Perhaps because they are letting us "go it alone?" What do you think Mr. President?
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I was reading through some of the news on BBC and found this in an article from April:
quote:On energy, Mr Bush said he would urge oil-producing nations to raise output to ease the strain on US consumers.
Well that's a bit arrogant, if you ask me. I'd be annoyed if I produced oil.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I believe Chavez offered aid. Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Offering us help for what?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I thought this exact thought when the Mississippi governor called it "our tsunami". We sent tons of aid over there for their disaster, yet I don't see anyone offering to help us.
Then again, being the wealthiest nation on earth, they probably assume we don't need aid. (which may be right -- but it would still be nice if they asked if they could help)
FG
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I'm pretty sure they all hate us.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I really don't think "they all hate us". We are the wealthiest nation on Earth, we shouldn't really be asking for help.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: I thought this exact thought when the Mississippi governor called it "our tsunami". We sent tons of aid over there for their disaster, yet I don't see anyone offering to help us.
Perhaps they're not offering to help us because we're comparing our current situation to one where over 200,000 people died. And, while I am deeply saddened by the devastating tragedy that is affecting anyone connected to this hurricane, I find the comparison to the tsumani offensive. It's as though we view a few hundred Americans dying to be as important or significant as a couple hundred thousand foreigners...
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
edit: this was directed at DarkKnight
If you see a wealthy person in a crisis, wouldn't it still be polite to offer help, emotional support, a physical act - something? Even if you knew that financially they can take care of it themselves -- sometimes it is just nice to offer support?
Why should it be different with nations?
FG
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think at least this many people die every year from monsoon season in many places in SE Asia, and we don't offer aid for that.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
THT - While some parts of my logic agrees with you, I think it comes down to the basic fact that people are hurting, whether that be 200 people or 2000 people, or 200,000 people -- it is still a crisis, and it would be nice for other nations to say "Hey, we're here if you need us, if you need anything. We're sorry this happened"
I agree -- not near the extent of the Indian tsunami, or even the twin towers (as far as numbers yet known) but still, it is a major catastrophe, and many are hurting, and it will be many many months before things are back in order.
Farmgirl
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
While I agree the death toll is much less (thank God!), the conditions after this storm are very similar to the conditions after the tsunami, and the same type of relief effort is needed. Within those narrow confines, the comparison is valid.
Besides, go tell the thousands of people who don't know if their loved ones are alive or dead that this isn't as "sginficant" or "important" as the tsunami. To each person affected, this is exactly as bad as the tsunami was to each person affected by it. The fact that there were many more people affected by the tsunami doesn't change any one person's level of grief, fear, pain, or sense of loss.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dagonee -- of course it doesn't, but that's not an argument for international aid.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
It's entirely possible, too, that aid (or at least condolences/moral support) has been offered. Leaders of nations make such gestures to other leaders of nations, not to their news groups or to the individuals involved. Can anyone here verify that such gestures haven't been made? Are you 100 percent sure that such gestures would necessarily be reported right away or that the reporting wouldn't be lost in the flood of disaster news? Are you sure it hasn't been reported?
[edit to clarify: by "not to their newsgroups" I mean, Britain isn't likely going to make the annoucement to the New York Times. I do, however, imagine they'd let the London Times know. etc.]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee -- of course it doesn't, but that's not an argument for international aid.
Nor did I say it was.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
FarmGirl, I understand the sentiment behind your comment, and we don't know if other countries have said anything or not. They may very well have offered support or something of that nature but the press will stay stuck on the bad news and not report the good news. I heard on NPR recently (I think it was On The Media) that if there are 2 stories, one about a mother who drowns her 2 children, and one about a mother who rushes into a burning building to save her 2 children, one of these stories will get a ton of media attention, and the other will be mostly ignored
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
KarlEd and DarkKnight make good points. It is very possible that other countries have, indeed, called the President and offered concern/condolences/aid. Just because we haven't heard about it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Thanks for pointing that out to me. I should have thought that already.
Certainly not the nation I thought would offer. That is kind of interesting..
FG
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
See, not everyone hates us Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Chavez made an offer last week for discount gasoline to poor Americans suffering from high oil prices and offered free eye surgery for Americans without access to health care.
I'm touched but also a bit puzzled by the last statement. Why eye surgery?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: See, not everyone hates us
With friends like that...
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I dunno, Venezuela still sends America more than 1.5 billion barrels of oil every day. You may not get along politically but business sure is good.
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
I haven't been paying attention to Canadian news sources for the past while because CBC is on strike. However two days ago I seem to remember reading something about Canada offering condolences. I can't remember if their was an offer of help in there. I haven't found anything to "back" me up so there's a chance my memory is wrong Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I think it's quite possible other nations have offered aid and at least sent condolences that we haven't heard about, but let's remember that we're having trouble getting our OWN people into the areas that need help. It would be wonderful if, say, Great Britain said they were sending over several hundred search and rescue divers but could we get them to the areas where they're needed or would having to accomodate them and transport them only put additional strain on already strained infrastructure and emergency agencies?
Last night they talked about dozens of boats and rescuers lined up, trying to get into areas where people were trapped on their rooftops and being unable to do it. I think we already have plenty of volunteers and people who want to help the problem is getting the right people to the right places.
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
Here we go
"On behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada I would like to express our sympathy to all the victims and their families of Hurricane Katrina. As my wife Laureen and I watched news reports of the disaster with our children we were shocked by the magnitude of their loss. As Leader of the Opposition, I extend our support and offer of any assistance that we can provide. Natural disasters such as this remind us that when our close friends and neighbours are in trouble we, as Canadians, are always ready to help out."
The US has the infrastructure to help it's own citizens. We have ways of coping with disaster and we have ways of accounting for the dead and the lost. (Or at least many of them.) Financially we probably don't honestly need the help. And as far as gas prices. The US consumers tend to pay towards the lower end of the scale.
