5 ms·

Your comment is apparently stained by your political views. It is really far from reality, lacks substance and objectivity, and comes off as unhinged.

by swaits 2y ago

dopidopHN 2y ago
I had the same initial reaction but time will tell.
mexicocitinluez 2y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/15/opinion/foreign-aid-cuts-impact.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/15/opinion/forei... Which part exactly is "far from reality, lacks substance and objectivity"?
- anonym29 2y ago
  In lacking objectivity, is it not objectively false that "millions" have died from this?
  - mexicocitinluez 2y ago
    It's hyperbolic. People WILL die because this funding is cut. And the estimate IS millions.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      The reason people vehemently support the ending of USAID is because while they give aid with one hand, they simultaneously use the other to trigger instability that ultimately leads to conflicts and war. And if even if a single one of these wars can be prevented, you're looking at millions of lives saved - certainly if we include the displaced who lose everything. For instance here [1] is an article detailing various times USAID has been weaponized to try to overthrow various countries. A somewhat amusing one is them starting a Cuban social network with the goal of creating a "Cuban spring" uprising which failed and ultimately just turned into a giant honey pot for Cuban authorities. Recently USAID workers had a to spend an entire day shredding classified docs [2] including with offering guidance for what to do when the paper shredders 'need a rest.' You don't classify operations that are done transparently and in good faith. And this is not even touching on the massive corruption in the entire operation when you end up shipping billions of dollars to loosely accountable NGOs who in turn hand it off to other groups and on down a line to some small amount eventually gets genuinely spent. USAID was involved in the Haiti Earthquake efforts where hundreds of millions of dollars were spent, on something, to eventually construct a total of 6 permanent housing units. [3] Whatever good USAID may have done, could be far more effectively done by another organization without all of their baggage and corruption. --- [1] - https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/04/03/cuban-twitter-and-other-times-usaid-pretended-to-be-an-intelligence-agency/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/04/03/cuban-twitter-and-other... (archive) https://archive.is/IQl36 https://archive.is/IQl36 [2] - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/11/usaid-staff-documents https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/11/usaid-staff-... [3] - https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-...
      - rbanffy 2y ago
        > without all of their baggage and corruption. It's not corruption - it's all by design. USAID is the soft-power side of foreign policy. Aid is distributed according to political needs and the desire to influence and produce specific outcomes for certain groups, while maintaining a notion of fairness and generosity and facilitating diplomacy. Still, objectively speaking, millions will die because the US threw out the baby with the bath water.
        antifa 2y ago
        But it also looks like they threw the baby out on purpose while intentionally misleadingly marketing themselves as bathwater dumpers.
        rbanffy 2y ago
        Oh yes. The destruction of trust in public democratic institutions is part of the plan.
      - Smeevy 2y ago
        >Whatever good USAID may have done, could be far more effectively done by another organization without all of their baggage and corruption. So what exactly is being proposed to fill in the gaps created by getting rid of it? Where is this perfect organization that will step in (with appropriate funding) to continue all of the good works and none of the bad? If we're to assume that the goal in destroying USAID was to end corruption, then it stands to reason that a thoughtful and effective replacement would have been considered prior to its dismantling. The absence of such a replacement and the lack of any discussion pertaining to it renders your argument disingenuous.
        somenameforme 2y ago
        The nature of our political system is such that in the future, whether in 4 years or 12, the 'other side' will be in control and generally work to undo what the previous administration did, even if only out of spite. So most of the stuff being cancelled in contemporary times should be viewed more as being rebooted, with a bit of a delay. But personally I would question whether just giving things to people is truly helping them. For instance take the earlier NYTimes post talking about USAID providing AIDS medicine. If we truly care about Africa's AIDS issue, then why are we just providing medicine instead of helping them to building out manufacturing/labs in Africa, independently manned, and capable of independently producing generic medicine without foreign assistance? USAID was funded with tens of billions of dollars. How much does one lab/plant cost? In any case, shouldn't the goal of truly benevolent aid to create a scenario where you will realistically no longer need to provide aid in the future? Of course if you teach a man to fish, that man's no longer dependent upon you. But if you just give a man a fish each day, he'll do whatever you demand to keep getting that fish.
    - bigstrat2003 2y ago
      Saying "millions have died" when nobody has died is disingenuous, even if one honestly projects that millions will die. You don't get to use the past tense until the event actually happens.
  - systemdlover 2y ago
    Realistically, it will be at least in the tens of millions

