Anonymous wrote:The US is not the world's caretaker. Some/All of these countries need to figure out how to feed their own people.

Stick to whatever it is you do for a living. You clearly are not a diplomat or understand anything about soft power. All the sudden experts are so f***ing annoying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USAID is some much cheaper vs fighting wars.

why would we need to fight wars? we have “shuttle diplomacy” and “diplomacy in action” @ State. And what happened to your “end/endless wars” bumper sticker in support of Cindy Sheehan et al.?

I know! I was somewhat skeptical that the parties have realigned but watching democrats validate GWB and Karl Rove’s worldview really has blown my mind.

You are pretty stupid. Without USAID there will be more failed states and chaos. Then we can all watch as Trump continues to bombing and use military force at the cost of hundreds of billions like he is doing in Somalia right now. Every strike in Somalia cost north of 150 million.

You want to save money and stabilize a good chunk of the world? Kill have money and aid for Israel.

So, when does it stop? Not my problem if they are fighting between each other and corruption.

No man, or country, is an island. We are securing US peace by improving the state of other countries, thereby reducing instability in those other countries which leads to violence. That's the idea - but you seem to think that shutting down USAID is a better idea. That all the violence would stay "over there" and never come here.

Maybe, but we've tried it that way for a long time and it's clearly not working. Actually some may argue that it's even worse and we have been getting even more and more migrants from other countries that are unstable/violence.

Disagree. If your biggest concern is trans girls in sports, you’re living a life of extreme luxury. So no, it’s been working well.

Yes, Americans don’t have problems if theyre looking and creating problems. Americans are soft.

The US is not the world's caretaker. Some/All of these countries need to figure out how to feed their own people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USAID is some much cheaper vs fighting wars.

why would we need to fight wars? we have “shuttle diplomacy” and “diplomacy in action” @ State. And what happened to your “end/endless wars” bumper sticker in support of Cindy Sheehan et al.?

I know! I was somewhat skeptical that the parties have realigned but watching democrats validate GWB and Karl Rove’s worldview really has blown my mind.

You are pretty stupid. Without USAID there will be more failed states and chaos. Then we can all watch as Trump continues to bombing and use military force at the cost of hundreds of billions like he is doing in Somalia right now. Every strike in Somalia cost north of 150 million.

You want to save money and stabilize a good chunk of the world? Kill have money and aid for Israel.

So, when does it stop? Not my problem if they are fighting between each other and corruption.

No man, or country, is an island. We are securing US peace by improving the state of other countries, thereby reducing instability in those other countries which leads to violence. That's the idea - but you seem to think that shutting down USAID is a better idea. That all the violence would stay "over there" and never come here.

Why is that all those countries that don’t do foreign aid don’t get attacked by foreign terrorists?

I’m from a Latin American country and my homeland doesn’t get attacked by foreign terrorists even though it does no foreign aid.

Here’s the real problem: the USA does not and cannot engage in aid/diplomacy on a neutral basis. The USA picks sides, which pisses off the other side and then we have to hope like hell we picked the winning side (see Afghanistan and Egypt). So, no, I don’t think USAID keeps us safe. It entangles us, requires us to take a side and then sometimes the whirlwind comes back at us.

The very title of leadership involves taking sides and putting a target on yourself. Then you’ve gotta stop the terrorists every time after you took the target on.

Anonymous wrote:

And does Elon imagine that the info no longer exists? What a tool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USAID is some much cheaper vs fighting wars.

why would we need to fight wars? we have “shuttle diplomacy” and “diplomacy in action” @ State. And what happened to your “end/endless wars” bumper sticker in support of Cindy Sheehan et al.?

I know! I was somewhat skeptical that the parties have realigned but watching democrats validate GWB and Karl Rove’s worldview really has blown my mind.

You are pretty stupid. Without USAID there will be more failed states and chaos. Then we can all watch as Trump continues to bombing and use military force at the cost of hundreds of billions like he is doing in Somalia right now. Every strike in Somalia cost north of 150 million.

You want to save money and stabilize a good chunk of the world? Kill have money and aid for Israel.

So, when does it stop? Not my problem if they are fighting between each other and corruption.

