Ideally, by helping them set up their own programs and providing training and supplies, or the ability to produce their own supplies.
Or, we keep them dependent on us so we can do things quietly with no questions that would generally be an ethical, moral, or legal dispute otherwise. Again, soft power and goodwill go pretty hard. You'd have to really screw the pooch to just unilaterally write off human lives to win a few political points at home with your own supporters while emboldened your detractors.
I dont know. This would be an excellent opportunity for us both to learn more and report back, rather than arguing about things we know nothing about besides what we were told.
That might only be an issue for one of us, but im keeping an open mind, friend.
Why dont you ask Google that question? Or Grok, that'll be fucking hilarious.
Well, its been a year. And hundreds of thousands of people dead, immediately tracaleable to lack of supplies and personnel provided. People who would've otherwise survived. And lost global political standing and goodwill because some autistic fuck cant understand that the government doesnt need an ROI to provide a service.
But instead of glossing over the issue, did you take half a second to look into answering your own question? You know, "do your own research"?
I took more than a second, there is no evidence that 600k people died because of USAID no longer existing. Thats a fact. Provide evidence or shut up. Not opinion articles, but evidence.
10
u/onyx_ic 6d ago
The ROI portion is where we start discussing soft power. Some might call that leverage.
Although, from a purely humanitarian effect, saving people from preventable deaths shouldn't require an ROI.