There are several nations which the United States of America has put to the top of our list for recipients of American humanitarian aid. Some of these nations have even received the most advanced military assistance we have to offer in order to help resolve their internal conflicts.
If you were in charge of all of America’s money and its superior military forces, how would you expend these costly, tax-payer funded resources?
Would you provide assistance to those who are obviously healthy, relatively wealthy, somewhat well-armed and obviously willing and able to defend themselves, or would you focus your efforts on those who have been brutally disarmed, are clearly starving, and are mostly unable and physically incapable of defending themselves?
Please forgive me for the graphic nature of many of the photos attached to this post. But, in order to exemplify my point, I must include these pictures to demonstrate to you, the significant contrast between those who are receiving America’s aid from those who I think, should be given our most generous aid!
It isn't that easy. Would you rather the money go places where it will be used well, like Japan, or Haiti where so much of it has been wasted or wound up in the hands of the elites who don't need it.
Personally I think Haiti would have been much better off if we had gone in, taken over the country and rebuilt it ourselves.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
My God! I'm quite Conservative in my political opinions, but I do still have a heart. As the people of Haiti and Japan attempt to recover, I can only think of provivding our most humblest, humanitarian aid. Not invasion or occupation!
On the other hand, nations of wholly capable individuals; able to assume and present an armed rebellion, don't seem to draw as much of a heartfelt compassion, from me.
Japan has actually refused most aid because they realize so many other countries need it worse.
And while Japan's debt is the highest in the developed world, 200% of GDP, they are a nation of savers and hopefully other parts of the nation are able to give to help out thier fellow citizens.
Military aid to rebels? Often this can be a lose-lose situation, since the new regime may be a greater enemy. Germany released Lenin from prison and sent him back to forment revolutuon against the Tsar and end Russia's participation in WWI. Lenin helped this happen, but the Soviet Union he formed occupied parts of Germany for 40 years.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
I would start with securing our borders, then beefing up our social programs here in the United States. As for helping other countries. I would not send money to Haiti without having our own people on the ground making sure the money was being spent they way it was meant to be spent. To rebuild, and get this country back on its feet. If they did not allow for our folks to be there to do this, they would get nothing. The same goes for some of these other countries that have the same problems We send the money and what happens to it. Alot of these countries, (not all) have the problem of they get the money and it gets used for other than humanitiarian purposes.
As for the military. I would not be sending military into the other countries. We are fighting two wars and now we have this Libya thing going on, along with some other happenings in Africa where we have advisors already. The problem here is, we go in, we train, we teach, we leave, nothing changed. It looked good while we were there, now we are gone and it all goes back to the same thing.
Anyway; America's dollars and cents (sense), and military resources must be considered a very valuable commodity, (considering, how deep in debt we are currently). And, none of our resources must be frivolously wasted on the antics of a people's revolt against their government.
Dating back to a previous post, I must once again ask, how would the Obama Administration respond to a large group of Tea Party Patriots, violently revolting in Washington D.C., for the eventual overthrow of Barack Obama and his Utopian Regime?
Would these imagined Tea Party Protestors meet military resistance? Would they encounter US tanks and maybe even coordinated air support? Would they be similarly and indifferently shot by the hundreds, simply to maintain civility within our sovereign nation?
Regardless, I must return to my main and most significant question. Do these people; while experiencing complete annihalation through ethnic cleansing, torture and popular control through mutilation or decapitation, deseve our US humanitarian aid? Or, do the nations, who are uprising against their Socialist/Democratic and summarily predictable, controlling governmental regimes, deserve our most valued defensive and financial reserves?
I only ask this question to bring the rhetoric down to the minimum and to question any and all nation's paticiation in these particular global conflicts.
"Choose your Battles", has always been a motto of many among the American people. Is the battle in the Mid-East worth the effort and finances, when so many in these other nations are without support or defense?
As this is my own damn opinion and does not reflect that of anyone
We have no business going into any of these countries. Let them gain their freedom through thier actions. Our military is there to protect our shores, our interests etc, not to help another country revolt against thier government. Those countries need to gain Independance alone. Without our help. Hell we can't even secure our own borders why the hell are we going over there to help Libya. Let the NATO countries other than us do it.
Jonathan Hemlock wrote: Some of these nations have even received the most advanced military assistance we have to offer in order to help resolve their internal conflicts.
If you were in charge of all of America’s money and its superior military forces, how would you expend these costly, tax-payer funded resources?
Would you provide assistance to those who are obviously healthy, relatively wealthy, somewhat well-armed and obviously willing and able to defend themselves, or would you focus your efforts on those who have been brutally disarmed, are clearly starving, and are mostly unable and physically incapable of defending themselves?
Please forgive me for the graphic nature of many of the photos attached to this post. But, in order to exemplify my point, I must include these pictures to demonstrate to you, the significant contrast between those who are receiving America’s aid from those who I think, should be given our most generous aid!
