Your posting is a great example of exactly the sort of overwrought, paranoid, ill-educated worthless nonsense that gives rise to the type of "anti-Americanism" the article refers to in the first place.
First of all, if you want your arguments to benefit from America's largesse, you better go vote in some congressmen who will start putting out. I hope you realize that America has one of the lowest-funded foreign aid programs in the developed world.
Then there's the question of what other countries you think you're talking about. People in developing nations don't hate America, they hate "the West" and for the most part they lump it all together - they only differentiate between, say, America and Germany to the extent that RMS differentiates between, say, Microsoft and Oracle. And the idea that there are any nations where a large percentage of people "want to murder Americans" is pure fantasy.
Within the G8, the billions of dollars with which you're trying to purchase the moral high ground just don't exist. Europe, for example, isn't taking very many American checks. According to <a href=http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=466589>The Economist, exports to America from the Euro region only account for 2-3% of its GDP. Japan is similarly independent. And we certainly aren't giving them foreign aid. So where are these billions of dollars?
But suppose you were able to find an example of a nation where the situation you describe actually exists: This hypothetical nation is taking billions of dollars of American hand-outs, yet hates America. You're saying that this would be hypocritical. I have to ask why. You seem to be implying that the act of giving money carries a moral requirement for the recipient to like the giver. This is wildly off base, most notably because it ignores any broader context. Suppose that hand-in-hand with giving out money, America also conducts foreign policy that has the effect of preventing the nation in question from becoming economically self-sufficient. They can take America's money or starve, so they take America's money; but even if your jailer gives you bread and water each day, you still hate your jailer.
Even that doesn't cover all of what's wrong with this posting. Another major problem is that the particular moral characteristics and requirements you're applying to a nation can only correctly be applied to an individual. If an individual professes a moral code but does not adhere to it, we call that hypocrisy. If a nation contains two individuals, one of whom professes a moral code but the other of whom does not adhere to it, we call that freedom. If a nation's government accepts American billions, yet many individuals within that nation hate America, how is that hypocrisy? Or are you saying an individual should be required to follow the moral precepts laid down by the currently ruling political party? If so, how well did you accomplish this during the recent Democratic presidential administration?
I have more to say, but I don't know if anyone wants to hear it.
[ Parent ]