Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) suggested on the House floor that because the phrase "humanitarian aid for women and children in Afghanistan" is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, such aid is unconstitutional.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development
USAID states that “U.S. foreign assistance has always had the twofold purpose of furthering America’s foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of the citizens of the developing world.” Non-government organization watch groups have noted that as much as 40% of aid to Afghanistan has found its way back to donor countries through awarding contracts at inflated costs.
That money comes with financial attachments. You’re better off giving to international organizations.
I’m not sure your quote is having the impact you think - yes, we give aid not just for moral reasons but to further extend our influence in region. That’s a big part of what has made the US the absolute powerhouse that it is - through hegemony, soft power, and hard power. Hard power in the ME has failed, so now we are trying soft power and hegemony
If a straw man would get you to home the homeless, instead of worrying about a woman in a burka halfway around the world, then yes. And before you say we can do both; then why don’t we?
I’m steel-manning the homeless. Trying to get you to understand that capitalism and colonialism caused the situation that made Afghanistan need aid. If they can get you to focus on the world’s problems, you’ll forget that there’s problems at home.
You don’t have any ways to handle the problem, your previous comments don’t even show you care about the problem. You just don’t want your taxpayer money spent on it.
And I will add: I would bet everything to say that the money wouldn’t go to anything helpful to you, let alone back into your pocket.
Jordan Peterson says to “clean your room.” America needs to clean its room before cleaning the world. I want to be taxed more, but I want that money to go to Americans, preferably the homeless
America is not the main protagonist. Other countries are doing other things. No one is asking the US to be a hero and save third world countries, they’re asking for aid which every Western country is involved in.
The US spent two decades sapping what resources the country had in the name of “bringing democracy” and then just abandoned them to the Taliban. Humanitarian aid is the bare minimum for any wealthy country, let alone the one that fucked everything up.
I agree. The point and question I was trying to explore was: Should the country that burned down the house be the one that offers to rebuild it? We could give that money to international organizations. Maybe they will. Which is good. The article doesn’t say that though, it just wants you to hate Republicans.
Yes the country that burned down the house should ABSOLUTELY help pay for the rebuilding and it can by law not give money to NGOs to do it as that would jeopardise their neutrality. As for private citizens voluntarily donating to humanitarian aid charities, that’s unreliable at the best of times and dwindles significantly as the economic situation of the people worsens.
And yeah, regardless of anything else, it IS justified to spend a lot of time criticizing something that is genuinely abhorrent, such as wanting to deprive starving and oppressed people of aid under the flimsiest of pretenses.
Why does American taxpayers have to fund aid for the rest of the world? Not morally, practically. Why can’t Japan or Germany do this?
https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/middle_e/afghanistan/assist0901.html
Did you even look?
Wow, that’s great. Now we don’t have to give aid.
Or we could because we have a long history of helping people, which shows them that maybe we’re not evil.
Yeah, I think its interesting how the humanitarian rations the US donates are labeled “Food gift from the People of the United States of America.” It seems to largely want to make it clear its coming from the US.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=iKfWQ3Sij68
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development USAID states that “U.S. foreign assistance has always had the twofold purpose of furthering America’s foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of the citizens of the developing world.” Non-government organization watch groups have noted that as much as 40% of aid to Afghanistan has found its way back to donor countries through awarding contracts at inflated costs. That money comes with financial attachments. You’re better off giving to international organizations.
I’m not sure your quote is having the impact you think - yes, we give aid not just for moral reasons but to further extend our influence in region. That’s a big part of what has made the US the absolute powerhouse that it is - through hegemony, soft power, and hard power. Hard power in the ME has failed, so now we are trying soft power and hegemony
So instead of thinking “Oh we should do this since every other nation is doing it. It’s not abnormal”
You think “Let’s let some other chump take the loss”
Says a lot about you.
He says as he steps over the homeless guy outside his door.
So no denial, just a strawman
Got it.
If a straw man would get you to home the homeless, instead of worrying about a woman in a burka halfway around the world, then yes. And before you say we can do both; then why don’t we?
Great, you’re arguing philosophy without knowing what a Strawman Argument is.
Or you think I’m dumb enough to go down a conversation in bad faith. But no I won’t go into this discussion.
I’m steel-manning the homeless. Trying to get you to understand that capitalism and colonialism caused the situation that made Afghanistan need aid. If they can get you to focus on the world’s problems, you’ll forget that there’s problems at home.
Just because every nation is doing something, doesn’t mean it’s the best way to tackle a problem.
You don’t have any ways to handle the problem, your previous comments don’t even show you care about the problem. You just don’t want your taxpayer money spent on it.
And I will add: I would bet everything to say that the money wouldn’t go to anything helpful to you, let alone back into your pocket.
Jordan Peterson says to “clean your room.” America needs to clean its room before cleaning the world. I want to be taxed more, but I want that money to go to Americans, preferably the homeless
America is not the main protagonist. Other countries are doing other things. No one is asking the US to be a hero and save third world countries, they’re asking for aid which every Western country is involved in.
Removed by mod
The US is by far the biggest supporter of Ukraine, and effectively the only country meeting the military aid needs of Ukraine
Bro really pulled a “are there no workhouses”
I was trying to pose a question about colonialism and American hegemony, it did not go well
maybe the others does too?
The US spent two decades sapping what resources the country had in the name of “bringing democracy” and then just abandoned them to the Taliban. Humanitarian aid is the bare minimum for any wealthy country, let alone the one that fucked everything up.
I agree. The point and question I was trying to explore was: Should the country that burned down the house be the one that offers to rebuild it? We could give that money to international organizations. Maybe they will. Which is good. The article doesn’t say that though, it just wants you to hate Republicans.
Yes the country that burned down the house should ABSOLUTELY help pay for the rebuilding and it can by law not give money to NGOs to do it as that would jeopardise their neutrality. As for private citizens voluntarily donating to humanitarian aid charities, that’s unreliable at the best of times and dwindles significantly as the economic situation of the people worsens.
And yeah, regardless of anything else, it IS justified to spend a lot of time criticizing something that is genuinely abhorrent, such as wanting to deprive starving and oppressed people of aid under the flimsiest of pretenses.