"Liberals" (the term is misused) like to attack any group or person that succeeds, and support any cause that needs massive subsidies, from the U.N., NGO's or other outside sources. I daresay that many "liberation" movements, including the "Palestinian" movement, the Quebec separatist movement and others would have no future or viability outside of the promise of lavish outside subsidies.
In other words, it's appetizing gravy for the "leadership" of these organizations, many but not all of which will siphon the money for themselves. Yasir Arafat died quite wealthy in 2005. Even aside from personal corruption, these movements spend their "cause money" on armaments. How are Iranian common people doing while their government builds an atomic bomb? How did Iraqis do when Saddam lavished billions on the quest for a nuclear weapon to replace the already-pricey Osirik reactor? When aid is not immediately on the horizon, odious groups like the Taliban create a crisis. The Taliban is now trolling for outside help, citing a "humanitarian disaster." Excerpt (link):
Quote:
Originally Posted by N.Y. Times
Nearly four months since the Taliban seized power, Afghanistan is on the brink of a mass starvation that aid groups say threatens to kill a million children this winter — a toll that would dwarf the total number of Afghan civilians estimated to have been killed as a direct result of the war over the past 20 years .
While Afghanistan has suffered from malnutrition for decades, the country’s hunger crisis has drastically worsened in recent months.
|
Groups under attack by these "liberation" movements are generally economically successful, and have only minor corruption. The Jews in general and Israel as a country is a success.The U.S. receives little good press, but lets itself donate to the "tin cup" of the Paris Climate Accords. How much of the money the U.S. taxpayers are guilted out of will be used for "climate adjustment" or help the actual people of these countries?