Asian Tsunamis

[Morph]

...my general point is more, why criticize the US, at least the government is doing something. Most of the people criticizing us are doing nothing.

I for one am not singling the US Govt. out for particular shame. If you read my original post I said that every government in a position to help*, and particularly those best able to help, had failed to pledge sufficient funds in response to this disaster. Call me cynical, but of course they did. Governments are slower and more calculating than people. They will gauge the extent of the tragedy as it unfolds, probably pledging larger amounts of money as the death toll rises, but never more than is strictly necessary to ensure the maximum political gain, and not enough.

This is why I argue that governmental responses should be irrelevant. This is a global tragedy, why wait for your leaders to falter their way to doing the right thing? So what if it's just giving money? I give £X to the Red Cross, X being whatever amount i wish to give. If that £X can make a markedly beneficial difference in a single other human beings life then surely that's a good thing?

Of course the areas most badly effected need volunteers to help them. Doctors. Nurses. Engineers. Dedicated people with practical, useful skills. The thing is, I work in an office. No matter how well intentioned, my wizardry with Microsoft Excel isn't going to help much right now, so I give £X, and hope it does some good. Sorry if I'm a bit tetchy about this. There is a TV in my office which is always (for reasons beyond my control) tuned to Sky News, and I've been watching it for 12 hours. It has been relentless, apocalyptic imagery all day.

*Except India, who despite being effected by the tsunami, were the first to get aid to Sri Lanka, and should be recognised for that.

Edited December 30, 2004 by Morph

[BMan]

Don't really know where I stand on this debate

Part of me says we're very lucky to have this healthy debate and not have to go through what these people are going through.

On the other hand, I can see Americans Point of view in that I wonder how much is enough? I know that seems like a crass question to ask,and for that I apologise to anyone offended. If the USA would have said they were to give $100 million right away, I think there would still be those out there that thought of this as an insulting amount.

Sure Iraq is about oil, but it was also about taking out a leader who was a tyrannical SOB. Kinda like Hitler. Except the US didn't get involved with WW2 until later on and were criticised for it. They get involved with Iraq to depose of a terrible criminal, and they still hear about it. A catch 22 scenario.

The US is doing yeomens work for what their economy is going through at the moment. Sure you can blame that on the Iraq war, but really, it's a whole bunch of situations rolled up into one.

My own country started with an offer of $500,000 before it went up to $4 million, but with public pressure that ballooned up to $10 million. I dunno what it is today to be honest. The difference here is, my countries' leader is in a perilous situation. He has a minority government and any mistake he makes, his government could fall. Don't want to upset the electorate!

Anyhow, give all that you can. The people of that tsunami region need your help in the worst possible way.

[Paul]

I have spent the last few days feeling as though I have watched the mother of all disaster movies, slowly I'm beginning to find the radio and newspaper reports bring home the reality. Footage on ITV last night showing land from which villages have just been washed away really intensfied this.

If I appear critical of the USA, I'm not, and apologise to American and others if that is the case. Remember though "the coalition" has donated 0.023% of the total spent to date on the Iraq war to the tsunami disaster fund. I make no apology for being critical of that lose definition The West.

Strangely I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with a part of blue phil's arguement.

To the point then. We, the public, are so quick to blame "THEM" or "THEY" for everything - road maintenance, poor hospitals, poor education, bins not emptied, lack of overseas aid, imigration. The subject doesn't matter, it's always THEM who are responsible, Tory or Labour Thems, the colour of government is irrelevant. We have to blame Them because we refuse to take responsibility for our own lives and for others around us. When it goes wrong or we don't like the approach we can still blame Them because They are in charge.

We are responsible, collectively, for our world. It is time we all took responsibility for our actions. For centuries The West has raped the developing world for gold, cotton, minerals, cheap labour, food, whatever. Today it's mange tout and strawberries at Christmas, cash crops taking food from the mouths of the hungry. It's Nestle selling third world mothers powdered milk. It's the cheap mobile or PC. Our waste is exported to third world countries. Norwich Union call centres in India. Turning Phuket into a Western holiday playground. The list just goes on and on..........we know the cost of everything but the VALUE of nothing.

We won't pay enough tax to provide for ourselves let alone those who need our help. Yet we moan and complain at the inability of THEM to resolve problems or to provide aid to regions hit by the tsunami.

I'm no better than anyone else and I don't criticise any individual. If we want a better and fairer world, if we want to eradicate poverty, topple dictators, limit imigration WE, the populace, have to change. We have to stop demanding a cheap life, we have to pay the real value of everything.

It is not Them, it's US. Sadly I don't think we will wake up until it is too late. Frankly a donation to the disater fund makes little difference - demanding Western governments change our world, demanding our society changes, would make a world of difference.

Tell me I'm being idealistic if you like, but you know I'm right.

