Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Stop Providing Relief to Foreign Lands

mvarghese
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2016 3:22:06 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
The United States has spent billions of dollars in the past on sending relief to areas that have fallen victim to natural disaster. Haiti, being one of the most prominent examples of how the tax payers dollars are being wasted. In the earthquake that struck Haiti in 2010, the U.S. sent billions to help them rebuild their nation- not to mention the excessive amounts of resources we also sent to them. The question I raise is, did any of that money really help them? Why should the U.S. be spending so much towards helping other nations that probably look down on us, our culture, and our way of living?

From what I have come to realize, in the long run, Haiti was barely impacted by the funds we gave them. It may have helped them in the moment, but a few months pass and everything returns to how it was in the beginning. Now- the U.S. is out a few billion dollars, and nothing else has changed.

When we continuously provide support for these type of nations, we become responsible for them. Now that Hurricane Matthew has struck Haiti just recently, we are once again responsible for helping them rebuild. I don't think we should have to be in this position until all problems in the U.S. are resolved. Why should we have to take care of homeless people in third- world countries when there are over half a million right here in the United States?
RayOfWisdom
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 7:37:58 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/9/2016 3:22:06 PM, mvarghese wrote:
The United States has spent billions of dollars in the past on sending relief to areas that have fallen victim to natural disaster. Haiti, being one of the most prominent examples of how the tax payers dollars are being wasted. In the earthquake that struck Haiti in 2010, the U.S. sent billions to help them rebuild their nation- not to mention the excessive amounts of resources we also sent to them. The question I raise is, did any of that money really help them? Why should the U.S. be spending so much towards helping other nations that probably look down on us, our culture, and our way of living?

From what I have come to realize, in the long run, Haiti was barely impacted by the funds we gave them. It may have helped them in the moment, but a few months pass and everything returns to how it was in the beginning. Now- the U.S. is out a few billion dollars, and nothing else has changed.

When we continuously provide support for these type of nations, we become responsible for them. Now that Hurricane Matthew has struck Haiti just recently, we are once again responsible for helping them rebuild. I don't think we should have to be in this position until all problems in the U.S. are resolved. Why should we have to take care of homeless people in third- world countries when there are over half a million right here in the United States?

You make a good point. I agree that it seems unfair when the U.S. provides aid to foreign lands despite our own homeless and impoverished populations. But I invite you to consider a few counterpoints
1) Do wealthy, powerful nations not have a moral obligation to help wherever possible? As I contemplate ethical/charitable giving, a quote from J.K. Rowling comes to mind: "I think you have a moral responsibility, when you"ve been given far more than you need, to do wise things with it and give intelligently." I wonder how anyone to whom it applies could think otherwise.
2) Problems don't go away just by throwing money at them. Funding has to be smart, wisely managed, and judiciously carried out.
3) Waiting for all of the problems in the U.S. to go away before aiding foreign lands will mean that the U.S. never does get involved. Here, I invite you to empathize: how would you feel, as a human being, if you were a Haitian whose home had been ravaged? I think that is what motivates wise and just giving.
Javier-Riefkohl
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 7:57:37 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
As the previous post suggest, it is not about just giving them a bunch of money and the situation ends there. In order for the tax payer to see that their money isn't just being given away freely, as the relief teams and whoever is responsible for giving the aid, they should invest the money properly and teach the locals how to maintain it. Example; after a hurricane ravages their land the U.S. could provide monetary help in forms of rebuilding farms. Then after that has been accomplished, inspire, teach and provide the means for the locals to keep that farm functioning. That way they can grow their own food again, helps their economy and the U.S. does not have to be involved anymore and the money isn't "wasted". However if the locals show no intention of preserving the help the U.S. sends, that a whole different story where I might agree with you in saying that then the U.S should not spend their time or money on those who do not want to help themselves.
JavierRiefkohl
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,675
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 9:01:47 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
This is the same way in Africa. Western nations dump many billions of dollars in foreign aid, but it never helps them in any way. Whenever we send aid to them, it is either stolen by somali pirates, burned by terrorists, taken by corrupt politicians to only benefit themselves, etc.

Africa is just too corrupt and instable to help via direct aid. I would promote pushing efforts for political change to such issues like this.
TeaPatriot
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2016 1:22:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 9:01:47 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
This is the same way in Africa. Western nations dump many billions of dollars in foreign aid, but it never helps them in any way. Whenever we send aid to them, it is either stolen by somali pirates, burned by terrorists, taken by corrupt politicians to only benefit themselves, etc.

Africa is just too corrupt and instable to help via direct aid. I would promote pushing efforts for political change to such issues like this.

We could imperialize the african countries
Chairman of Economic Forum Recovery
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,675
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2016 7:02:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/20/2016 1:22:45 PM, TeaPatriot wrote:
At 10/19/2016 9:01:47 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
This is the same way in Africa. Western nations dump many billions of dollars in foreign aid, but it never helps them in any way. Whenever we send aid to them, it is either stolen by somali pirates, burned by terrorists, taken by corrupt politicians to only benefit themselves, etc.

Africa is just too corrupt and instable to help via direct aid. I would promote pushing efforts for political change to such issues like this.

We could imperialize the african countries

To be honest, Africa would be in a much better situation today if it were still controlled by Europe. I mean, the colonial powers wouldn't have accepted corruption and starve their population.
TeaPatriot
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2016 7:03:51 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/20/2016 7:02:11 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 10/20/2016 1:22:45 PM, TeaPatriot wrote:
At 10/19/2016 9:01:47 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
This is the same way in Africa. Western nations dump many billions of dollars in foreign aid, but it never helps them in any way. Whenever we send aid to them, it is either stolen by somali pirates, burned by terrorists, taken by corrupt politicians to only benefit themselves, etc.

Africa is just too corrupt and instable to help via direct aid. I would promote pushing efforts for political change to such issues like this.

We could imperialize the african countries

To be honest, Africa would be in a much better situation today if it were still controlled by Europe. I mean, the colonial powers wouldn't have accepted corruption and starve their population.

Yeah people give the brits flak for apartheid in south africa but if you compare south africa eith any other african nation its not even close on hoe good the south Africans have it
Chairman of Economic Forum Recovery
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,675
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2016 7:06:18 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/20/2016 7:03:51 PM, TeaPatriot wrote:
At 10/20/2016 7:02:11 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 10/20/2016 1:22:45 PM, TeaPatriot wrote:
At 10/19/2016 9:01:47 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
This is the same way in Africa. Western nations dump many billions of dollars in foreign aid, but it never helps them in any way. Whenever we send aid to them, it is either stolen by somali pirates, burned by terrorists, taken by corrupt politicians to only benefit themselves, etc.

Africa is just too corrupt and instable to help via direct aid. I would promote pushing efforts for political change to such issues like this.

We could imperialize the african countries

To be honest, Africa would be in a much better situation today if it were still controlled by Europe. I mean, the colonial powers wouldn't have accepted corruption and starve their population.

Yeah people give the brits flak for apartheid in south africa but if you compare south africa eith any other african nation its not even close on hoe good the south Africans have it

The British didn't develop the apartheid, it was created by the National Party (basically a party of radical Afrikaner nationalists). If the British held on to South Africa longer, apartheid would probably have not developed.