United States Navy To Build New Training Facility In Thailand

[geriatrickid]

There is zero need for the US to support or assist the building of any military installations in Thailand. it only serves to support a military that has absolute contempt for the concept of civilian rule. The argument that it can be used to train personnel to counter Somali pirates is garbage. There are plenty of under utilized military bases in the US and elsewhere that would serve the purpose. The US is in serious debt and no expense should be undertaken, even if it is manpower only. It costs money to ferry and billet personnel, even if only a handful. Considering the expensive mess in Iraq and Afghanistan at this time, and the multiple local governments teetering on bankruptcy it would be foolish to lend any support if it will cost money. The Thais are pretty good at kissing up to the Chinese. Maybe they'll think twice if the Americans adopt a neutral position.

[dave_boo]

I will try again ..... ( also with regard to folksy old world charm advice dispensed by your grandpa comment)

- I think (my opinion) that these 'terrorists' should be charged & tried as criminals under the statutes set out in the 'US Code'. Normally, United States criminal law does not apply beyond US borders, but as you probably know, non-US citizens are regulary taken to the US & tried in a US court of law for crimes that they are deemed to have committed against the US govt./US citizens whilst never actually having stepped foot inside the US itself.

Nobody should have their right to a free & fair trial forfeited. The nature of their crime is immaterial to this basic human right.

First, thanks for the kind words toward my grandpa. He was a immigrant from the Bren Valley and came of age during the Great Depression. A pragmatic man, he was incredibly intelligent with a deep understanding of the world. Even though he sledom spoke, believing actions counted more, I quickly learned to perk my ears up and actually listen. He's my role model and if I end up even half of what he was I'll have lived a very good life.

Back on subject; yes foreign criminals are often transported to the US for trials. The majority are what you would define (if I am understanding what you wrote earlier) as common criminals. Uncommon criminals are by definition a special instance and therefore fall outside the current scope of the US Juristic System. For a historical example, look at other 'War Criminals' that the US has prosecuted. How many of their cases wound their way through its system?

I'm not saying that their right to a fair and free trial should be foreited. But if the UCMJ and its courts are good enough for our soldiers, why should it not be good enough for enemy combatants (lawful or otherwise)?

Simply put - it makes heroes out of <deleted>.Put them on trial in an open court with all the rules of evidence, procedures & ethical standards that apply to the US criminal justice system. These 'Military Commissions' have been well & truly discredited. Denying those charged 'due process' protections that are available in the court system or regular military court martials just gives cause to shout 'unfair trial'. The use of these seriousely flawed 'courts' to convict these terrorists only fuels resentment amongst any future recruits & Muslim populations. It is about real & perceived injustices & double standards. When a nation take the moral high ground & champions itself as the world's policeman it is usually best to actually practice what you preach or you become totally discredited. Transparency is paramount in retaining credibility.

Hmmm...it seems that you haven't researched the pscyhe of these people much. Per the quote from their book "And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers". They end up NOT being heroes because their enemy triumphed over them by catching them and applying non-sharia (going against their God's directions) rules over them!

And I'm sorry, but transparency is what gets people killed in this instance.

- these military commissions have been discredited by the US Senate & by independent jurist organizations. The Obama administration has pledged to reform them in pre-election promises but now appears to be backpeddling.

Perhaps because those ideals that he championed have proven untenable in these circumstances?

If you read what I wrote - "after guilt is established motive is irrelevant". In the court system motive & intent (amongst other things) are used to establish guilt.

Seeking to understand why people commit certain acts requires studying motive(s) but this is not the responsibility of the courts.

I was discussing 'motive' with respect to the legal process, not trying to find out what is the root cause of international terrorism.

I suppose I didn't make my point clear. Yes I agree that in general the motive should have very little to do with the actual sentencing; you're guilty or your not. However consider the issue of inner-city violence. Do you want to play wack-a-mole or do you want to understand the root causes and get rid of them and the violence (lack of opportunities and jobs in the civilian example I proposed)?

- In the first 5 years since September 11 2001 there averaged 35 terror convictions annually in the US Federal courts.

If you require more detail read the "Special TRAC Report: Criminal Enforcement Against Terrorists" or any number of publicly available reports.

