In April, a local utility shut off power to a small cemetery in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands of veterans of wars ranging from the Revolutionary War to World War II are buried after the facility fell behind on its bills. Power was eventually restored to Jersey City & Harsimus Cemetery, home to soldiers from the Civil War.
Yet we have to send billions of tax-dollars to useless shit-holes like Pakistan, Afghanistan and other places.
What is needed is much more nation-building at home. Much more.
The next chicken-hawk that suggests another useless foreign war and/or foreign-aid mission needs to be given a pack and rifle and told to go fight it themselves.
1 comment:
True, however it could be expressed additionally, of the difference between certain qualified foreign aid efforts and international development projects (assisted with financing and/or insurance eg), as long as it fits prudent criteria and is directly beneficial to civil and socio-economic advancement and relations; vs bribing or reinforcing dubious, corrupt governments with direct military arms aid/grants and slush funds.
That is, there is a cost of doing business and world leadership must be exemplary - as long as it's seen as contributing to and commanding a legit and productive, sustainable enterprise.
So arguably, it's not that direct or indirect use of national assets/tax-payer monies and/or guarantees for 'foreign aid' is bad... just it should be differentiated with the poorly managed misallocation of aid under flawed or unsustainable strategies, without noticeable positive results when compared to the cost.
Other than that, absolutely, 'aid' needs to be conditional and targeted for mutually-beneficial purposes, while any and all 'nation building' must be the goal and objective of the respective government (along with necessary assistance from international agencies) and NOT the objective of the USgov and taxpayer.
The horrific lessons learned over the past 10 years on what never to pursue again, ie occupation creep-nation-building campaigns (especially when such 'hypothetical' aspects were never accepted in Congress before giving the authorization) should not however be penalty or distraction against worthy, robust and very much involved foreign/international policy goals and efforts which in truth cost a minor fraction of the budgets.
Post a Comment