(Original post by thunder_chunky)
It is right that we help them because they are less fortunate than we are, by a country mile. It shouldn't be/shouldn't have to be survival of the fittest
when it's possible to help as many people survive as possible, providing the right method is used.
It's easy for you to say "let nature balance it all out" because you're here in a nice comfy enviroment with clean running water, food/access to food, shelter, transport etc etc. You have a democratic government that is always elected in and that cares about it's population and a government system where if you fall short or if your family fall short the government will step in and assist financially.
But let me ask you this. What if the government didn't? What if there were no benefits, and if there were it's sporadic and unrealiable? What if you couldn't pay bills or your parents pay bills so you risk losing your home? You can eat because you can't pay for food as you have no money. You would, of course, find a job but then what if you lost that job and were unable to find another? Sooner or later you'd be on the streets with your handout asking strangers for pennies as they walked past. Should people not give you those pennies? After all, survival of the fittest.
Survival of the fittest and your general attitude is backwards and inhumane. We shouldn't avoid helping out people simply because it would inconveniance us, or rather you (when actually I'm not sure it would. Not that much.) I've already explained why, twice in fact.
When someone breaks one legs or both legs badly they have to learn to walk again. When they finally get on their feet they are given crutches. What you're proposing is that you don't give them anything and tell them "walk it off you pussy." Which is silly.
We are the crutch until the country heals, however long that may be. Actually we most likely can
afford it and I very much doubt it conveniances you either now or in the long run.
You might think this is all a waste and that it's a wasted effort, but you'd be wrong, especially when you consider the wells that have been dug and the food provided to keep people alive.
Thankfully I don't think we'll ever have a majority with your selfish, inhumane, greedy attitude so the aid goes on. I just hope it'll be dispersed and used properly, that's where the change must happen. Making sure it doesn't go to despots and leaders who spend it on nice houses and cars for themselves and their mates.
If we don't need to trade with any country badly then that rather negates your previous comment of:
Indeed there is often hypocrisy but that's the fault of the government and it doesn't negate the point of the sanctions itself. Some very important sanctions have been issued in the past, boycotts of South Africa because of Apartheid for example.
Sanctions is defined as:
"In international relations, a sanction is an action designed to control the conduct of a group or country. They usually take the form of a threat of possible punitive action agains a specific nation for conduct viewed as dangerous."
What you seem to have issue with is the politics rather than what sanctions actually are. as I said they exist to send a strong poltiical message, and sometimes they exist to good effect.