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!
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 169 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Several dozen nations have offered aid to help since yesterday. The Netherlands included. CNN probably has a list somewhere, I'll look.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. "Thanks for thinking of us, but use it to help your own people" would be the appropriate response to the poorer nations.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.)
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
Also, perhaps this has something to do with it..
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
Is it arrogant to say that foreign countries would send us Cash DOLLARS. Wouldn't we accept francs, rubles, pesos, etc?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. I have my husband consecrate the ketchup for me. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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!
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
