Chapter 2: America's Magical Wallet
America is known throughout the world as a giving nation. When disaster happens, the United States is always there to lend a helping hand of some sort whether it is through financial aid, military training, or some other form of assistance. But is it always the best option to be so generous? America should make sure that their own issues are in order before being so generous to other nations.
“Should the U.S. be the police of the world?” was asked by Debate.org to anybody willing to answer. The results were pretty one sided. 75% of those who had voted said no, while the remaining 25% felt that they should be. One voter stated, “They need to take a look at their own country and fix it first. I really don't understand why the government wants to get involved in other countries while our own is having MANY problems of its own. Seen Detroit lately? That's exactly what I'm talking about.” Many of the other voters answered in a similar fashion, saying that while it is nice to be able to help others, America shouldn’t be pitching funds and other resources into helping other countries while it needs to work on its own problems.
Interestingly enough, after honing in on certain topics, the outcome of whether or not the U.S. should be assisting other countries so much becomes a more even sided argument. “Should America Help Other Countries” was also pitched on the same website and the ending results wound up in a 57% majority saying yes we should. A comment, which caught my eye, the most said,
“Yes Absolutely!! We out of all countries have it all. What else do we need? Better roads to drive our fancy cars? More drones? More billion dollar helicopters? All from out taxes. Yes poor is every where in the US but not like in some countries for gods sake!“
Just going in that much to a bit more specific question managed to provide a bigger sense of conflict between citizens, so what would happen if we were to observe a specific case of worldwide disaster? Well this answer doesn’t seem to be as critical, as it doesn’t even seem to appear on the website.
Natural disasters are bad, that’s common knowledge. It’s very nice that if a worldwide disaster happens, bigger countries like America will come and help the 3rd world. Interestingly enough, America turns down offers for assistance in terms of resources without consent of it’s citizens. For instance, during 9/11, the U.S. accepted condolences, but that was it. When other Countries attempted financial aid and military units, the United States politely declined stating, "thanks for the offer, but no. And, for God sake, don't get in a plane and fly in this direction. Our Air Force is a bit trigger-happy at the moment, for obvious reasons."
Why decline help though? Is it to seem like a better country? It may be nice to seem like a “good guy” to the world but it’s not always the most practical.
What about going in to other countries for non-helpful reasons? As stated, The U.S. has been in Iraq for 10 years. Some say it’s for a just cause such as protection of a possible nuclear threat. When I went to ask some locals in my neighborhood however, the answers which I received all were based around the response of “money hungry politicians wanting fuel.” While this statement may not be the correct one, it wouldn’t be correct to say that the American troops are doing a large amount to benefit Iraq either.
“Over 60% of families don't have enough food, 23% of children are considered chronically malnourished and the estimated number of persons living with a chronic health problem directly caused by war is 223,000. Only 54% of households have access to a safe and stable water supply,” states a psr.org article on America’s current standing on Iraq.
It’s obvious that helping people is a good thing. One of America’s key aspects about themselves is that they are supposed to help and support the world. But after being around for the amount of time that they have, perhaps it’s time to review how they should go about assisting themselves first.
“Should the U.S. be the police of the world?” was asked by Debate.org to anybody willing to answer. The results were pretty one sided. 75% of those who had voted said no, while the remaining 25% felt that they should be. One voter stated, “They need to take a look at their own country and fix it first. I really don't understand why the government wants to get involved in other countries while our own is having MANY problems of its own. Seen Detroit lately? That's exactly what I'm talking about.” Many of the other voters answered in a similar fashion, saying that while it is nice to be able to help others, America shouldn’t be pitching funds and other resources into helping other countries while it needs to work on its own problems.
Interestingly enough, after honing in on certain topics, the outcome of whether or not the U.S. should be assisting other countries so much becomes a more even sided argument. “Should America Help Other Countries” was also pitched on the same website and the ending results wound up in a 57% majority saying yes we should. A comment, which caught my eye, the most said,
“Yes Absolutely!! We out of all countries have it all. What else do we need? Better roads to drive our fancy cars? More drones? More billion dollar helicopters? All from out taxes. Yes poor is every where in the US but not like in some countries for gods sake!“
Just going in that much to a bit more specific question managed to provide a bigger sense of conflict between citizens, so what would happen if we were to observe a specific case of worldwide disaster? Well this answer doesn’t seem to be as critical, as it doesn’t even seem to appear on the website.
Natural disasters are bad, that’s common knowledge. It’s very nice that if a worldwide disaster happens, bigger countries like America will come and help the 3rd world. Interestingly enough, America turns down offers for assistance in terms of resources without consent of it’s citizens. For instance, during 9/11, the U.S. accepted condolences, but that was it. When other Countries attempted financial aid and military units, the United States politely declined stating, "thanks for the offer, but no. And, for God sake, don't get in a plane and fly in this direction. Our Air Force is a bit trigger-happy at the moment, for obvious reasons."
Why decline help though? Is it to seem like a better country? It may be nice to seem like a “good guy” to the world but it’s not always the most practical.
What about going in to other countries for non-helpful reasons? As stated, The U.S. has been in Iraq for 10 years. Some say it’s for a just cause such as protection of a possible nuclear threat. When I went to ask some locals in my neighborhood however, the answers which I received all were based around the response of “money hungry politicians wanting fuel.” While this statement may not be the correct one, it wouldn’t be correct to say that the American troops are doing a large amount to benefit Iraq either.
“Over 60% of families don't have enough food, 23% of children are considered chronically malnourished and the estimated number of persons living with a chronic health problem directly caused by war is 223,000. Only 54% of households have access to a safe and stable water supply,” states a psr.org article on America’s current standing on Iraq.
It’s obvious that helping people is a good thing. One of America’s key aspects about themselves is that they are supposed to help and support the world. But after being around for the amount of time that they have, perhaps it’s time to review how they should go about assisting themselves first.