No man, or country, is an island. We are securing US peace by improving the state of other countries, thereby reducing instability in those other countries which leads to violence. That's the idea - but you seem to think that shutting down USAID is a better idea. That all the violence would stay "over there" and never come here.

Maybe, but we've tried it that way for a long time and it's clearly not working. Actually some may argue that it's even worse and we have been getting even more and more migrants from other countries that are unstable/violence.

Disagree. If your biggest concern is trans girls in sports, you’re living a life of extreme luxury. So no, it’s been working well.

So, is it going to be another bureau at State?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USAID is some much cheaper vs fighting wars.

why would we need to fight wars? we have “shuttle diplomacy” and “diplomacy in action” @ State. And what happened to your “end/endless wars” bumper sticker in support of Cindy Sheehan et al.?

I know! I was somewhat skeptical that the parties have realigned but watching democrats validate GWB and Karl Rove’s worldview really has blown my mind.

You are pretty stupid. Without USAID there will be more failed states and chaos. Then we can all watch as Trump continues to bombing and use military force at the cost of hundreds of billions like he is doing in Somalia right now. Every strike in Somalia cost north of 150 million.

You want to save money and stabilize a good chunk of the world? Kill have money and aid for Israel.

So, when does it stop? Not my problem if they are fighting between each other and corruption.

No man, or country, is an island. We are securing US peace by improving the state of other countries, thereby reducing instability in those other countries which leads to violence. That's the idea - but you seem to think that shutting down USAID is a better idea. That all the violence would stay "over there" and never come here.

Maybe, but we've tried it that way for a long time and it's clearly not working. Actually some may argue that it's even worse and we have been getting even more and more migrants from other countries that are unstable/violence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is so much missing the point - in that long list of tweets about foreign aid. What better use for foreign aid than in poor countries that generate terrorists? Terrorists are poor people who are hungry and have no good options. Reduce poverty and hinger and increase options and terrorism is reduced.

But it’s like plugging one of two holes in a bucket. One terrorist is enough to kill many. So, if the aid is not shutting it all down it is pointless.

That’s really dumb. Perfection is not achievable so we should do nothing? Have we had another 9/11 in the last quarter century?

Perfection - but certainly an immeasurable metric where money is better spent domestically or securing the southern border or actually vetting Afghan refugees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is so much missing the point - in that long list of tweets about foreign aid. What better use for foreign aid than in poor countries that generate terrorists? Terrorists are poor people who are hungry and have no good options. Reduce poverty and hinger and increase options and terrorism is reduced.

But it’s like plugging one of two holes in a bucket. One terrorist is enough to kill many. So, if the aid is not shutting it all down it is pointless.

Is this sarcasm? It's so hard to tell anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is so much missing the point - in that long list of tweets about foreign aid. What better use for foreign aid than in poor countries that generate terrorists? Terrorists are poor people who are hungry and have no good options. Reduce poverty and hinger and increase options and terrorism is reduced.

But it’s like plugging one of two holes in a bucket. One terrorist is enough to kill many. So, if the aid is not shutting it all down it is pointless.

That’s really dumb. Perfection is not achievable so we should do nothing? Have we had another 9/11 in the last quarter century?

Anonymous wrote:There is so much missing the point - in that long list of tweets about foreign aid. What better use for foreign aid than in poor countries that generate terrorists? Terrorists are poor people who are hungry and have no good options. Reduce poverty and hinger and increase options and terrorism is reduced.

But it’s like plugging one of two holes in a bucket. One terrorist is enough to kill many. So, if the aid is not shutting it all down it is pointless.

Anonymous wrote:There is so much missing the point - in that long list of tweets about foreign aid. What better use for foreign aid than in poor countries that generate terrorists? Terrorists are poor people who are hungry and have no good options. Reduce poverty and hinger and increase options and terrorism is reduced.

They are proud of their own stupidity. There is no reaching them. They have no clue about any of the things that they want to destroy. Fear of things they do not understand.

There is so much missing the point - in that long list of tweets about foreign aid. What better use for foreign aid than in poor countries that generate terrorists? Terrorists are poor people who are hungry and have no good options. Reduce poverty and hinger and increase options and terrorism is reduced.