Soo... the US spends years and years (and billions of dollars) tearing apart the Afghan nation and then gives them 4.5 BILLION DOLLARS? Wow. Wouldn't it have been easier to just NOT do any of it? And use our grown up words to TALK to each other instead?
And before that the Mujahideen. Both put there by foreign meddling. Najibullah was before them and, although arguably also put there by foreign meddling, the country looked very different under him - 40% of doctors and 60% of university students were women, for example. But Najibullah was a socialist, so...
It's amazing to see what Afghanistan looked like in the 1970s. They have gone so far backwards in such a short amount of time, it's incredible. They should be a warning for every nation regarding fundamentalism in general.
The US invaded Afghanistan to topple the Taleban and (ostensibly, though Bush said it wasn't a priority) go after bin Laden. They spend billions of dollars there to keep the Taleban from returning to power, to keep future bin Ladens from building more training camps or establishing a power base there, and, hopefully, to improve conditions in the country enough so that neither of those things would happen even without US involvement.
Though you may have a point that, purely from an economic standpoint, there may very well have been better approaches to doing this.
If they didn't "mess around" things would be a whole hell of a lot worse. But of course it's popular amongst the extraordinarily naive to believe otherwise.
I fully support America's aid to Afghanistan, because it definitely has made a difference. That being said though, I think it's obvious now that this foreign aid didn't do anything to stop the Taliban or even help the Afghan army (which folded in less than a month without US support) to take over from us.
I don't think the aid is a waste because it definitely accomplished a lot, but it also made the Afghan government dependent on us while failing to address issues of corruption and dysfunction. And now, much of what has been accomplished could be lost. I guess what I'm trying to say is that foreign aid shouldn't be just about pumping as much money as possible into an economy--it also should have the goal of promoting self-sufficiency and stability, something we miserably failed at.
Maybe Kabul, but at least not officially. On the other hand, anyone but Pakistan would acknowledge that Quetta is 100% taliban territory.
And thanks for the help cedo. I do realise it's "your", but English is not my first language (nor my second or third) and I don't and will not bother to spell and grammar check my posts on the average internet forum.
I would find it laughable if it wasn't so sad, that the USA gives so much to the countries that hate her most. Nearly all the mentioned countries would topple the USA if given the chance. ....... does nobody else find that sad?
It's mostly due to geopolitics, natural resources and corporate interests. 379 millions dollars to the DRC is not much if it helps gain access to their vast reserves of rare minerals.
This is going too far in the other direction. It's a bit of both. There are other large and powerful countries, like China for instance, that don't give a flip about foreign aid at all. And this is at least partially a reflection of different ideological approaches. Large amounts of foreign aid is both a tool for protecting and furthering US interests, AND compatible with American values.
It's a question of label. China just doesn't call it "foreign aid". But they do "help" all over Africa and beyond. For exemple building a road in Madagascar for free with the condition of making it pass by a mineral reserve they also invest in and run. That's more direct.
China really only aids themselves and their own industrial pursuits. Sometimes this has collateral benefits for local economies, but it's much more than a simple difference in labels. There's a difference in approach and mentality.
Foreign aid to these countries is not a present given to the people who love America the most.... it is an important geopolitical tool, as WTF pointed out, a way for the US to get its way with regimes that otherwise might not be so friendly; it's also a means by which the US supports certain governments that are supportive of US interests - often going against the will of the people in that country; of funding certain functions that the US wants carried out but is in effect delegating to these other governments (such as supporting the Afghan military in its efforts to suppress the Taleban); and finally it's an important tool for promoting economic development around the world which also is in the best interests of the United States.
If you are reading this in 2013, I come from the FUTURE! Please tell the government to stop giving aid to Russia and Syria. It will backfire on them. Also, you might want to stock up on some Ebola vaccines.
@Skamps. The aid to Russia is part of a long term program to ensure that nuclear material is secured. Unquestionably, this program was and is a huge positive for world peace.
