how come we keep sending money to other countries when they need it, when WE never get anything from THEM?!?! God, 20,000+ people die in Pakistan and we send millions and millions and millions of dollars!! if 20,000+ died here, they would make it a holiday! GOD BUSH IS TOO CONSIDERATE!!! >:0 they should alll die. painfully and slow. starvation and disease Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What is more disturbing to me is that even though BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars have gone to help countries that are poor, they never seem to improve only get worse! I'd think that it is time to stop wasting money on the poorer countries after over 100 years of trying to help them nothing is getting better, if anything , its getting worse!
I agree with you both ....but the western world is so fucked up with liberal, doo-dooder "public opinion" that to do anything else is to have practically everyone on Earth calling us nasty names and making horrid accusations. What I find so humorous is that that area in Pakistan was almost totally unheard of and no one on Earth gave a big rat's ass about those people for thousands of years. Now, all of the sudden, the people of the world are soooooooo distraught and worrried about their plight, that billions in aid is pledged. .......... And all of it just to makes the givers feel good and look good in the eyes of others! Hippo-fuckin'-critters, huh? Baron Max
You're out of your mind. Other countries do give money and aid to the U.S. Look up Singapore's contribution regarding Katrina. Also Thailand. Just to name a few.
Ick, gotta agree with, Baron Max. However, I'm not saying we should stop giving aid period. Just be a bit more wiser in who we give it to and especially quit giving it when countries aren't putting that money towards where it's intended. But hey, that just winds up just hurting the populace. We need a way to put those leaders on trial WITHOUT having to wage war against them just to do so. - N
The problem is not givng aid to countries, the problem is giving money to line the pockets of corrupt officials. People often talk about aid given to Africa when the subject of debt forgiveness comes up. Of the billions of dollars that actaully made it to the countries in need, very little of it actually made it to the PEOPLE in need. The problem, as so many Conservatives correctly point out (one of the few things I DO agree with Conservatives about), is the Liberal ideal of, "throw money at it and it will get better". Not only is throwing money at a problem not neccesarily the best solution, the problem will often get worse depending on who actually takes receipt of the money.
With the sidenote that conservatives don't want things to get better in the 3rd world. That would kill our own economy.
Many countries gave America aid during Katrina, but does America really need aid? It was more out of good will than need. And how can you expect poor countries to give back substantial aid when they are poor? America gives a very low percentage of it's income to aid so I don't know why your kicking up such a fuss. When asked why America gives such a small percentage to aid, they replied saying that since they take the 'burden' the defence side of the world, the rest can take care of aid. In case you didn't noticed there is a world outside america, and a world outside any rich nation. If all aid was cancelled that would not only paralyse poor nations in times of disaster, it would segregate us further as a species and I would find that totally depressing.
We give aid because we are a charitable people and have the money to do so. To feel sorry for underdeveloped nations that cannot provide for themselves because they are primitive and must live under the whim of powerful forces of nature is pointless, since these nations will always be in such conditions as long as their people maintain the current social and technological order. It is alright to give aid, but it is certainly not an obligation. As a great world power, we should not expect any substantial aid in return as most nations could not match our pricetag anyway. Honestly, how much money could Thailand actually afford to give us?
basically, if there were fewer people in the places where natural disasters are common, there would be much less of a problem. to paraphrase Garrett Hardin, when misery and starvation are the limiting factors for a population, it will inevitably end up with misery and starvation.
If that's really so, then why haven't we been helping all of those people in years/decades past? We let/allow them to live in dire poverty and ill health for thousands of years without one single dollar of help ....yet when the sensationalism of the news reports come over the TV and Internet, we wring our hands with sympathy and charitable feelings. How many of us see all of the poverty and ill-health RIGHT IN OUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD and do little or nothing to help? ...and we call ourselves "charitable people"?? How hippo-critical. Baron Max
For once I completely agree with you, Max. We do everything in a self-serving manner. There's no equity, and even our aid doesn't really amount to a pinch of shit compared to how far below the start line these people were before the fill-in-the-blank disaster. There are two truths that Americans refuse to face. One is that our prosperity and material overconsumption is largely balanced on the backs of the third world, both indigenous peoples and immigrants. The other is that if we were to strive for real equity, western standard of living would fall off the edge of a cliff. So they're just crocodile tears - we need them to stay exactly where they are, and the odd random natural disaster (or unnatural war) actually works in our favor. For now.
It seemed to the rest of the world that you actually were completely helpless. America was lying on its ass. It was good fun watching that I have to admit. The Big USA can't help their own people. Shame the people had to suffer because of it. But they weren't rich, middle class or celebrities, so apparently it didn't matter to Americans. Unless you didn't belong to one of these subcategories.