3 ms·

Speaking as an American -- to say no arguably puts us on a moral footing like North Korea's -- playing political hardball at the expense of innocent people.

John23832 10y ago
I agree. It's a shitty situation either way. But really, to give them even MORE food that we already do, would be enabling abusers. They get fed if they play ball. (Problems with the continent aside) Look at how much we break our backs to feed Africa. We do it because it's the right thing to do. At a certain point though, the politicians have to be held responsible to the people. And people are never more hungry for change, than when they are hungry for food.
- placeybordeaux 10y ago
  > They get fed if they play ball. (Problems with the continent aside) Look at how much we break our backs to feed Africa. We do it because it's the right thing to do. What are you referring to? Aid given outside the context of a specific crisis is fairly destructive. What that can do is drag the price of food down below what farmers in the region can work with.
  - John23832 10y ago
    If I implied that we just dump food into Africa, that's not what I meant. We make a concerted effort to feed people there. I'm well aware of the economic implications of flooding the (already fragile) food markets of developing countries.
- linkregister 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure the U.S. doesn't provide food aid to African nations anymore; when it was occurring it was considered a subsidy to U.S. farmers at the expense of dumping food on local markets and destroying local agriculture. U.S. foreign aid to developing nations is now delivered in the form of grants to local NGOs to help improve local farming practices, infrastructure (water wells mostly), and also military aid (aid earmarked to buying U.S.-made weaponry). As a percentage of federal spending, foreign aid amounts to less than one percent, dominated by aid to Israel and Egypt. West, Central, and Eastern African aid is not a significantly high percentage of U.S. federal spending. I agree with your point about enabling abusers, I just thought I should let you know that U.S. foreign aid is more sophisticated than simply dumping food on local markets.
  - John23832 10y ago
    I didn't mean to say we just dump food in Africa. I meant that we make a concerted effort to direct food there.
Dylan16807 10y ago
Remember that the endgame worry here is a lot more innocent people getting nuked. It's not about keeping a political bargaining chip away from the country. It's the very real risk posed by a despot.
linkregister 10y ago
On the other hand, the humane responses of the rest of the world help to subsidize weapons development by the North Korean/DPRK government at the expense of developing sustainable agriculture and infrastructure. I view this as a weakness that the DPRK administration repeatedly exploits. I'm unresolved as to whether the U.S. should provide the aid. But to insist that the relationship between withholding food aid and the West's moral culpability is to ignore the guilt of the DPRK administration.
btilly 10y ago
Suppose that a hostage taker regularly brings out hostages, holding a gun to their head, asks for food, then takes the hostages back inside to repeat the process again. The permanent misery that the hostages are in is provably due to the hostage taker's unreasonable demands interfering with their lives. After how many rounds of this does continuing to feed the hostages make you complicit in their problems? After how many rounds of this would you say that it is reasonable to insist that the hostage taker does not get more no matter what they threaten until they ACTUALLY give something up? I believe that we are long past this point with North Korea.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
tw04 10y ago
How so? They've directly aligned themselves with China and Russia. If that's who they want to align themselves with, that's who they should ask for aid. Until those two stop supporting NKs actions, their actions aren't going to change. It's a lot easier for NK to make demands when they've got two 400lbs older brothers standing behind them at the negotiation table.

John23832 10y ago

I agree. It's a shitty situation either way. But really, to give them even MORE food that we already do, would be enabling abusers. They get fed if they play ball. (Problems with the continent aside) Look at how much we break our backs to feed Africa. We do it because it's the right thing to do. At a certain point though, the politicians have to be held responsible to the people. And people are never more hungry for change, than when they are hungry for food.

placeybordeaux 10y ago
> They get fed if they play ball. (Problems with the continent aside) Look at how much we break our backs to feed Africa. We do it because it's the right thing to do. What are you referring to? Aid given outside the context of a specific crisis is fairly destructive. What that can do is drag the price of food down below what farmers in the region can work with.
- John23832 10y ago
  If I implied that we just dump food into Africa, that's not what I meant. We make a concerted effort to feed people there. I'm well aware of the economic implications of flooding the (already fragile) food markets of developing countries.
linkregister 10y ago
I'm pretty sure the U.S. doesn't provide food aid to African nations anymore; when it was occurring it was considered a subsidy to U.S. farmers at the expense of dumping food on local markets and destroying local agriculture. U.S. foreign aid to developing nations is now delivered in the form of grants to local NGOs to help improve local farming practices, infrastructure (water wells mostly), and also military aid (aid earmarked to buying U.S.-made weaponry). As a percentage of federal spending, foreign aid amounts to less than one percent, dominated by aid to Israel and Egypt. West, Central, and Eastern African aid is not a significantly high percentage of U.S. federal spending. I agree with your point about enabling abusers, I just thought I should let you know that U.S. foreign aid is more sophisticated than simply dumping food on local markets.
- John23832 10y ago
  I didn't mean to say we just dump food in Africa. I meant that we make a concerted effort to direct food there.

Dylan16807 10y ago

Remember that the endgame worry here is a lot more innocent people getting nuked. It's not about keeping a political bargaining chip away from the country. It's the very real risk posed by a despot.

linkregister 10y ago

On the other hand, the humane responses of the rest of the world help to subsidize weapons development by the North Korean/DPRK government at the expense of developing sustainable agriculture and infrastructure. I view this as a weakness that the DPRK administration repeatedly exploits. I'm unresolved as to whether the U.S. should provide the aid. But to insist that the relationship between withholding food aid and the West's moral culpability is to ignore the guilt of the DPRK administration.

btilly 10y ago

Suppose that a hostage taker regularly brings out hostages, holding a gun to their head, asks for food, then takes the hostages back inside to repeat the process again. The permanent misery that the hostages are in is provably due to the hostage taker's unreasonable demands interfering with their lives. After how many rounds of this does continuing to feed the hostages make you complicit in their problems? After how many rounds of this would you say that it is reasonable to insist that the hostage taker does not get more no matter what they threaten until they ACTUALLY give something up? I believe that we are long past this point with North Korea.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

tw04 10y ago

How so? They've directly aligned themselves with China and Russia. If that's who they want to align themselves with, that's who they should ask for aid. Until those two stop supporting NKs actions, their actions aren't going to change. It's a lot easier for NK to make demands when they've got two 400lbs older brothers standing behind them at the negotiation table.