Wow... 
Try these on for size then, maybe you wont be so grossly un-informed afterwards....
https://www.usaid.gov/locations/missiondirectory.html < Every one of these locations has a humanitarian USAID mission going on RIGHT now...
https://www.usaid.gov/missions/ < For the missions in the first link that have a website, here are those for your perusal.
This is just humanitarian aid, this doesnt include military assistance missions.
Yup. There's lots of foreign aid. A lot of it goes to the aid of rulers in poor countries, who acquire more wealth and continue to destroy people's property. What poor countries need is not stolen money, they need property rights. That is not to say that some of the money goes to helping people, but I don't think it has a net benefit. The money is MUCH better spent going to a private charity in my opinion (where money is given voluntarily too, not acquired through force).
Oh and ask yourself how ALL of this is paid for? Yeah by United States of America TAXPAYERS... ME. So if you're pissed because your cause or country didn't get its FAIR SHARE of the HUNDEREDS of BILLIONS of dollars in American Taxpayer money (My money), well... sucks for you.
Personally I am just tired of the ingratitude I see on the news and all the anti-American mouth diarrhea I read on internet bulletin boards... <cough>
Yes. Agree to disagree. And I mean that quite literally. I don't endorse any system that takes, by the threat of force, someone's money for uses they do not approve of. And well, I'm not asking for your money. Why would I be upset about that? Sweden is a good nation to live in, one of the top 25 or so economically free nations there are - which is the reason we've been doing reasonably well.
As for the "anti-American mouth diarrhea"... I'll get to that later
I mean has the U.S. cornered the market on helping other countries and people? No of course not, but then again I don't see the
hate spread to the other countries who are helping others.
The Brits get their fair share of hate. The reason the US is receiving so much hate in comparison is because the US has been the most pro-active in covert actions to get rid of dictators, some democratically elected (Guatemala, Iran, Chile, Brazil), and the US has been fighting a lot of proxy wars. Yes, there was a bigger enemy in the Soviet Union - but the human cost in Latin America for instance has been horrendous. That's why a lot of Latin Americans started to HATE the US, and there's a lot of socialistic tendencies too - much because of the hate towards everything the US stands for (which is perceived to be capitalism).
You see, you seem to claim that the US always helps people. How is dropping bombs on innocent civilians helpful? Drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan? Is it just possible that the phenomenon known as blowback, that these civilians get radicalized and the opposition is even stronger as a result, a real phenomenon?
That is not to say that SOME interventions haven't been helpful. El Salvador springs to mind, where the end result was good.
You have to understand it's hard to feel charitable when you are being bled dry in taxes, your own countrymen are unable to find work, are losing thier homes and more and more jobs that once were held by your countrymen are ferreted to overseas markets where labor is cheap. This is strictly from an economic standpoint.
I fully understand.
From a political and military standpoint, has the U.S. meddled in the affairs of other countries? Sure they have... Are we the only ones that have done it? Hell no. So spread the hate around a little and give us a break for once, M'kay?
China does it so much better for instance. They don't take over a country militarily, they do it economically. They BUY resources and make deals - like businessmen. True Machiavellian style governance, but done so much more elegantly than the US does it with bombs and bullets.
You know we don't just meddle for fun, it's usually done with the intent to help stabilize a region. Since you are not giving me specifics I can't speak to them so I give you a generality in return. Touche.
That's how it is sold to the public. Iraq was pretty stable during Saddam, what about now? But of course, they had WMD's, didn't they.
And I gave you at least one specific too earlier, about Bahrain. You can go back and read that one. Why did they not try to aid the rebellion in Bahrain, while aiding the rebellion in Libya and Egypt?
And now is a perfect time to explain Iran in 1953. Mossadegh had come to power democratically, but he wanted to kick out the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (known as BP today) and the parliament voted to nationalize the oil fields they were in possession of (pretty much a governmental land grab). The Brits weren't too happy, so they aligned themselves with the US and Truman to overthrow Mossadegh. Kermit Roosevelt led the project, and they succeeded with the coup. They reinstalled the Shah, who was a brutal and violent dictator. But this secured new oil deals for the AIOC. The backlash came in 1979 - the coup against the Shah and the exile of the Shah. (
Read more here about Iran)
Was this done to stabilize the region? I hardly think so. Wars, conflicts and covert actions
almost always happen for geopolitical reasons.
<disclaimer>I fully respect anyone's right to have an opinion as long as they respect my right to disagree with their opinion.</disclaimer>
Yes. Agree to disagree. And quite literally, I don't want any use of violence being used against you (taking your money involuntarily, for any purpose).
What you failed to address even once though is the free trade argument. That's how you help developing nations. Letting their products compete. That's why for instance the European Union is quite evil. Subsidizing local farmers while putting up trade barriers to African nations. The US does this too. There are probably people within the system that think it's a fantastic idea and it's helpful - but I think the EXACT opposite.
Topic: Kony 2012 (Read 6587 times)
