Tsunami stinginess? Are we giving enough?

[OUMoose]

And Who cares if "Gunther" pleged 100 dollars and "Pierre" Pledged 98, and "Sam" Pledged 75...

They ALL assisted in a time of Crisis, and it should NOT be the amount of help, but the fact that they all helped, that matters.

In a utopian society perhaps, but that's not how the world is. How many big companies and/or affulent americans would give so much if they didn't get a Tax deduction from it? I'm sure there's some very philanthropic organizations that would, but would they all? How many executive spin doctors are foaming at the mouth right now to get the word out to try and counter some of the bad press about the US?

The unfortunate key to your phrase is the word "should". They should not care, but people do. My apologies for sounding so pessimistic in the face of such a great tragety, but IMO it's realistic.

 

[Kreth]

Why do you feel it is 'trendy' to 'bash' the US?

At look at recent news will answer this. One example: look at the international outrage over US soldiers' abuse of Iraqi prisoners vs. the relative silence when bodies of Americans were hung from bridges.

Why do you feel it is OK for you to 'bash' France?

Was I?

And what is your intention of placing the word 'ally' in single quotes?

France has been an ally to the US in name only for quite some time.

Claiming that France is 'one of our biggest critics', begs the question, on what are they criticizing us, followed by an examination of that criticism to see if it is valid.

To be honest, I think it's become the exception rather than the rule to see a news item about US foreign policy without an opposing comment from a French official.

Jeff

 

[PeachMonkey]

At look at recent news will answer this. One example: look at the international outrage over US soldiers' abuse of Iraqi prisoners vs. the relative silence when bodies of Americans were hung from bridges.

This quote demonstrates only your limited perspective. The act of hanging Americans of bridges was condemned internationally and by human rights groups worldwide. The international outrage of US soldiers' abuse is, if at all louder, because it was a clear-cut case of torture committed by the so-called "good-guys".

To be honest, I think it's become the exception rather than the rule to see a news item about US foreign policy without an opposing comment from a French official.

So, by your definition, a country is only an ally if they agree, in lockstep, to every position of the United States' foreign policy?

 

[Kreth]

This quote demonstrates only your limited perspective. The act of hanging Americans of bridges was condemned internationally and by human rights groups worldwide. The international outrage of US soldiers' abuse is, if at all louder, because it was a clear-cut case of torture committed by the so-called "good-guys".

Quick with the insults, thanks...

So, by your definition, a country is only an ally if they agree, in lockstep, to every position of the United States' foreign policy?

Not at all, it's just that France in particular of late seems to criticize everything the US does abroad.

Jeff

 

[PeachMonkey]

Quick with the insults, thanks...

It's not an insult, it's pointing out a fact. If you disagree, feel free to counter with data.

Not at all, it's just that France in particular of late seems to criticize everything the US does abroad.

Well, given that a great deal that the US does abroad is based entirely on a limited set of self-serving interests, this is unsurprising. Moreover, do you have actual data that shows that France criticizes *everything* the US does abroad?

 

[MisterMike]

I don't see the big deal about waiting a few days to pledge money. At first count, the toll was at 3000. Sounds like more excuses to assail the administration over nothing.

It's also another thing to just throw money at a problem and say you did your best. It says a little more to me when a national leader actually goes to visit the area.

Any Scandinavian leaders make it over there yet?

 

[PeachMonkey]

It's also another thing to just throw money at a problem and say you did your best. It says a little more to me when a national leader actually goes to visit the area.

It is rather unsurprising that some would focus on the opportunity for PR rather than on the ability to actually make a difference.

Of course, I'm sure Jeb and GW and Colin were able to individually do far more than simply the American dollars alone.

 

[MisterMike]

It is rather unsurprising that some would focus on the opportunity for PR rather than on the ability to actually make a difference.

Of course, I'm sure Jeb and GW and Colin were able to individually do far more than simply the American dollars alone.

As I thought. None of the generous Scandinavian leaders made it.

 

[PeachMonkey]

As I thought. None of the generous Scandinavian leaders made it.

Perhaps they thought it was in poor taste to focus more on the public relations opportunities than on helping people.

Most of the Scandinavian countries aren't in desperate need of re-forming international relationships after illegally invading sovereign nations and discarding treaties, after all.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I don't see the big deal about waiting a few days to pledge money. At first count, the toll was at 3000. Sounds like more excuses to assail the administration over nothing.

