4 ms·

The US is not responsible for fixing every world issue. Just because they've helped in the past doesn't make them morally responsible for every current and futu

The US is not responsible for fixing every world issue. Just because they've helped in the past doesn't make them morally responsible for every current and future crisis.

lanstin 1y ago
No but keeping Ebola from becoming a world wide problem is in the US interests and USAID was a very cheap way to advance that goal. We funded USAID out of decency (and to gain a reputation for decency, which is worth a lot of money) sure, but also to protect ourselves.
- cyberjerkXX 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - bonsai_spool 1y ago
    > Sounds like a job for the WHO - maybe the UN can do it's job. Ah, the WHO that has recently lost money from its largest contributor, a contributor that unexpectedly stopped its contributions without explanation.
    - BJones12 1y ago
      Good thing it's called the World Health Organization and not the American Health Organization, that way the 95.9% of the world that is not America can contribute to it.
      - bonsai_spool 1y ago
        > Good thing it's called the World Health Organization and not the American Health Organization, that way the 95.9% of the world that is not America can contribute to it. First, imagine that your boss/largest customer decided, on a whim, to reduce your remuneration by half on the first of January. Where are you making up that money if there's nowhere else in the world that you can immediately turn to? Anyway, other nations are spending more. The World Health Organization and UN are just politically convenient names. These organizations were created by a victorious America to project power, like the takeover of UK military bases and exportation of US culture in the Marshall Plan. How reprehensible that we throw away such power without receiving anything in exchange. [1] Helpful example - we initially blocked penicillin production in other countries, despite having joined WHO, in furtherance of American interests https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-cold-wars-lasting-effect-on-todays-antibiotic-resistance-2159 https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-cold-wars-lasting-effec...
    - cyberjerkXX 1y ago
      There you go again -you want the US government to solve the world's problems. Also, you're passively calling the WHO an infective organization because it can't handle this outbreak on its own without US funding. That implies it's a useless organization and therefore the US was justified removing funding. Maybe you should be advocating for the 194 member states of the WHO to contribute more so the world doesn't need to rely on the political winds of the US election cycle.
      - bonsai_spool 1y ago
        I replied to one of your sibling posts. You can re-interpret these facts as you wish, but the WHO was working in December and radically transformed in February. I think that indicates inefficacy and poor insight, but not in the WHO.
      - mindslight 1y ago
        > the US government to solve the world's problems It's called leading. You've voluntarily thrown in the towel on US leadership. Good job.
- gottorf 1y ago
  > (and to gain a reputation for decency, which is worth a lot of money) And how is America's reputation for decency doing these days, a mere year into cutting some of this funding?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
atomicnumber3 1y ago
That which you did not do for the least of these, you also did not do for me.
- blargthorwars 1y ago
  It's easy to demand that other people be generous with their resources.
  - bonsai_spool 1y ago
    >> That which you did not do for the least of these, you also did not do for me. > It's easy to demand that other people be generous with their resources. This is a reference to the Bible, a sentence that Jesus delivered.
- gottorf 1y ago
  I'm not a highly religious person so I may well be wrong about this, but my understanding of Christian principles (as you referenced in your Bible quote) is that you, the individual, should do these kind things to other individuals personally; and in that act of doing so personally, you become closer to God. What we have instead is that taxes are collected by an entity with the monopoly on violence (and of course, it's understood that the people making more than you are not paying their "fair share") whether you like it or not, spent by people who generally have boundless disdain for the very people who pay those taxes, on people and causes on the other side of the planet. There's no connection between people, or between people and God, in this scenario.
  - bonsai_spool 1y ago
    > I'm not a highly religious person so I may well be wrong about this, but my understanding of Christian principles (as you referenced in your Bible quote) is that you, the individual, should do these kind things to other individuals personally; and in that act of doing so personally, you become closer to God. Why not read the verse and see that this refers to collections of people? The source material is readily available, no reason to speculate. https://biblehub.com/nkjv/matthew/25.htm https://biblehub.com/nkjv/matthew/25.htm
bonsai_spool 1y ago
>> It receives relatively little attention now, but in terms of sheer numbers the cuts to the USAID program have had and will continue to have the largest death toll of anything this administration does. > The US is not responsible for fixing every world issue. Just because they've helped in the past doesn't make them morally responsible for every current and future crisis. Your answer doesn't quite respond to the GP but instead feels like an expression of political opinion. From a moral stance, the action of stopping something seems quite distinct from a position in which the thing had never occurred.
pwarner 1y ago
I think helping control ebola pays a few dividends for the US. It was not completely selfless.
kerningije 1y ago
No dollar was ever spent by the US government outside of the US if not in self interest. Failing to see these cuts as sabotaging US interests is very, very naïve.
JoeAltmaier 1y ago
It's simple self-interest. Sure, sit on your money and smile while your neighbors die of Ebola. It won't happen here? Sure it could. When the chumps in DC tear down the infrastructure that managed things like this, then we become massively vulnerable.

