Welcome to PatsFans.com

Credit where it's due

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Real World, May 14, 2008.

  1. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,856
    Likes Received:
    152
    Ratings:
    +321 / 4 / -2

    Count me a a growing isolationist. The bottom line is that involving yourself globally means good & bad. So you either accept them both, or don't get involved at all. Obviously the scope of each can be manipulated & adjusted to varying degrees, but the bottom line is that you'll still piss some people off, while making others happy. I think we should be fixing our own house, before we go fixing everyone elses. Just my 2 cents.



    Credit where it's due

    Janet Albrechtsen | May 14, 2008
    THERE is a certain familiarity to the concomitant series of actions and reactions when disaster strikes in the world. The US stands ready, willing and able to offer assistance. It is often the first country to send in millions of dollars, navy strike groups loaded with food and medical supplies, and transport planes, helicopters and floating hospitals to help those devastated by natural disaster.


    Excerpt:
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23693121-7583,00.html
  2. STFarmy

    STFarmy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Balancing the line between isolationism and interventionism is tough. That's one of the hardest questions I think. It's unrealistic to say "F the world" and ignore everything that happens. There's too much to our interest that could be affected. But we definitely overreach ourselves and get into things we shouldn't. This is the kind of thing that there's no clear cut answer for or that any politician can't solve with a quippy soundbite.
    Last edited: May 14, 2008
  3. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,257
    Likes Received:
    134
    Ratings:
    +378 / 1 / -9

    The World:
    They hate us until they're in trouble.
  4. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I like how the charitable donations have gone up in the past 8 years.

    I'd like to just say f the world and walk away. I'd love to do it for a year or so. Cut off all foreign aid, everything.

    Yeah yeah, I'm sure there's plenty of people lining up to tell me I'm a fool (what's new).

    But it would be funny to watch some of these situations without big brother USA there handing out free goodies to everyone.
  5. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,247
    Likes Received:
    22
    Ratings:
    +30 / 3 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    At one time we were isolationist,then two world wars started( we were caught with our pants down) that we had to stop. Now we seem to constantly try to manipulate situations around the world in our favor so it won't happen again. Like Farmy says its a tough balancing act.
  6. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    Go back to isolationism. The last 50 years have been horrible. We became a superpower being isolationist, and now we're going to squander everything by stretching ourselves too thin. I am talking militarily, not in terms of charitable aid.
    Last edited: May 14, 2008
  7. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,428
    Likes Received:
    149
    Ratings:
    +306 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    At least National Defense is constitutionally called for; to what extent is certainly debatable and I'm all for leaving others to fight their own battles. Charitable aid ? No thanks. Let the government set up charities that people can donate to easily but the government should not be in the business of taking our money and sending it to foreign countries just because.
  8. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,247
    Likes Received:
    22
    Ratings:
    +30 / 3 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    RW I ran across this today along with some interesting comments

    Aid
    Overseas charity

    May 13th 2008
    From Economist.com
    Who gives most in private aid to poor countries?

    AMERICA'S government is frequently accused of stinginess when it comes to foreign aid: the official sort is just a tiny proportion of annual GDP. But donations from individuals and businesses are startlingly high. American private giving to poor countries amounted to $34.8 billion in 2006, dwarfing that of other rich nations, according to the Index of Global Philanthropy published on Monday May 12th by the Hudson Institute, a think-tank. An established culture of philanthropy and charity contributes to direct aid-giving, as does a generous tax regime. comments.....


    Raj2008, what a great comment "As for the Europeans, kindly spare the world of moralizing and finger-pointing , all the while living under American military protection."
    Years ago I was having dinner in Den Bosch in The Netherlands. Meanwhile, a few hundred miles away, ethnic cleansing was taking place in Serbia/Bosnia. I asked my Dutch hosts why the West European "powers" were sitting idly by while a mini-holocaust was taking place in their back yards. Their reply - they are waiting for America to take the lead.


    Coming from developing country, and also ex- worker for / with (WFP)the global food aid lead agency. I believe, I could claim to have certain degree or broader knowledge to the advantages and dis-advantages of food aid or overseas charity to developing countries.
    At the onset we need to differentiate two main issues:
    1. Is food / clothing needed? the answer is "yes" everybody needs it whether living in a developed or developing country; everyone one of us cooks food at his home, and I bet No one will refuse if free food is delivered at his door. But, the issue or difference is the emergency food or when is food needed due to the catastrophic or emergent causes where the developing nations lack the ability or necessary capacity and resilience to withstand this calamity or tragedy and consequently, request or need aid particluarly food and cloths to assist in mitigating the disaster of the affected populations or countries. This relief aid is of-course in state of need or immediate relief aid meant to save lives. But, the crucial question will be or is for how long this emergncy period will presist or how long it takes for the suffering affected population to come to their feet, same as we inquire a patient or sick person in hospital for how long he /she will continue to / or remain under medication?
    2. On otherhand, the continuation of relief aid or as termed above overseas charities to my opinion and experience does more harm than help to recipient counntries due to:
    (a) Primarily, it creates dependance syndrome where the target population or relief oriented population would wait the ready food counting remaining days like someone living on benefit.
    (b)It whittles away or destroyes psychlogical /physiologically devotion, enthusiasm and strength of will in earning bread.
    (c)The continuation of food aid or free food erodes the natural means of living imposing beneficiaries ignore their means of livelihood in fishing, breading and attending animals / farms.
    (d) It severely affects or blocks the normality of cultural civilization and development like business, small scale trading enviornment and interconnectedness of commerce.
    (e) The food aid changes or transforms the natural life cycle of agro-pastrolist closing the compatative life activity niche where people because of their efforts were making a degree of success by creating sluggishness and dependence on hand-outs.

    Finally, without aiming to harm the spirit of the donors, I beleive food aid does more harm than helping, it hinders and smears the moral and good intention of donating nations or sometimes individuals. Frankly speaking, it is the relief agencies and primerly the UN agencies and its staff who we could now label them as parasites living on the blood of the poor, exaggerate or embllish the condition and need of the aid. Since they enjoy fat salaries excercising inhuman and immoral acts. Thirdly, most of food aid gives leverage to authoritrian regimes who to larger extent are the principle or real causes of poverty and need by blocking development in their countries for the fear of loosing their grip power and dictatership.
    Recommend (2)
    Report Abuse
    U ViewsWire)
    May 15th 2008
    Last edited: May 15, 2008
  9. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    We can do everything on an as-needed basis and without the military bases all over the place. Our foreign bases and overall presence militarily has hurt us more than it has helped.

    My sig fits this thread to a T.
    Last edited: May 15, 2008

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>