[Ewood Spark]

Perhaps the religionists among you could explain why your God has, for the second year running, delivered an unwanted Christmas gift?

[broadsword]

Haven't you done enough religious points-scoring?

[Shaddy]

Perhaps the religionists among you could explain why your God has, for the second year running, delivered an unwanted Christmas gift?

I concur.

[Morph]

Perhaps the religionists among you could explain why your God has, for the second year running, delivered an unwanted Christmas gift?

Perhaps you could explain why you are using the death of 125,000 people (at the very least) to make a cheap philosophical point?

[Eddie]

I always think that's a bit unfair.

I'm buddhist so no god or anything for me, but I thinkt to ask people to explain why their god would let something like this happen in such a mocking way is tough.

Let people have their faith, if it gets in the way of your way of life then fine, try and do something, but don't bring it up yourself when no one is bothering. This is a tragedy, not an opportunity for some to push seperate agendas.

[Shaddy]

I always think that's a bit unfair.

I'm buddhist so no god or anything for me, but I thinkt to ask people to explain why their god would let something like this happen in such a mocking way is tough.

Let people have their faith, if it gets in the way of your way of life then fine, try and do something, but don't bring it up yourself when no one is bothering. This is a tragedy, not an opportunity for some to push seperate agendas.

I was insensitive also, so I apologise.

[Eddie]

I don't really mind. I mean as much as I feel sorry for all of those who have been affected, and as much as I want to help and will try to do so, I haven't been personally touched by it so I'm not that sensitive to remarks. I was simply saying I don't think people should use this as a chance to put down someone else's beliefs, no one benefits from that, not those in Asia and Africa who have been directly touched, nor those who's beliefs are being attacked.

[thenodrog]

Those pictures of the dead decaying bodies on the beach...... remind me of the annual Scottish summer excursions to Blackpool.!

Hardly the time or place for such a feeble attempt at humour.

And I am sure.

[thenodrog]

We are responsible, collectively, for our world. It is time we all took responsibility for our actions. For centuries The West has raped the developing world for gold, cotton, minerals, cheap labour, food, whatever. Today it's mange tout and strawberries at Christmas, cash crops taking food from the mouths of the hungry. It's Nestle selling third world mothers powdered milk. It's the cheap mobile or PC. Our waste is exported to third world countries. Norwich Union call centres in India. Turning Phuket into a Western holiday playground. The list just goes on and on..........we know the cost of everything but the VALUE of nothing.............

========================================

...............I'm no better than anyone else and I don't criticise any individual. If we want a better and fairer world, if we want to eradicate poverty, topple dictators, limit imigration WE, the populace, have to change. We have to stop demanding a cheap life, we have to pay the real value of everything.

Tell me I'm being idealistic if you like, but you know I'm right.

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.

[American]

If I appear critical of the USA, I'm not, and apologise to American and others if that is the case. Remember though "the coalition" has donated 0.023% of the total spent to date on the Iraq war to the tsunami disaster fund. I make no apology for being critical of that lose definition The West.

My point about using "the west" is that China is not in the west, this is happening in their own backyard, they have a $500 million dollar slush fund for this sort of thing, and they are giving less than us. Where is the criticism of them? So no, "the west" is not the proper term here. (And I won't even go into the imperialism of Japan and China.)

Also, you talk about what has been "pledged," not about what will be spent in the long-term. We don't know how much this all will cost. The big things are getting the food and water over there, and that is happening first. When the cleanup and rebuilding happen, who knows how much that will cost. A lot of you on here seem to be the experts, so tell me, how much will the total cost be?

Some people probably won't be satisfied unless we build everyone who lost a home a new mansion.

[broadsword]

It's a shame a global fund isn't organised for this sort of thing, and each country can donate equally, weighted for GNP. Or is there such a thing already?

And I know you're not having a go at me American, all I've done is point out that at one stage the British people had given more than it's govt (a lot more!) I think that's shameful.

Edited December 31, 2004 by Bryan

[dave birch]

This will be my only comment on this.

American, you'll have to travel to see the meaning in what many are saying.

"China's "Backyard""?

"$500 million slush fund"?

"Australia's Backyard"? (earlier post)

I don't think you realise the general feeling towards the US worldwide.

It is NOT good, and I'm not a big critic of the US.

[American]

Dave, Australia and China are much closer to the affected areas than we are (at least the last map I looked at). As for the slush fund, it was reported in the Wall Street Journal, which I am not allowed to "reprint" on another web site (I could link to it, but it's a pay site). They keep the money around to offer to other countries after natural disasters to promote goodwill. But what do I know, I'm just an ignorant American.

Here is a column that sums up how we can't win:

Click

Interesting the point that Colin Powell was quoted saying we will probably end up spending over $1 billion, but where is the publicity on that? How come no one mentions that? Oh yeah, because it's fashionable to hate us. It would be interesting how much more hated we were if we gave no foreign aid at all. Funny how hated we are, yet when people need something, who do they come running to? I don't go running to people I hate when I need something.

