Oxfam, the Catholic Church?
Its in the nature of organisations to try and cover up misdeeds by their members/employees to protect themselves. If you have a real solution and aren't just here to beat your anti-UN drum I'd like to hear it.
i'm here to beat the anti-un drum because they're sufficiently vile that i am willing to specifically push back on using them or giving them any credibility.
throw a dart at something that isn't "un" or "taliban" and you'll probably find your money better spent on average.
it's one thing to cover up white collar crime or bribes or something. it's another thing to cover for people who rape minors. those are misdeeds, but i hold they are different in severity. at this point they probably are worse than the catholic church, though it's hard to truly grasp scale in both cases.
The West has created their so-called existential adversary, and they do everything they can to sustain it.
seems to be the case for the most part. though us doing things along these lines is much older than i am too. i wonder how much better off the would would be if the us basically did nothing abroad after ww2. i strongly suspect it's a net positive.
The Taliban, and other similar groups, are as powerful as they are because we are worth hating and we directly create the environments for them to function in.
as you say, i don't think this is by accident. it's an arrangement beneficial to both sides (or more accurately, the decision-makers on both sides, not their actual populations).
"not giving afghanistan money" isn't a bad starting point, per above. usa isn't/shouldn't be trying to be world police or pretending it has some moral high ground. why should it be dangling financial incentives into foreign affairs w/o a clear direct benefit to usa? when was the last time us involvement in middle east was genuinely a net good?
