ntotoro Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 This is something that I am so tired of hearing. Its what people say so they can assuage their own conscience. Trust me, I don't feel the least bit guilty at all about wanting to clean up my own country before owing China any more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 No we should not. We should, as citizens, be able to use charitable foundations to donate to such a cause. The reasons are simple. 1. Government to Government aid rarely, if ever, reaches the people. Now we are talking about giving money to a military junta that is reluctant to use our help as it is. We can give them support from our Navy, but that is all from a "national" level. Charitable foundations have a much better and proven track record of having their aid reach those in need. UN and other agreements between nations stay with in the government and allow the presiding government of said nation to remain in power, thus ending no grief. 2. It isn't in the power of the United States government to do so. People will make the argument that with great power comes great responsibility. Well, that's fine. But we the people should have the power, not our government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 There are people living in America right now in worse conditions than Myanmar.I don't know about Myanmar (other than the current disaster from the Cyclone), but their are about 11 million kids who die each year from malnutrition and starvation in places like Kenya or Sudan. Not to mention that people in Bombay, India who are born, live, and die prematurely on the same sidewalk in a slum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 As human beings we should help other human beings in time of disaster. It's not charity, it's compassion and care for our fellow man. Now, that is to say we should OFFER. Even an avowed enemy. If North Korea or Syria had a natural disaster, we should extend the hand of humanitarian emergency aid and services with no strings attached. If they refuse, well, that's on them. Myanmar is showing why totalitarian regimes should be confronted, their hesitancy to accept aid that will help their own people in this time of crisis is appalling. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 Trust me, I don't feel the least bit guilty at all about wanting to clean up my own country before owing China any more money.What the heck does China have to do with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 What the heck does China have to do with it? A great deal of foreign aid comes from taxpayer money, correct? Last time I checked, we were a pretty large source of the Federal Government's income. If our country just keeps accumulating debt (through a very expensive war, loans from China and etcetera), then how can we afford to keep putting more and more money into other countries while the Middle Class in this country can barely stay afloat because of this debt? Maybe if the Fed let me know what portion of my taxes went overseas I could write it off like I do with any other donation, but I'd just as soon fix our own mess here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endzone_dave Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 I see no reason we can't send aid to countries when a natural disaster strikes. In addition of it being the humane thing to do, it helps our country's image which is something that is actually important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 Every Country of means should help out in a time of need... Our hands will be out if Yellowstone only 1/2 explodes and 1/2 of the United States is a mess... The host country is normally extremely busy in a 30k+ death toll... everything from outside helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 Every Country of means should help out in a time of need...Our hands will be out if Yellowstone only 1/2 explodes and 1/2 of the United States is a mess... The host country is normally extremely busy in a 30k+ death toll... everything from outside helps. If Yellowstone explodes? :laugh: Dude, that's a world ender. Again, government to government aid never reaches those in need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 Every Country of means should help out in a time of need...Our hands will be out if Yellowstone only 1/2 explodes and 1/2 of the United States is a mess... If, if, if. We have an economic problem in this country right ****ing now and seem to value fixing other countries more than our own. Hell, money went to Indonesia and Iraq more quickly than New Orleans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer is Food Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 Most of the time giving foriegn aid is in our own best interest. It shows the world and our own citizens that we are compassionate- good people. It gives us a social conscience. And perhaps more importantly- foriegn aid helps us influence other nations to our world view creating stability. Foriegn aid is the carrot and our military is the stick. Both are essential in promoting US interests around the world. With that said, our own house is in deep trouble and I think we should pull back to pay down debt. We need the dollar to be strong again. And, thanks to Bush's ingenious ethanol solution-combined with a weak dollar- we are seeing world food prices sky rocket. If you think high oil prices cause instabilty around the world- just wait until people can't afford to eat. Rational people choose to lose freedom for food. Stalin... Hitler... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 In order for the US to secure it's interests it needs a certain amount of goodwill from political leaders around the world. This stuff is PR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 As human beings we should help other human beings in time of disaster. It's not charity, it's compassion and care for our fellow man.Now, that is to say we should OFFER. Even an avowed enemy. If North Korea or Syria had a natural disaster, we should extend the hand of humanitarian emergency aid and services with no strings attached. If they refuse, well, that's on them. Myanmar is showing why totalitarian regimes should be confronted, their hesitancy to accept aid that will help their own people in this time of crisis is appalling. ~Bang Pretty much where I stand. If I see someone struck by a car a few blocks away from my home, I don't refuse to help or call for aid just because I have some leaky plumbing in my house. It's not an all or nothing proposition. When someone asks for prayers on Extremeskins because they're going through a hard time, I don't hoard my prayers for myself. If pride or politics or nationalism makes someone refuse my aid