I'm not sure why anyone would/should offer to help us. I think condolences is probably the most appropriate action.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Thanks for finding that, Jaiden. That's nice to know. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I agree with both Belle and sarahdipity.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
For what it's worth, I heard on NPR that Saudi Arabia has agreed to increase its oil output to help.
The thing that really gets me about the disaster relief issue is that America is expected to give lots of money to help other nations. I seem to recall that somebody arbitrarily decided we weren't giving enough for the tsunami aid, so we were compelled to give more. It's no longer a matter of our being generous or helpful--it's like other nations think that because we're the most powerful nation, we're obligated to help. Yet for the same reason, no one is obligated (or even inclined) to help us. America's rich, it can handle it. And of course we can't get upset and refuse to help them next time, because then suddenly we'd be the horrible arrogant monster, and even our allies would turn against us. The same allies who don't lift a finger when we're having a disaster.
And it has nothing to do with President Bush, by the way. We'd be in exactly the same situation if Gore or Kerry or Christopher bloody Walken were president right now.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Unfortunately, increasing oil output or opening up the strategic reserves won't help much in this case. The problem is refining capacity, because the huge refineries in coastal Texas are mostly shut down. It isn't lack of oil, it's lack of refined products (gasoline, jet fuel, et cetera).
What might happen, if additional refining capacity is available here in Canada or down in Mexico, is that you might start seeing more refined products being piped crossborder rather than mostly crude oil.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
But aren't there refineries all over? My BIL works for Exxon-Mobil, at refineries in Chicago, and Virginia, and Singapore, and Germany, etc. Does the damage at the gulf area refineries really hurt this much of the overall picture? Can't they just up output at the others, or is everything always running at max? Or do refineries have to be within a certain region?
FG
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: We'd be in exactly the same situation if Gore or Kerry or Christopher bloody Walken were president right now.
Actually, I suspect a Walken presidency would be marked by 4-8 years of eerie calm among the US and its allies, while leaders of antagonistic countries mysteriously perished for random inexplicable reasons.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The refineries in Texas are huge, way bigger than almost every other refinery on the planet. Some of them process as much as half a million barrels of crude every day.
Refineries almost always run at or near capacity, so there's no way to eke an additional million-plus barrels of refining capacity out of the other refineries. So yes, it's going to hurt a lot if the Texas refineries stay down for much longer.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Karl--"Actually, I suspect a Walken presidency would be marked by 4-8 years of eerie calm among the US and its allies, while leaders of antagonistic countries mysteriously perished for random inexplicable reasons."
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
One news report I read said the refineries in that area of Texas and Louisiana process almost 50% of America's crude oil. So yeah. Even if that's not completely accurate, it's probably still pretty close.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
FG,
I think all are running at max capacity. That is really the problem we currently have with gas prices. The cost of a barrel of oil doesn't determine our cost as much as our lack of ability to process the crude. Unfortunately, nobody wants a refinery in their back yard.
the one thing I find most ironic is that the state that uses the most energy in any form (CA) is the state that has made it impossible (via environmental laws) to increase production to cover their own use! Can you think of a state in the Union that uses more gasoline per capita?
JW
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
FG, Again from NPR one of the big problems is that most of our refineries are working at maximum output. We also have many different 'flavors' of gas beyond the main 3 levels of octane. California is the 'worst' with it's own unique specifications. We should push to have one set of standards for the whole nation
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Tragedies happen every day. This hurricane isn't even the greatest tragedy in the world this week (see my link). Comparing it to the Tsunami makes me sick to my stomach. A couple hundred people lost compared to a couple hundred thousand.
Crying because other countries aren't offering aid is about the self-absorbed thing I've ever read. The United States has almost as high a Gross Domestic Product as the REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED. That's right, we have almost half the world's money. And some of us are upset the other countries don't want to give us more of it when we have a natural disaster.
Its like Bill Gates helping you out financially when your house burns down, and then being offended when you don't offer him money when one of his cars gets a scratch on it.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
When I started this thred, I did not intend for it to be about offers of monetary aid. I was thinking in terms of aid workers, pumping barges, and help with levy repair.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: When I started this thred, I did not intend for it to be about offers of monetary aid. I was thinking in terms of aid workers, pumping barges, and help with levy repair.
The levy repair is a difficult problem to solve. Currently, the Army Corps of Engineers has been unable to come up with an immediate fix to stop the flooding and repair the levy...There's just too much damage, too much water, and not enough materials and supplies in place to make a difference.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I keep on thinking about how the Earth changes occassionally. Rivers move, lakes appear and disappear, mountains are created by plate shifting, etc. etc.
I wonder if New Orleans really is gone... a lake now...an inlet.. whatever. How do you fight what nature has decreed?
But if it is gone, where do the people go?
Posted by Kettricken (Member # 8436) on :
NOTE:- This reply refers purely to the question of where is the international aid. I do not mean that suffering for those who have missing relatives or have lost their homes is less important, I’m just trying to understand exactly what you want.
For those of you asking where is the international aid, what kind of aid are you asking for?
Government to government financial aid? If so, I think the Indian floods about a month ago were a more vital cause - more than 1000 dead, 20 million affected with an economy less able to support those affected. BBC news report Western European governments could afford to offer financial aid, but I doubt it would make much difference.
Specialist rescue teams? This is where I think the international community has a large part to play IF the local authorities know what they need, who will help and who will hinder. I also seriously doubt any such teams will not help (unless they are elsewhere working on another emergency). Unfortunately we are unlikely to hear about them as they tend to be small highly trained specialist teams, not very newsworthy.
Fundraising by international charities? I’m also sure this will happen, often focussed on specific groups e.g. children or the poorest. It will also not be big news yet and often takes some time to get going (after the tsunami the big publicity about the collections here was on New Years Eve).
