• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged USAID: is it really a bunch of crazy leftists? / Trump Was Absolutely Right to Shut Down USAID

Pulling aid overnight, which is essentially what happened, causes untold damage to communities, as well as to individuals. Some advance warning of the magnitude of what was about to happen would have allowed other countries and organisations to pick up at least some of the slack. It didn't really help that some of the money, that was funnelled through the US, from other countries, was stoppad for a while as well. There is no doubt that this caused numerous deaths, and far, far too much unnecessary suffering. It has also meant that research into many diseases in developing countries has been wasted, and people who have developed invaluable skills and knowledge have been lost in the process.

Most of my working life was spent managing international aid projects aimed at people with disabilities. I know exactly what happens when funding is pulled. I wish I didn't.

And the US has lost much of its soft power, while China has increased theirs.
 
angrysoba said:
USAID was not pure altruism, of course. It was a soft power initiative designed to spread good will with very cost-effective ways to reduce absolute poverty around the world.
Click to expand...
I suppose that's a very optimistic way to look at it. It was initially designed to serve US interests and combat USSR influence by leveraging development opportunities in poverty-stricken and distressed countries. Definitely not pure altruism, it always had strings attached and it's foremost objective was the furthering of US interests abroad.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
In the 27 March edition, The Economist stated, "Curbing infectious diseases creates benign spillovers. An Ebola outbreak that is spotted fast and scotched at source does far less harm than one that is allowed to spread. The donor-funded drugs that keep hivpatients alive also prevent them from passing on the virus. The benefits extend to the rich world, too, since bugs respect no borders and treatment is far more expensive in rich countries than in poor ones. In America just two cases of Ebola cost one hospital over $1m in 2014; each extra hiv infection costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat over a patient’s lifetime...However, even Gavi struggles to raise enough money. It needs $9bn to help inoculate 500m children over the next five years, and to save hundreds of thousands of lives in Africa with the new malaria vaccines. Yet it had to postpone a recent refinancing meeting because donor countries were busy, and a leak to the New York Times suggests that America plans to cut it off." Although this story is broader than the USAID issue, some of the comments made above are pertinent to the question of what USAID did.
Click to expand...
It is not always straightforward to separate when something is altruistic versus when it is in the interests of the United States, as several of my earlier comments have also implied.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
It is not always straightforward to separate when something is altruistic versus when it is in the interests of the United States, as several of my earlier comments have also implied.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. Under the Dump regime, everything altruistic must go. If that hurts the USA or the average Murican, so what, that's just a sacrifice that must be made for the greater good cruelty.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Doesn't matter. Under the Dump regime, everything altruistic must go. If that hurts the USA or the average Murican, so what, that's just a sacrifice that must be made for the greater good cruelty.
Click to expand...
Respectfully disagree.

It was probably more to do with Trump getting a personal cut, or at least some reflected glory.

Considering Trump thinks the USA treasury is his own personal piggy-bank now, he would have wanted to see some "profit" come his way out of "his investment" in USaid. If course, there would not. So shutting it down is a natural follow-on. Trump shuttering "failing" businesses is normal for him.

Also, altruism is leftist woke bull-◊◊◊◊.
 
At In the Pipeline medicinal chemist Derek Lowe gave a retrospective of the previous year's events. He wrote, "Children will die who did not have to, and it was a choice. Just as gutting USAID was one of the early choices of the administration, an act of petty vandalism which has led (and will continue to lead) to even more deaths and suffering in the countries that used to get the aid. Never forget: whenever Elon Musk walks up to a podium to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ you about colonizing Mars or whatever, he is walking on the bodies of dead children. He yanked their food and medicine away while telling lies and cracking stupid jokes."
 
Chris_Halkides said:
At In the Pipeline medicinal chemist Derek Lowe gave a retrospective of the previous year's events. He wrote, "Children will die who did not have to, and it was a choice. Just as gutting USAID was one of the early choices of the administration, an act of petty vandalism which has led (and will continue to lead) to even more deaths and suffering in the countries that used to get the aid. Never forget: whenever Elon Musk walks up to a podium to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ you about colonizing Mars or whatever, he is walking on the bodies of dead children. He yanked their food and medicine away while telling lies and cracking stupid jokes."
Click to expand...
Galaxy Brain doesn’t care. He's got a trillion dollars, have you?
 
Darat said:
Will he ever have to face quesrioing about how he sleeps given the children he condemned to death?
Click to expand...
He will deny it happened.
He will question the numbers, probably blaming fake news.
He will then declare if it is happening, Biden’s administration caused it.

(none of the above was intended to be in jest)
 
EHocking said:
He will deny it happened.
He will question the numbers, probably blaming fake news.
He will then declare if it is happening, Biden’s administration caused it.

(none of the above was intended to be in jest)
Click to expand...
And I presume, again without jesting, he'll consume some more ketamine if he has feelings of guilt - from The Conversation: Ketamine can create a sense of detachment in users, this will be a desirable state for those who are seeking to escape invasive mental health symptoms of troubling thoughts and feelings.
 
Darat said:
And I presume, again without jesting, he'll consume some more ketamine if he has feelings of guilt - from The Conversation: Ketamine can create a sense of detachment in users, this will be a desirable state for those who are seeking to escape invasive mental health symptoms of troubling thoughts and feelings.
Click to expand...
My guess? His consumption of ketamine is the cause of his lack of guilt.
He’s not going to consume more because he doesn’t feel guilt at the moment anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom