Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
America is seen by those nations in much the same light as Britain. Not the former colonial power (America has only a few overseas possessions or colonies), but a commercial invader instead. While people hunger in the bush, Gerneral Motors, Bank of America, McDonalds and Coca-Cola make fortunes in the cities, which are then turned into dollars and repatriated to the USA. American companies have extracted at least as much from the third world countries as Britain did and can rightly be considered to have grown even richer as a result.
So, you're saying that the American military is parading around these third world countries forcing their citizens to buy American goods? No? Then how are we "exploiting" them? Simply by offering our goods for sale?

And by the same token, how many dollars are siphoned out of the US by foreign companies selling products here? Face it: it's a global marketplace, and if you have something to sell at a reasonable price, why not sell it?

And as for exploiting these countries, sure, the oil companies, for example, made obscene amounts of money by extracting oil from places around the world. They also spent obscene amounts of money to build the infrastructure to do so, as many industries do. And a significant portion of that money went directly to the country involved. If the government of that country decided to keep it for themselves rather than give it to the people, who's fault is that?

Thus, it does not sound well when you complain that you are not thanked for "all" the aid you give: what thanks did you give (as a nation) for the riches you have approrpiated from those poor countries?
Perhaps respect is the wrong word. And I'm not speaking about foreign aid, which is something completely different. I'm talking about disaster relief. And I'm talking about, primarily, American citizens, not politicians. So instead of respect, which must be earned, I agree, let's just say recognition for all that the American people (NOT government) donates to charities world-wide.

But my comments were not really focused on the duty to repay other obligations, but to respond to real and urgent need. If tiny Luxemburg and Scandinaiva can all give about 1% of their income in the form of international aid, why can the world's richest nations give only a fraction of that amount? Britain and Germany give only 1/3 percent, while Japan and USA can give only 1/6%. OK, USA gives more dollars than anyone else - twice as much as the next country, but it can - and should - give much more if it truly wants to provide real assistance rather than just to salve its conscience. The comments Thorne and other Americans have made here and elsewhere in this connection demonstrate why USA is seen as an extremely mean country.
Am I correct in assuming that these figures are for official, government controlled foreign aid?

At any rate, this kind of attitude is the problem with Socialism as I see it. The poor expect the wealthy to "give back" their wealth, regardless of how they may have earned it. I'm not a rich person, but I don't expect anyone to give me anything I haven't earned.