Aiding Other Countries

[Asimov]

We see this happening a lot...some country is devastated by some natural disaster, and suddenly everyone is all "boohoo, let's give em a bagillion dollars to help them cope."

 

How about we don't? If they want to be their own separate nation, with their jingioistic policies and religious wars and territorial wars then they can be their own separate nation and fuck off.

 

Are they going to be any more mature, any less whiny and warlike? No, as soon as they're back up to par it's back to little skirmishes that nearly cause a Nuclear Holocaust, bickering over stupid little issues. I say, unless humanity as a whole is more inclined to unite together in acceptance and tolerance of our differences then why do it?

 

And if India and Pakistan are REALLY at each others throats, this would be the perfect time to invade and kick some ass!

 

I could be wrong, but this is just a rant.

[woodsmoke]

If it were only the politicians who were hit and affected by the quake, I might agree with you.

 

Unfortunately, that's not the case. I imagine those hit hardest by this disaster have a lot more in common with you and I than they do with their nations' leaders, just like every other natural disaster I'm aware of.

[pandora]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I remember hearing that the US provides less aid per capita than any other industrialized nation.

 

Granted, we also give more on an individual basis, but this aid often goes to pet interests and not to very many true disasters.

 

The people affected by these natural disasters, AIDs, and poverty are indeed very much like us. I think it is only right that our government step in. We got aid from other countries during Katrina and 9/11, and these disasters are far worse.

[Dianka]

I was annoyed last year when we were running around like assholes trying to raise money for the people hit by the tsunami, and then they kick us out of their country when we wanted to help. Why? because they were afraid that the American Christians were going to try to convert the mostly Muslim and Buddhist region.

 

But then I got to thinking....maybe they have a reason to turn us away. In Cambodia, a very poor and Buddhist country, Christian missionaries come in and persuade people to come to their church by telling them if they come they will get free bags of rice for their starving families.

 

Instead of just giving the rice to these people like good Christians should, they force them to embrace their religions or risk starving to death.

 

And really, it is not the aid that is hurting this country's credibility, it is the "political interventions" that we stage. Like we fuckin know anything. I didn't go out and verify this, but I bet what we give counrties in weapons, and all the money we spend helping countries we can use to our advantage far outweighs the few-strings-attached aid that we give to other countries.

[Ouroboros]

We see this happening a lot...some country is devastated by some natural disaster, and suddenly everyone is all "boohoo, let's give em a bagillion dollars to help them cope." 

 

How about we don't?  If they want to be their own separate nation, with their jingioistic policies and religious wars and territorial wars then they can be their own separate nation and fuck off. 

 

Are they going to be any more mature, any less whiny and warlike?  No, as soon as they're back up to par it's back to little skirmishes that nearly cause a Nuclear Holocaust, bickering over stupid little issues.  I say, unless humanity as a whole is more inclined to unite together in acceptance and tolerance of our differences then why do it?

 

And if India and Pakistan are REALLY at each others throats, this would be the perfect time to invade and kick some ass! 

 

I could be wrong, but this is just a rant.

I understand what you're saying. And in a sense you're right. But there's some sides to it that should be considered.

 

First, sure, we could talk about moral duty, and that we should help each other and all the altruistic ideas that we spin. Still there's something to it, that we should help people in need. Unfortunately, rarely you get a thank-you, and people easily turn around and the outcome is not always what you wanted. Corrupt government will take the aid and the money anyway, so there's nothing left for the people that needed the help. So in a sense, it doesn't matter if we want to help, it rarely turns out the way we want. So this reason is not a too good or strong enough to do it.

 

But secondly, aid to other countries is a political tool. America as a strong and progressing country have raised a lot of envy from other countries, and to calm down the resentment you can use foreign aid as a poster, to show that we are not greedy animals, stealing everyones food. This is the reason I think aiding other countries has to be done. It's totally selfish and capitalistic, but it's needed to create goodwill.

[Ouroboros]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I remember hearing that the US provides less aid per capita than any other industrialized nation.

I think that is according to UN. We provide less aid per capita compared to some other countries, but still extremely high amount. Who said it had to be calculated from the per capita? I don't think America is the lowest though. How much does China, India or Saudi Arabia give?

 

Granted, we also give more on an individual basis, but this aid often goes to pet interests and not to very many true disasters.

And most organizations are secretly corrupt, so your money mostly goes to a high paid CEO in the help organization.

(I think Red Cross is not in that group, but I can't be sure. Does anyone knows how much Red Cross CEO is paid?)

 

The people affected by these natural disasters, AIDs, and poverty are indeed very much like us.  I think it is only right that our government step in.  We got aid from other countries during Katrina and 9/11, and these disasters are far worse.

I didn't know we got help during Katrina or 9/11? (Not saying that you're wrong, I just didn't know...)

 

There are dangers with foreign aid. Countries can end up being dependent on the aid, and won't change their culture or society. That's why many help organizations focus on going to poor countries and teach them how to farm and make food instead of just giving them food.

[Kuroikaze]

And most organizations are secretly corrupt, so your money mostly goes to a high paid CEO in the help organization.

(I think Red Cross is not in that group, but I can't be sure. Does anyone knows how much Red Cross CEO is paid?)

I didn't know we got help during Katrina or 9/11? (Not saying that you're wrong, I just didn't know...) 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From what I've heard, the Red Cross is one of the worst, I've heard they have got in trouble several times for taking donations from other groups and then turning around and SELLING said donations to disaster victims.

[Ouroboros]

From what I've heard, the Red Cross is one of the worst, I've heard they have got in trouble several times for taking donations from other groups and then turning around and SELLING said donations to disaster victims.

Ouch. It shows that there's greed is everywhere.

 

The best help is to make people help themselves.

 

Just what you have to do with your kids. You can't bail them out for all trouble they get into, but have to learn to take care of it on their own.

[dead_hobbit]

was annoyed last year when we were running around like assholes trying to raise money for the people hit by the tsunami, and then they kick us out of their country when we wanted to help. Why? because they were afraid that the American Christians were going to try to convert the mostly Muslim and Buddhist region.

 

...and now fema is doing it to us, on our own soil nonetheless

[Guest aexapo]

But then I got to thinking....maybe they have a reason to turn us away. In Cambodia, a very poor and Buddhist country, Christian missionaries come in and persuade people to come to their church by telling them if they come they will get free bags of rice for their starving families.

 

Instead of just giving the rice to these people like good Christians should, they force them to embrace their religions or risk starving to death.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is an old, a very old, notion about Western colonialism, and it's wrapped up in a nice tidy "saying," that I can't remember for the life of me. But, the idea is that "first come the missionaries," then the armies.

 

In Southeast asia, western colonialism is still a real memory in many minds -- France, Portugal, Britain, and later -- the US -- controlled vast portions of the area, pretty much everything except Japan and parts of China. WWII changed a few things, and once the colonials were freed from their own fascist overlord, many wanted their own Empires back . . . and the rest is history.