Why do people think that the world absolutely needs the US to save it from catastrophies, calamities....?

Question

and other dangers real or imaginary? What would happen if the US did nothing when the tsunami hit or the earthquake in Pakistan or Turkey? Besides a higher toll in terms of lives lost? Would the people be unable to rebuild on their own? Would their local gov'ts not support them? Who benefits from all the aid that's rushed in from abroad in these times? Does the act of charity end when one gives away a $5 bill to a beggar or does it truly begin by asking the beggar why he's begging and what his needs are in terms of sustanence? And ultimately when one does help another in dire needs - does the charity taker owe his/her benefactor? If so is this really charity or a business transaction?

Answer 1

If the US did nothing, we would be labeled as uncaring and evil. We are "damned if we do, damned if we don't" and I for one am sick of it. Why don't the other countries step up to the plate for once? Why doesn't France throw their white flags away?

Answer 2

There are several reasons.

One is money. We have it and they need it.

Another is precedent. We've been doling out foreign assistance for so long that we can't rightly stop now.

Yet another is politics. You helped the Palestinians (or whoever), so you have to help me.

Also there are strategic concerns. You can't station troops in my country or fly over it unless you help with our drought situation.

On top of all that, there is the simple, underlying basis that we should help because we can. Even if it's not the absolutely best thing to do in all cases, how can we sit by and watch suffering when we could do something about it? That's not to dsay that we as a country do everything right - far from it - but we're the world's only remaining superpower, and we need to act accordingly.

As far as governments are concerned (and make no mistake - this goes for ALL governments), there are no friends, only interests; and there is no charitable giving, only investments in future international relations. Recieving countries still benefit from it, but you're right in that it's closer to business than compassion.

If it's true compassionate giving you're looking for, I would suggest checking out some non-governmental organizations, like North Andaman Tsunami Relief in Thailand, or Luanda Chairs for Cares in Angola.

Answer 3

Dont be such a hippie if you were one of those people in need you would take aid in any way shape or form and yes to answer your question the us does do more than contribute money they have relief agencys that come to the rescue of those countrys in need doctors and missonaries and all sorts of people devote time and effort to help better a society that has been damaged,like the united states military which doesnt just fight wars you kno w they also provide humanitarian needs like irrigation,construction clean up efforts , dont you think that is providing the need for sustanence for that country at that particular moment in time?

Answer 4

I suggest that the U.S.A. stop helping all those other countries and start helping all those here at home because every country that we have helped have all turned on us and not one of those countries has ever paid us back other then a quick stab in our backs.
Maybe one reason that the U.S. has helped out after all those disasters is because of the governments of those countries have kept their money to themselves and not spent one cent on it's own people and we know this so who else will help out but dumb ole' U.S.A.
What's the next disaster to come up so we can plan on helping out and to get stabbed in our backs again and get more threats from their terrorists?
I have a wonderful idea for all of the world including the great U.S.A., the hell with all those countries who have any more disasters, let them all fend for themselves as they have left us to do for ourselves.
All those in favor say "I."

Answer 5

Because we can. When you are in trouble who do you go to? Someone that can help you, right. We have the money, resources, and the ability and means to help others. That in turn makes us morally responsible (in my mind) to use our gifts to help others when we can. If we didn't, there would be a lot more dead, dying ,stricken and suffering people in the world. I don't want that as my legacy...do you? We are one global community. Look around...how much do you think Indonesians can do for tsunami victims when all the equipment to rebuild they had and the people to help were washed away. How much do you think the Afghani's can do when they lose entire cities in earthquakes? These countries don't even have the resources to bury the dead they have, let alone rebuild infrastructures. It's just good karma to help others. We, ourselves might need help sometime too.

Answer 6

When Theodore Roosevelt realized that then President Woodrow Wilson would not send in troops to help England fight against Germany he was enraged. Roosevelt had been a military man himself and he felt that it was our "duty" as a Super Power and Free Nation to help England at this time ...so on April 12, 1917 Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war against Germany..can you imagine if we Americans hadn't helped England against Germany? We could be saluting the German flag or the Japanese flag...it is our duty as a great nation to help other countries...be it ..natural disasters...or as in Iraq...genocide...Bosnia..also was a country where its leader was using genocide ...all the atrocities of the world...and you think we should just sit by and "Watch?

Answer 7

Wondeful point and it is something I have been saying for years!
The world not only wants, but demands and expects the USA to be the world police, and the world welfare giver. Then all we get is complaints from those that we help.. I think we should becomevery separatist for about 50 years and then see what would happen.
I would also like to see the U.N. move to switzerland and out of New York!

Answer 8

I think that individuals should contribute to relief funds, if they have the extra it should not be put as an additional tax burden to everyone across the board, especially to those of us that are struggling as it is. If I had it I would send money to aid others, but I don't yet. Here is an additional thought, just think of how many homeland issues could be taken care of, HOMELESSNESS, EDUCATION, HUNGER, ECT... if the government withheld overseas aid for one, two or three years. Wouldn't it be better to get us on the right track before we try to help everyone else?

Answer 9

Great idea. I think the US should get out of every country, bring back all of our troops, take back all of our factories, and never give any more help unless the leader of each of those countries ask for our help. The way that leader asks should have stipulations... the leader of which ever country that wants our help should have to get on international television with peanut butter spread on their face, jump up and down on one leg, dressed in a pink too-too and beg for our help, then we might consider it. Otherwise... let those countries who think they can do better on their own (like South Korea) fend for themselves.

Answer 10

The US has always been the one to support other countries in times of castrophies and calamities. During the cold war, we supplied most of the USSR their grain shipments. If you look at history, prior to WW1, we didn't do much for any other country. Then people started attacking us and we fought back. Alot of countries disagree with our policies and to keep them liking us, we supply them with their needs in peace and emergencies. It basically keeps everyone from attacking us at one.