It's also another thing to just throw money at a problem and say you did your best. It says a little more to me when a national leader actually goes to visit the area.

Any Scandinavian leaders make it over there yet?

Hmmm... *we* lost about 3,000 people a few years ago...and the condolences and offers of help (to search for bodies, etc) came pouring in from everyone - one of the first, France, actually.

But a count of 3,000 from the tsunami is not a big deal?

Money is what the relief efforts need - not politicians visiting and looking at the dead. That won't help the relief efforts at all.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Michael Savage's take on all of this. His compassion is underwhelming:


Savage on the tsunami: "I wouldn't call it a tragedy. ... We shouldn't be spending a nickel on this"

During nationally syndicated radio host Michael Savage's December 31 broadcast -- his first since the December 26 tsunami resulting from an earthquake in Southeast Asia -- Savage said that the tsumani was "not a tragedy" and that the United States should not be sending any aid to the affected countries because they are "hotbeds of radical Islam." Savage added: "We shouldn't be spending a nickel on this, as far as I'm concerned. ... I am sick of being bled to death by every damn incident on the earth."

Savage opened the program by saying that he needed some international aid because of rainy weather in San Francisco, the city from which he broadcasts his program. Savage also said that while he does not argue that "God struck" the people of Southeast Asia -- because he's "not a theologian" -- "[y]ou could argue, maybe this is God's hand, because some of their brethren struck Christian America."

From the December 31 edition of Savage Nation:

SAVAGE: It is the Savage Nation out here on the West Coast. We've had rain for five days. We have another five days of it. I need some aid right now. International aid. Because I may be suffering from seasonal affective disorder if this keeps up. Maybe I should go to the U.N. [United Nations] and see if I can get some special psychotherapy and sun lamps.

[...]

We shouldn't be sending as much as we're sending. Bush has a lot of gall writing a check for 135 million dollars. This is more a UNICEF deal, it's a U.N. deal, it's a Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, George Soros, Bill Clinton bleeding-heart-liberal deal. I don't want to send them any money. You know, a few airplanes with some medical supplies and a little lip service would have been fine for me.

[...]

You could take the argument that it's God's will, it's too bad and let's move on. And then let others help them. They're not in our sphere of interest. Primarily, they hate our guts in plain English. All right, well, the argument is, well, if you send them money, they're gonna like us, show 'em we're not anti-Muslim. That is such rubbish. That is such rubbish. They're gonna hate you anyhow, no matter what we ever do.

[...]

It's not a tragedy. I wouldn't call it a tragedy. It's a human disaster. It's not a tragedy in that sense. But, the issue is, theological questions suddenly arise. ... Now, for you atheists, you have no questions about this. It's a pure accident of nature. You don't ask yourself, "Was it God's hand?"

If you are a God-believing, God-fearing person, I am sure at some point you ask yourself, wait a minute. The epicenter of this earthquake and the resulting tidal wave was adjacent to the sex trade island of Phuket, Thailand ... and then it knocked out many, many regions of Indonesia, some of which are the most vicious recruiting grounds for Islamic terrorists. That's a fact of reality. Then going the other way, it hit Sri Lanka, ex-Ceylon. And as you well know, Sri Lanka is a viciously anti-Western nation, the home of the Tamil Tigers, who are not only separatists but anti-Westerners, anti-Christians, etc. You could argue, maybe this is God's hand, because some of their brethren struck Christian America. Maybe God speaks the truth but waits. Seeks the truth and waits. I don't know. You could argue: God struck them. Now, I don't argue that because I'm not a theologian. Nor do I believe that God is omnipotent. I believe God is omnipresent. But I don't think God has control over every act because there would be no free will and I don't believe in that. ... But then again, who knows? I'm one man amongst billions of people, with one man's opinion.

[...]

Many of the countries and the areas in these countries that were hit by these tidal waves were hotbeds of radical Islam. Why should we be helping them destroy us? ... I think what we're doing is feeding our own demise. ... I truthfully don't believe in foreign aid.

[...]

We shouldn't be spending a nickel on this, as far as I'm concerned. ... I don't want one nickel of my money going over there. ... I am sick of being bled to death by every damn incident on the earth.

Savage is not the only person to oppose U.S. aid to tsunami victims. In a January 3 commentary on the conservative news website CNSNews.com, David Holcberg, a research associate at the Ayn Rand Institute, wrote that the U.S. government "should not give any money to help the tsunami victims. Why? Because the money is not the government's to give. Every cent the government spends comes from taxation. Every dollar the government hands out as foreign aid has to be extorted from an American taxpayer first."

