I think it should be zero unless it's medical or food aid
2007-12-15 10:41:43 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
ZIP
2007-12-15 10:44:00 · answer #1 · answered by moe 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
What undermines us? who's "us"? Reagan sent money and weapons to cocaine smugglers, terrorist and nun rapers in substantial usa and you're pleased with that. What are our pastimes, those are not mine? That became into not cool, and it undermined human decency. How and who determines what's interior the terrific interst of the U. S. is open to communicate. Edit- Rape nuns in El Salvador to extra the national pastimes and harm the Soviets and you call that an outstanding element, can't verify in for that whether it incredibly is pleased with you, sorry. And this sums up what you communicate interior the national pastime. that's what i don't get approximately conservatives, prepared to throw away all morality and decency inorder for the bigger image, not being concerned approximately persons, or all of us, purely some extra effective image that they be sure. And it became into Reagan's acquaintances who have been policing the international while they murdered those nuns in El Salvador. Did you ask the large senile one why he concept the U. S. could be policing the international? No, as a results of fact murdering nuns is pleased with you. What earnings a guy if he positive aspects the entire international yet loses his very own soul?
2016-10-11 09:00:17 · answer #2 · answered by furne 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
...ZERO. The U.S. is the largest contributor to the U.N. and the U.N. should be taking care of International aid... (If our "friends" like Great Britain and Australia and Canada need help with something... absolutely, help them on the spot but the "back-stabbers" who stand around with their hand-out and a big grin...ZERO).
2007-12-15 10:51:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Zero dollars. We should fix all the problems here in America before we ever send a cent anywhere else.
2007-12-15 10:46:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the country and what's going on there. My Brother has fought for our country many, many times. Medical and food are necessary for life. So that is a given. Anything else.....well? What do you think?
2007-12-15 10:45:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
i agree with the first answer and i would add on to it, all outrageous salaries paid to movie actors, rock stars, etc. they just blow their cash on foolish things so why not give to those who really need it. now, mind you, not to the govts of these countries but have it go directly to the people in food and medicine. if actor brad pitt follows through with his new orleans plan, he's a rare bird indeed. others should follow through. all others? overpaid, under-worked bums. i would also like to state that since charity begins at home, first spend it on our people in need. when that's accomplished, then and only then should we assist foreign nationals.
2007-12-15 10:48:32 · answer #6 · answered by blackjack432001 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I totally agree. Zilch unless medical or food.
2007-12-15 10:49:25 · answer #7 · answered by nolajazzyguide 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As far in the RED as we are I think the Govt. should cut it all out& take care of our own. The Govt. doesn't pay the over payed drug taking sorry assed athletes. They are a poor example of the real old time record setters. I think they should take their titles away if they were on steroids!
2007-12-15 10:47:47 · answer #8 · answered by Tired Old Man 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree. Charity starts at home.
2007-12-15 10:51:18 · answer #9 · answered by Arcanum Noctis 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
also to nations who embrace democracy and we need to be there to make sure it gets used to help the people and not get stolen by the dictators while the food rots in warehouses.
2007-12-15 10:45:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
The same as what they give the US Citizens.
2007-12-15 10:43:58 · answer #11 · answered by holeeycow 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