[avazhi]

That isn’t how causation works.

By your logic you could argue that if anybody on this planet starves to death then Americans can be blamed and ‘engineered it’, since they had the economic means to prevent it. You’re essentially trying to argue that inaction is a positive act, which it is not as a matter of logic and law universally.

Your logic is laughable on its face, obviously.

Americans have no more duty to look after non-Americans than anybody else.

[gambiting]

If I provide cancer drugs to someone, and then suddenly stop, am I to blame for them dying of cancer? That doesn't imply that I have a moral duty to provide the drugs. But if I am providing them and then withdraw them, then there is some responsibility on my part?

>>You’re essentially trying to argue that inaction is a positive act

You've assumed I have a certain position then argue against it, not against what I actually said.

>>Your logic is laughable on its face, obviously

HN has a higher level of discussion than this

[avazhi]

Unilateral voluntary foreign aid is not in any way analogous to medical care that creates strict legal obligations when the doctor-patient relationship commences.