Statements of support by international figure? I’m also sure they will come / have happened, but are not top news. For example (from the BBC news web site)
quote: Queen Elizabeth II has sent a message to Mr Bush saying she is "shocked and saddened" at the devastation caused by Katrina, and expressing her sympathy for US citizens.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
First of all, we don't know yet how many are dead. The Mayor of New Orleans said hundreds maybe thousands are dead. So yes, I think we can safely call this the worst tradgedy this week. We don't know how many are dead, we don't know how many have yet to die. At the very least, a million people that lived in the area of NO are now homeless. Do I think comparing it to the tsunami is disgusting? No, I don't. Most of the countries hit by the Tsunami lost less people than we have from Hurricane Katrina. Only Sri Lanka, and Indonesia lost hugely significant numbers, (also some of the smaller island chains, and India). So I don't think, god forbid, if we lost 10,000, that it would be unacceptable to call this our tsunami. The destruction is no less devastating.
Gas prices. I also don't think it is wrong for us to complain about gas prices rising drastically. The working poor in America can't afford to pay higher prices for gas. Yes we pay less than most other nations, but we're used to it, and such a drastic jump can still be catastrophic to your average citizen. I'm a little shocked at some of the callous sentiment in this thread.
As for nature deciding that NO no longer exist. Screw nature. The engineers and construction workers will rebuild the levies twice as high and strong, and NO will be rebuilt.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
There are offers for aid, but you have to remember that there hasn't been a lot of time since the hurricane died down to mobilise things. As far as Canada goes, on the aid front the Canadian Red Cross is accepting donations and sending cash, but both the CRC and the Canadian Salvation army aren't accepting or sending donations of goods because they don't have anywhere to send them too. There aren't any warehouses there for them to store goods, so it's worlds more cost effective to send cash. Plus, America has the infrastructure available to use said cash, which is different from the other Tsunami.
As far as workers go, the Globe and Mail tells me that Canada has 4000-5000 workers available to be sent as well as highly specialized groups that deal specifically in setting up clean water. If they're asked for. Which I don't doubt they will be, but probably not until the American forces need relieving. The rebuilding process will take months, and we're happy to help, but too many cooks spoil the broth, as it were. When and if America needs relief, it's there for them.
Don't know what else we can reasonably do.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Tragedies happen every day. This hurricane isn't even the greatest tragedy in the world this week (see my link). Comparing it to the Tsunami makes me sick to my stomach. A couple hundred people lost compared to a couple hundred thousand.
First of all, we don't know the couple hundred figure will remain, more than likely there will be thousands dead when all is said and done.
Secondly, the reason the tsunami death toll was so high was lack of warning. Had there been no evacuations of the gulf coast regions we could well be looking at 200,000 dead, or more. Over 600,000 people live in the coastal counties of Mississippi. New Orleans and surrounding areas have over 3 million. What if no one had evacuated?
The forces involved - the storm surge, wind, and the type of devastation that was wreaked on the land are very similar - you can look at before and after pictures of the coast and see the amount of destruction. I think a comparison to the tsunami is appropriate, actually. And please remember the guy didn't say "This is worse than the tsunami." He said "This is our tsunami," in other words, this tragedy is as bad for us as the tsunami was for the people it affected. I don't see how you can argue with that. For them, for the ones picking up the pieces and recovering the bodies, it IS as bad. They are facing the same things the countries hit by the tsunami were facing, the only difference is the scale of loss of life and the only reason for that is advance warning.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:As for nature deciding that NO no longer exist. Screw nature. The engineers and construction workers will rebuild the levies twice as high and strong, and NO will be rebuilt.
The levies are somewhat responsible for the current problems that New 0rleans is facing. I'll find the link to the specific article, but the summary was that the ecological impacts of the levies and the development of the city eroded what little natural barriers existed. Simply rebuilding the levies will solve the current problem, but it's likely that another hurricane would cause the same issue to be repeated.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So they build more levies, taller, higher, better materials. I find it hard to believe they can't examine what went wrong here and engineer a way out of it.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: So they build more levies, taller, higher, better materials. I find it hard to believe they can't examine what went wrong here and engineer a way out of it.
They have determined what went wrong...they built a city below sea-level, sandwiched between two large bodies of water, on sinking ground.
One of the main reasons that New Orleans has such an intricate pumping system is that the city is slowly sinking and flooding on its own anyways...
He's supposed to be in charge of the West, but I'm pretty sure he's in New Orleans right now.
He mentioned after he took a vacation there that the whole time he was there, he kept thinking, "what a disaster if there's ever a hurricane like Andrew here."
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I used to work on a disaster relief project with FEMA, and New Orleans was always one of the top locations brought up when we talked about worst-case situations.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Tragedies happen every day. This hurricane isn't even the greatest tragedy in the world this week (see my link). Comparing it to the Tsunami makes me sick to my stomach. A couple hundred people lost compared to a couple hundred thousand.
Crying because other countries aren't offering aid is about the self-absorbed thing I've ever read. The United States has almost as high a Gross Domestic Product as the REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED. That's right, we have almost half the world's money. And some of us are upset the other countries don't want to give us more of it when we have a natural disaster.
Its like Bill Gates helping you out financially when your house burns down, and then being offended when you don't offer him money when one of his cars gets a scratch on it.
Erm. Death and tragedy is death and tragedy. What makes ME sick is people treating tragedy like a numbers game: we have THIS much money and THIS many deaths, so we deserve more/less support/sympathy than country X that has THAT much money and THAT many deaths. How do you quantify loss of this calibre? Does one deserve more or less sympathy than another?
Do you treat your friendships the same way: the one with all the money should provide for everyone else? Hey, Jim makes a hundred grand a year, so he should be the one paying for our car maintenance. The next day we're in the McDonald's drive-thru and Jim forgot his wallet - there's no way in hell we're letting you borrow a few bucks to buy a meal, Jim! You're the rich one, what the heck do you need our money for? How SELFISH! How RUDE!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Both articles say that the situation can be helped, but action has to be taken, and the way things currently work there have to be drastically changed.
