Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
As a peptic towards those who would think a government gives money entirely for altruistic reasons it is relevant to mention that there are political motives behind and government giving support.
I don't recall all that many people here disparaging the US for the aid it provided after the Tsunami. I think you are confusing providing aid with waging a war and using "aiding the people of Iraq" to put happy spin on things (I could be wrong but I don't think so given your take on things in general  ).
Regardless of the reason for offering the aid, I think it is rather disingenuous of you to call it, "hollow and meaningless". I am sure the money and support offered by Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia are just as meaningful as the money and support offered by other nations on that list. It is only "hollow and meaningless" if the gift is accepted and they do not follow through.
I don't know about you but "it's the thought that counts" does mean something. I'd like to think that eventhough there are political points to be won or lost, somewhere in the mix there is one group of people wanting to help another group of people in need. |
As for aid/support in the Iraq war, I was not talking about that. I remember comments around the tsunami that the US wasn't giving enough, and was only giving because they were expected. And other foreign aid is often refered to as buying influence around here.
And I think all the countries involved are making just as hollow and meaningless gestures, not just the ones that you mentioned above. I believe that many of those nations had no real expectation of the US actually accepting their aid.
And you are right, it is the thought that counts. It's just the thought behind these offers is mainly "lets get in the good graces of the US" or "lets show up the US by offering the richest country in the world aid" and not "lets help people who are seriously in need of aid". I might be cynical, but I've found that cynicism is generally the way to the truth.