Some of the uses of American money abroad: economic development, infrastructure (both maintenance and rebuilding), disaster relief, supporting the cost of holding democratic elections, preventing deforestation, training law enforcement to combat drug trafficking, HIV/AIDS prevention, malaria prevention and treatment... that is a lot of things, most of them very important. So, how much of the federal budget is allocated to foreign aid? Less than 1%. The Federal budget is over $4 trillion dollars. BTW - Ebola funding comes from the emergency assistance budget, not foreign aid.
With the exception of a "few" countries, most are Muslim countries. They hate us, we know it but yet we continue to provide them aid. What's wrong with this picture here!?
And besides, what gives you the impression that, say, for instance, Indonesia and India hate us? Just the two of them alone make up nearly 25% of the world's population of Muslims. And how many of the following countries with over 50% Muslim populations do you think consider us mortal enemy infidels?: Malaysia, Turkey, Morocco, Bosnia, Kosovo, Jordan, the Maldives, The Gambia, Senegal, Nigeria, Albania?
It depends on whose point of view you are referring to, the citizens of these countries, or their governments? In some cases the citizens don't hate the US, but their government is hostile. In other cases, the government cooperates, but the citizens hate the US so much so that they can be seen carrying signs saying as much.
In the US people can be seen carrying signs saying that God hates gay people. I imagine you don't assume that's reflective of the views of the population as a whole - why make that assumption about other populations?
So the citizens of Iran don't generally hate the US? I would be interested to hear from someone that lives in that part of the world comment on this. I am sure there are some that don't hate the US, but I would bet that the general consensus among citizens in Iran is that the US is evil and needs to be destroyed. But to compare what I said to small minded Americans that claim to know what God is thinking about homosexuals doesn't make any sense for this argument.
Don't really care about the "whats and whys" we are giving aid to so many of our enemies. We shouldn't have to always be the world's caretakers, period. The US actively works against its own citizens and shamelessly promotes its own globalist propaganda while we behave like good little serfs
You don't care about the "whats and whys" if the "why" is that it benefits the US? So... they should stop foreign aid even if they're shooting themselves in the foot by doing so.... just on principle or out of spite? Because fewer than 100% of the people in these countries like us?
Because Israel needs enough money to be placed second on the list...
And where is Somalia, India, Chad, C.A.R, Libya, Central America, Colombia, Venezuela, Angola, Mozambique, West Africa, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Papua New Guinea, East Timor, Saharan States, Central Asian States and others?!? Don't they need more money than Israel?!?
Many of the countries you listed may need the cash, but that doesn't mean giving it to them will lead to it being used effectively. Why exactly would we trust the leadership in a state like Venezuela to actually help their citizens with any foreign aid? Far more likely that they just use it to consolidate their power.
Wouldn't it be great if we used this money to help Americans instead of giving it to corrupt governments who will squander it while the people in these countries I don't give a damn about stay poor.
most of the money given to corrupt individuals or entities by the US government goes to Americans. Foreign aid is actually a pretty good use of money by comparison. For example, the $4.6 billion in tax subsidies given to fossil fuel companies, which nets us nothing but the destruction of our planet, and costs us more than the aid to all but one of the countries on this list, or the GOP 2017 tax cut for the rich which in the long term only benefits the obscenely wealthy and will add over one TRILLION dollars to the deficit, and does nothing but accelerate the decline of American economic and political relevance by concentrating more wealth at the top echelons, meanwhile costing us more than the foreign aid the US gives to the entire rest of the world combined. 20x more.
The corruption isn't just in the GOP and you know that. From when you posted this until now, just how has the deficit changed under Biden and the Democrats? All politicians are corrupt regardless of which side of the isle they fall. They ALL drive the deficit up because they make decisions that serve them and their interests. As long as politicians are on the take from lobbyists, and as long as we continue to have no term limits for congressmen and congresswomen, things will never change. As the moral fabric of our society continues to unravel, the corruption in DC and in local state governments will only continue to get worse. Until public servants start acting like public servants, things will never change.
Aid was given to Syria, but not necessarily to the Syrian government. The United States gave aid to the opposition groups like the Free Syrian Army and the Kurdish armies.
probably a combination of humanitarian aid, some of which did flow through Damascus and some of which did not, and military and financial aid given to the peshmerga and others.