End of article.

Note that Savage, in arguing for God's wrath on the people of the East, failed to mention the thousands of non-asians that were killed by this. I'm not sure what the American toll is, but the total toll of Europeans/Americans is around 5,000. Amazing how God got all those sinners to head out for a far east vacation prior to launching this wave.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Kreth]

It's not an insult, it's pointing out a fact. If you disagree, feel free to counter with data.

Pointing out a fact would have begun with something like, "This is incorrect" or "I disagree." A comment about "my limited perception" just sounds condescending...

Well, given that a great deal that the US does abroad is based entirely on a limited set of self-serving interests, this is unsurprising. Moreover, do you have actual data that shows that France criticizes *everything* the US does abroad?

It was a turn of phrase. I'm sure there's at least one or two items of US foreign policy that France hasn't criticized...

Jeff

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Steve ~ the words I have for that lowlife article cannot be fully expressed here in the glorious technocolor of a sailor's mouth that I would wish it to be.

I guess God was leading terrorists when 9/11 happened, too, right? We were "smoten" (yes, I realize not a word) then, right? Or, because it's a natural disaster, then we shouldn't help?

Some people were dropped on their heads as babies - or weren't dropped enough.

 

[michaeledward]

At look at recent news will answer this. One example: look at the international outrage over US soldiers' abuse of Iraqi prisoners vs. the relative silence when bodies of Americans were hung from bridges.

OK... here you bring up two incidents. Let's make a short examination of each.

American bodies hung from bridges.
This occurred in the city of Fallujah.
Incidently, this is the city, early in the invasion, in which precision munitions dropped from British aircraft impacted a busy marketplace. Between 50 and 150 Iraqis were killed for going to the market that day. Now, this, on top of having your homeland invaded is, no doubt, going to create some tension.

It might be helpful to remember the first confrontation between the US Military and protestors in Fallujah. Members of the 82nd Airborne fired on a crowd of approximately 200 Iraqis, wounding 75 and killing between 13 and 15 protestors. There is, of course, disputes about how this incident started. I think, perhaps we will never know.

Anyhow, on to the 'relative silence', as you put it.

SPAIN - Yesterday's savagery deserves no forgiveness.
LEBANON - “The scene of the dead bodies of the four American contractors in Falluja is frightening, disgusting and condemned at all levels.

I have found some other comments and many of them are not flattering. Not one country supported the actions of those in Fallujah. But many countries did warn the United States that the contractors deaths are a symptom of what we have made for ourselves by invading Iraq. You will recall that most of the world opposed our invasion. While the 'I told you so' may be childish, it may also be considered accurate.

And what is the net result ... The United States Military has destroyed the city of Fallujah, in order to save it.

Street after street, it is difficult to pick out a building or a house that has not been damaged. Many structures have been reduced to little more than giant piles of rubble.



​

United States abuse of Iraqi prisoners
Rather than discuss this topic through international outrage, let's please talk about my outrage. (I'm sure you'll find my arguments neatly parallel those international arguments).

When the United States could not locate Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, the weight of justification for the invasion shifted from those weapons to the world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein. (I will point out the world was not safer for the Black Hawk contractors in Fallujah, was it).

If the United States is going to claim 'Moral Authority' as the justification for invading a nation that posed no threat (no WMD), it is demanded of us that we act with 'Moral Conviction'.

That these soldiers acted with torturous intent is in violation of that Moral Conviction. The United States military has tried to portray the actions in Abu Ghraib as that of bored, mis-guided soldiers.

However, White House Council Alberto Gonzales (currently nominated for the Cabinet position of Attorney General) advised the CIA in several memos on 'Acceptable' torture techniques. It has been shown that the CIA was present in Abu Ghraib and in Guantanamo's camp X-Ray. That Mr. Gonzales is being promoted by the Bush Administration acts further to counter the 'Moral Authority' argument used to justify our presence in Iraq.

Certainly, there is in enough information here to be outraged by this behavior.

Was I?

Yes.

France has been an ally to the US in name only for quite some time.

A cursory search on the internet can show many, many treaties common to the United States and France. These treaties are still in force. In addition to the bi-lateral treaties between the two countries, we also share a number of multi-lateral agreements, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations (both permanent members of the security council).

Perhaps you can show an incident in which France has terminated any of these treaties?
Perhaps you can show where France did not honor these treaties?