What better time to change than now?
Amen Ersomniac.
Posted by Kettricken (Member # 8436) on :
I don't think any one is saying you deserve less sympathy because the USA is the world’s richest country.
What people are saying is that demanding to know why the rest of the world hasn’t stepped in offering financial aid because you offered aid to countries affected be the tsunami is not comparing like with like.
I really don’t think governments (particularly those with a much lower standard of living) handing over large amounts of money is what is needed. I would completely support my government sending (and funding) groups from the armed services if they had skills that could help or funding other organisations that can help.
It is not about other countries hating the USA or not caring about the people. Just because your media is not reporting messages of condolence and offers of support doesn’t mean they haven’t been sent.
By the way, have any of the authorities actually said what help they need?
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Erm. Death and tragedy is death and tragedy. What makes ME sick is people treating tragedy like a numbers game: we have THIS much money and THIS many deaths, so we deserve more/less support/sympathy than country X that has THAT much money and THAT many deaths. How do you quantify loss of this calibre? Does one deserve more or less sympathy than another?
Do you treat your friendships the same way: the one with all the money should provide for everyone else? Hey, Jim makes a hundred grand a year, so he should be the one paying for our car maintenance. The next day we're in the McDonald's drive-thru and Jim forgot his wallet - there's no way in hell we're letting you borrow a few bucks to buy a meal, Jim! You're the rich one, what the heck do you need our money for? How SELFISH! How RUDE! [/QB]
Many people here aren't talking about sympathy - they're talking about money. It's unfortunate that, when talking about money, numbers have to come up - but it's not surprisingly and really shouldn't be sickening.
At the same time, if a country suffers a disaster that leaves 20 people dead and another country has a disaster leaving 2000 people dead, I am going to feel more sympathetic towards the second the country. I wont feel individually more sympathetic towards people who died or lost loves ones, however. There is nothing sick about that.
Also, I think your comparison towards friendship doesn't really work. If Jim makes a hundred grand a year and his car gets into an accident I'm probably not going to give him any money to help him get a new car or a bus pass. If Tom makes thirty grand a year and is in the same situation, I'd probably help him out. Not because I like Tom more, but because I know (and Jim knows!) that Jim doesn't need my help.
Obviously my comparison doesn't work with the situation, either. But my point is just that, that comparing this situation with how we would treat friends doesn't really work.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Erm. Death and tragedy is death and tragedy. What makes ME sick is people treating tragedy like a numbers game: we have THIS much money and THIS many deaths, so we deserve more/less support/sympathy than country X that has THAT much money and THAT many deaths. How do you quantify loss of this calibre? Does one deserve more or less sympathy than another?
I never said anything about sympathy. I was talking about money. The idea that other countries should offer us "aid" in the form of money is the thing that is ridiculous to me.
The starting post in this thread was:
quote:Why aren't our allies offering help?
Perhaps because they are letting us "go it alone?" What do you think Mr. President?
After I posted, he clarified that he wasn't really talking about money in his post. But that's not how I interpreted it. Then there was Farmgirl's post...
quote:I thought this exact thought when the Mississippi governor called it "our tsunami". We sent tons of aid over there for their disaster, yet I don't see anyone offering to help us.
Then again, being the wealthiest nation on earth, they probably assume we don't need aid. (which may be right -- but it would still be nice if they asked if they could help)
Not that I was arguing against Farmgirl though, since her posts have admitted that financial aid isn't really what we need, but thought it would be nice if other countries offered it.
The post I was mostly replying to was from Verily The Younger...
quote:The thing that really gets me about the disaster relief issue is that America is expected to give lots of money to help other nations. I seem to recall that somebody arbitrarily decided we weren't giving enough for the tsunami aid, so we were compelled to give more. It's no longer a matter of our being generous or helpful--it's like other nations think that because we're the most powerful nation, we're obligated to help. Yet for the same reason, no one is obligated (or even inclined) to help us. America's rich, it can handle it. And of course we can't get upset and refuse to help them next time, because then suddenly we'd be the horrible arrogant monster, and even our allies would turn against us. The same allies who don't lift a finger when we're having a disaster.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Obviously my comparison doesn't work with the situation, either. But my point is just that, that comparing this situation with how we would treat friends doesn't really work.
You're missing the point: I'm quite aware that the comparison is invalid. I wrote it to point out that the Bill Gates comparison I quoted is amazingly irrelevant, and it's just as easy to make a comparison that goes the other way.
quote:Also, I think your comparison towards friendship doesn't really work. If Jim makes a hundred grand a year and his car gets into an accident I'm probably not going to give him any money to help him get a new car or a bus pass. If Tom makes thirty grand a year and is in the same situation, I'd probably help him out. Not because I like Tom more, but because I know (and Jim knows!) that Jim doesn't need my help.
Again, you're missing the point: I don't care about the monetary value of the assistance, which is why I didn't use car maintenance as a two way example. The OP is wondering where the offers for aid are. Are you saying you wouldn't offer to help Jim? You wouldn't offer to give him a ride somewhere if he needed it? It makes me sad that if your friend had an accident, the first thing your mind jumps to is money.
quote:At the same time, if a country suffers a disaster that leaves 20 people dead and another country has a disaster leaving 2000 people dead, I am going to feel more sympathetic towards the second the country. I wont feel individually more sympathetic towards people who died or lost loves ones, however. There is nothing sick about that.
This is the quantification of tragedy that I'm talking about. In your mind, a disaster leaving 2000 people dead deserves more sympathy than one that leaves 20 people dead, and that's what sickens me.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Xavier:
I don't think the OP or Verily is seriously suggesting the US *needs* the money. I think the issue at hand here is how the United States gets treated when disaster strikes other nations, compared to how the United States gets treated when disaster strikes us.
