2007-08-10 11:57:47 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The United States has a population of generous caring people. Not helping others and simply becoming social introverts is not in our nature.
We have been blessed with abundance and compassion, to us, it is immoral to watch others suffer and not offer assistance.
Many will say, "clean your own house first". To them I say there are many, many social programs and assistance available to all Americans who CHOOSE to seek it out.
2007-08-10 12:03:40 · answer #1 · answered by ©2009 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
The problem is what's known as the "law of unintended consequences."
It seems like you can't take large-scale action that appears favorable without creating some unfavorable results.
Deposing Saddam meant the removal of a brutal, dictatorial kleptocrat. Generally not a bad thing, right? However, it created a power vacuum in Iraq and led to a patchwork of factions that fight amongst themselves, against other factions and against US and allied troops.
Let's take a hypothetical; the US Government builds a water desalination plant to give a parched West African country clean water for drinking and agriculture. But that country has a weak central government, and can't adequately protect this new facility. It falls under the control of an armed gang shortly after completion; they charge the people it was meant to help an arm and a leg to use it; they divert the output spouts and run pipes to bordering countries and profit handsomely from selling the fresh clean water to them.
2007-08-10 19:49:23 · answer #2 · answered by Aaron W 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Meaning that left alone the rest of the world could work out its problems without the United States, I assume.
It took two World Wars to bring some semblance of peace to the planet, and if it wasn't for the U.S. there would be at least another dozen conflicts going on around the world that nobody stands to benefit from.
No, I don't think so.
2007-08-10 19:10:31 · answer #3 · answered by PastorBobby 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The USA is always looked upon for help because of its richness of resources, steady economy and overall generosity.
It would look bad on the world stage if the US prez (whoever it is at the time) turned a deaf ear to less fortunate countries who asked for help.
2007-08-10 19:09:14 · answer #4 · answered by Gilos 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That would be great wouldn't it? The only problem is that there are many, many countries that would continue to ask us for our help. We could solve a lot of our own fiancial problems if other countries would learn how to take care of themselves. It is a lot like the U.S. welfare system, there are people that have been on welfare so long that they rely on govt. $ to survive. If they no longer got their welfare benefits, they would have no idea how to get the money they need to live.
2007-08-10 19:09:13 · answer #5 · answered by Scott S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes we should stop trying to police the world. We have enough of our own problems. If it does not directly impact the safety and security of U.S. Citizens, we should ignore it. Isolationism is the way to go.
2007-08-10 19:04:10 · answer #6 · answered by mikosin357 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The world is a problem.
2007-08-10 19:00:44 · answer #7 · answered by vladoviking 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, because they can't even fix their own problems at home.
2007-08-10 20:16:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. As we help others I think it is possible for us to be needing the same help eventually and I am not sure we would get as much as we give.
2007-08-10 19:06:14 · answer #9 · answered by ~♥Amanda Dawn♥~ 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
2007-08-10 19:04:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