Asian Tsunamis

[Eddie]

Give me a couple days and I will do.

[USABlue]

horrifying - there by the grace of god.

However if the canary islands ever blow, its quite likely that half a mountain will fall in the seas, creating a wave that would destroy the US' eastern seaboard, along with southern spain and Portugal's coastline and probably wipe out the carriabian.

Oh and Yellowstones due to explde, which would take out most of North America and cause a nuclear winter.

All joy

Bit sick isn't it Flopsy. A few posts in to one of the Worlds largest known natural disasters and you are gloating about possible destrution in North America. Sad mate quite sad.

Edited December 31, 2004 by USABlue

[SouthAussieRover]

horrifying - there by the grace of god.

However if the canary islands ever blow, its quite likely that half a mountain will fall in the seas, creating a wave that would destroy the US' eastern seaboard, along with southern spain and Portugal's coastline and probably wipe out the carriabian.

Oh and Yellowstones due to explde, which would take out most of North America and cause a nuclear winter.

All joy

Bit sick isn't it Flopsy. A few posts in to one of the Worlds largest known natural disasters and you are gloating about possible destrution in North America. Sad mate quite sad.

Read the post again me old mucker.

I think you have taken it out of context.

As for the Americans it's good to see them stung into action following criticism by the UN.

[USABlue]

horrifying - there by the grace of god.

However if the canary islands ever blow, its quite likely that half a mountain will fall in the seas, creating a wave that would destroy the US' eastern seaboard, along with southern spain and Portugal's coastline and probably wipe out the carriabian.

Oh and Yellowstones due to explde, which would take out most of North America and cause a nuclear winter.

All joy

Bit sick isn't it Flopsy. A few posts in to one of the Worlds largest known natural disasters and you are gloating about possible destrution in North America. Sad mate quite sad.

Read the post again me old mucker.

I think you have taken it out of context.

As for the Americans it's good to see them stung into action following criticism by the UN.

I read it about 10 times and still don't get anything out of it, is it supposed to be funny? ALL JOY just what the (Please don't use that word again) is that supposed to mean.

[USABlue]

Can't help thinking it would be different if the loss of life had happened in the good ol' USA.

Here we go again, don't want to belittle this thread or drag it away from it's true meaning but some folks should just keep their mouths shut until they have facts. Check your histories all your Stars and Stripes Stompers and I think you will find the US at or near the top in donating to disaster relief funds all over the World.

While I have been here America has sufferd Mountains Exploding, Earthquakes, Hurricanes, devastating floods, Huge Tornadoes have destroy whole towns. While loss of life has often been relatively small due to good preparation and some noteworthy Engineering and design property loss and hardship for folks following these disasters has been devastating. I don't recall and "releif funds" coming IN from all you such fine charitable concerned people for the residents of America. That's it for me I am tired of you bloody two faced bigots.

[American]

As an escape from the bickering for one post: One interesting fact that I noticed was that they did not find a single animal corpse yet. They say that all of the animals in the area sensed what was coming and moved away. We really need to spend more time and effort monitoring the animals in the area, rather than the weather, as they usually are the true test.

[SouthAussieRover]

horrifying - there by the grace of god.

However if the canary islands ever blow, its quite likely that half a mountain will fall in the seas, creating a wave that would destroy the US' eastern seaboard, along with southern spain and Portugal's coastline and probably wipe out the carriabian.

Oh and Yellowstones due to explde, which would take out most of North America and cause a nuclear winter.

All joy

Bit sick isn't it Flopsy. A few posts in to one of the Worlds largest known natural disasters and you are gloating about possible destrution in North America. Sad mate quite sad.

Read the post again me old mucker.

I think you have taken it out of context.

As for the Americans it's good to see them stung into action following criticism by the UN.

I read it about 10 times and still don't get anything out of it, is it supposed to be funny? ALL JOY just what the (Please don't use that word again) is that supposed to mean.

I think all joy should be translated as...what a terrible series of events it would be and definitely bad news.

Try to think outside the square

[American40]

As for the Americans it's good to see them stung into action following criticism by the UN.

Guess the fact that the planning for all this 'action' was occuring before the UN showed it's true face doesn't really matter, eh? The fact that if there were absolutely no comments from the UN, or anyone, that the U.S.'s contribution would have been the same as what you're seeing now, and will see? No, just another excuse (invalid excuse, at that) to do some bashing.

[SouthAussieRover]

As for the Americans it's good to see them stung into action following criticism by the UN.

Guess the fact that the planning for all this 'action' was occuring before the UN showed it's true face doesn't really matter, eh? The fact that if there were absolutely no comments from the UN, or anyone, that the U.S.'s contribution would have been the same as what you're seeing now, and will see? No, just another excuse (invalid excuse, at that) to do some bashing.

Not at all just relaying what the media has suggested.