The Justice Department's Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) defines domestic terrorism as involving matters where individuals or groups seek to further political goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or the threat of force.

..defines international terrorism in an even more circular way: a federal offense relating to international terrorism which impact on United States interests..

..centering on threats against the president and members of a federal official's family came to 14 percent of the total {statues tagged as lead charge in terrorisim cases}

It appears to me that the 'terrorist' label has been increasingly applied to various criminal acts (whether you agree with the validity of the label being applied for that act or not).

From my reading of the graph provided, it appears that some 35.6% of the 'lead charges' in those cases has to do with explosives, guns, and ammuntion. And there have been charges brought against militia groups, who, as a far as I remember, loves stuff that goes 'boom' really loud and yet have not created terrorist cells nor tried to overthrow the government. Therefore I must question the appliciabilty of those statistics.

- Very important in understanding the root causes of Islamic terrorism, but again irrelevant to how the US govt. goes about the process of convicting terrorists.

Extremely relevant. Without 'rooting' out the problem you shall forever be caught in an endless cycle of prosecuting after the fact. Isn't peace and stability supposed to be what the justice system is there to protect? If they ignore the actual solution they are not doing their job.

- see also ETA, IRA, Naxalites, Tamil Tigers, Shan United Army, Babbar Khalsa, Fretlin & any number of non-Muslim freedom fighters/terrorists struggling for self determination & independent homelands. All irrelevant to the way the US Govt treats & convicts terrorist suspects.

Apples and Oranges. The groups you have listed are "self determination & independent homelands". The groups I'm singling out do not have that problem. They have specific commandment in their holy book such as "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, ...until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. As far as I know there is no similar open ended requirements in the belief system of these groups you have listed. The Muslim world believes that it has a mandate to force others into their God's path regardless of territory.

But it is absurd to think we can wipe out Islam by war. This is simply impossible. So I stand by the general choices I presented: fight them and probably lose, convert (yuck!), or figure out some way to live in the same world with this huge population that btw sits on much of the world's oil resources. We really have to try to figure out how to live together.

You don't have to wipe it out by war. Making it too costly for them to wage war against the rest of civilisation will do the trick. Dispropotionate responses. They attack that which we hold dear and we attack something they hold more dear. I figure this should get me in trouble, but if there's a terrorist attack again in the States or in an ally, I propose that we nuke Mecca. Let the Muslim world know that is going to be the penalty. That should grab their attention and force them to play nice.

Humans aren't much evolved past the point where we and chimps branched. There is still the need to project force to convince the other actor that we are not to be trifled with.

Also of concern to me, partly because I work with quite a few guys from there, is the situation in Pakistan. They have been laughing at America's efforts and taking money for doing....oh yeah that's right, expanding their nuclear arsenal. Now they're asking for 500+M USD in aid? Why doesn't the UN buy nukes for that money? With the upswing in their homegrown terrorist being able to get so close to the capital, what are the chances they could obtain, if they have not already, nuclear devices? I would love to live in peace, and having nuclear weapons floating around is not a good way to achieve that.

On closing, your "sits on much of the world's oil resources" actually sums up my feelings about America today. There is way too much sense of entitlement. Let's tighten our belts, tell them to go pound sand, and spend our money on alternative fuel sources.

[thaimiller]

British Airways better be careful about being shot down by these stupid T##ts that don't know the difference between a British flag and an Iraq flag. US Marines friendly fire is our business.!!!

[Jingthing]

I propose that we nuke Mecca. Let the Muslim world know that is going to be the penalty. That should grab their attention and force them to play nice.

Yes, I am sure that will encourage them to play nice.

I agree, Pakistan has played the US for fools. In many ways, we have been fools. Time to get smarter or lose it all.

[Texpat]

Muslims aren't the problem.

The problem is radical jihadis who want to blow up western airplanes busses, trains and buildings for some (unknown) reason.

Because we have color TVs and they don't?

I still have never heard a justification of why AQ went over the edge. Is it because western militaries were in Saudi Arabia at the request of the SA government?

That's just some bullsh!t.

Miller, you seem to assume that's unintentional.

