Doug Carter wrote in message ...
Alex wrote:
You seem to speak about countries bombed by the US / Allies. I am
speaking about countries where the US played behind the scenes and
helped in the country's destruction, not of their buildings, but of
their people. And being unofficial and behind the scenes, and there
being no bombed buildings, there is no rebuilding involved. It's not
even half empty. It's empty. Period.

I was sort of hoping for specific cases with verifiable
assertions of fact instead of vague demogarary.

As I said to Rob, go search google. There you can find verifiable
assertions. I don't know where you can read your government's
declasified documents to actually verify what you find in the net, but
I'm sure you know.

Direct U.S. foreign aid runs about $15-20b/year (before
special accounts like Iraq). Unless the U.S. is
endeavoring to destroy "most" countries out of pure malice
then this wanton destruction would seem to be rather short
sighted economics.

I never said the motivation was pure malice. I'm sure Nixon and
Kissinger thought it was very rational to plant puppet dictatorships
in South America, and I'm sure Bush had a very rational reason to
invade Irak (whatever that reason is). I'm just saying that their
decissions have usually dreadful effects on people around the world.
The image of US as the good guy, as Hollywood pretends to portray
movie after movie, as the US propaganda, is simply false.

Also, countries are not monolitic entities that always act rationally.
For example, one theory of why Bush invaded Irak is that his father's
friends are making loads of money getting the reconstruction
contracts. They say they even signed up those contracts before the
bombs fell! So, in other words, it doesn't have to make economic sense
for the US, as long as it benefits the individuals in power.