playground.

Governments might not care about foreign aid but they might care a bit more about not being present at the U.N.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-31 02:55pm

Why hasn't Axis been banned yet? He has obviously degenerated in to a mere troll.

Because anybody not committed to stupid policies must be a troll, correct?

I think Axis wants us to appease the offending nations and keep us in good standing with their respective populaces so that when time comes to invade another country, we can drum up support from those nations!

It's not a matter of appeasement, it's a matter of determining that the discouragement of certain crimes might not prove worth our long-term while.

The countries upon whom we will levy the fines aren't even remotely democratic in the first place; you have no leg to stand on when you insist the validity of an initiative which would punish those not even able to change the situation had they so desired.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-31 03:05pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Why hasn't Axis been banned yet? He has obviously degenerated in to a mere troll.
Because anybody not committed to stupid policies must be a troll, correct?

No, because anybody who's as full of shit as you are must be a troll. You're saying that it's OK to commit the huge offense (invading and bombing people, supporting Israel, destabilizing foreign governments, etc) that turns everyone against you but not the minor one that almost no one even knows about, because the little one might generate "resentment". This is like saying that it's OK to punch somebody in the face and burn his house down but you'd better not smirk at him behind his back or he'll get mad. You're either a troll or an idiot.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-31 03:36pm

No, because anybody who's as full of shit as you are must be a troll. You're saying that it's OK to commit the huge offense (invading and bombing people, supporting Israel, destabilizing foreign governments, etc) that turns everyone against you but not the minor one that almost no one even knows about, because the little one might generate "resentment". This is like saying that it's OK to punch somebody in the face and burn his house down but you'd better not smirk at him behind his back or he'll get mad. You're either a troll or an idiot.

Each of those policies I advocate are measured for their potential cost and benefit. The point here is that walking away with $21 million isn't going to be worth the criticism - especially considering that there may be other methods to track down those accountable and challenge them on an individual basis.

The larger activities you speak of generate resentment which is nonetheless balanced. That is not true of this smaller issue.