Edited May 24, 2009 by Texpat

[Rawkus]

Dispropotionate responses. They attack that which we hold dear and we attack something they hold more dear. I figure this should get me in trouble, but if there's a terrorist attack again in the States or in an ally, I propose that we nuke Mecca. Let the Muslim world know that is going to be the penalty. That should grab their attention and force them to play nice.

A couple of questions?

1) What if the next terrorist attack is in the country of a Muslim ally?

2) Would you also advocate nuking the Vatican if another Timothy McVeigh comes along?

It seems that you haven't thought out your cunning plan...

[dave_boo]

Muslims aren't the problem.

The problem is radical jihadis who want to blow up western airplanes busses, trains and buildings for some (unknown) reason.

Because we have color TVs and they don't?

I still have never heard a justification of why AQ went over the edge. Is it because western militaries were in Saudi Arabia at the request of the SA government?

That's just some bullsh!t.

Miller, you seem to assume that's unintentional.

Just read the quotes from their holy book and then read up their justifications; don't know why people choose to forget history. It's the same justifications they've used since the 7th century when they started their annihilation of all things non-Muslim (and when possible non-Arab).

A couple of questions?

1) What if the next terrorist attack is in the country of a Muslim ally?

2) Would you also advocate nuking the Vatican if another Timothy McVeigh comes along?

It seems that you haven't thought out your cunning plan...

Yes, I am sure that will encourage them to play nice.

I agree, Pakistan has played the US for fools. In many ways, we have been fools. Time to get smarter or lose it all.

All the time we hear that the US is too involved on the world stage. Fine, if they want to attack one of our non-allies, up to the non-ally to take of their own problem. If that nation, regardless of the religion of the majority of its population, decides that it wants military aid from the US and allies, it should consider becoming an ally and all that goes with that--including the demand for those allies to comport to a set standard of freedoms for their citizens and their allie's citizens.

I make no distinction in the rights of individuals for personal freedoms. If you want to believe in an imaginary man upstairs named Yahweh, God, Allah or Krishna up to you. If you want to believe in a non-theist system that teaches that the only way you can achieve enlightenment is through good deeds, up to you. And in case anybody's wondering, I don't believe in a higher power; until someone can show me a perponderance of proof I shall remain skeptical.

And if the Vatican was actively promoting terrorist attacks in other places, both by funding and preaching, and using their holy book for justification (which is being used in the Islamic world as shown by those 17 quotes I posted earlier--which is not a comprehensive list!) than there's no reason the same rules shouldn't apply. I NEVER said that Muslim=terrorist, however the religion does encourage and exhort terrorism. And so, just as Timothy McVeigh was a Christian, where was his justification from his holy book; and yet the jihadist can quote scripture as long as your arm to explain exactly why they do what they do. Madrassas are filled with this teaching. The Red Mosque in Pakistan was over-ran by their government because of this. And yet where do you find Christians or any other religion being the root cause of similar atrocities?

**edit**

And there's nothing wrong with dispropotinate responses; there's precedence. If you get caught shoplifting, they can send you to jail (well at least in the West; in Sharia states it's still OK to chop off your hand). So please think about that before negatively commenting on the need to respond diplomatically--that's never worked and instills a sense that they've already won.

Edited May 24, 2009 by dave_boo

[LooseCannon]

I'm not saying that their right to a fair and free trial should be foreited. But if the UCMJ and its courts are good enough for our soldiers, why should it not be good enough for enemy combatants (lawful or otherwise)?[/color][/b]

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes provisions for 2 distinct & seperate tribunals, the first being Courts-Martial & the second being Military Commissions.

US military personnel are tried under the Courts-Martial system.

Military Commissions provide for the prosecution of 'Alien unlawful enemy combatants' (sorry I know you don't like this). For the most part the rules of procedure & evidence as set out in "The Manual for Military Commissions" are consistent with those found in criminal law, but there are a number of legal anomalies that strip away any notion of a free & fair trail.

Briefly these are ...

Jurisdiction - the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant' is so broad & ill-defined that it can potentially encompass almost anyone.

Evidence - Rule 201 (Rules of Evidence) effectively allows unlimited & retrospective jurisdiction over any perceived opponent of the US.

Confessions - specifically excludes statements obtained by the use of torture but allows those obtained by coercion. Torture is very narrowly defined, coercion not at all. This allows statements & confessions made as a result of waterboarding.