The word Verily uses is "allies." For the sake of continuing invalid comparisons, I'm going to go out on a limb here and equate national "allies" and individual "friends."
Let's jump back to rich Jim. Jim's rich, and he gives money to his friends at times when they need it. In fact, his friends expect such generosity, to the extent that if Jim gives them what they feel isn't enough, they suggest that he should give them more.
Jim's car gets destroyed in an auto accident. None of his friends offer to help him. Jim has to resources to purchase his own new car, but here he is, having been the victim of a tragedy, and none of his friends have offered to help him.
How would you feel? How is it ridiculous for Jim to want a couple offers of help?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Jim's car gets destroyed in an auto accident. None of his friends offer to help him. Jim has to resources to purchase his own new car, but here he is, having been the victim of a tragedy, and none of his friends have offered to help him.
How would you feel? How is it ridiculous for Jim to want a couple offers of help?
It is NOT unreasonable for Jim to want offers for rides to work while he is in the car shopping phase, or sympathy if he needs it, or anything else not monetary in nature...
But when Jim has more money than every one of his friends put together, and in fact has several other cars, boats, helicopters, and personal recreational vehicles at his disposal, as well as a hovercraft and a small fleet of private jets, it IS ridiculous for Jim to expect his friends to offer him MONEY to help him pay for a new car.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
OP's quote:
quote:Why aren't our allies offering help?
Perhaps because they are letting us "go it alone?" What do you think Mr. President?
Verily's quote:
quote:The thing that really gets me about the disaster relief issue is that America is expected to give lots of money to help other nations. I seem to recall that somebody arbitrarily decided we weren't giving enough for the tsunami aid, so we were compelled to give more. It's no longer a matter of our being generous or helpful--it's like other nations think that because we're the most powerful nation, we're obligated to help. Yet for the same reason, no one is obligated (or even inclined) to help us. America's rich, it can handle it. And of course we can't get upset and refuse to help them next time, because then suddenly we'd be the horrible arrogant monster, and even our allies would turn against us. The same allies who don't lift a finger when we're having a disaster.
Neither of these posters has made mention of the US expecting monetary aid. Why do you keep bringing up the US wanting monetary aid? Both of these posters are talking about the US expecting generalized offers of help.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:This is the quantification of tragedy that I'm talking about. In your mind, a disaster leaving 2000 people dead deserves more sympathy than one that leaves 20 people dead, and that's what sickens me.
I'm quite honestly confused as to how we could possibly offer sympathy then.
Would our nation officially offer sympathy to other nations every time there is a tragedy in that nation where even one person died? If we are ignoring numbers, events which leave just one single person dead are just as deserving of official national sympathy as events which leave several hundred thousand dead, right?
So our president would call up the leader of Australia whenever an Australian dies in a shark attack, or lightning strike, or car accident?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Perhaps you should reread his post...
quote:The thing that really gets me about the disaster relief issue is that America is expected to give lots of money to help other nations. I seem to recall that somebody arbitrarily decided we weren't giving enough for the tsunami aid, so we were compelled to give more. It's no longer a matter of our being generous or helpful--it's like other nations think that because we're the most powerful nation, we're obligated to help. Yet for the same reason, no one is obligated (or even inclined) to help us. America's rich, it can handle it. And of course we can't get upset and refuse to help them next time, because then suddenly we'd be the horrible arrogant monster, and even our allies would turn against us. The same allies who don't lift a finger when we're having a disaster.
The first bold part is quite clearly referring to money. The second bold part says "aid", but is clearly referring to money in this context. The third bolded part talks about "helping us" and considering that the last two times he mentioned internationally "help" it referred to giving money, I do not think I misinterpreted this to also refer to aid of the financial type. Would you disagree?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Oh please, let's just drop the whole question of why other nations aren't offering condolences. The fact is, they ARE and if anyone takes half a minute to look they can find evidence of it. Not only has someone posted a response from Canada but Queen Elizabeth released a statement expressing condolences.
And the scope of the disaster does come into play when you're talking about national expressions of sympathy. It's probably not going to happen for a lone shark attack but for a disaster that affects millions of people, then yes, it's going to happen. We expect national leaders to get on TV and make soundbites about how sorry they are. We expected Bush to make those sounds after the tsunami, and he did. We expect other leaders to do the same now, and they are.
Where the focus needs to be is not on "What are people doing for us and what do they OWE us?" but on the rescue efforts themselves and the lives that are in jeopardy and the people who are mourning the losses of their loved ones, homes, or businesses. I don't think anybody whose child or mother or brother or sister is dead from this tragedy is sitting around right now thinking "Gee, if the Prime Minister of Australia would just offer condolences or send some token force here it would really make me feel better." What does help them is rescue workers putting a blanket around their shoulders, giving them clean water to drink and a hot meal, and helping them locate their loved ones or find a place to stay.
The people doing those things, the volunteers, the national guard, the fire and rescue and police are the people that are helping Americans right now.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
And let it be known, Belle, that I happen to agree with that post completely .
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Yes, Xavier, I strongly disagree. All of the references to monetary giving, which you highlighted, are going FROM the US to other nations, NOT the other way around.
quote:no one is obligated (or even inclined) to help us. America's rich, it can handle it
This doesn't imply America needs monetary aid - it implies that other nations feel America's money absolves them of responsibility.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:We expect other leaders to do the same now, and they are.
Actually, I think the whole point of this thread is that they aren't.
quote:Where the focus needs to be is not on "What are people doing for us and what do they OWE us?" but on the rescue efforts themselves and the lives that are in jeopardy and the people who are mourning the losses of their loved ones, homes, or businesses. I don't think anybody whose child or mother or brother or sister is dead from this tragedy is sitting around right now thinking "Gee, if the Prime Minister of Australia would just offer condolences or send some token force here it would really make me feel better." What does help them is rescue workers putting a blanket around their shoulders, giving them clean water to drink and a hot meal, and helping them locate their loved ones or find a place to stay.
