If US doesn't help a country, it has failed. But would another country help the US?

Please move if in wrong forum.


Okay so a question has just cometh to my mind.

I have seen many news reports etc on the whole Syria thing, and of course the many other similar situations in the past.

In quite a lot of these reports, there will be a quote from somebody. Whether it's a reporter or a member of the public, it always has the same meaning. At some point, someone will say:

"The US, UK and the Western World have failed us, they should help us"

More than most, it is aimed at the US. US politicians are blamed for the not helping other countries fight their own wars bla bla bla.


But what was to happen if it was the other way around? What if the US broke out in a huge civil war, millions of people died and the country was savaged from the inside out. Who would intervene? Who would provide military and humanitarian aid?


I doubt the Middle East.

The U.S has never tried to help a country.

They have always tried to exploit other countries.




When another country says that the U.S has failed them, they are really saying "Instead of helping us, they have betrayed us, betrayed us fellow Humans."


The quicker the U.S Citizens burn the U.S Government to the ground and rebuild, the better.

I think you have to separate the American people as a whole from the American Corporations and Government. I do believe that people all around the world have, especially through the bankers and their protection by their own governments, got to the point that they realise that we, the general public of the world all face the same problems that cause us all misery and hardship wherever one lives.

A good example of this was when Pakistan had a catastrophy, a number of Brits went straight out there to help and sent funds etc yet some of our home-terrorism comes from Pakistani imigrants. People don't care about the who and whats gone on beforehand, they care to help - that I truly believe is human nature, so I don't think the American people should feel in any way isolated from the public's of the world, we are united in a common problem.

reply to post by brace22


If the US was ever directly threatened then I think the UK would always support it and provide whatever aid it possibly could.
I suspect the same could be said of Canada as well and possibly Australia.

Let's hope it never happens and we don't have to find out.

You are forgetting what politics is. The USA is not helping stop people from dying, are you so naïve?

ITS ABOUT OIL! WAKE UP!

Please stop being naïve...

If anything the USA need to stay out of it so that the Middle East will help each other. For $ change. You think middle easterners are going to just sit aside and allow it to continue? I think not.

What the USA is doing is called meddling and there is a reason for it $$$.

www.bbc.co.uk...

4 mins of your time to watch...if you can be bothered..

PDUK

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by brace22

 

If the US was ever directly threatened then I think the UK would always support it and provide whatever aid it possibly could.
I suspect the same could be said of Canada as well and possibly Australia.

Let's hope it never happens and we don't have to find out.

To reply to the OP and to Freeborn in the same post.

But would another country help the US??

Help the US to do what exactly?? You see my point???

If it was to help the US commit a an act that is wrong then no...

And to back up Freeborn... if the Help was to turn away insurgency or any other form of injustice then of course the US could count on the UK to help.

The one thing that I am very happy about is that this time we the British people have managed to stand up against a potentially wrong act.

If the Americans could guarantee that any action against Syria was against the perpetrators of a genocide and none other or any other negative actions as a result of action then, yep the UK would have your back...

But that isn't the case is it?!?

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


I agree - UK this time has had the foresight to see what is happening that. Obama is this time being rather foolish and its a set-up.

If the Middle easterners keep suffering sooner or later their own neighbours will help them, there is nothing the USA can do in my view.

The US doesn't help other countries, it helps itself.
If The US really had wanted to help Britain during WW II it would have done so FREE OF CHARGE and not through "Lend Lease"

By help, you mean bomb and exploit for resources.... Right?

reply to post by brace22


The US helps no one.

The US is just the lap dog military to the one world agenda.

The US is not obliged to help any one, in fact they pick and choose who they want to assist

Did I say US, I meant US government, sadly they are the rulers not the servants they should be.

Its sad that many think the US is obliged to help, its time you helped yourselves as opposed to anyone else.

I would imagine, if not go further than state Australia would and has supported the US in every endeavour (for better or worse) they have been involved in. Sadly this may be an issue with our government as well

I am sure US citizens are as disappointed as I am as to some of the situations both our countrys have been involved.

reply to post by PurpleDog UK


Do they know which group/whom dropped this incendiary bomb?

Originally posted by Unrealised
The U.S has never tried to help a country.

They have always tried to exploit other countries.




When another country says that the U.S has failed them, they are really saying "Instead of helping us, they have betrayed us, betrayed us fellow Humans."


The quicker the U.S Citizens burn the U.S Government to the ground and rebuild, the better.

