Thank you.

Or "NBA Star Arrested for Drug Possession" "JLo Gets Married" "Mike Tyson in Trouble With the Law"

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.

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.

Bleeding Nora, all you ever do is whinge and moan and criticise. How much would you bid then, Bob Shankley? You're turning into Jim's apprentice. Aren't you just complaining about his complaining? (Not complaining, just wondering!!)

Bryan, I'm saying that he is criticising, but for all we know has given nowt*, which is less than what the US is giving. They seem to be all on their high horses about what we are doing (I would have said what we are or aren't, but we ARE, there is no aren't in there). And if anyone actually read what was going on, they would see that these numbers are the initial amounts, and that after more assessments have been made as to the amounts needed, more money would be given (not to mention all of the other money being raised in all the countries mentioned - money that in the US can be deducted from income used for tax purposes, so roughly 1/3rd of the private donations from the US technically will come from our government). Kind of sad that we Americans are criticised for not knowing enough, yet most people on here seem to get their news from this board. *To steal a term from your country.

They have had a luxury of billions to spend due to the aid we have given them over the years. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be helping out, I'm saying that we shouldn't be criticized for not helping "enough." When all is said and done, the relief efforts from the US, both with government support and private sources will be there. It's like saying that Bill Gates doesn't give enough money away. He gives a lot, and anything he gives is more than what they'd get if he gave nothing. Same can be said for our efforts. I might not have been clearheaded in my reasoning, but 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. Just read your post Phil: How much are you donating?

I wish all sides involved would just quit the f-ing whining and get this over with... I'm starting to get bored by this. (He whines.)

Putting my bleeding, heart shaped liberal hat on for a second. Western governments should give more because...well, because we have more to give. Putting to one side the fact that we have climbed to the topmost rung of the worlds economic ladder largely on the backs of the third world. Ignoring the fact that we are happy to spend millions more on exerting our will, through military might if we deem fit, than we would ever consider spending on humanitarian relief. We are rich, they are poor, and in desperate need of help. We are in a position to help them, and (to my mind at least) under a moral obligation to do so. Everything else in the debate amounts to bull**** pedantry. How does a country trillions of dollars in debt have more to give? If you have a larger mortgage than I, does that mean you should be donating more? Oh, and if anyone was actually following this, they would see that we are going to restructure debt on money that we (and 18 other countries) have already loaned to them. We already give out billions in aid and loans, some of which has gone to these countries.

But Phil, you say to stay out of other people's backyards. I guess you are the almighty one who decides when and where we should help out? I see you're still in front of your computer and not helping out yourself.

I'm not arguing that they aren't giving enough, I'm just wondering why the criticism is on the "Western Nations" whos backyard isn't affected, and has enough other disasters, natural and al Quaeda made that it is still paying for? Oh, that's right, because we're evil. Like Gord says, where were they with aid after 9/11 or after the hurricanes?

Once I saw the page title, I knew what it was. Add that to the fact I'm bored at work...

My father in law showed me that one the other day.

Please stop posting such nonsense, I mean is there any player good enough for Rovers? Pot... kettle....

Why does everyone say "Western Nations"? China has only pledged $2.6 USD so far. And Colin, my point is that if you are going to criticize someone for not doing something, then you'd better be doing as much, if not more. It would be like a Blackburn resident criticizing the fans for not showing up, while he sits at home on matchday. I'm saying, don't only put your money where your mouth is, put your time and energy. I'm sure they need volunteers more than they need money right now.

You know what might lend your arguement some credence Den? If people hadn't posted about all of their ex-season ticket holding friends who wouldn't go back to watch on the bring a friend for a tenner promotion, even when the poster offered to pay for it themselves.

Hazzah, a voice of reason. We will convert you all!!

So, Philip, you going to put your money where your mouth is and go down there and help out? Or will it take you too long to get off of your soapbox? The amount the Bush administration first offered was less than the equivalent of 10 minutes interest on the US national debt. Yes, I'd call that stingy. It's also hypocritical for you to be criticising and not doing anything about it yourself. Put your money where your mouth is - I'm sure the Red Cross needs plenty of volunteers to go over and help out. Instead of sitting in front of your computer and bitching, get off your ass and get over there. I bet you are one of those who thinks the US should be staying out of international affairs. Tune changes now. You don't factor in that we already have a huge debt, plus recent disasters in our country we are still paying for. Of course Australia should be helping out, it is in their back yard. How much is Malta giving? Or is it not your problem? Also factor in that the Red Cross gets a lot of its donations from the US that end up being tax deductible that will help out. In the end that money goes from the US Treasury into the hands of the Red Cross that helps out. That's the problem with you bleeding hearts. You think everyone else should be doing their share, as well as yours. You don't want to be bothered, just want to complain about the people who are at least doing something.

So, Philip, you going to put your money where your mouth is and go down there and help out? Or will it take you too long to get off of your soapbox?

If we won more often you'd be seeing more!

Cole's biggest problem is that he's past his prime at this point, and showing it. His drop off is to be expected. I'm just amazed how most people on here tend to go by a players reputation, not by their recent form.

Clicky, Clicky

But we know the stats lie and Cole is a better striker right now than Dickov. I mean there's only one stat that means anything, and that's points. Oops, we went ahead of Fulham.

Not getting home until late your time, so you might have to wait until morning to see.

Boy, aren't you all demanding. It's only been a couple of hours since the win.