If you can, do you help people or don't you? Where do we draw the line?

I'm speaking about American foreign policy. Now I'm curious... In your personal life if you see someone who needs help and you have the ability to help them do you?

Should we look at our foreign policy with a similar perspective?

If so where do we draw the line, where do you draw the line in your personal life?

Does our culture even support this ideology anymore?

a reply to: onequestion

Should we look at our foreign policy with a similar perspective?

You can't compare a personal responsibility, to a national one.

It's personally moral for me, to help the homeless guy on the street with clothing and shelter, because he probably actually has no other way of getting any assistance.

It's morally WRONG for me, to meddle in the affairs of an entire nation, because I FEEL like they could use my help.

It's a maternal mindset, like we've seen in Africa the last 100 years. Throwing money and resources at a problem that won't change because it's a cultural issue. It's a governance issue amongst themselves.

So I can't draw the same line in my personal life, as I do in my foreign policy.

Apples & oranges.

~Tenth

American foreign policy is designed around what will help sustain itself only
It serves it's own interests, not even the will of the American people, who are only along for the ride of sustaining interests

Do I help people? Sure. I also don't commit acts of war, or torture, or extort people of their life savings

When American policy looks to "help" in foreign places, there is an underlying precipice that there must be something to get out of it and not always in the short term

a reply to: onequestion

If you would be president of a nation, then it would be in your best interest to help another nation than to destroy it - the thing is, the nation which receives help will be dependent on you - and will owe you. Then you have one more ally instead of one more enemy.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Going to have to sit on that one for a day or two see what pops Into my head.

a reply to: onequestion

Well according to Saul in his letter to the Galatians, chapter 6:

2Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ. 3For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself.…

If anyone asks, I never quoted the New Testament, just saying.

What is interesting here, is the word burden in the Greek comes from the idea of a weight that is too heavy for a single person to carry. Basically, Saul is saying that we should help those who are in a situation where they cannot possibly help themselves. (unless they are stuck in a situation that might tempt us to revert to sin, and then we should avoid the situation altogether).

Muslims kind of suggest this too by saying that no one should beg in the street if they are wealthy enough to feed and shelter themselves for a day and a night.

The Jews were commanded not to collect more mana than they needed for the day except on the day before the Sabbath.

It seems God's definition of what man needs, and man's definition of what he needs are two totally different things.

Personally, I think of all the gurus out there, Jesus got it best: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Contempt is envy's ugly cousin. If we can avoid each with equal fear, I think we'll be alright in the end. ;p

a reply to: onequestion
That is a good question...as are most of your questions.
I was faced with the same predicament, this weekend.
In a far-off metropolitan downtown for my daughter's wedding.
Friday evening - standing behind the hotel, smoking a cig'...talking with my spouse and another gentleman, when a man, about my age walked up to us, urgently pointing to some vehicle with his "17-year old" in it...explaining that he'd just got off work, was almost out of gas, and only had $0.35...and, could any of us spare some cash for help.
Neither of those I was with made a move... I knew I had the remains of a $20 in my wallet, fished out the dough, and gave it to him.
I knew what the looks meant from my spouse and the other gentleman, but thought - "unless I know he's lying, why not err on the side of compassion"...
An hour or so, later, I was back in the same place, by myself...when another man walked up, urgently...dressed almost just like the first...and almost with the exact same story...except he only had $0.17 in his pocket.
Fortunately, I didn't have to make the decision again, as I really had given all my cash to the first gentleman.
I feel fairly confident that if I had stayed there much longer, I would have encountered another 3 - 5 urgent requests before the night was done.

So - when do you give...and when do you stop giving?
Maybe they should take care of the home-front, first...and then, if there's surplus to help others with, the question could be addressed with greater wisdom.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Going to have to sit on that one for a day or two see what pops Into my head.

I see it the same way as throwing yourself at every disabled person you meet, trying to help them.

YOU may think that you are doing the right thing, my extending a hand, but they often feel like you are meddling, or treating them like they are different, or less than you.

It's that maternal/paternal instinct we all have, that has to be checked when dealing with people of vastly different life experiences and values.