Unless you can so demonstrate, I think to claim that 200 years of mutual agreements are 'in name only' is quite a bit hyperbolic, don't you think?

To be honest, I think it's become the exception rather than the rule to see a news item about US foreign policy without an opposing comment from a French official.

Jeff

Well, you can make the same claim about me, and you need not limit this to an issue of foreign policy. Again, this begs the question, on what topic would you like to discuss US foreign policy, visa-vi French opposition? I think we need to be open to the possibility that an opposing point of view has validity, wouldn't you agree?

I find many of the US policies incorrect. I will gladly debate them with you, but I will ask that we stick to discussing actual topics in foreign policy.




ref:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/fallujah.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/04/wwwh40407.htm
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/21/1535224
http://www.info-france-usa.org/franceus/pacte.asp
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Fallujah_042903.htm
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200501/200501070010.html

 

[Cryozombie]

I also see this as a blatant excuse to attack the administration...

I ask you Honestly:

If it had happened and Kerry was in office, would his going to visit still be viewed by you, his supporters, as a usless PR opportunity, or a chance for him to assess the damage firsthand to better decide how much additional aid to send?

If he had delayed a few days after the initail estimates, would you see Kerry as "stingy" or as assessing the situation to make an informed decision on how much aid to send?

Because I'm willing to bet most of you would take his side, and make excuses for him doing this.

 

[michaeledward]

Technopunk ...

We will honestly never know, will we. So, your argument because kind of silly.

As Daniel Schorr put it recently (I'm paraphrasing); to expect a speedy response from the President who sat reading 'My Pet Goat' when the second plane flew into the World Trade Center is foolish.

 

[FearlessFreep]

It's kinda one of the 'half full/half empty' kinds of things. (See the recent thread on "why men can't win")

If he does nothing, he's insenstive or undecisive. If he does something, it's a PR stunt. Some people are going to find fault in what the president does regardless of what he actually does (not just this president, either, the Republicans had the same attitude toward Clinton, or Kerry in the race). So all he can do is just get on wiht doing what he thinks needs to be done

Politics have gotten beyond the point where politicians can honestly say "Ya know, my opponent is a man of character and good intention, I just think his ideas are wrong' Now it's all "us vs them", where being on the other side of the aisle is enough to be accused of being a thief and a cheat and a scoundrel, and honestly, unfortuantely, they probably are, but more often than not its another lying cheat making the accusation.

Anything done will be justifcation for sainthood or reason for damnation all depending on whether it was by someone on 'our side' or 'their side'. One man's "caution" is another man's "indecisiveness", one person's "bold leadership is another person's "reckless carelessness

To the guy who just lost his house, his family, his life to a tidal wave or earthquake or volcano, it doesn't really matter who came to see the mess or who didn't or who or what country gave how much per capita or what percentage of GNP or who ending up looking best in all the mess. He just thinks "Now what?!?!" and anyone who can in any way at any level help to find a meaningful answer will be appreciated

 

[PeachMonkey]

If it had happened and Kerry was in office, would his going to visit still be viewed by you, his supporters, as a usless PR opportunity, or a chance for him to assess the damage firsthand to better decide how much additional aid to send?

You forget that many, if not most, of us "Kerry supporters" held our noses while doing so, and did so only get Bush out of office; yes, I would view such a tour by Kerry as a self-serving PR opportunity, because he is also a self-serving politician.

Speculating about what we would or wouldn't do with a different candidate is actually irrelevant when discussing the realities of the current situation.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Hmmm... *we* lost about 3,000 people a few years ago...and the condolences and offers of help (to search for bodies, etc) came pouring in from everyone - one of the first, France, actually.

But a count of 3,000 from the tsunami is not a big deal?

That's cause the initial 3000 from the tsunami weren't 'Mericans, durn it!

And if France did something nice for us, they were just lying to set us up for later betrayal.

 

[Phoenix44]

I agree that the initial pledge of $15M was shamefully low. However, with >$300M from the US government, and >$200M from private citizens, I need to know this before I make any judgement:

Is the relief effort suffering from lack of funds?

If not, then these international comparisons are nothing more than steroidal posturing.

BTW, here's what the oil-producing nations have pledged (Reuters):
Kuwait: $2 Million
United Arab Emirates: 30 tons of provisions
Saudi Arabia: $10 Million (How much does Prince Bandar's private Boeing 727 cost?)