3 ms·
"it would be a great humanitarian thing, plus a show of strength for one of our key Pacific allies" Are you suggesting that there is excess money for something
by larrys 13y ago
"it would be a great humanitarian thing, plus a show of strength for one of our key Pacific allies"
Are you suggesting that there is excess money for something like this in the Navy budget? There are an unlimited number of things that we could do to make the world better and we can't do all of them. Like in business you have to undertake a cost/benefit analysis and see if it makes sense then to do or not. Not to mention how many people die in this country that would live if that money was spent here?
- rdl 13y agoWe do stupid exercises all the time which use more money than altering a patrol to go to the region and offloading water/food/fuel. The funding could be moved from usaid as well. In general we should basically do anything do anything less than billions to win over Vietnam, PI, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and show our alliance with SK, Japan, and Taiwan, and build friendship with China. A billion invested in that probably is 10b in expected savings in avoiding future war.
- dtl352 13y agoThat's an Americentric viewpoint. There's no need to "win over" anybody. If the US wants to regain trust and increase soft power, it should be helping based on genuine altruism and mutual respect, not for underlying political motives.
- mpyne 13y agoDon't be silly, even "genuine altruism" is still at best self-serving in the end. "I do this good thing for you because it makes me feel better about my contribution to the world". Likewise when the U.S. engaged in the Marshall Plan way back when, there were very obvious ulterior motives for the U.S. (a bulwark against Communist spread, expansion of the U.S. economy to supply our Western European allies, etc.), but that didn't invalidate the actual physical assistance rendered either.