Your comment is apparently stained by your political views. It is really far from reality, lacks substance and objectivity, and comes off as unhinged.

by swaits 2y ago

Your comment is apparently stained by your political views. It is really far from reality, lacks substance and objectivity, and comes off as unhinged.

dopidopHN 2y ago

I had the same initial reaction but time will tell.

mexicocitinluez 2y ago

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/15/opinion/foreign-aid-cuts-impact.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/15/opinion/forei... Which part exactly is "far from reality, lacks substance and objectivity"?

anonym29 2y ago
In lacking objectivity, is it not objectively false that "millions" have died from this?
- mexicocitinluez 2y ago
  It's hyperbolic. People WILL die because this funding is cut. And the estimate IS millions.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    The reason people vehemently support the ending of USAID is because while they give aid with one hand, they simultaneously use the other to trigger instability that ultimately leads to conflicts and war. And if even if a single one of these wars can be prevented, you're looking at millions of lives saved - certainly if we include the displaced who lose everything. For instance here [1] is an article detailing various times USAID has been weaponized to try to overthrow various countries. A somewhat amusing one is them starting a Cuban social network with the goal of creating a "Cuban spring" uprising which failed and ultimately just turned into a giant honey pot for Cuban authorities. Recently USAID workers had a to spend an entire day shredding classified docs [2] including with offering guidance for what to do when the paper shredders 'need a rest.' You don't classify operations that are done transparently and in good faith. And this is not even touching on the massive corruption in the entire operation when you end up shipping billions of dollars to loosely accountable NGOs who in turn hand it off to other groups and on down a line to some small amount eventually gets genuinely spent. USAID was involved in the Haiti Earthquake efforts where hundreds of millions of dollars were spent, on something, to eventually construct a total of 6 permanent housing units. [3] Whatever good USAID may have done, could be far more effectively done by another organization without all of their baggage and corruption. --- [1] - https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/04/03/cuban-twitter-and-other-times-usaid-pretended-to-be-an-intelligence-agency/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/04/03/cuban-twitter-and-other... (archive) https://archive.is/IQl36 https://archive.is/IQl36 [2] - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/11/usaid-staff-documents https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/11/usaid-staff-... [3] - https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-...
    - rbanffy 2y ago
      > without all of their baggage and corruption. It's not corruption - it's all by design. USAID is the soft-power side of foreign policy. Aid is distributed according to political needs and the desire to influence and produce specific outcomes for certain groups, while maintaining a notion of fairness and generosity and facilitating diplomacy. Still, objectively speaking, millions will die because the US threw out the baby with the bath water.
      - antifa 2y ago
        But it also looks like they threw the baby out on purpose while intentionally misleadingly marketing themselves as bathwater dumpers.
        rbanffy 2y ago
        Oh yes. The destruction of trust in public democratic institutions is part of the plan.
    - Smeevy 2y ago
      >Whatever good USAID may have done, could be far more effectively done by another organization without all of their baggage and corruption. So what exactly is being proposed to fill in the gaps created by getting rid of it? Where is this perfect organization that will step in (with appropriate funding) to continue all of the good works and none of the bad? If we're to assume that the goal in destroying USAID was to end corruption, then it stands to reason that a thoughtful and effective replacement would have been considered prior to its dismantling. The absence of such a replacement and the lack of any discussion pertaining to it renders your argument disingenuous.
      - somenameforme 2y ago
        The nature of our political system is such that in the future, whether in 4 years or 12, the 'other side' will be in control and generally work to undo what the previous administration did, even if only out of spite. So most of the stuff being cancelled in contemporary times should be viewed more as being rebooted, with a bit of a delay. But personally I would question whether just giving things to people is truly helping them. For instance take the earlier NYTimes post talking about USAID providing AIDS medicine. If we truly care about Africa's AIDS issue, then why are we just providing medicine instead of helping them to building out manufacturing/labs in Africa, independently manned, and capable of independently producing generic medicine without foreign assistance? USAID was funded with tens of billions of dollars. How much does one lab/plant cost? In any case, shouldn't the goal of truly benevolent aid to create a scenario where you will realistically no longer need to provide aid in the future? Of course if you teach a man to fish, that man's no longer dependent upon you. But if you just give a man a fish each day, he'll do whatever you demand to keep getting that fish.
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    Saying "millions have died" when nobody has died is disingenuous, even if one honestly projects that millions will die. You don't get to use the past tense until the event actually happens.
- systemdlover 2y ago
  Realistically, it will be at least in the tens of millions