Is Foreign Aid An Obligation?

If this had a simple answer, this wouldn't be a question.

Financially, no, we are not obligated to do anything. However, morally I think as a "super power" we have a right to help countries that are in trouble. It is the right thing to do. Although we should not impose our democracy on them, and we should only help those countries that desire our help.

The United States has spent over $300 billion on the war in Iraq. We'll obviously never know what Iraq would be like without the effects of that money; we'll never know for sure if we've made a positive impact.

But what if even a tenth of that money was spent on medical supplies at home and internationally in the places where it's most needed?

If we've got enough money to spend on being international police, we've got enough money to spend on being international doctors.

I will only say this: The amount of money Americans spend on ice cream each year is enough to provide clean water to all those in need of it in Africa.

No one enjoys hearing about the poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa or the crisis in Darfur, but obviously the U.S. government has succeeded in pretending these situations don't exist, or at least don't matter to the United States. While this country is viewed as the "world police" that usually only tends to hold true in situations that benefit us. Instead of helping countries in need, we choose to dump trillions of dollars into a war that will undoubtedly have no victor. America could be doing some good in this world, instead of fostering a deeper hatred in the heart of the Middle East for a war that most of this country doesn't agree with. Love your brother as yourself.

Certainly there can be no other answer than "yes", our responsibility as a super power economic or otherwise, our influence on the world in such a position, lead by example or what have you. For the US however I liken this to a mother telling you that you are raising your kids wrong while hers sit at her feet sucking on hand guns.

I believe that this country was founded in an effort to provide for it's people a place to call their own with a system of government to protect and to care for all it's citizens. Yet 231 years later we still have epidemics of poverty, starvation, and rising numbers of homeless here on our own streets. Of course we should help nations in Sub-Saharan Africa but the need for that same help is not always so far away. And we should not lose sight of that fact.

Obligation?

In regards to Iraq - what would be a better word for this?

ah! How about Reparations?

After Iraq we can start on a Reparations List:

Nicaragua
Guatemala
Nicaragua Vietnam Cambodia
Chile

well, you get the point...

No. Human beings have an obligation.

Yes, and the obligation extends to every developed nation on the planet, and those nations receiving such aid should be obligated to pitch in and lend a hand to solving their own problems, as well. Ensuring that aid is going to where it's really needed and not into some official's pocket will do much to help solve the problems of poverty-stricken nations in Sub-Saharan Africa... and elsewhere.

The governments of all developed countries have an obligation to help the people of poverty-stricken nations, but not purely in a monetary sense. The amount of aid that has flowed into Africa, for instance, should have, by now, made some sort of difference, but still we are bombarded with charity appeals and the faces of starving children. It would seem that these people are being let down by their own governments and maybe this is the issue that should be addressed, this is the root of the problem and this is where help would be more beneficial. As things stand, no matter how much aid is donated the problem will not go away. The starving masses are these countries largest grossing industry so why would their governments want the issue to be resolved. As civilised human beings we have an obligation to help those who cant help themselves.

It is the responsibility of the prosperous to give back in thanks. There is no reason that poverty and sickness should be prevalent when many countries live affluent lifestyles. The answer to this question can be found in the Bible, both Old and New Testament, as well:

"If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother." (Deut 15:7)

"'"The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.'" (Luke 3:11)

If the largest countries of the world have the abilities to condemn and control smaller nations then the should also, ipso facto, be able to bless and assist them.

As humans, we have an obligation to help those that we can. This is a non-issue. The important thing, however, is how we help them. Often, our vision is limited to humanitarian aid highlighted by media coverage in times of crises like natural disasters, genocide, etc. The real need, however, is for a sustained development aid through which these countries can create and manage programs that will reduce dependence on humanitarian aid. These programs, unfortunately, suffer because they aren't "newsworthy enough" to be highlighted by the media.

Some interesting facts [Wikipedia: OECD]:
(1). In 2004, total development aid given by OECD countries was $78.6billion. (2). US share was largest of any country: $19billion
(3). Combined EU share was $42.9billion. (4). Of all OECD countries, the biggest contribution as a % of Gross National Income came from Norway(0.87%). And the smallest? US(0.16%).

Go figure!

I believe that we have an obligation to help other countries, because of all the power we have.

As quoted from Amazing Fantasy #15 (August 1962) - The first Spiderman story:

WITH GREAT POWER THERE MUST ALSO COME - - GREAT RESPONSIBILITY!
- Stan Lee

Within the fabric of this great country of ours there lies a bounty of wealth that is beyond measure. It is therefore our responsibility both as citizens and human beings to help those that cannot help themselves. Not only is it our obligation to help poverty-stricken nations, it is our privilege.

"...send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me"

It is not an obligation. It is charity. Charity is never an obligation. It might be, and I would argue it is in our best interests though.

Yes. As humans we should feel obligated to help our less-affluent fellows.

Yes and no. Personally, I think the right thing to do is to help. But at the same time, I feel that it's our obligation to help just the same as it's our obligation to go to war to defend another country. That said, I feel that we have enough problems with our country at the moment that we should be taking care of what's needed at home. And at this point we aren't the rich nation we once were, and we aren't (necessarily) the powerhouse we once were either. And at the moment there are still poverty-stricken cities in our own country (Katrina, anyone?) that we should probably focus on problems on our own soil before helping other countries. But it's the right thing to do. So yes. And no.

Short and sweet.

Ethically; yes.
Politically; sometimes.
Lawfully; no.

We don't have an obligation, but we should want to.

We also shouldn't exploit them by selling them weapons to profit from their wars or buying products from them at low prices.