The fact that Afghanistan receives such a big amount of aid and hasn't lifted itself even a little bit is very ironic. It's like they throw them in the trashcan.
Had the US not left Afghanistan, things might still be looking up there. To make matters worse, Biden's poorly executed plan to just pick up and run away basically handed the government back to the Taliban along with several innocent Americans and Afghanistan citizens.
They just needed a few more years and another trillion dollars. Then they definitely would've created utopia.
By the way, next year we're solving homelessness. Then onto changing the climate globally. I just need some more of your money & freedom, funnily enough.
I don't think it could have been "fixed" under US administration anyway. USA can't (or won't) even address and solve their own societal issues, so I have a hard time believing they could figure out a workable one for a country with such drastically different culture and geography. I'm not even sure they had the motivation to do what's best for the Afghani people, rather than set up something that favours American interests in the region - and that could never hold.
Why do all these complainers think we are just "giving" aid away for nothing? We are getting something for it, whether you like those countries or not.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if foreign aid ceased for 3 years. I guess the largest argument against doing that, is China/India/Russia would step in.
It's hard to swallow sending billions of dollars to worthless areas of the world, or which work against US interests.
I'm not sure if "embarrassing" is the right word to use, when pointing to 3/4 of these countries... Afg, Iraq, Isr, S. Sud, Syr, Nig, Pak, Yemen... It sure isn't right.
At least trade for oil/mineral/natural resource contracts. The last 50-100 years has shown charity/bribery causes more problems than it solves. 20 years of Afghanistan showed that, yet nothing changes.
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
Afghanistan, Ukraine and Israel are the first three? Wow! In my native Denmark the rule is that military assistance may not be counted as foreign aid. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Dept. of State applies a different standard.... 😂
Sure. And Denmark has spent $7 billion on Ukraine. A huge sum for a country of only 6 million people. My point was that this amount doesn't show up in our aid statistic because military equipment legally cannot be considered as "aid".
Absolutely heinous how much money is siphoned to Israhell. The US propping up the apartheid 'Israeli' apartheid ethnostate is a stain that will never be forgotten.
In an attempt to protect the jews from genocide and a new diaspora by their neighbors, they installed an authoritarian regime that doesn't care about its Palestinian inhabitants... Don't blame this on the jews. It's the zionists, a radical subgroup, that did this
Though you may have a point that, purely from an economic standpoint, there may very well have been better approaches to doing this.
I don't think the aid is a waste because it definitely accomplished a lot, but it also made the Afghan government dependent on us while failing to address issues of corruption and dysfunction. And now, much of what has been accomplished could be lost. I guess what I'm trying to say is that foreign aid shouldn't be just about pumping as much money as possible into an economy--it also should have the goal of promoting self-sufficiency and stability, something we miserably failed at.
And thanks for the help cedo. I do realise it's "your", but English is not my first language (nor my second or third) and I don't and will not bother to spell and grammar check my posts on the average internet forum.
Sadly, that comment aged very poorly :(
What about Somalia???
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/02/10/383875581/guess-how-much-of-uncle-sams-money-goes-to-foreign-aid-guess-again
And where is Somalia, India, Chad, C.A.R, Libya, Central America, Colombia, Venezuela, Angola, Mozambique, West Africa, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Papua New Guinea, East Timor, Saharan States, Central Asian States and others?!? Don't they need more money than Israel?!?
wait, what?
By the way, next year we're solving homelessness. Then onto changing the climate globally. I just need some more of your money & freedom, funnily enough.
Case in point: South Africa, Somalia, Iraq, lots of Africa. A lot of countries we give aid to take our money and continue to hate us. SA especially.
It's hard to swallow sending billions of dollars to worthless areas of the world, or which work against US interests.
I'm not sure if "embarrassing" is the right word to use, when pointing to 3/4 of these countries... Afg, Iraq, Isr, S. Sud, Syr, Nig, Pak, Yemen... It sure isn't right.
At least trade for oil/mineral/natural resource contracts. The last 50-100 years has shown charity/bribery causes more problems than it solves. 20 years of Afghanistan showed that, yet nothing changes.
Just a list of corruption.
What percentage of the X richest people in the US are Jewish?