The US is not responsible for fixing every world issue. Just because they've helped in the past doesn't make them morally responsible for every current and future crisis.

lanstin 1y ago

No but keeping Ebola from becoming a world wide problem is in the US interests and USAID was a very cheap way to advance that goal. We funded USAID out of decency (and to gain a reputation for decency, which is worth a lot of money) sure, but also to protect ourselves.

cyberjerkXX 1y ago
[flagged]
- bonsai_spool 1y ago
  > Sounds like a job for the WHO - maybe the UN can do it's job. Ah, the WHO that has recently lost money from its largest contributor, a contributor that unexpectedly stopped its contributions without explanation.
  - BJones12 1y ago
    Good thing it's called the World Health Organization and not the American Health Organization, that way the 95.9% of the world that is not America can contribute to it.
    - bonsai_spool 1y ago
      > Good thing it's called the World Health Organization and not the American Health Organization, that way the 95.9% of the world that is not America can contribute to it. First, imagine that your boss/largest customer decided, on a whim, to reduce your remuneration by half on the first of January. Where are you making up that money if there's nowhere else in the world that you can immediately turn to? Anyway, other nations are spending more. The World Health Organization and UN are just politically convenient names. These organizations were created by a victorious America to project power, like the takeover of UK military bases and exportation of US culture in the Marshall Plan. How reprehensible that we throw away such power without receiving anything in exchange. [1] Helpful example - we initially blocked penicillin production in other countries, despite having joined WHO, in furtherance of American interests https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-cold-wars-lasting-effect-on-todays-antibiotic-resistance-2159 https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-cold-wars-lasting-effec...
  - cyberjerkXX 1y ago
    There you go again -you want the US government to solve the world's problems. Also, you're passively calling the WHO an infective organization because it can't handle this outbreak on its own without US funding. That implies it's a useless organization and therefore the US was justified removing funding. Maybe you should be advocating for the 194 member states of the WHO to contribute more so the world doesn't need to rely on the political winds of the US election cycle.
    - bonsai_spool 1y ago
      I replied to one of your sibling posts. You can re-interpret these facts as you wish, but the WHO was working in December and radically transformed in February. I think that indicates inefficacy and poor insight, but not in the WHO.
    - mindslight 1y ago
      > the US government to solve the world's problems It's called leading. You've voluntarily thrown in the towel on US leadership. Good job.
gottorf 1y ago
> (and to gain a reputation for decency, which is worth a lot of money) And how is America's reputation for decency doing these days, a mere year into cutting some of this funding?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

atomicnumber3 1y ago

That which you did not do for the least of these, you also did not do for me.

blargthorwars 1y ago
It's easy to demand that other people be generous with their resources.
- bonsai_spool 1y ago
  >> That which you did not do for the least of these, you also did not do for me. > It's easy to demand that other people be generous with their resources. This is a reference to the Bible, a sentence that Jesus delivered.
gottorf 1y ago
I'm not a highly religious person so I may well be wrong about this, but my understanding of Christian principles (as you referenced in your Bible quote) is that you, the individual, should do these kind things to other individuals personally; and in that act of doing so personally, you become closer to God. What we have instead is that taxes are collected by an entity with the monopoly on violence (and of course, it's understood that the people making more than you are not paying their "fair share") whether you like it or not, spent by people who generally have boundless disdain for the very people who pay those taxes, on people and causes on the other side of the planet. There's no connection between people, or between people and God, in this scenario.
- bonsai_spool 1y ago
  > I'm not a highly religious person so I may well be wrong about this, but my understanding of Christian principles (as you referenced in your Bible quote) is that you, the individual, should do these kind things to other individuals personally; and in that act of doing so personally, you become closer to God. Why not read the verse and see that this refers to collections of people? The source material is readily available, no reason to speculate. https://biblehub.com/nkjv/matthew/25.htm https://biblehub.com/nkjv/matthew/25.htm

bonsai_spool 1y ago

>> It receives relatively little attention now, but in terms of sheer numbers the cuts to the USAID program have had and will continue to have the largest death toll of anything this administration does. > The US is not responsible for fixing every world issue. Just because they've helped in the past doesn't make them morally responsible for every current and future crisis. Your answer doesn't quite respond to the GP but instead feels like an expression of political opinion. From a moral stance, the action of stopping something seems quite distinct from a position in which the thing had never occurred.

pwarner 1y ago

I think helping control ebola pays a few dividends for the US. It was not completely selfless.

kerningije 1y ago

No dollar was ever spent by the US government outside of the US if not in self interest. Failing to see these cuts as sabotaging US interests is very, very naïve.

JoeAltmaier 1y ago

It's simple self-interest. Sure, sit on your money and smile while your neighbors die of Ebola. It won't happen here? Sure it could. When the chumps in DC tear down the infrastructure that managed things like this, then we become massively vulnerable.