or support or prayers that's on them, but to turn a blind eye isn't right either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 In order for the US to secure it's interests it needs a certain amount of goodwill from political leaders around the world. This stuff is PR. You're still working under the mistaken idea that respect will get us more response from the rest of the world than FEAR will. That's an incorrect assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer is Food Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 You're still working under the mistaken idea that respect will get us more response from the rest of the world than FEAR will. That's an incorrect assumption. Agreed- in the international community it's more important to be feared than loved... yet why not both. If you gain respect out of fear- you encourage other states to unite to check you're power. You can be respected for love, yet fear is far more motivating. Fear with out love will create conflict. Only a state that is both feared and loved will be just. I just read what I wrote... :laugh: and can't believe I'm actually going to post it... :doh: I AM A COMPLETE CORNBALL! ohhhh how deeeeep. Anybody want to place a bet on how long this takes to get rick rolled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifty Gut Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 No, screw the rest of the world. We can't even help our own people, why should we bother with foreigners? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 As an example of helping our "enemies," we sent canine rescue teams to Iran a few years back when they had a major earthquake, so it wouldn't be unheard of for our government to assist even those that are part of the Axis of Evil. I admit that I swing both ways with this type of question - sometimes I feel like many people on the planet are ungrateful for the assistance that we have provided in the past, and I can certainly understand MSF's position. That being said, I do believe we have to take the higher road and, as a civilized nation, offer support and assistance to those who are in need. It is the "good" thing to do. It is the American thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 It is the "good" thing to do. It is the American thing to do. You need to underline that puppy if you want it to be "Larry-approved" emphasized. I thought you knew? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 You need to underline that puppy if you want it to be "Larry-approved" emphasized. I thought you knew? :laugh: I almost underlined it, too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsOrlando Posted May 7, 2008 Author Share Posted May 7, 2008 We were criticized when we only offered $35 million. There was no more criticism after we raised the offer to $350 million: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/31/us.aid/And how have the recipients of Tsunami aid acted like asses? They all seemed very thankful and eager to do what they could to pay us back. But why wasn't 35 million enough? Our we always supposed to be the great giver? Why are we constantly criticized while other nations are not? My comment was in general regarding the foreign aid we've given through the years and get nothing but grief for, it wasn't directed towards the tsunami particularly. But let me know when the first dollar of payback arrives, leave a note at my tombstone I'll be long dead before then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 No we should not.We should, as citizens, be able to use charitable foundations to donate to such a cause. The reasons are simple. 1. Government to Government aid rarely, if ever, reaches the people. Now we are talking about giving money to a military junta that is reluctant to use our help as it is. We can give them support from our Navy, but that is all from a "national" level. Charitable foundations have a much better and proven track record of having their aid reach those in need. UN and other agreements between nations stay with in the government and allow the presiding government of said nation to remain in power, thus ending no grief. 2. It isn't in the power of the United States government to do so. People will make the argument that with great power comes great responsibility. Well, that's fine. But we the people should have the power, not our government. Wow, how about that. I was right. YANGON, Myanmar (CNN) -- Authorities in cyclone-ravaged Myanmar have seized United Nations aid intended for victims of the disaster, a move that "shuts down" future flights from the organization, according to a U.N. World Food Program official http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/05/09/myanmar/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 Ahh but you see, we tried and they lied. End game, with us still trying to help. good enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 No, screw the rest of the world. We can't even help our own people, why should we bother with foreigners? Whether some people like it or not, we are entering a new age where there really are no "foreigners." It's a global community now and all nations should help all nations in order to move on to the new phase of civil evolution and planetary cooperation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helptheSKINS Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 I think we should help just about anyone who suffers a natural disaster. A lot of times people are oppressed by a horrible Government, no need for us to punish them any further. As for people who cheered 9/11, I would hate for those people to control us by keeping us from helping their neighbor who might be a good person. I would rather help people in need at the risk of helping a terrorist sympathizer than let good people die for fear that I might miss out on an opportunity for revenge. I'm with Midnight. Anytime a natural disaster happens, I'm reminded of how lucky we are to live in the US. We are able to recover much faster then less fortunate nations. I see pictures of kids living on the streets and can't help but imagine if that was my kid. I would say we should give to all countries. Most citizens only know what their govt's tell them. The US is a very generous country and the rest of the world should recognize that. The biggest question is would terrorist nations accept our gifts. If they did, they would most likely pass it off as a gift from them, not the US. Hell, they'd probably say the US sent food that was poisoned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 We should strive to be better. If we can help we should. We should set aside political misgivings and do what we can for our fellow man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.