No provision for audio taping ofr video taping confessions. The veracity of a confession depends on the truthfulness of the interviewing official.

Hearsay - hearsay evidence is admissable.The onus is on the accused to demonstrate the unreliability of the evidence - an almost impossible task. Hearsay within hearsay is also admissable.

Procedures - the accused has no ability to test evidence at its source. The accused is denied the right to know the extent of evidence that is used against him. This is the result of secrecy provisions & the failings in the rules of evidence.

Sentencing - period of confinement begins from the date of sentencing. No deduction for time spent awaiting trail.

These Military Commissions are just another piece in the clumsy & blundering way the the US & her allies are conducting their 'War on Terror'. Their antics on the battlefield & elsewhere are guaranteeing a ready supply of Islamic radicals for years to come.

I seriousely doubt that I will change your mind or anybody elses with what I have written, people tend to be fairly polarized on this subject, but maybe one person will read it & think about it.

[dave_boo]

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes provisions for 2 distinct & seperate tribunals, the first being Courts-Martial & the second being Military Commissions.

US military personnel are tried under the Courts-Martial system.

Military Commissions provide for the prosecution of 'Alien unlawful enemy combatants' (sorry I know you don't like this). For the most part the rules of procedure & evidence as set out in "The Manual for Military Commissions" are consistent with those found in criminal law, but there are a number of legal anomalies that strip away any notion of a free & fair trail.

Briefly these are ...

Jurisdiction - the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant' is so broad & ill-defined that it can potentially encompass almost anyone.

Evidence - Rule 201 (Rules of Evidence) effectively allows unlimited & retrospective jurisdiction over any perceived opponent of the US.

Confessions - specifically excludes statements obtained by the use of torture but allows those obtained by coercion. Torture is very narrowly defined, coercion not at all. This allows statements & confessions made as a result of waterboarding.

No provision for audio taping ofr video taping confessions. The veracity of a confession depends on the truthfulness of the interviewing official.

Hearsay - hearsay evidence is admissable.The onus is on the accused to demonstrate the unreliability of the evidence - an almost impossible task. Hearsay within hearsay is also admissable.

Procedures - the accused has no ability to test evidence at its source. The accused is denied the right to know the extent of evidence that is used against him. This is the result of secrecy provisions & the failings in the rules of evidence.

Sentencing - period of confinement begins from the date of sentencing. No deduction for time spent awaiting trail.

These Military Commissions are just another piece in the clumsy & blundering way the the US & her allies are conducting their 'War on Terror'. Their antics on the battlefield & elsewhere are guaranteeing a ready supply of Islamic radicals for years to come.

I seriousely doubt that I will change your mind or anybody elses with what I have written, people tend to be fairly polarized on this subject, but maybe one person will read it & think about it.

You're right, I don't like that term. If there wasn't all the PC, we'd simply call them mercenaries. Clearly defined rules and regs in that regard. However, few law systems are so codified that they are not a living set of rules. Hopefully they can iron out everything and get up to speed with the times.

And it is doubtful you'll change my mind. I've researched it hoping there was a way to reconcile the 'real' Islamic world with the West's traditions and I have yet to find it. So if you know the secret formula, and have historical data to back your hypothesis, I'm all ears. As I said in an earlier post, not all cultures are worth saving, however I have no desire to see everything that the Greco-Roman decendant cultures be wiped out due to accomdating inferior cultures as seems to be the current norm. For all its faults, this is one of the least evil cultures out there right now.

[LooseCannon]

Just read the quotes from their holy book and then read up their justifications; don't know why people choose to forget history. It's the same justifications they've used since the 7th century when they started their annihilation of all things non-Muslim (and when possible non-Arab).

History shows us that Islamic states were not alone in this type of behavior - the Crusades are a classic example of this. The Spanish & Portuguese were past masters at wiping out whole civilizations during the conversion process. The Thirty Years War (1618-1648) was all about conversion, albeit Protestant/Lutheran/Catholic.

The modern day Islamic fundamentalist/jihadist has merely taken the selected parts of the Koran & uses it to indoctrinate the vulnerable - children in the Madrassa's, the displaced, the poor & the feeble minded. Let's face there is no shortage of viable candidates.