The initial contribution of $35 million was pitiful cf what is spent in 15 minutes in Iraq but thats another topic.

One question..where in the world does the US' backyard begin and end?

[AlanK]

A few stats from the bbc web site.

KEY AID PLEDGES

World Bank: $250m

UK: $96m

Sweden: $75m

Spain: $68m

China: $60m

France: $56m

EU $44m

Netherlands: $36m

US: $35m

Canada: $33m

Japan: $30m

Australia: $27m

Switzerland: $23m

Norway: $16.6m

Denmark: $15.6m

Saudi Arabia: $10m

Taiwan: $5.1m

Finland: $3.4m

Kuwait: $2.1m

UAE: $2m

Source: Reuters, United Nations

This is the URL

More importantly, Click here.

[American40]

As for the Americans it's good to see them stung into action following criticism by the UN.

Guess the fact that the planning for all this 'action' was occuring before the UN showed it's true face doesn't really matter, eh? The fact that if there were absolutely no comments from the UN, or anyone, that the U.S.'s contribution would have been the same as what you're seeing now, and will see? No, just another excuse (invalid excuse, at that) to do some bashing.

Not at all just relaying what the media has suggested.

The initial contribution of $35 million was pitiful cf what is spent in 15 minutes in Iraq but thats another topic.

One question..where in the world does the US' backyard begin and end?

'The Media' gave you the story they wanted to give you, not the complete story. And what does where America's 'backyard' begin and end have anything to do with helping millions of people in need? It's a shame this disaster, and the efforts to help, have been turned into a political 'discussion'.

[American40]

A few stats from the bbc web site.

KEY AID PLEDGES

World Bank: $250m

UK: $96m

Sweden: $75m

Spain: $68m

China: $60m

France: $56m

EU $44m

Netherlands: $36m

US: $35m

Canada: $33m

Japan: $30m

Australia: $27m

Switzerland: $23m

Norway: $16.6m

Denmark: $15.6m

Saudi Arabia: $10m

Taiwan: $5.1m

Finland: $3.4m

Kuwait: $2.1m

UAE: $2m

Source: Reuters, United Nations

This is the URL

More importantly, Click here.

Wait till this is all said and done, and then take a look at the true total amount of aid given, if you must make this a "I can give more than you" issue. You'll be unpleasantly surprised where the U.S. sits on that list.

[AlanK]

if you must make this a "I can give more than you" issue. You'll be unpleasantly surprised where the U.S. sits on that list.

I`m not making an issue out of it anywhere. Check the entire thread. I just stumbled accross those stats and thought some people might be interesed. I`m leaving the petty " my dads bigger than your dad " stuff to all of the other idiots.

However, while there is help needed, click on the effing donations link!!!!

[SouthAussieRover]

As for the Americans it's good to see them stung into action following criticism by the UN.

Guess the fact that the planning for all this 'action' was occuring before the UN showed it's true face doesn't really matter, eh? The fact that if there were absolutely no comments from the UN, or anyone, that the U.S.'s contribution would have been the same as what you're seeing now, and will see? No, just another excuse (invalid excuse, at that) to do some bashing.

Not at all just relaying what the media has suggested.

The initial contribution of $35 million was pitiful cf what is spent in 15 minutes in Iraq but thats another topic.

One question..where in the world does the US' backyard begin and end?

'The Media' gave you the story they wanted to give you, not the complete story. And what does where America's 'backyard' begin and end have anything to do with helping millions of people in need? It's a shame this disaster, and the efforts to help, have been turned into a political 'discussion'.

It has everything to do with it.

I accept American's eralier point that Australia should help Indonesia because its in our backyard.

However the US seems to stick it's nose in backyards where it appears it is of some interest.

Edited December 31, 2004 by SouthAussieRover

[den]

This is all ridiculous. Disaster on a massive scale and what do we get on here?

We pledged this and you only pledged that. What on earth is there to gain from this kind of argument. The only thing that matters, is that all the affected countries recieve the help they need and a bit quicker than the way it's happening now.

There are many more countries capable of contributing than GB and the USA. As long as the total aid is enough, what the heck!

[Paul]

The truth of the matter is it is not anyone's "backyard" - it is OUR backyard, our planet. As I said before until we start to pay a proper price for what we consume life will not improve for those who work for a pittance to fund the wealthier societies.

[USABlue]

Why is no one bashing Saudi Arabia, Kuwait (They got their help when they needed it) and UAE, 14 Million total. What income do they generate daily? All they can muster is a paltry 14million. Hell England spends more than that a day helping non British Citizens get one over on the taxpaying Citizens.

Den, good response that.

Just out of curiosity, Natural disasters aside how much do you individually donate to charities a year, local, church or otherwise. I estimate my yearly charitable contributions to be about $2500. Do you all give regularly or do you wait for the Global thing. See giving is a year round thing, I give regularly and I give diversely.