" Nation Building" hasn't been successful in a very long time, when undertaken by a different nation, who again, share wildly different values and mindsets.

~Tenth

a reply to: onequestion

The golden rule, it's what I try to use for most decisions.

With a micro focus on making things grow and thrive.

Positivity is a mind set, I'm alive therefore...

I can't always, but WE can.

On the political stance, changing the small things that are in reach to positivity is going to be essential to our continued growth and prosperity.


The duality is coming to a slow halt in society, what seat on the bus we choose to take is a matter of the big and small of things.


Great question btw.

Cheers

--- Our foreign policy has absolutely nothing to do with helping others, it is about protecting our own interests.
We require more resources than our country can support on its own, hence why we are in the Middle-East and everywhere else.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

It's a maternal mindset, like we've seen in Africa the last 100 years. Throwing money and resources at a problem that won't change because it's a cultural issue. It's a governance issue amongst themselves.

If we cast our minds back beyond the '100 years,' there's several hundred years of history where Western nations exploited the crap out of Africa. Displaced their aristocracies/leaders and replaced them with our own whilst funnelling their resources into our own economies.

If that's a 'maternal mindset,' perhaps the 'children' have learned by example? If it's 'cultural,' can we really define a single culture across a continent? If the answer's yes to that, who's culture is predominant?

You can't compare a personal responsibility, to a national one.

If we tried to, it might compare to a self-elected carer dwelling in someone's house and selling off all their valuables whilst complaining they never get thanks.

a reply to: Kandinsky

If we cast our minds back beyond the '100 years,' there's several hundred years of history where Western nations exploited the crap out of Africa. Displaced their aristocracies/leaders and replaced them with our own whilst funnelling their resources into our own economies.

Yup, exactly. And most nation building over the course of forever, has been to move forward the nation doing the 'helping' at the expense of the nation getting the help.

If that's a 'maternal mindset,' perhaps the 'children' have learned by example?

Well today's maternal mindset was put there by propagandists. When the IMF was handing out loans to African nations, everybody thought that was great, cause they were low interest.

What they weren't telling us in the media, was that those deals were contingent on very nasty things, like selling your water works to Euro or Western corporations to be run for profit. Or their natural mining resources etc.

Now we have massive, multi-billion dollar charities who only spend 20 cents of every dollar on actual aid, and the rest on salaries and advertising. it doesn't take much to fool the average consumer into jumping on the band wagon of 'Foreign Aid", without every providing so much as an expense receipt.

We've create a co-dependance between rich and poor nations, because it serves the rich nation. If even one of those nations rose above it's current predicament and became a 1st world nation, it would cascade to other nations within a matter of a few decades.

That would put those national interests we value so dearly at great risk.

~Tenth

a reply to: WanDash

The quickest way to raise money as a beggar is to dress in a suit and tie and to pretend to be stuck in some extraordinary situation, asking for $40 or something like that. This way, what you are asking for isn't outrageous, but it is more than any one person is likely to give you, so if they see you in the same spot later on, they won't think you necessarily have raised more money than what you were initially asking for. Just make sure you never frequent the same area with the same trick, or people will catch on really fast.

The best places to target are events where people are likely to have a lot of money on hand: sporting events, concerts, shopping centers, etc. I've known quite a few people who live way better than I do who get all of their money from begging (well conning really), like this. My one friend in Los Angeles figured up that she averaged $80 an hour on the street begging when she was by herself and almost $200 an hour when she had her child with her. Amazing.

And you wonder why some people are so reluctant to work. Money really is easy to come by in this country if you have no moral scruples.

I think you have to use your wits when giving to people on the street, combined with whether or not you have "spare change".

I was driving through the city today and saw a young girl holding a sign at the street corner. She had pretty green eyes, very pretty eyes, slim, somewhat attractive to not ugly, the sign was well written so she had good penmanship and when the light turned green she immediately went to the red light side street, showing some intelligence.

Now, I had just paid my union dues at the hall maybe 5 blocks away. She could very easily walk in there and apply for an apprenticeship and start working. She was on her feet, showed no signs of disability so I gave her nothing.

