Join 3,434 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


$320 Million
October 4, 2001 12:59 PM   Subscribe

$320 Million worth of aid is going to the people of Afghanistan, and their neighbors. Is this too much? Couldn't this much money dramatically improve the lives of some 3000 or more struggling families here? Is this the proper message to send to terrorist nations?
posted by eas98 (23 comments total)

 
there are innocent people in afghanistan, they have a pretty hard time there
posted by mokey at 1:07 PM on October 4, 2001


Couldn't this much money dramatically improve the lives of some 3000 or more struggling families here?

You're not conerned at all with the plight of people living in Afghanistan under the Taliban that don't suscribe to the Taliban's beliefs? How would paying struggling families in the US help end terrorism?

Is this the proper message to send to terrorist nations?

I think it's a great message. Educating, clothing, and feeding the world does a lot to support your cause.
posted by mathowie at 1:14 PM on October 4, 2001


This is such a false dichotomy. Why is the other option the WTC victims? How about education, infrastructure, tax relief, cancer research, dog and pony shows, etc?

Terrorist nation? Give it up. There is no single opinion country in the universe, there is no nation founded on the tenets of terrorism. There are simply terrorists and they are drawn to corrupt governments existing in ghetto countries for a reason.
posted by skallas at 1:17 PM on October 4, 2001


Phewww. there hadn't been a WTC-related post for almost 56 minutes!!!!
I'm so glad somebody picked up the ball. Let's keep those WTC posts coming people!
posted by signal at 1:22 PM on October 4, 2001


good for bush. we should go in and help the people of iraq while we're at it, too, and give some support to pakistan for providing all of the afghani refugees with a safe harbor. i hope that the administration has an effective plan for the funds.
posted by mich9139 at 1:22 PM on October 4, 2001


There are simply terrorists and they are drawn to corrupt governments existing in ghetto countries for a reason.

I believe this was how Hitler came to power. Germany was a 'ghetto country', until he turned it around. By the time he was stopped, the damage had already been done.

Also, at what point do we hold a government responsible for the actions of its people? If we don't, then EVERY Terrorist Nation can hide behind that convenient loophole.
posted by eas98 at 1:28 PM on October 4, 2001


I think it's a great message. Educating, clothing, and feeding the world does a lot to support your cause.

How about doing that for people that have fought for this country, like the many homeless Viet Nam vets or for those that have been laid-off because of the tragedy or to improve our own educational system or to help other struggling people around the world who don't dream of growing up to destroy the USA. Helping the people of Afghanistan is the last thing our money should go to.We seem to be operating under an Orwellian concept called "Doublethink". We hold ideas of opposing meanings as meaning the same. War=Peace, Hate=Love, etc... I am disgusted that my tax dollars are going towards those that are trying to destroy us.
posted by temr2001 at 1:37 PM on October 4, 2001


Except temr2001, giving money to these people is probably the best way to keep them from trying to destroy us. That makes it sound more like bribery than it really is, but the fact of the matter is that prosperity=stability, and in the Middle East, when things look unstable, creatures like Osama and his Taliban pals come out of the woodwork.

The millions of starving people around the world, including Vietnam vets America, don't deserve what they are suffering. But given the fact that these people are the teeming masses from which the terrorists will draw their "holy warriors of jihad" in the future it makes good sense to put these people on another path. All it takes is some bread, medicine and books people. Your tax dollars are worth it.
posted by thewittyname at 1:44 PM on October 4, 2001


giving money to these people is probably the best way to keep them from trying to destroy us

The question is: Would you give your house for these people? If the answer is no, then why do you expect someone else to? For, that is what this money could buy -- 3000 houses for homeless people here. Instead, you expect those 3000 homeless families to think that our tax dollars are worth it. Somehow, I don't think they do.
posted by eas98 at 2:32 PM on October 4, 2001


"The people of Afghanistan" are not terrorists. "The people of Afghanistan" aren't even the Taliban. Many of them are starving to death, particularly women and children, for the laws restricting women's freedoms give no way for them to support their families, and many of the men (husbands, fathers, sons) have been killed in the fighting that's gone on over a decade. Is it these starving, victimized women who are trying to destroy you, temr2001, or their stunted, dying children? Please clarify.
posted by Sapphireblue at 2:37 PM on October 4, 2001


The Taliban is an unrepresentative regime, unrecognised as the government of Afghanistan. Why let a huge country suffering so badly at the hands of such a regime, not to mention the droughts etc., just die? You'd like to think that 9.11 would've encouraged people to not to take the actions of a few and generalise them to many innocents (as the terrorists do) more than is happening.
posted by boneybaloney at 2:50 PM on October 4, 2001


eas98,

First of all, giving this $320 million to Afghanistan is in no way a guarantee that anyone in this country will be denied a free house from the government.