That's a mighty hateful thing to say about a nation that is on record for anyone to see as being one of, if not THE most generous nation in the world on every major disaster you can name or care to look up, anywhere across the Globe.

We can all lament how the US plays other nations to it's own benefit... or USED TO... Since Obama has ceded the field to other nations to do that in our absence. (No one ignorantly thought the US stepping aside meant anything would end, did they?? The names of the people just changed nationality, is all)

However, if the world really wants to see what it's like when the US does not help? That day is coming real quick. We won't have the capability much longer, how this nation is being run into total ruin right now. That wouldn't have just been tough, but a game changer for everyone in the Indonesian Tsunami, Pakistani Floods and Haitian Earthquake to name just a few things from the very recent past.

@ OP

I doubt other nations will give much either way. They don't for each other today, with a few exceptions. The US and a handful of others are always, without fail, the top of the giving nations for every disaster while almost everyone else either "pledges" what they never actually GIVE in the end, or watch casually while doing nothing whatsoever. No....If we're offered help it won't be for altruistic reasons, I'm sure.

If the civilians required aid, then yes. If their govt did, hell no.

The U.S govt has burnt a lot of bridges this century, let alone last century. If a civil war was ever to break out, you can bet your last dollar most nations will be unwilling to help.

But this isn't Syria, this is 'murica. If the Syrian regime is capable of what we've been seeing, imagine what the largest military in the world is capable of. I'd rather not think about it.

Exactly like it is planned

Originally posted by wrabbit2000

Originally posted by Unrealised
The U.S has never tried to help a country.

They have always tried to exploit other countries.




When another country says that the U.S has failed them, they are really saying "Instead of helping us, they have betrayed us, betrayed us fellow Humans."


The quicker the U.S Citizens burn the U.S Government to the ground and rebuild, the better.

That's a mighty hateful thing to say about a nation that is on record for anyone to see as being one of, if not THE most generous nation in the world on every major disaster you can name or care to look up, anywhere across the Globe.

We can all lament how the US plays other nations to it's own benefit... or USED TO... Since Obama has ceded the field to other nations to do that in our absence. (No one ignorantly thought the US stepping aside meant anything would end, did they?? The names of the people just changed nationality, is all)

However, if the world really wants to see what it's like when the US does not help? That day is coming real quick. We won't have the capability much longer, how this nation is being run into total ruin right now. That wouldn't have just been tough, but a game changer for everyone in the Indonesian Tsunami, Pakistani Floods and Haitian Earthquake to name just a few things from the very recent past.

@ OP

I doubt other nations will give much either way. They don't for each other today, with a few exceptions. The US and a handful of others are always, without fail, the top of the giving nations for every disaster while almost everyone else either "pledges" what they never actually GIVE in the end, or watch casually while doing nothing whatsoever. No....If we're offered help it won't be for altruistic reasons, I'm sure.

When it comes to the most generous nation, the US is way down the list:-

www.economicsinpictures.com...

When the barbary pirates took American hostages/slaves and the department of the navy was founded in response to barbary pirates taking Americans, italy gave them equipment, ships and fighting men. Do you know the Marines hymn?

From the Halls of Montezuma,
To the shores of Tripoli

Italian volunteers from Sicily were fighting shoulder to shoulder with those marines at the shores of tripoli. Mostly because all of Europe had an axe to grind with the barbary states, but also to help them liberate their American captives. I am sure other countries helped America out too, although I guess at times not because of their love for America but to get one over over some other country.

It was the first time the American flag was raised on foreign soil. While Italians were by far the biggest contributor in therms of material, there were also greeks and other nationalities.

reply to post by alldaylong


You've used PERCENTAGE of GDP for aid given? That is a creative way to find a fact to fit your preconceived notion.

If your argument is which nation has by % alone and as an isolated metric, given the most on paper? That works.

If we're asking which nations by weight, volume and type, give the highest aid on a consistent basis? GDP % is irrelevant.

If a nation is devastated, which matters more? 50% donated from the GDP of Tonga or a fraction of 1% from the US or other major world power? Not which might mean more in giving. Which MATTERS more for those in dire need that day and week?

Stats mean nothing when all anyone wants to know is when the USS Comfort will be on station or how many tons of potable water and safe food the cargo planes brought today.

I'd imagine the UK would. In fact, I'm pretty sure we would.

I truthfully can't envisage a time when we'd have to, given how tiny we are comparatively, but we would.

Just because we're not blindly following into another war doesn't change that, I don't think.