Now a few years ago I was working in Las Vegas and long story short, I really needed clean socks. Didn't have a car, was working 12+ hour days so rode the bus one night to the nearest "sock store"... it was cold. When I left on the bus there was one older guy sleeping on a bench. Sandals, no socks... It was cold. I really wanted those socks I just bought... I tore open the package and took 2 or 3 pair out and laid the other 5 or 6 pair next to the guy as I exited the bus.

Foreign aid should be based somewhat on need. If the ruler of a nation is pissing in a gold bowl while his subjects are starving, he better have a lot of oil for us...

a reply to: onequestion

I watched this episode the other night, these are the people the U.S should be helping if they are going to continue to be so anal about who to help.



My Mom & Grandma were born in the States and I was born in Canada. I've always paid attention to what's going on down south of the border from me because I have family down there and I can also vote in elections if I wanted to.

I was raised to be a Good Samaterian and help those in need when I see someone who needs it. If I'm going to be giving anything to a panhandler it's going to be actual food not money, that way they can't buy drugs with the cash that was supposed to be going for food.

If I see someone who has broken down on the side of the road, I will ask if they have been able to call someone and if not, I lend them my cell phone. I've helped up someone who had fallen and injured their foot, I brought them over to a spot to sit, lent them my phone and waited with them until their Mom showed up. I've done other things here and there to help someone out and other times didn't have to do anything because other people were already helping out. ((One of the things I love about being in Canada, compassionate people))

a reply to: Sabiduria

I saw that last little bit of his show. Makes you wonder how our nation can turn their backs on people like that. I hate to compare the two but it is the same with the dogs we have used over there.

Risk their lives and for the humans, their families and the damn donkey gets home first.

a reply to: tinner07

I was pretty disgusted by the fact that a donkey was able to be rescued yet people who risk their lives and have their families killed and/or kidnapped for money.

Goes to show you how much the U.S cares about Foreigners who sacrifice their lives for the U.S Military. They just use the people and toss them aside.

Now the program is ending too, like wtf

a reply to: onequestion on a personal level, i believe in giving help if it empowers the individual, i do not help if it seems as if i will be enabling. I do not see why this method can not be used in foreign policy.

It seems as if all government policies are not based on any type of functional or moral decency, rather they are constructed around building power, control and profit.

Helping those less fortunate is a moral responsibilty within our own communities, ie, disabled, vunerable, children etc
when you help those in other countries, where do you draw the line? At what point do you stop? who do you choose to help,

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: onequestion

Should we look at our foreign policy with a similar perspective?

You can't compare a personal responsibility, to a national one.

It's personally moral for me, to help the homeless guy on the street with clothing and shelter, because he probably actually has no other way of getting any assistance.

It's morally WRONG for me, to meddle in the affairs of an entire nation, because I FEEL like they could use my help.

It's a maternal mindset, like we've seen in Africa the last 100 years. Throwing money and resources at a problem that won't change because it's a cultural issue. It's a governance issue amongst themselves.

So I can't draw the same line in my personal life, as I do in my foreign policy.

Apples & oranges.

~Tenth

I agree completely with this: It's two entirely different things.
All I would add is on the national issue, if a country asks for the help….
But even if they do, there are still huge political and cultural differences: Idi Amin (sp) took our assistance in Africa, but he was a despot. He stockpiled all the supplies this country sent, and the aid never got to the people in that country who needed it most.

In my personal life, to help another is almost reflexive. I often think about it later, and because of something I know about the person: like knowing they will get into the same problem again, regardless of my help, I wonder if I should have helped. When does "help" become "enabling?'
But that's the "orange" to thetenthpowers analogy of national "apples."

Just a quick, un-well-thought-out thought. I would much rather be required to personally help people out to the tune of a percentage of my income, rather than have the government collect the money from me...pay themselves and then pass out what is left.

I would gladly take $500 per year and choose needy people to give it to. At least that way, I would feel that the right people would be receiving that money. Not the percentage that leeches off the system.