I have to 100% agree with Dragan on this topic. I was talking about the topic of foreign aid a couple months ago. A friend was reading a book on "Economic Hit Men" (I'm not sure if that's exactly what the book title is.

The author was an economist employeed by the US govt. His job was to create reports on proposed international projects in 3rd world countries. An example might be:

1) Report on proposed hydroelectric dam, that country "A" will have to borrow $450 million from the World Bank to build
2) Report shows how the dam will lead to an increased economy in country "A" which will lead to govt revenues increasing more then enough to help pay the loan
3) Dam is built and revenue increases are not anywhere near enough to help pay the loan
4) Country "a" defaults on loan payment to World Bank
5) Someone from our benevolent govt approaches officials from country "A" and offers to help lessen the pressure being applied to them to pay the loan. In return our govt would like for Country "a" to send soldiers to support our efforts..., allow us to use their airspace in our latest endevours...., etc.

Our govt has been using foreign aid for a lot of things other then just the common good for a long time.


>>All of the aid that went and goes to Turkey has not been solely for military, political, or geopolitical gain. While much aid is indeed based on that, it is still an unfair statement. Besides, if you really feel that way, then all aid to all countries should be stopped. That would be a disaster to those countries whose people are fed from foreign aid.
>
>If stopping the money flow from the US into those countries would mean simultaneously stopping the same flow in the opposite direction, I wonder who would be better off.