The great American Civil War Veteran and Lawyer, Robert Ingersoll, once said, ¨We rise by lifting others.” . I think what Mr. Ingersoll was trying to say by this statement is that sometimes people just need a little extra push in life to be great. For years now the American people has been questioning would it just be easier to become an isolated country and focus on our own country, or is it our obligation to continue to help others in other countries. On a personal level I do believe that America should continue aiding other countries, all because of the old saying of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”. In other words helping others can lead to help for you weather it be during crucial wartime or during life's worse curveballs. With continuing foreign aid I also believe America should have some sort of restrictions on foreign aid. America has had a very bright pastime involving foreign aid …show more content…
Everyone might think America is all strong and unstoppable, I’m not say we aren’t, but we wouldn't have done a lot of good things in war if it wasn't for the help of other countries. During WWII we helped Great Britain and the Soviet Union defeat Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Germany party. We helped even though we were in war with Japan. Soon after defeating the Nazis, the main focus turned towards the Americans vs Japan. Great Britain and the Soviet Union help defeat Japan. When asking Webb City High Schools well respected American Heritage and College History teacher, Mrs. Cindy Dagnan, What way has America helped and been help by other countries, her response was “Hello, WWII!!!”. In 1945, soon after WWII ended the spark of the Cold War struck. Cold War soon lead to the creation of NATO. In the NATO America was assisted by Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and the United Kingdom. In the 1950’s America assisted the troubled South Korea in the Korean
The U.S. has been sending troops to over-sea countries to aid the needy, and take certain measures to try to keep our country safe. We want to help the innocent lives, care for the civilians, and want them to be free. We help other countries so that maybe one day they can stand on their own! Power is everything. Power is what controls the world, and without it, you become weak. When we help other countries, that shows how powerful we are, and how strong we are to stand on our on and help! The U.S is considered to be the superpower in the world. Therefore, it should use its power to help other countries in need. Yes, we have a lot of problems with our government,
The wars that America fought was primarily for that reason. The formation of the European Union was a key strategy by United States to ensure that European countries are consolidated under one umbrella that controls the political and economic affairs of the region. United States’ economic mighty, political and cultural appeal and strong military has helped maintain the status as the only truly global power. U.S. used its power to promote democracy and support countries under siege both from internal and external aggressions, a strategy that they also used to promote the interests of American companies and its people. The U.S. foreign policy through the 20th century was meant to take the lead in creating effective international institutions and arrangements to handle new challenges especially those rising from Europe, Asia and Latin America. The U.S. wanted to lead not only because it alone could have helped the international community overcome its problems, but feared that it is most likely to be hurt if it does not act. Following the victory in World War II, the U.S. led the efforts to create United Nations and NATO and also facilitated formation of new regimes in some countries to promote democracy, economic recovery, development, and prosperity which benefited those countries and their people and
...any wanted to land in Florida, but the United States turned them away. In relation to WWII, Roosevelt wanted to arm Britain and France, but most Americans wanted to leave Europe alone. But when Britain declared war, the United States sent sent weapons to Britain, their allies. Soon United States involvement became necessary. Freedom in world depended on the outcome of World War II.
Stephen Ambrose speaks much on wars that America was directly or indirectly involved in. In one chapter, The Legacy of World War Two, he saw war, for the US and the Allies, in World War Two, as “not to conquer, not to enslave, not to destroy, but to liberate” (Ambrose 120) He goes on to say that “the Marshall Plan was the most generous act in human history.” (Ambrose 121) The Marshall Plan created NATO, the Berlin Air Lift and Ambrose swimming in patriotism claimed it was “the American spirit, more than American productive power, that made it so.” (Ambrose 121) He continues h...
The United States continues to give around $550 billion in aid to other countries each year, making America the world's top donor by far (Richardson). While the United States government only supplies $252 billion to needy Americans each year. Former Assistant to the President for Communications, Patrick Buchanan said, "The idea that we should send endless streams of tax dollars all over the world, while our own country sinks slowly in an ocean of debt is, well, ludicrous" (Foreign Aid). The United States need to give money to support the domestic impoverished rather than supporting developing foreign countries because the poverty and homelessness in America is increasing faster than the aid necessary to reduce this trend. Part of the reason that the United States should aid the domestic impoverished is that some foreign countries cannot be trusted with the money given to them and in certain cases, the money intended to aid countries are harmful for that country’s well-being.
The United States of America, the friendly giant as most countries call it. When the U.S sees smaller countries being deemed down and bullied by other communist and cultural threatening countries the U.S is by their side, no matter what. Due to the fact that the U.S doesn't want communism spreading, it is our duty to help those that are defenseless. But how much help is too much? Too much help could mean they want something from you, in this case, being another country because it will either benefit them or it's going to remove them from a situation that won't be beneficial. Paul Potter simply put that into context in which why the U.S has to get involved in this type of situation or an idea of why. In his speech called “The Incredible War” during an antiwar march in Washington on April 17, 1965, Paul made some points that
Throughout history, America has had its hand in conflict with other countries. Some of those conflicts have turned into wars. Looking back at America’s “track record” with war, America has a worthy past of having its citizen’s support. Obviously the two World Wars are not controversial. The United States in the Korean War was criticized, fairly, for its strategy, but the need to defend South Korea was never questioned.
No one could have realized that what seemed as an insignificant gesture to partake in training South Vietnamese armies and America’s involvement in Southeast Asia would one day have the impact it did on America. Although at the time when Eisenhower was trying to stop of the spread of communism it seemed the right thing to do, the repercussions of that decision and the war it eventually led to was devastating to America politically, socially, and culturally.
...hat involve the situation but also the people of the country they are dealing with, because they might cut off aid to a country because the leader of the country might be a dictator the people would have to live in poverty. (14) I think this would be the best position because everyone would benefit from the situation. (15)In the Geneva Conference the U.S should have stayed out of Indochina’s business. The Chilean Revolution they United States should have never cut off aid to Chile for the reason being that the citizens of Chile would live in poverty. In the Panama Canal the United States did the right thing because they built it and owned it for several years and then in the year 2000 it passed it to the government of Panama.(16)in conclusion the United States should keep working on being the leading country of the world and not bring anymore problems upon themselves.
America’s Foreign Policy and the Cold War. The role of America at the end of World War II was where the origins of policing the world originated. America has been engaged in a very costly war in terms of dollars as well as lives. But, despite the expense, the United States came out of World War II better than any other nation that was involved.
I do believe that we have the obligation to help people in our world but no in the way Peter Singer puts it we should let people live their lives make choices to help themselves but we should make it easier for them to help themselves. Financial aid from global powers is a good step but until we have the freedom to join a nation without going through checkpoints and bureaucracy the problem will still exist. Money can't fix the problem but better diplomatic relations and the freedom to do and be who and what you want would be a good
The United States affected the first major catastrophe of the twentieth century tremendously. The First World War, otherwise known as the “Great War,” was truly a world-wide event that was started in August of 1914 due to a single assassination of the heir to the Austria-Hungarian Empire. All but two of the world’s major powers at the time were in Europe, and all of those powers were in entangling alliances that propelled the continent into war. The United States joined the war as a latecomer in 1917 due mostly to a combination of unrestricted submarine warfare and antagonism from Germany over U.S. borders. The involvement of the United States in the Great War was overall beneficial to the development of itself due to a combination of domestic and international factors that cemented the United States as a major “Great Power.”
The United States is one of the leading suppliers of Foreign Aid in the world, and even though the US gives billions, European countries give aid money to the same countries, this causes many areas of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia to be almost fully dependent on foreign aid. This means that without aid from other countries, they would not be able to support themselves at all. Foreign aid is meant to help countries that are struggling with civil unrest, disease, or natural disasters, it is not meant to help keep the country out of debt, but that is where more and more of the US and The EU’s foreign aid budget is going. The question is, does all this money actually go where it is intended? It should be going towards the government and to help the people, but in many cases, the countries government does not have the resources to properly track the flow of money. The countries in most cases have poor infrastructure and corrupt or oppressive leaders, not always at a national level, but in the towns and cities. So this means there is almost no way to oversee the flow of foreign aid through the country, all we can see is that their situations aren't getting any better and the countries are still impoverished. If this is the case, where are the millions of dollars going? Countries like Afghanistan and Iraq receive the most money from American foreign aid and European aid, yet they are still under oppressive governmental rule and there is still an extreme difference between the rich and poor. Garrett Harding’s theory of “Lifeboat Ethics” exemplifies how not giving aid to others will allow the strongest of society to thrive, while teaching the impoverished to help themselves. He believes that giving aid to poor countries will only make ...
Foreign aid can destroy natural mechanisms of economic growth if not properly apportioned to the individuals with motivation and passion for expansion. When blindly given to governments and the public, aid destroys native markets and halts natural growth. NGOs, charities and governments need to take the time to meet the needs of the poor individuals ensuring that local governments have a symbiotic relationship with those they govern over and that governments do not become corrupt or prone to cause civil unrest. Aid focused on meeting the needs of those ensnared by poverty traps can exponentially initiate growth but only if done with appropriate care and caution.
The issue of campaign financing has been discussed for a long time. Running for office especially a higher office is not a cheap event. Candidates must spend much for hiring staff, renting office space, buying ads etc. Where does the money come from? It cannot officially come from corporations or national banks because that has been forbidden since 1907 by Congress. So if the candidate is not extremely rich himself the funding must come from donations from individuals, party committees, and PACs. PACs are political action committees, which raise funds from different sources and can be set up by corporations, labor unions or other organizations. In 1974, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires full disclosure of any federal campaign contributions and expenditures and limits contributions to all federal candidates and political committees influencing federal elections. In 1976 the case Buckley v. Valeo upheld the contribution limits as a measure against bribery. But the Court did not rule against limits on independent expenditures, support which is not coordinated with the candidate. In the newest development, the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling from April 2014 the supreme court struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two-year period to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees combined. Striking down the restrictions on campaign funding creates a shift in influence and power in politics and therefore endangers democracy. Unlimited campaign funding increases the influence of few rich people on election and politics. On the other side it diminishes the influence of the majority, ordinary (poor) people, the people.