216
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 May 2025
216 points (100.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
3165 readers
589 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is a right wing talking point.
But let's pretend for a moment that they're right. Is building political capital in developing nations by helping feed their people, provide medicine, and develop their cities a bad thing?
Like dollar per dollar you get a country with a positive view of your nation for very little cost. Even if we wanted to ignore the obvious moral imperatives and just the general goodness of feeding the hungry, it's good foreign policy
Even when the right makes up a boogieman they're still wrong
Yeah, that's what blows my mind about this. From a purely business greed perspective, cutting all the USAID food and medical is a dumb move that reduces your power.
Al Capone was famous for his charity.
I was also amazed when they shut down Voice of America. That's the main open propaganda arm of the US military and the Federal government targeted largely at foreign citizens. It was priceless in influencing foreign populations.
is it really Russian influence or are they truly that fucking stupid? I can't decide.
Because when they dont want to privatize their power grid we will just threaten to cut off aid
No, that's a fact. It was mainly used for bribery of foreign politicians and officials.
Please provide a vaild source for this claim either in a paper of record or a governmental report.
It's well known fact that USAID was used to force US foreign policy agenda on other nations. The entire reason for it's existence was foreign government interference.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61351-8/fulltext https://www.thestudyias.com/blogs/controversy-usaid-humanitarianism/
Neither of those qualify as the Lancet post does not support your claims and "thestudyias" is not a source of record.
https://the307.substack.com/p/how-the-ned-and-usaid-are-tools-of
A substack is not a paper of record. There’s no reason no believe these people have any idea what they are talking about.
I'm sorry if you acceptable western media sources don't report on such things
My link has multiple citations and sources. Maybe you should read if
Your source doesn’t even provide their name. They have no reputation for being a high quality or even passably informed source on this subject so Im not rejecting anything that should be seen as credible.
Read the artlce theres many sources
There’s no reason to believe the unnamed author has any understanding of those sources.
Are you at all familiar with how you determine if a source is worth a damn? Having sources is worthless if you don’t understand them.
There are no good unnamed sources.
?????
"The Dissident" is an unnamed source. You cannot tell me who they are or why they should be believed.
Just because there are links in an article does not mean the author of that article understands that material or is a good resource for it. As this person does not even share their name we have no idea if they have the slightest notion of what they are talking about.
Do you have any reason other than they agree with your claim, whichI think is a really flawed claim on its best of days, that this unnamed source has any validity at all?
This is why asked for a paper of record. I might not agree with The Financial Times of London but they aren't going to have a random clown writing about subjects. (They will have prestigious clowns who went to fancy clown colleges do that)___