Let's take a look at your modern day Christian fundamentalist - indoctrinated, brainwashed? in much the same manner as your common Muslim. Not on the same level as the Islamic terrorist but they have been known to bomb the odd abortion clinic every now & again (with loss of life).

Other examples include Christians militiamen massacre Muslims in Nigeria, Hindus massacre Muslims & Christians in India. The list goes on ad nauseam.

There are verses in the Bible that extort the Christian to kill unbelievers etc. The Old Testament had a number of references. Jesus was apparently quite vocal on this subject.

[Ulysses G.]

There are verses in the Bible that extort the Christian to kill unbelievers etc. The Old Testament had a number of references. Jesus was apparently quite vocal on this subject.

Can you provide some examples? I would especially be intererested in quotes of Jesus demanding that we kill for God. I have only seen the turn-your-cheek stuff.

Edited May 24, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[dave_boo]

History shows us that Islamic states were not alone in this type of behavior - the Crusades are a classic example of this. The Spanish & Portuguese were past masters at wiping out whole civilizations during the conversion process. The Thirty Years War (1618-1648) was all about conversion, albeit Protestant/Lutheran/Catholic.

Ahh the old Crusade chestnut. Exactly how long did the Crusades last? 213 years. And what did the Pope(s) base their proclamations upon? Christian scriptures? Historical Christian actions? Or rather the apparent success of the Muslms from over-running previous peaceful areas and bastions of Christendom? And were there not retractions by the Church afterwards that those things claimed were wrong? Where is that in Islam which has been carrying along in like fashion for the last 1300 years?

**edit**

Furthermore if you consider the history of the Moros in the Iberian Penisuala (in fact all along the Mediterranian--there's theories that one reason the Dark Ages lasted as long as they did was due to the pressure being put on Europe from the Islamic States along the South and the Norse States to the North), you can kinda understand the resulting actions from those two countries.

The modern day Islamic fundamentalist/jihadist has merely taken the selected parts of the Koran & uses it to indoctrinate the vulnerable - children in the Madrassa's, the displaced, the poor & the feeble minded. Let's face there is no shortage of viable candidates.

So what's the explaination for the 'selected' parts being used continously? If they real are not a central tennent to Islam, why are they treated as such?

Let's take a look at your modern day Christian fundamentalist - indoctrinated, brainwashed? in much the same manner as your common Muslim. Not on the same level as the Islamic terrorist but they have been known to bomb the odd abortion clinic every now & again (with loss of life).

Other examples include Christians militiamen massacre Muslims in Nigeria, Hindus massacre Muslims & Christians in India. The list goes on ad nauseam.

And yet, no matter how much I request it, in stark contrast to what I do, nobody has shown a systematic, sanctioned reason why the actions of those non-Muslims take place.

There are verses in the Bible that extort the Christian to kill unbelievers etc. The Old Testament had a number of references. Jesus was apparently quite vocal on this subject.

Quotes please. I am very concise and use references to support my arguments. Kindly consider doing the same. I also suggest that references are tit-for-tat; i.e. a demonstration to the effect that they are open-ended orders to attack all non-believers. Thank you.

And do note, I am not promoting Christianity. However, it is the lesser of the two evils being discussed here and has done much more for the world.

Edited May 24, 2009 by dave_boo

[Jingthing]

I would agree that fundamentalists of ALL religions are dangerous but we do have to live with them, they hold their beliefs strongly and their "minds" will not be changed. However, in future, I think it is very important at least for Americans to NEVER make on of these fundamentalist bozos president ever again!

Edited May 24, 2009 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Unless he is a liberal fundamentalist. That is acceptable.

[Jingthing]

Unless he is a liberal fundamentalist. That is acceptable.

You are confusing religious fanaticism with political ideology. Bush was both a religious NUT and a rigid ideologue. Obama is NEITHER.

[chuckd]

Unless he is a liberal fundamentalist. That is acceptable.

You are confusing religious fanaticism with political ideology. Bush was both a religious NUT and a rigid ideologue. Obama is NEITHER.

Yup. Obama is merely a sleazy Chicago politician dressed up as the Messiah.

[medegen]

Americans. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. That's all there is to it sadly.