And also interesting the Europe is considered so much more helpful than us, yet we gave more to the UN's World Food Program than the EU nations combined.

[den]

I don't hate Americans, American.

If it weren't for countries such as yours and ours, who have been prepared to stand up against the evils of this world, we wouldn't have the freedoms we have today.

[American]

Thank you.

[Eddie]

It's a shame a global fund isn't organised for this sort of thing, and each country can donate equally, weighted for GNP. Or is there such a thing already?

And I know you're not having a go at me American, all I've done is point out that at one stage the British people had given more than it's govt (a lot more!) I think that's shameful.

There is basically such a thing, where you are supposed to make your yearly donation and it is calculated based on GDP I think, though it may be GNP. Sadly many countries fail to give as much as they are supposed to, including the United States, who since the Bush administration came to power have given virtually nothing (obviously relative to what they should do).

America does give a lot, but then as the major world power and the country with the most powerful and largest economy it should be expected to do so, in the sense that it has the most available and if each gave a percentage it would obviously have to give the most. However, I'm not attacking the United States, and certainly don't hate it, liked the people and I loved living there, but certainly aren't as involved in global issues as they should be, except of course in the "war on terror".

[American]

Obviously you didn't read the link I posted.

[Eddie]

One side of the argument I'm afraid. Living in Paris and having the friends that I do I've talked to many close in with UNESCO, embassy, ambassadors, the United States owes 1.5-2 billion to several UN funds, it's great for them to chip in now, but it would be a bit like not paying your taxes and then suddenly donating to a cause, looks good, but it would be great if you did both. I understand that most things the UN asks for most nations ignore, but as self acclaimed dominant force in world politics America should set a better example and have no real reason for not doing so.

[American]

One of the points of us not paying the "proper" dues to the UN is that we pay MUCH more than our share for most peacekeeping missions (like when we had to go in and do what Europe failed to do in Bosnia). It seems that most UN coalitions are made up of mostly US forces, hardly any in comparison from Russia, Germany and France (though that's not a bad thing, we don't want the UN forces to learn to surrender). We foot the bill for the troops and supplies in cases like that, spending more than any other UN nation.

[American40]

It's really a shame that a disaster of this proportion is just another reason for people with agenda's to make their points again. Not only outside America's borders, but within it, also. As soon as the disaster happened, U.S. planning to help out started . Who ever heard the $15 million figure from the U.S. and assumed that was all that the U.S. was going to give was just looking for a reason. That was always intended as a starting point. The effort the U.S. military will give will cost probably more than most other countries combined will give. While all this planning was going on, some in the U.S. criticised the current administration for not 'getting on TV', and making a statement, etc. Lost an opportunity to do some good public relations, etc. What the hell good will good public relations do for those poor people without homes, without food, without water, without family members? The actions that were ALREADY in progress are what matters, the ONLY thing that matters.

America 'stingy'? Check out the figures in that article that American posted. Stingy? No.

You want to hate America? Go ahead. But at least use valid points to back up your hatred.

Edited December 31, 2004 by American40

[Eddie]

One of the points of us not paying the "proper" dues to the UN is that we pay MUCH more than our share for most peacekeeping missions (like when we had to go in and do what Europe failed to do in Bosnia). It seems that most UN coalitions are made up of mostly US forces, hardly any in comparison from Russia, Germany and France (though that's not a bad thing, we don't want the UN forces to learn to surrender). We foot the bill for the troops and supplies in cases like that, spending more than any other UN nation.

You also cause a lot of the problems . If you didn't arm half the world peacekeeping would probably be a lot cheaper.

I'm not using this to promote any anti-american sentiments, I have nothing against the country, just don't like it when they try and pass themselves off as better than they are.

If you really want to base this discussion on articles though, I can produce a ton that talk about how poor America's contribution to the United Nations is, even compared to some other nations.

[American]

One of the points of us not paying the "proper" dues to the UN is that we pay MUCH more than our share for most peacekeeping missions (like when we had to go in and do what Europe failed to do in Bosnia). It seems that most UN coalitions are made up of mostly US forces, hardly any in comparison from Russia, Germany and France (though that's not a bad thing, we don't want the UN forces to learn to surrender). We foot the bill for the troops and supplies in cases like that, spending more than any other UN nation.

You also cause a lot of the problems . If you didn't arm half the world peacekeeping would probably be a lot cheaper.

I'm not using this to promote any anti-american sentiments, I have nothing against the country, just don't like it when they try and pass themselves off as better than they are.

If you really want to base this discussion on articles though, I can produce a ton that talk about how poor America's contribution to the United Nations is, even compared to some other nations.

Find me one that takes into account money we spend on peacekeeping troops.