Setarcos, two things:

1) That gift horse almost always has strings attached, though this is rarely publicized. These are not altruistic strings either. Remember the Tsunami that killed several hundred thousand? Much of the "generous" aid contributed by G8 countries came with requirements that the recipient countries open up their economies to foreign business, remove subsidies and protections allowing for companies to move in and buy up undervalued assets at fire-sale prices. This is nothing new.

2) Many of these countries do have enough arable land and agriculture techniques (or aquaculture) to feed their people. The thing is, much of that arable land is growing cash crops like tobacco or coffee beans for export. This is another requirement that we, in our abundant generosity have foisted on many countries. So now that much of their good arable land is growing cash crops and then leaving the country, they are forced to import staples like rice, corn and wheat from other countries.

But don't take my word on it... I would recommend a book called "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein. Author Chalmers Johnson has his American Empire trilogy which quite painstakingly has catalogued many of the sins of empire. Last but not least I would recommend "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins. His book details how much of the aid doled out by developing countries, once the news cameras have turned away, has many, many strings attached which often make the aid far more profitable for the donor than the recipient.

It is sad but true. WHile the giver does not force the givee to think, the givee resents the fact they have to recieve, and thus they "think" about the giver.

I am aware that many forms of aid come with strings attached. The tsunami aid you talk about. Did it really come from the countries or did it come from their businesses/private organizations? I myself was speaking of governmental or charitable aid.


Kind of begs the question, why did they need the aid in the first place?


I've read a few, though not any of the ones you mentioned. I took a 400 level Sociology course called "Globalization" as an elective to satisfy general degree requirement. Wow, and I thought I was a liberal. While I am sure there have been wrongs done on both sides of the deals, most accounts I have seen are incredibly biased towards the "victims", and the few accounts that are fair to both sides are decried as corp/gov propaganda.

Artysim, you have very successfully changed the point from aid to loans without any transition. America as a government does not provide loans to nations it provides grants. The IMF provides loans, the IMF is run by Europeans but funded by many industrialized nations including our own.

After WWII America alone rebuilt Europe and Japan, Germany and Japan would still be a burned out shells if we had not. France would still be a third world nation because it just bends over and smiles when invaded. Americans tax dollars paid to build up these nations and at every turn when we needed help all except Great Briton has told us to go pound sand. In the 70’s when America was on the verge of bankruptcy those nations still demanded we provide them free money and not one nation we helped offered a coin to help us. We have never asked for these nations to pay us back the billions we gave them. They have never offered to pay it back. France, the most ungrateful nation led by De Gaul, at the time took the aid rebuilt his nation and then told us to screw ourselves. It was not bad enough that he and his nation did not support us during the cold war against the Soviet Union, France went one step further by providing arms and aid to countries we were fighting including Viet Nam a war they started then begged us to come in and help them win. When we refused they were hurt but could do nothing more to us than help arm the Vietnamese when Kennedy chose to go in and fight the war. Thanks a lot France!

Europe starts wars we finish them and then pay for the clean up. We don’t ask for thanks and we don’t ask them to repay us. We do gently suggest they not get in our way. This is called being the big bully on the block.

From a business point of view how many times has an American company spent billions of its resources developing a mine or an oil field only to have the host nation nationalize the property kick our people out and keep the profits then sell the goods at inflated prices to the company that built the mine or oil field? Would it not be prudent to put a few strings on grant money to protect our own companies?

The problem with America is that we are suckers for any sob story. A civil war breaks out and people are starved to death. The people demand we go in and save them. We go in and feed them and stop the fighting and then the war resumes. People expect us to be there to help when it is not our job or responsibility to do so. We do it anyway because we are soft headed and soft hearted.

I admit that during the cold war we helped out people just to gain allies but that time has past we need to wean them from our national tit. We also need to go back to the good old bad old days. Where if you messed with an American your life was forfeit and your nation was punished, kill an American citizen and people with guns came in to inquire why. We stopped doing that in the 70’s and guess what? We started getting attacked. The Soviet Union had three of its citizens kidnapped by terrorist in the 80’s the KGB found a relative of one of the kidnappers and took him then started sending body parts back until they got their people back. They were returned unharmed. Barbaric? Yes, but it worked and the Soviet Union only had three people kidnapped ever by terrorist. We on the other hand wring our hands and ask nicely if they would please release one of our generals and they hung him. They did not fear us and they still do not fear us so they will continue to mess with us. We will still go after a nation but we stopped going after small groups and they know this.

Last I checked, business/private organizations do not own Carrier Task forces.

The Little Red hen and the rest of the barnyard flock (europe).

Yes, but I am sure there has been forms of private/non-governmental aid as well. Artysim, seemed to be lumping government aid, charitable aid, and aid from a country's businesses into the same category. Pushing the guilt of the bad onto to all, including the completely altruistic.

Yes, presidents Bush and Clinton worked together to raise millions in private funds for that disaster at the behest of the current president Bush because we can get more done through private funding than through our government or any government. Our military provided the transportation of the goods purchased with private funds. Has anyone offered a vote of thanks to the private citizens that gave with an open heart? Nope.

Just for the record the Kurds spent millions in advertising thanking America for invading Iraq and freeing them from the tyrant that was running the nation. I appreciated and liked seeing the commercials. So after 90 years of fighting and dying for the freedom of other nations we have Australia, the Kurds, Philippines, and the United Kingdom as the only countries that have bothered to thank us. Don’t get me wrong when I lived in France individuals would express their appreciation for what we did but not the government, the same was true when I was in Spain, Portugal and the Soviet Union.

He seenmed to be negating the government aid in totality, instead saying that almost all (it may have even been most, I do not know) was coming from individuals, when the truth is that many governments gave lots of aid. Perhaps not in dollars in hand, but in service and supplies.