It seems like whenever the U.S. invades a country, we get insulted for interfering; but then the moment they need a damn check cut for aid, who do they come running to?
If I hear this one more time from someone I think I might puke.
Did you actually read your question? Whenever we
invade a country?????
When have we ever been criticized for actually helping people out (in their view, not ours)? Don't even try to say Iraq because it is still under review (and I, personally, am not sure the cost in lives will be justified by the end, but that remains to be seen).
Can you actually give me an incident where we were criticized from within and without and actually did some good for the people in the country we invaded (or surreptitiously affected through US backed coups)?
Do you even stop to think that giving economic aid and support to certain countries in need might help
avoid bloody conflicts later? That by helping to lift a country out of dire poverty, we might avoid future violence involving American soldiers and millions of other lives?
Invading a country after they have gone all to hell (sometimes with our "help" sometimes not) costs more money and lives than helping to avoid it in the first place.
But, I guess that's kinda like (not)contributing to education, welfare, health care, social programs in America. We spend so much more money correcting the problems
after they happen instead of trying to figure out why they happen and spending the resources to nip them in the bud.
To bring this around to the topic, we have the resources to help educate women and men and deliver contraceptives (if only our idiot in chief would recognize that it is necessary and fund family planning agencies) and we have the ability and the resources to affect even a small amount of change to try and make this world safer by reducing the level of poverty and ignorance. By realizing that bombs are not the "beacon of light" that we wish to spread.
™ Version 4.2