When someone gives you a whole bunch of money and expects nothing in return, the proper response is "thank you" not "blank you."
The Times of India labels the U.S. "parsimonious," its tsunami relief package "crumbs," and its record in foreign aid "less than generous." Less generous than, say, India's?
"Aid is not charity," the paper contends. "This is the basic point that the West, particularly the U.S., must realise." Government aid, whether in the form of food stamps or foreign aid, certainly isn't charity. Its dispensers give what's not theirs and its receivers are often government officials--sometimes on the take--rather than the truly needy.
I'm prepared to agree that "aid is not charity," but the India Times's following convenient supposition is not something that I--or any other rational person--would be willing to indulge. "Aid is trade," the paper claims, "nothing more or less." Really? We are giving the embattled region $350 million. What are we getting in return for what we're "trading" you? A scowl? Insults? Complaints?
There are more than 150,000 dead from the Sumatra earthquake and the ensuing tsunami. Many more will die from starvation and disease. Now is not the time to score ideological points--as the India Times is attempting to do--but to save lives. Three-hundred-fifty million dollars will help do that. Reflexively blaming America for a natural disaster won't.
You should not be surprised at the reaction of foreign media as well as some foreign leaders. Hating the U.S. is the "in" thing now. No more hiding it in the closet. They know that we are too politically correct to pull most of our foreign aid to most of these ungrateful leaches. It doesn't matter that the U.S. is always there for others in a disaster, we are the cause of all evil in the world. Yet, we are good enough to accept aid from. How do they sleep at night?
The foreign powers that be realize that our politicians are susceptible to collective guilt and will bend to insure that opinions of our country in the world are as good as financially possible.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how much we do.
We just happen to live in a great country with a relatively strong economy but have weak and passive politicians who run our system.
We should do as much as we can within reason and be satisfied with our contribution without the guilt.
Then, if they hate us, we hate them back.
In Amarabad, Calcutta and all over India all I
see is poor wretches worshipping cows. As a pilot
I had to grease so many palms it was difficult to
hold on to the yoke, but I did, and got out of that hellhole as fast as we could climb. Were it not for American 'out-sourcing' of computer jobs,
India would still be a nation of second rate
colonial sahibs, still without manners as they have shown in their ingratitudenous criticism of
American CHARITY....YES, IT'S CHARITY.
Looks like Benjamin Cable gets it wrong both sides. The Indians clearly did not need charity. They were busy helping everyone else too.
See:
http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4378