I agree, but once a person's done what they can to help, I don't think it's unreasonable to look at how a national tragedy affects a nation as a whole.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I know we were talking about hypothetical situations, but please erosomniac, don't assume that I treat my friends poorly.
When I brought up the 20 to 2000 example I was trying to show that there are degrees. Another example: I feel more sympathy about what happened in World War II than what happened last week in Baghdad, are you suggesting that is sick?
I also want to bring up what I said about sympathy towards individuals. Obviously if one person dies in one disaster their family deserves as much sympathy as a family of one other person who died in a disaster killing thousands. That is where I think you may be confusing how I view sympathy.
I do apologize if I sicken you, however.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I'm quite honestly confused as to how we could possibly offer sympathy then.
Would our nation officially offer sympathy to other nations every time there is a tragedy in that nation where even one person died? If we are ignoring numbers, events which leave just one single person dead are just as deserving of official national sympathy as events which leave several hundred thousand dead, right?
So our president would call up the leader of Australia whenever an Australian dies in a shark attack, or lightning strike, or car accident?
You're confusing individual thoughts and national attitudes.
Yes, I believe if an individual death due to a natural disaster was well publicized enough to get the attention of international governments, I *do* think a notice or proclamation of sympathy would be appropriate. Unfortunately, individual death by misfortune is so commonplace that there aren't enough hours in the day for 1) the media to report it and 2) other nations to notice it.
CONCEPTUALLY - and here I'm talking on the individual level - what sickens me is a person who can look at the death of 20 people in a natural disaster and say "I feel less sympathy toward this group of people than I feel toward the group of 2000 that died in a similar natural disaster."
Posted by Sean (Member # 689) on :
quote:In Canada, Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan said Ottawa has contacted U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and advised him that Ottawa stands ready to provide assistance if needed. She scheduled a news conference for Wednesday afternoon. That could mean sending emergency medical supplies and equipment to hospitals in the midst of the disaster.
quote:The Canadian Red Cross is also accepting donations for hurricane relief. "[The organization] has received hundreds of call from Canadians wanting to help the people impacted by this disaster and will accept funds designated for Hurricane Katrina," said Don Shropshire, the national director for disaster services at the Canadian Red Cross.
Highly trained Canadian disaster response volunteers are currently being readied to be sent to the devastated areas, the Red Cross said.
quote:I know we were talking about hypothetical situations, but please erosomniac, don't assume that I treat my friends poorly.
I don't, I used that as an example precisely because I believe you probably treat your friends well, and I wanted to see that attitude translate to this particular issue.
quote:When I brought up the 20 to 2000 example I was trying to show that there are degrees. Another example: I feel more sympathy about what happened in World War II than what happened last week in Bagdad, are you suggesting that is sick?
I think the motivations and circumstances of the two are too drastically different to make a comparison.
quote:I also want to bring up what I said about sympathy towards individuals. Obviously if one person dies in one disaster their family deserves as much sympathy as a family of one other person who died in a disaster killing thousands. That is where I think you may be confusing how I view sympathy.
You're right, I was confusing how you view sympathy.
quote:I do apologize if I sicken you, however.
Enough people sicken me that it doesn't bother me anymore: I live in a sort of perpetual state of disgust with human beings. I think it comes of living in Seattle, where socialist attitudes are carried to a ridiculously unhealthy extreme.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Enough people sicken me that it doesn't bother me anymore
That was a skillful way to throw my insincere apology back at me. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
And now that I've officially wasted an hour and a half of my work day on this thread, I'm calling a ceasefire until I get done in four hours.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Could have been worse:
quote:PETER STANDRING (scienceNOW Correspondent): When most people think of New Orleans, they think of the French Quarter, Mardi Gras, jazz, gumbo. But according to federal officials one of the most dire threats facing the nation would be a massive hurricane striking New Orleans. They say that if a major storm had a direct hit here, the effect would be devastating. They're talking perhaps as many as 50,000 dead, up to a million homeless and a city under water. And that disaster nearly happened this past hurricane season.
This has probably been posted. It was on Nova a few months ago.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Oh please, let's just drop the whole question of why other nations aren't offering condolences. The fact is, they ARE and if anyone takes half a minute to look they can find evidence of it. Not only has someone posted a response from Canada but Queen Elizabeth released a statement expressing condolences.
And the scope of the disaster does come into play when you're talking about national expressions of sympathy. It's probably not going to happen for a lone shark attack but for a disaster that affects millions of people, then yes, it's going to happen. We expect national leaders to get on TV and make soundbites about how sorry they are. We expected Bush to make those sounds after the tsunami, and he did. We expect other leaders to do the same now, and they are.
Where the focus needs to be is not on "What are people doing for us and what do they OWE us?" but on the rescue efforts themselves and the lives that are in jeopardy and the people who are mourning the losses of their loved ones, homes, or businesses. I don't think anybody whose child or mother or brother or sister is dead from this tragedy is sitting around right now thinking "Gee, if the Prime Minister of Australia would just offer condolences or send some token force here it would really make me feel better." What does help them is rescue workers putting a blanket around their shoulders, giving them clean water to drink and a hot meal, and helping them locate their loved ones or find a place to stay.
The people doing those things, the volunteers, the national guard, the fire and rescue and police are the people that are helping Americans right now.
I am quoting this entire post and leaving it in bold just to make sure that nobody misses it. I have nothing to add to it.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
My take on it is, we appreciate all prayers, condolences and good thoughts. We can use all offers of emergency medical assistance, search teams and engineers experienced in repairing dikes and levies.
Please, keep your money. Instead of sending it to us, take this as an abject lesson in how bad things could be. Our emergency management, weather forecasting and pre-planning kept the loss of life far below what it could have been. We will rebuild and many hundreds of thousands were saved because of the precautions we had in place. Take those precautions in your own countries and develop a disaster preparedness infrastructure there.
We are a wealthy, strong and blessed country. We were not immune from nature's wrath. We'll be fine, do what you can to make sure your own people will have a lifeline when a disaster like this strikes you.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Oh, this is fun. I write something, and then I get to watch people interpret it, argue about their interpretations, and decide that only they understand what I really meant. So this is what it feels like to be a Writer.
Okay, just to clarify what I actually meant:
The attitude from the world in general seems to be that because the United States is big and wealthy and powerful, it's perfectly acceptable for them to just sit back and watch us clean up disasters when they strike us. But, also because we are big and wealthy and powerful, when disasters strike less big and wealthy and powerful nations, we would be condemned as monsters if we just sat back and watched.
There are a lot of ways to help a nation in a time of disaster. Sending money is just one of them. There are many others. Saudi Arabia agreed to increase its oil output because we're on the brink of an oil crisis. No, that won't actually help much--as someone mentioned, as long as our refineries are down, there's not much we can do with more raw oil. And, since it's Saudi Arabia, I'm inclined to think it's more for the PR benefits than a genuine attempt to help us rebuild. But it's still a nice gesture.
We're going to have a difficult time rebuilding the levees and making them more effective. The Dutch have experience with that. Could they help?
And these are just examples. There are a lot of things one country can do to aid another in a time of crisis. I am not suggesting that other nations are monsters because they're not sending us billions of dollars--dollars we already have and they, perhaps, can't spare.
I was expressing irritation at people who complain when we don't, in their personal view, do enough to help others--when those same others are themselves unwilling to lift a finger to help us.
I was most assuredly not suggesting that other nations have to send us money. There are a lot of things they could do to help, or even just show their support. And for the nations that do, we'll give our appreciation for their kindness. Not just sit there smugly and act like they owed it to us. You know, like other nations do when we help out.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Several dozen nations have offered aid to help since yesterday. The Netherlands included. CNN probably has a list somewhere, I'll look.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: The State Department said offers so far had come from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Russia, Japan, France, Germany, Britain, China, Jamaica, Honduras, Greece, Venezuela, the Organisation of American States, NATO, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Greece, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Mexico, South Korea, Israel and the United Arab Emirates.
quote: Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon wrote to Mr Bush offering medical teams that specialised in trauma and natural disasters and said they could be ready in 24 hours.
quote: Where the United States really needs help is getting cheap oil and the Bush administration will be approaching Arab nations and other oil producers over the coming days.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a vocal critic of the United States, offered to send cheap fuel, humanitarian aid and relief workers to the disaster area.
I don't think we should accept aid from some of the poorer nations. Let them save it for themselves.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
True. "Thanks for thinking of us, but use it to help your own people" would be the appropriate response to the poorer nations.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
I heard on FOX that about 20 Nations have offered aid.
THX World.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: Asian leaders are offering condolences and assistance to hurricane victims in the southeastern United States.
President Roh Moo-hyun Here in South Korea, President Roh Moo-hyun is one of many Asian leaders offering messages of sympathy to those affected by Hurricane Katrina. Hundreds may have died in the storm or the floods that followed in the states of Louisiana and Mississippi this week.
Sun Mira, spokeswoman for the presidential Blue House in Seoul, says Mr. Roh has contacted President Bush.
Ms. Sun says President Roh wrote a letter to Mr. Bush expressing concern for those affected by the hurricane's damage and offering wishes for a speedy recovery for the region.
quote: More than 20 countries, including Australia, China, Japan and South Korea, have offered to help the United States cope with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Australia has offered to send a special team of emergency experts.
Prime Minister John Howard says as many as 20 Australian specialists could be dispatched if the Americans take up the offer.
Read Belle's post again and stop whinging about something you are making up .
Aid and support are being offered.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Well, we appreciate it. We really do. They don't "owe" us, but they're offering anyway. That's great.
Just don't complain next time we give lots and lots of money to help someone else that we aren't giving "enough". That's tacky.
(That wasn't directed at anyone here on Hatrack. It was directed at the high-profile foreign person--can't remember who it was . . . a government official?--who complained about our tsunami aid.)
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: TEHRAN, August 30 (RIA Novosti) - Iran's foreign ministry spokesperson Hamid Reza Asefi offered condolences to relatives of hurricane Katrina victims, an Iranian foreign ministry official said Tuesday.
"The people of the Islamic Republic of Iran sympathize with the American people, especially with families of the victims of the natural disaster," the official statement said.
quote: Russia is ready to assist the United States in dealing with the damage caused by hurricane Katrina, which has taken 68 lives so far and left behind a tremendous amount of devastation, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a message to U.S. President George Bush Tuesday.
"Russia deeply sympathizes with Americans, who faced a disaster of such a colossal scale, and is ready to offer necessary assistance," Putin said.
Putin asked Bush to extend his condolences to families and relatives of those killed in the disaster.
"Accept my sincere words of regret in connection with the natural calamity in the USA. I know that hurricane Katrina, which swept the southeast coast of the country, resulted in deaths, left tens of thousands of Americans without roofs over their heads, and caused substantial damage to the region's economy," the message said.
quote: UNITED NATIONS, Sept 1 (Reuters) - The United Nations on Thursday offered to help the United States provide disaster relief to the victims of Hurricane Katrina as the storm's devastation challenged the U.S. authorities' ability to cope.
While the United States is the country best prepared to deal with such a disaster, "the sheer size of this emergency makes it possible that we can supplement the American response with supplies from other countries, or with experience we have gained in other relief operations," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said.
quote: Earlier, President George W. Bush said in a television interview that the United States could take care of itself.
"I'm not expecting much from foreign nations because we hadn't asked for it. I do expect a lot of sympathy and perhaps some will send cash dollars. But this country's going to rise up and take care of it," Bush told ABC's "Good Morning America."
