My question for the day....
 

Looking at all the devastation from this hurricane, where is our foreign aid? Something bad happens anywhere in this world, we are quick to respond, but when it happens to us, what then?

-S

We borrow money or print it. Just like everyone else. And we slowly destroy our economy in doing so. :down:

You mean you want the UN here?:oops: I'll let the smurfs live at your house.

I had a tiredness-induced epiphany last night when reading a couple of articles criticising australias involvement in providing aid etc through oceania and SE asia, apparently its us trying to push our influence everywhere else.

Why dont we leave em all be. Bugger em. No, we won't support fledgling democracy in Timor Leste. No, we won't prop up PNG or Fiji or the Solomons. Why do we bother sinking billions of dollars into ungrateful nations who do nothing but complain anyway.

Lets do what they want for once, leave them to sort out their own problems, and then listen to them complain when their free aid and support stops leaving them up the creek.

And frankly, i sometimes wonder if the US shouldn't do the same.

Considering that the USA is the richest country on the planet one would think that it wouldn't need much aid.

Then again the USA has been offered aid from other countries IIRC Cuba offered 100 doctors after Hurricane Katrina and after 9/11 several countries offered help.

What he said.

So thats how you guys see it? It is OK to take and not to give? Sounds very lopsided, regardless how rich one is. You help a friend in need. And, at least you can offer!

Sorry, don't buy it.

-S

The next question would be why the U.S can't send enough to them themselves:hmm:

"The US may not really need baby food from Italy or divers from Belgium, but its call for European and international help shows that, after the divisions over Iraq, it has now realised that even superpowers need friends."

Maybe so, but will they pay back? When they can that is? Or is this a "gift" from the outer world to the U.S?

Who cares? Fairness is a fallacy*. The people of the US (even independently of their government) are disposed to render aid when they feel they can afford it and where the need is. Intended recipients have the perfect right to refuse. It's what we and they do. It is not done as "fair trade" with intent to receive when disaster hits here.

And aid which is required of others to the US would not be aid at all, but tribute. Do we want to be in that position? As soon as aid is not voluntary it is meaningless. So long as it is voluntary, complaining when it is not rendered, or complaining when it is refused is ridiculous.


*Rockin Robbinism #2

The US gets foreign aid just like any other country. Funny how you phrase your OP like a question when you're really in no hurry for facts and would rather just sit back and condemn.

Cough.

Oh, and... you're welcome:roll:.

Well im sure if America asked New Zealand for aid we would be happy to give it, our banks usually start it off where they open an account and anyone who wishs to help donates money into that account, then after a month or so it gets sent, one country we helped we sent over $600,000 thats just from the banks not bad for only a population of 4 million ppl and 40 million sheep :) I know we offered Aid to the disaster in New Orleans. Im sure if Texas asked for some aid we would give it. And if money is not needed then we got heaps of milk products and 40 million sheep to spare...:)

Another good question would be of the foreign aid that is offered the US, how many times have we accepted it?

Agreed. I like the idea I heard of in Proceedings of using our hospital ships to 'show the flag' instead of just warships. Like a new version of Roosevelt's 'White Fleet'. We need all the PR boost we can get.

With the US's wealth it should be a matter of coals to Newcastle.