3 ms·
>At what speed should it be disassembled? A responsible pace that doesn't result in abrupt mass deaths due to the lack of aid continuity. >A. The US should gi
by rl3 1y ago
>At what speed should it be disassembled?
A responsible pace that doesn't result in abrupt mass deaths due to the lack of aid continuity.
>A. The US should give infinity money to everyone forever and never stop. If anyone ever dies, it's the US's fault for not supporting them enough.
Nobody said that, but with operating the world's largest aid agency for the better part of a century comes massive responsibility.
>B. If you are going to stop, do it on the schedule of the people who are getting free stuff, and only stop when they decide they don't want free stuff anymore (i.e. never).
You're right. Hopefully those impoverished kids (many of whom are dead now) take some personal responsibility for themselves in the afterlife. To think we'd even entertain pulling their food and medicine on their schedule and not our schedule.
- msgodel 1y agoWe were trying to have nuanced discussions about these things 10 years ago and were ignored. The time for going slowly was then. Now things are just going to get done.
- imgabe 1y ago> You're right. Hopefully those impoverished kids (many of whom are dead now) take some personal responsibility for themselves in the afterlife. To think we'd even entertain pulling their food and medicine on their schedule and not our schedule. The children? No, but their parents and the other adults running their country. That is who is responsible for providing for them. Americans have their own children they need to take care of and do not need their money seized and sent overseas to take care of other people's children. And yes, maybe it is a "rug pull" but it was always going to be. It is immoral to engender such dependence in the first place, like keeping someone slightly poisoned so they're constantly sick and dependent on you to take care of them. Let people grow strong so they can take care of themselves and treat with them as equals.
- rl3 1y ago>Americans have their own children they need to take care of and do not need their money seized and sent overseas to take care of other people's children. You talk as if it's a zero-sum game, as if the two choices are mutually exclusive. >And yes, maybe it is a "rug pull" but it was always going to be. No reason it had to be.
- imgabe 1y agoIt is zero sum. How is it not? This is not an investment. It is not going to create future tax revenue for the US. It is just keeping people barely alive in crippling poverty for a little bit longer than they would otherwise.
- const_cast 1y agoIMO it is an investment and it will bring future revenue to the US. Because this fosters working relationship with other countries, countries that we ultimately rely on for their resources. Because they have a working relationship with the US, they're willing to give us some pretty sweet deals. If you look at Africa, it has the most wealth by resources out of any continent. It's also the poorest continent nominally. We're getting a lot of good stuff at INSANE discounts. What I'm describing is, of course, colonialist in nature. The US is an empire, not a nation. But, the hope is that as we help those countries develop they can help us stay developed, and we can eventually reach some mutually beneficial equilibrium. Instead of exploitation. But, currently, the relationship is exploitative. It's a bit wild to me that you legitimately think the US, of all countries, is being exploited. No bubba... no. We do the exploiting. Everything you own is build with layers and layers of global exploitation built into it. You have a few hundred slaves working for you as we speak.