If you don't want to help these people because they are suffering, how about helping them so that their governments remain stable, and we avoid Islamic terrorists or the Chinese from taking over the area?
The most heartless thing I've ever read was that post about the woman who lost all SEVEN of her children not needing any help since she no longer had to support them. Dante needs to add another ring in Hell for such a poster.
>If you don't want to help these people because they are suffering, how about helping them so ....<
So their government can demonstrate against ours? So we can garner their eternal gratitude?
No one said I didn't want to help people in a disaster zone. I think my question must be over your head, sadly.
You are a real piece of work, you and howlin and your crowd... Why is it that charity has to come from government? Beyond the Constitutional issues, which are plentiful, why should the American taxpayers be on the hook for all this aid? What is wrong with PRIVATE charity? At least it gets to the people who NEED help, whereas the government funds, not unlike "oil for food," will wind up in some tinpot dictator's swiss bank accounts. Is THAT what you're advocating? Americans are the most generous people on earth. Why not just let us do our thing PRIVATELY and leave the government OUT of it? I can see sending some military people who have the training and equipment to deal with the actual crisis part of things, but after that leave things to the private charities who are equipped to get aid where it's needed, not into bank accounts of the local High and Mighty."
And, on a similar note raised by one of your cronies, if you are NOT advocating conserving our Constitution, why would you call yourself a "Conservative"? What ARE you trying to conserve, besides your current temporary hold on power?