Second, your comparison is an illogical change of scale. I'm not talking about people giving up houses, I'm talking about giving up a very small percentage of their wealth. Given that there are about 320 million Americans, I actually would expect most everyone to be willing to fork over one dollar each so that several million people in Afghanistan do not die horrible deaths from disease, starvation, exposure or war.

But you know what, if you don't think its worth while, I would be more than glad to pay yours and temr2001's dollar.
posted by thewittyname at 2:54 PM on October 4, 2001


[For, that is what this money could buy -- 3000 houses for homeless people here]

And it could save 2 million people from starving to death over there. Get a grip.
posted by revbrian at 2:55 PM on October 4, 2001


This all seems a pointless arguement. We have money that we use for foreign aid and what. What we lack here is a Congress that wants to help more people in this country. This is a philospophical position, thus a tough time to get minimum wage higher or better medical benefits etc
In fact, when the economy is not in the cellar, there is sufficent money for BOTH purposes. But it takes an interested Congress to do it.
posted by Postroad at 4:04 PM on October 4, 2001


Psst, it's to make the U.S. look good/better in the eyes of Arab and Muslim nations as well as helping to solidfy weak links in the alliance by showing that they aren't targetting the innocent, but in fact, want to help them.

It's pretty obvious.
posted by yupislyr at 5:46 PM on October 4, 2001


Couldn't this much money dramatically improve the lives of some 3000 or more struggling families here?

Uh, I suppose it could. In fact, it could also help me, personally. I can't really afford that laptop I want, and $320 million would go a long way toward that end.

I mean, come on, families in America are 'struggling' because their buried under credit card debt, not because they're starving to death in the street, and 3,000 is a pretty small number compared to the millions and millions of people this money could potentially help. Besides its not like the people of Afghanistan attacked the WTC.

Oh, and for the record, the US spends billions a year on welfare, etc. and $42 billion is going to fix New York and to the families there.
posted by delmoi at 6:16 PM on October 4, 2001


Is this the proper message to send to terrorist nations?

No, but it is the proper message to send to Muslims in countries all over the world (including our own), i.e., that we mean it when we say our fight is with terrorists and the nations that harbor them, and not with Islam.

Besides, it's just the right thing to do.
posted by verdezza at 8:27 PM on October 4, 2001


But you know what, if you don't think its worth while, I would be more than glad to pay yours and temr2001's dollar.

Pay mine too!
posted by thirteen at 12:03 AM on October 5, 2001


thewittyname: Send me an e-mail so I send you a mailing address.
posted by thirteen at 12:07 AM on October 5, 2001


thewittyname had no intention of paying those dollars I am thinking. Why would people not post an e-mail address?
posted by thirteen at 7:20 PM on October 5, 2001


If you feed the moderate majority, you sap the strength of the extremist minority.

Plain and simple.
posted by fooljay at 9:54 PM on October 5, 2001


The question is: Would you give your house for these people? If the answer is no, then why do you expect someone else to? For, that is what this money could buy -- 3000 houses for homeless people here.

I'm sure most people wouldn't give their house for "these people" but I'm also sure that the vast majority of people wouldn't give up their house for the homeless of their own country either (otherwise, this problem wouldn't exist)

Couldn't this much money dramatically improve the lives of some 3000 or more struggling families here?

How long do you think that we in the Western worlds can continue to ignore the suffering of people under the Taliban regime? Whether we like it or not, whether we want to help or not, sooner or later, it becomes "our" problem.

Would you rather the US government spend the money on processing the increasing tides of refugees that are escaping Afghanistan by whatever means necessary? Why should these people have to leave their countries in order to get help?

By using this money and aide wisely, Bush and his government can help forestall further terrorist events. Surely preventing new attacks is just as important as helping the people effected in the recent attacks?
posted by lucien at 4:21 AM on October 7, 2001


How long do you think that we in the Western worlds can continue to ignore the suffering of people under the Taliban regime?
Pretty much forever. Beyond terrorism the Taliban does not real have any hope of harming the states, and I am not interested in getting tangled up with people who can escallate this conflict to eradication of millions of my fellow citizens. They cannot occupy our land, and they only target us for taking up with their enemies. Saving the people of the world is not what the government was formed to do. It is the failure of the Democrats and the Republicans that gtot us into this, and we should pull back. The solution is not money, money was the cause. We have no way of screening people that does not lead us into unacceptable removal of rights, so I think our best bet is to remove ourselves from the game. Make it foolish to attack us since we ARE a powerful enemy, and we don't have to be theirs.
posted by thirteen at 4:07 PM on October 7, 2001


« Older Startlingly beautiful girl. What is her life like?...  |  15 years ago today, Dan Rather... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments