Should the US help other countries like they are trying to do in Iraq?

Question

I was always taught that if you have the power, you should use it for good

Answer 1

The US needs to help its own people before it goes off into other countries uninvited. Our own country needs schools, highways, health care, new jobs--any number of important things. If Americans pay taxes to the government, why shouldn't Americans get the benefit of the taxes?

Answer 2

Yes, the US should try to help where needed. The real problem is that as with most other things in this country people cannot agree on which country to help. Not only that, but you cannot get them to agree on whether or not we are helping or hurting another nation. You brought up Iraq as an example, and you can bet that a great number of liberals are going to jump at the chance to say that we are not there for the purpose of helping that nation, further, they will state with certainty that we are there murdering thousands, hundreds of thousands, of innocent civilians. They will say we are there for the oil, the power, revenge, new golf courses, anything as long as they don't have to admit that there is any chance at all we are there to liberate a nation from not only a brutal dictator partially of our own making but a rigid religious faction that will return the nation of Iraq to the exact same state again soon if we just leave now. This nation should be cautious as to how and where it tries to help other peoples and nations, as the results the last few times have been disastrous. But this I can say with almost total certainty, if we get out of the business of "messing" in other countries business the world will soon be screaming at us once more to come to the rescue. I agree with you by the way, it is every persons duty to offer aid when needed, and possible, we just need to be sure that the aid is offered in an honest and noble manner.

Just had to come back and add this after reading akkitas answer. As you can see from her statement, we ARE trying to help in many, many nations. The problem is that like I said, the whole damn word thinks that we in the us are spoiled rich kids that can afford to throw money at everything. Just because that is the perception does not mean it is the truth and the end result of the us helping too many at once is not a rise in those nations standard of living, but a reduction in ours that levels the playing field in a manner that does no one any good whatsoever. One last thing "THE ABSENCE OF WAR IS NOT PEACE, BUT ENSLAVEMENT"

Answer 3

Truthfully, i have mixed feeling about helping other countries. True most are worse off then we are, but....We have many people without healthcare because they simply can not afford it. We have homeless people. We have people who need things and can not get them. Our streets here are not 100% safe, there is rape, murder, kidnappings, drugs ect....I just wish there was a way to use some of the funds going to the Iraq war to better ourselves here in the states. Better school systems, ones that arent overcrowded and understaffed, we need more police, to make our streets safer, we need better healthcare, healthcare even the poor can get. Things of that sort. Just my opinion. Not to say we shouldn't help others in need, but how often do we recieve help? Would we in an emergency crisis? Who would help us? Thats just how i feel.

Answer 4

What do you mean? $4.1 billion isn't enough?

The five core missions of the USAID Agency follow:
1)Promote transformational development through far-reaching, fundamental changes conducive to democratic governance and economic growth. The Agency also seeks to build human capacity by supporting essential human services in the fields of health and education.
2)Strengthen fragile states to improve security, enhance stability, and advance reform and to build institutional capacity and modernize infrastructure.
3)Provide humanitarian relief to meet immediate human needs in countries afflicted by natural disaster, violent conflict, political crisis, or persistent dire poverty.
4)Support geo-political interests through development work in countries of high strategic importance.
5)Address global issues and special concerns where progress depends on collective effort and cooperation among countries.

USAID is requesting $4.1 billion for its FY 2006 programs.
Departments of State and Agriculture on joint programs that total $5 billion in ESF, FSA, SEED, ACI and P.L. 480 accounts. We will also manage a portion of the nearly $2 billion requested for the Global HIV/AIDS Initiative by the Department of State's Global AIDS Coordinator and a portion of the $3 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation. USAID is requesting $802.4 million in Operating Expenses (OE), the Capital Investment Fund, the Development Credit administrative funds and the Office of the Inspector General to fund the administrative costs of managing the $8.3 billion in program funds.

Answer 5

The USA is helping Iraq? Since when?

Answer 6

Should US invade other countries, kill innocent people and force a new form of government on the people? How would you feel? If a country richer than US invade US and "helped" us. Go figure it out.

Answer 7

Well, I would like to express my genuine appreciation for the fact that whenever and wherever the United States *have* been invited to help any nation, their intervention has in that case been *very* much appreciated by the people involved. As an Irish woman, I certainly appreciate your decision, even if my great-grandfather was being dragged out and beaten up and you were -60 years old and voted for sanctions against such actions. Thank you for defending his right not to be beaten up. You may not have been born at that time, but your values were admirable, and your teachers were good people. Since you were born in the US, you can take full credit for all successful incursions; but can you apologise for all failed ones? I can't judge that one; ask an Indian about the Raj.

But are those national/federal values still admirable, and still globally applicable, now that you have been born into a nation with "the power"?

OK, let's think that one through. Unforgettably in the case of any of the allies, or the people of any given nation. Domestically, their mistake may have been to treat their own children brutally, in the expectation that they would be obliged to fight a war and then write about it to show others how it was. In the open media of their time. Did that tradition last? Was it worth preserving?

Annually, the dead of all countries involved - All countries involved - are commemorated, and mourned, and celebrated, worldwide. By now, don't you think that some of the people who enact these (more than) rituals are probably the grandchildren, or great-grandchildren, of the lost?

I am surprised - oh, strike that - I am amazed that anyone could imagine that the US, as a former ally, thinks that their people are, or would ever be, neglected.

Do you all really think that only grudges are remembered? Wouldn't it be fairer to admit your real concern? Even if the EU all agree to help the US if in need, you personally doubt that we can actually afford to do that!

Never fear, Anzac Day is still observed, and between us all, you shall not starve.

OK. There was a time when a whole powerful gang decided that they were no longer human, but a member of an elite squad of a chosen nation. In Europe, we remember those fascists by name - but we also know how they chose to behave. As though they had power, and as though anyone who they could deny power to also, mysteriously lacked any other worthwhile attributes. Without military power, they were a nation without military priorities, and the army did not respect them as a people. Oh, but that was then, when thought experiments were only that, and those who had "the power" had that alone. And ... they lost.
Ahem.

This is why fascists and their followers were inhuman. Have you forgotten this? Have you completely forgotten that what is good and what is power may be estranged and without a future together? While you think about that, consider also what you decided, when, during the last conflict, you were asked by the General to choose between less power and more goodness?

You forget, don't you? We don't, and we will catch you if you fall. What surprises me is the idea that you have here. We don't want you to fall. We trip others to promote you. We reserve the right to discuss your progress, to assess your way of life. Remember that we do this in memory of the lives already lost. Those who died to allow us to do this, to have the right to speak our minds. Many of them did so before TV as such existed. We have long memories, and we do not support you because you have power. We support you because you preserve and defend the right to remain human. Individually human, not clones who are coded to play the game. It's no game.

Have you seen the War of the Worlds film? That script was older than you know. Some things are stubborn not "just because". Because they have earned the right to comment.

We do recall all of those who refused to fight, and those who worked harder to rebuild and reestablish relations with the former enemy. Sometimes it was an extraordinary effort to see that someone had struggled to learn another language to help the peace process along.

There were times when it was unreal for a european person to see or read that there were people - allies - out there - who didn't understand the phrase "Thank you"! Imagine that - someone expresses basic gratitude and is not understood because they don't use English? Unreal! What if they spoke only two languages, and only those? Their reason being that they didn't rebel and free slaves to complicate all their lives unnecessarily?

And we remember where that led, still. We also remember the innocence of those who paid for drinks for the fascists, sponsored their new uniforms, played their anthems, and hoped for a better world. You were not wrong. They were.

Oh, but what if ...

What, we might make mistakes? OK, Yes, we might do. We might sweep in and treat Donald Trump like a wino; and treat a wino like he or she deserves a life? Yes, we might make mistakes at first. But if an emergency occurred, where we are asked to consider intervening, even if the US had already made some mistakes and annoyed us, we would still help as best we could. How's New Orleans, BTW? If the Black people there are still too proud, let us know when they are ready to ask.
Because Dutch engineers are among the best in the world, and they know that the US army engineers also are among the best - for some reason they were not heard, and what they recommended did not happen, and what happened is still outrageous, but each nation has their own priorities.

If a free citizen of A does not object to being drowned in a wheelchair, indeed, up to that point has felt grateful for being assigned a wheelchair, then an EU citizen such as me has no business questioning the late citizen's priorities. Especially if their own country had not the power to save their life. Actually, at what point does a military "power" or "force" become redefined as the "democratic decision to allow nothing to be done"?

I've tried to spell this out on another question. If you had to ask, we most certainly would be there for you. If you ever reached the point where you did not have enough to eat, and had initially had to kill your pets because you could not feed them, and then realised that you did not have enough for yourselves - you still have the right to ask. Yes, we would help our neighbours.

Where you go wrong is in imagining that any European country - or all of us - would ever turn that request down. How could we respect ourselves or our long history if we allowed that to happen? If you all ever hesitate - what are you thinking? You have earned the right to ask!

How many of you remember 9/11? Yes, Yes, Yes. I know. But, seriously, what did you contribute? I don't live in the US, so I donated blood. Ireland sent a small section of troops over with survival training. That's nothing. It's what we gave.

Despite the mixed feelings (it's not easy to ask for help, no matter how awful the alternative is or might have been).

Sometimes - several times - we see the US assisting the wrong side in a conflict, favouring those who have purchased the most (and most obsolete) arms from the US. This makes us all feel worse about having asked a worthwhile country to be our ally.

We would feel better if you awaited a request - as vampires are said to do. No, of course you have better manners. Yes, of course your armies have seen worse. So have we. That's why we once asked for help. And if we ever did have a choice between helping your nation and enriching our own - what would you do? OK, that's your business. We would help you out, if we had to go hungry to do so. You are our Neighbours. Quit imagining otherwise! You have no idea how ruthless we would be in dimissing our our needs, if you were in need. We would not expect or await the reports filtered through the foreign press. We'd read between the lines, smuggle food ashore, ignore propaganda which explained how much better off you were under the new regime.

So - if you think - or feel - that power rotates, and is a game of roulette, I hope you doubt that real life should be like that. If it ever advances, I hope that our opinion is invited. But, other than that, I would consider that we should leave people to live out their lives.
My problem is that I can't see why a people would settle for less.
Oh, look, should we watch this 1600 body in the bog or push them back under? Sooner or later, I suspect that prosperity can be defined by what a tribe can afford to let go, in part. Power? Values? Historical ethics? Well, OK. But land is limited also. Let's not smother what we had?

Answer 8

That is what President Bush intends to do in the War of Terror on Iran!

Answer 9

I can't hear anybody asking