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Is it arrogant to say that foreign countries would send us Cash DOLLARS. Wouldn't we accept francs, rubles, pesos, etc?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dollar is the preferred international currency. I don't think it's arrogant.
Posted by B-HAX (Member # 6640) on :
And I am going to start borrowing money from homeless people. They don't have to pay rent, they must have tons of money.
Perspective.
I for one am pissed off that Uganda isn't coming to our aid. Selfish bastards.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:And I am going to start borrowing money from homeless people. They don't have to pay rent, they must have tons of money.
Perspective.
I for one am pissed off that Uganda isn't coming to our aid. Selfish bastards.
<watches B-HAX flog the horse's corpse>
<wonders if he read the thread>
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
For those who don't remember, there were some countries, most memorably India, who declined international aid following the Tsunami because they had the resources to take care of it themselves. India specifically requested that aid go to places like Indonesia where the damage was worse and local resources were fewer.
I would be ashamed if the US accepted substantial cash donations from other countries. Tell them to save their money for the next Hurricane that hits Haiti or the next famine in Ethiopia.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think it's bad for the US to accept cash donations.
But if you want to look at it like that Rabbit. Why not send money to the CURRENT famine in Niger (or is it Nigeria) where people are on the verge of starvation?
Yes, the US can afford to take care of itself, but the world is a community, and giving and taking aid is a part of what makes us feel close to our neighbors. If France had a national disaster tomorrow, I'd expect all of Europe, the US and whoever to offer them help. And I'd expect them to take it.
It's all about brotherhood.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I wouldn't object to Israel sending medical relief. Or Australia sending emergency experts. Or the UN sending in people to help coordinate. That's the kind of help we need right now-- people who know how to use the resources we have to the best end and how to get them to those in need most effectively.
And down the line, when it's time to rebuild, I think other countries sending engineers with experience in this specific kind of thing would be lovely.
We don't really need money or supplies, though, I think we do have enough of those coming in from private citizens alone.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Australia gave more than 7 million to the American Red Cross. The largest donation yet, and other nations are jumping in too.
The Netherlands is being somewhat critical, wondering why something like this could happen in a Western nation, especially when we knew what could happen.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, giving it to the Red Cross is a good way to do it, at least.
I mean, at least they're the ones actually still in there trying to rescue people and provide emergency shelter.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Verily, a comment about the individual who said the US wasn't giving enough for tsunami victims: yes, that angered me, but I later came to see that he was so low I couldn't even be angry with him. The US, as he must have known, gave more than anyone, and (with Oz) was about the only one on the ground, but it wasn't giving the cash to the UN, which was holding meetings instead of sending supplies, and eventually got around to setting up a camp in Indonesia and spent its cash setting up catering for UN workers. Why would he make such an outrageous claim? Simply because the US was spending its money on tsunami victims, rather than on him.
I can be a little angry still at the US media, which didn't couple this complaint of his with figures on how much the US had spent helping victims, compared to the UN ($0).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This list on CNN gets more specific. Many are offering money, some oil, some gas, most are offering medical supplies and clean water. Singapore sent three Chinooks for heavy lifting. Castro offered to send 1,100 doctors with medical supplies.
I'm amazed at the outpouring of help.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm sorry Bush turned down the aid. It seems only gracious when people offer to help you in times of need to accept with thanks. Even if one side has way more resources than the other, it's still how things work between allies. There's give and take.
I wonder how the people still trying to cope with the disaster would feel about Bush turning down help, saying we can take care of our own people, when we so clearly aren't doing it.
I am upset that volunteers with boats wanting to rescue people were sent away, too. I don't think that's wise when the authorities didn't have enough boats, helicopters, crews, to rescue everyone. Isn't it criminal that some people died waiting to be rescued while others were wanting to rescue them but turned away by force?
We need to learn to accept and harness individual opportunistic efforts in a situation like this. Quite often they are more effective and timely than government planned and controlled action. The government can't do anything without bureaucracy, paperwork, snafus, and catch 22s abounding. That's barely tolerable in regular times, for instance when it takes you 3 hours to get your car tag renewed. In times when lives hang in the balance and instant response is important, the government should at least not actively hinder the private individuals who are trying to do their part.
Posted by Joseph Stalin (Member # 8514) on :
A single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*smites Joseph Stalin with the Ketchup of Righteousness*
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
How the eff do you make that? Siberian tomatos?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
No. I have my husband consecrate the ketchup for me. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
muahahaha us Canucks will take over your country utilizing Red Cross Ninja uniforms and using the age old excuse of "lending a helping hand" inorder to decieve you thus increasing the damage as we strike the FINAL BLOW and catch you all by surprise... MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Qatar just offered 100 million dollars.
Germany is prepared to give 2 million barrels a day for 30 days from their personal oil reserves.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not just oil reserves, but far more valuable gasoline reserves.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*smites Blayne with the Ketchup of Righteousness, too*
*pours a little on his head and rubs it in for good measure*
It's good for your scalp, you know. *righteous*
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Hit the wrong target, ketchupqueen. Blayne was merely echoing the sentiments of HomelandSecurity.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
It was the evil laughing. I thought he needed a little help with that. *righteous*
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:The US has also eagerly accepted a German offer of high-speed pumps to reduce the floodwaters in New Orleans, and of experts on levee reconstruction from the Netherlands.
I am very pleased to see leaders swallowing pride and eagerly accepting the skills and talents from other areas who might be better at some of portions of this than we are. It is encouraging.
Farmgirl (oh - that was from this article)
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
A Canadian urban rescue team from Vancouver is already on the ground. Alberta is boosting its oil production to supply the northern U.S., which normally gets a good chunk of its crude from the Gulf Coast (this will actually increase Canada's production by on the order of 5%, which is huge). I believe we are also sending (or will be sending) medical supplies. I'm not sure what else we may or may not be doing, but it looks like lots of countries are pitching in.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)