Edited May 24, 2009 by medegen

[Texpat]

Obama's buffoonery is making me long for Dubya.

[Rawkus]

And do note, I am not promoting Christianity. However, it is the lesser of the two evils being discussed here and has done much more for the world.

Dave, you are splitting hairs here. For every passage in the quran exhorting people to kill you will find equal passages in the OT (Deuteronomy?) saying the same.

The 'god' that the xtians grovel in front of is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in the old testament alone.

If you really consider xtianity to be the lesser of two evils then please explain fred phelps and his ilk or the protestants and catholics bombing the shiat out of each other in ireland (with financial support of the USA). Any organised religion can be used as an excuse for any sort of behaviour.

[dave_boo]

Dave, you are splitting hairs here. For every passage in the quran exhorting people to kill you will find equal passages in the OT (Deuteronomy?) saying the same.

The 'god' that the xtians grovel in front of is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in the old testament alone.

If you really consider xtianity to be the lesser of two evils then please explain fred phelps and his ilk or the protestants and catholics bombing the shiat out of each other in ireland (with financial support of the USA). Any organised religion can be used as an excuse for any sort of behaviour.

It's good to see that my posts are attracting new members to Thai Visa (and yes, for all you Catholics, I do know that Vanity is one of the seven deadly sins).

I do believe that the onus falls on you to, following the same framework I did, prove your point. It is impossible to prove a negative, so please do correct my thinking in that while the Christian's religous text does have violence it has been abrogated by the "New Testament". Furthermore, please show me where in either the Torah or the Bible or even the Verdas where there are exhortations to basically do what it takes to have the rest of the world submit under your ethnic-religous beliefs.

Also, and I could be wrong, but isn't the fact that England (who are 'Protestants') annexing that part of Ireland the real cause of it?

Oh, and your bias is showing quite loudly. While I admit bias, I still have enough decorum to respect people's beliefs and not resort to attempts to belittle their diety or excise the importance out of their religion's name. Would I be in the wrong to assume that you're a Muslim?

[Texpat]

If you pick up a newspaper, any paper, on any day of the week and read a headline, "Three dozen killed in suicide bombing..."

There is very little question as to who has committed the atrocity.

[Jingthing]

Obama's buffoonery is making me long for Dubya.

It's always interesting to hear from non-Americans, but among actual Americans Obama remains a massively popular figure. People who watch Fox News and listen to Fatboy Junkieman Limburger and Dick "Torture" Cheney of course get a very distorted view of reality.

Edited May 24, 2009 by Jingthing

[Texpat]

Still on the non-American thing, Jing?

You couldn't be more wrong. Much like many of Obama's policy shifts.

But not all.

Edited May 24, 2009 by Texpat

[Jingthing]

Still on the non-American thing, Jing?

You couldn't be more wrong.

Of course.

A REAL American would be supporting our esteemed commander in chief in a time of great crisis, at home and abroad.

Thanks for finally coming out of the closet , fellow comrade Spanky Yank!

Edited May 24, 2009 by Jingthing

[Texpat]

How many real Americans have been bad-mouthing the commander in chief for the past six or seven years?

But that's different, right?

[Jingthing]

How many real Americans have been bad-mouthing the commander in chief for the past six or seven years?

But that's different, right?

Boy you fell for that one too easily, I can play you like a

Edited May 24, 2009 by Jingthing

[Texpat]

Good thing, eh Jing?

Thought I spotted a hypocrite there for a second...

[flying]

How many real Americans have been bad-mouthing the commander in chief for the past six or seven years?

But that's different, right?

One of Mr O's biggest cheerleaders has changed her mind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY

Edited May 24, 2009 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

A REAL American would be supporting our esteemed commander in chief in a time of great crisis, at home and abroad.

I thought the same thing when Bush was around, but I did not seem to have much company.

[JR Texas]

A REAL American would be supporting our esteemed commander in chief in a time of great crisis, at home and abroad.

I thought the same thing when Bush was around, but I did not seem to have much company.

Total waste of increasingly scarce tax dollars........project is completely unnecessary.

But, if it is going to be spent, it should be spent on a country that embraces democracy (not just the illusion of it) and does not constantly violate human rights.