Edited December 31, 2004 by USABlue

[Paul]

No Paul you ARE being idealistic. Our trade with the developing world IS the route to eradicating poverty etc. If we do not trade they will have nowt! They must be able to earn dollars / euro's / pounds etc in order to progress. Maybe the distribution of that wealth is a little unequal in your eyes but tell me which Utopian country in the world that you are aware of where wealth is distributed equally.

Trade yes, of course,because as you so rightly say without money developing nations have no chance. There is a "but" to this situation. Wealthier societies chose to take advantage of low wage economies, alternate climates etc to produce and transport luxury goods around the world. We do not need to eat strawberries at Christmas, we do not need little dinky vegetables or exotic cut flowers flown from Kenya to our supermarket shelves. If we really do need those products we should be paying the true cost, we consume and consume without, for the large part, a thought about the impact on others.

Anyway this digresses from the debate. It doesn't really matter who donates what, we simply have to help. I feel, very strongly, that by paying a proper price for what we have learnt to consider a cheap daily product we would contribute far more to those in need in the longer term. I don't suggest an equal distribution of wealth simply a fair price for what we take.

[American]

Honestly, USA, part of my originally being upset is that when you try to donate, there always seems to be someone who complains about what or how you donate. We tend to give most stuff we don't use anymore, especially clothing that is still in good shape away. So many organizations give you a hassle and will only accept certain things, or in certain ways.

It felt odd last week when I brought some old linens to a dog shelter/hospital so they can use them for bedding, and such, along with a can of tennis balls. I actually had the person accept the box I brought in without a second glance, and both people there said "thank you" in a way that you could truly tell they were happy and touched that someone had just walked off the street and gave them a donation. It was so different from the normal way these organizations act, like they are doing you a favor by accepting your donation.

The point I'm making (to get back on topic here) is that any assistance should be thanked, not criticised.

[American]

No Paul you ARE being idealistic.  Our trade with the developing world IS the route to eradicating poverty etc.  If we do not trade they will have nowt!  They must be able to earn dollars / euro's / pounds etc in order to progress.  Maybe the distribution of that wealth is a little unequal in your eyes but tell me which Utopian country in the world that you are aware of where wealth is distributed equally.

Trade yes, of course,because as you so rightly say without money developing nations have no chance. There is a "but" to this situation. Wealthier societies chose to take advantage of low wage economies, alternate climates etc to produce and transport luxury goods around the world. We do not need to eat strawberries at Christmas, we do not need little dinky vegetables or exotic cut flowers flown from Kenya to our supermarket shelves. If we really do need those products we should be paying the true cost, we consume and consume without, for the large part, a thought about the impact on others.

Anyway this digresses from the debate. It doesn't really matter who donates what, we simply have to help. I feel, very strongly, that by paying a proper price for what we have learnt to consider a cheap daily product we would contribute far more to those in need in the longer term. I don't suggest an equal distribution of wealth simply a fair price for what we take.

Paul, supply and demand dictates that we do pay a fair price. It's not like we hold a gun to these people's heads and force them to sell us the stuff cheaply. We are paying what it is worth, because the market dictates what it is worth.

[Manchester Blue]

Yes but which market dictates that. Paul raises a fair point about paying a fair price but the options are there for people. The co-op have a fair trade campaign where they pay the producers a 'fair' price you can read more here. There are tons of other ways you can make a difference or you can do nothing, it's up to you really.

[philipl]

Back yards are interesting concepts.

Aceh is as close to Canberra as Mt St Helens is to London.

[AlanK]

CLICK HERE

[Paul]

Paul, supply and demand dictates that we do pay a fair price. It's not like we hold a gun to these people's heads and force them to sell us the stuff cheaply. We are paying what it is worth, because the market dictates what it is worth.

As a supplier to major multiples I could give chapter and verse on what constitutes a fair price compared to what the market dictates....but I won't right now as I have a party to organise. Sufficient to say there is a wide gap between a fair price allowing profitability and re-investment for and by the supplier compared to the price major multiples are prepared to pay for many products.

Equally the supermarkets will not extoll the virtues of many home-grown products because they know that when the same product is imported, to supplement seasonality, it will not match the quality of the UK foodstuff.

The public is frequently conned.

[Modi]

Paul, supply and demand dictates that we do pay a fair price. It's not like we hold a gun to these people's heads and force them to sell us the stuff cheaply. We are paying what it is worth, because the market dictates what it is worth.

As a supplier to major multiples I could give chapter and verse on what constitutes a fair price compared to what the market dictates.... Sufficient to say there is a wide gap between a fair price allowing profitability and re-investment for and by the supplier compared to the price major multiples are prepared to pay for many products.

Spot on.

The idea that Supply & Demand actually holds true for a market equilibrium state when talking about a global economic power is utter tosh. You don't need a degree in economics to see that (although I'm sure there is at least one economist on here...)