I think blurring an effort to help a region devastated by an earthquake, with the other issues of government aid and throwing money at the problem, does not help those with a legitimate argument over wasted aid. There are plenty of abuses of the various aid packages sent out by alot of the governments of better off nations, this is true. But its not like the countries with these issues of corruption limit this to only the money received by aid packages. If I remember right, after an earthquake in Iran (of all places) there was governmental investigations into the corruption of the builders of many of these buildings which had collapsed during an earthquake that should not have caused this kind of destruction. Building codes were not followed and people pocketed big money. Same kind of investigation went on after one of the big hurricanes in florida. Building codes were not followed and the cost to all of us would have been reduced if these laws were followed. So you cannot blame only these poorer nations for corruption. If we ourselves in America cannot stop this kind of abuse, how in the world do you expect the nations with limited resources in their own governments to be able to prevent such things? I dont think we should hold that against the persons who are trying to dig out possibly surviving students in a school that had collapsed, or trying to get medical aid for their familys who are injured from the effects of this natural disaster. I think people need to separate these issues when reflecting on the money spent after a natural event vs general aid packages that are discussed, revised and voted on by the elected officials.
Another thing thats alarming is aid got to pakistan more than 2 times quicker than it did in Katrina. Ooo wait, thats not alarming considering all our national guard is right next door!
Yeah, I know! I heard even Osama bin Laden received some food and water from us. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - N
There are many better ways than just sending money to the bank accounts of the officials, like education and technology for example, so that the people become able to stand for themselves and don't become addicts to international funding aid. But that's not really the plan, no? You don't want extra competition, you need consumers that buy your production.
And how would you do that? Would some 3rd world nation allow another nation to come into it's country and redo it's education and technology? Or should a doo-gooder nation just force its way into the country and provide those services to the people ....maybe behind the backs of that nation's authorities? Yeah, just how would you do that? Baron Max
Correct-o-mundo! I dunno, isn't that what we did with Iraq? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - N
I am liberal-minded in regards to most political issues, however I believe CHARITY BEGINS IN THE HOME. (ie education and healthcare for our own people.) Especially when the populations from these countries continues to explode, while our birthrate continues to shrink. For example: The population for Australia would actually be in decline were it not for immigration. The other question, for example, is what do countries like those in africa contribute? Apart from chocolate and coffee both of which I am addicted to. I think we should pay them a fair price, not a pitance, for their chocolate and coffee. However, if they cannot control the spread of HIV/AIDS, then thats their fault.
Australian citizens gave like 30 million dollars in aid to the TSUNAMI victims. And our government gave over a billion dollars, half in interest free loans. Indonesia still refuses to ban the terrorist group Jemar Islameeh (sp?), who have bombed Australians twice in Bali, and also our embassy in Indonesia.
Their response is probably 'Thank you, infidels. We will make sure to make your ends as swift and painless as we can when your time comes'.
Bribes to the government of course. Besides, I think that many countries would love to accept such a help as it is.
USA is selflessly helping poor countries Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That is one big fat joke.
I think you are missing the point of so-called help to poor countries. It's intentionally designed to be "privatized" by the few. It's not liberal mistake. It's a neo imperial way to dominate the world. Plus, USA did not really lose much by giving away more green paper (or producing extra megabites of zeros and ones). It's not like USA needs to provide some stuff that paper can buy. USA prints/give away paper+World (mostly) works to provide goods that paper can buy= American are darn proud of the "selfless" help which saves the world again and again.
Do you have any proof of that assertion or is it just an inflammatory comment intended to show your ignorance of human nature, politics and diplomacy? Baron Max
Well, connoisseur of human nature, politics and diplomacy, no proof will satisfy you anyway - because you are a believer. Do you have a proof of your set of believes? Can we, commoners, have first hand knowledge of behind scene machinery? All we can use (even you, precious) is common sense, multiple sources of info as well as the question "who benefits". Certainly, western help (except maybe disaster relief) benefits everyone except the party it was indended to help. One could traditionally blame savages for such shortcomings. However, in 99% cases, the correct answer to the question "who benefits" lead to the correct understanding of various events occuring in this world. That's human nature, you pride yourself on knowing about.
The war on terror is about winning hearts and minds. If we can do that with money, then it's money well spent. How would things have been different if all the money we spent on the iraq war was spent on tsunami and earthquake relief? It can buy the favors of politicians in this country, so why couldn't it buy the good will of muslims?
haha congrats! you can count on your fingers the countries that have aided us. On one hand. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
hm no shit. most likely supplied by the Dixie chicks or moore. wait.. nevermind moore, he would eat and drink it all before he delivered it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
im pretty sure your assessment of that situation is a massive oversimplification. we benefit from the fruits of those country's cheap labor and lax legal systems probably at the rate of a few million dollars a day in this country. although that money doesnt go directly to our government, it still comes into the coffers of US based multinational corporations. think of it, we use their people to either partially or totally produce goods for US companies at maybe 1/8 the pay rate that it would cost here. (im not sure about this for pakistan in particular, but you made a broad and sweeping statement that i took to include most developing nations). then once the goods are finished, we ship them back over there and sell them at a 400% markup. or we sell them to our own people at a 300% markup. no big deal right. in regards to pakistan most specifically, our country has provided the weapons and technology to both sides of the nearly endless war that has raged between India and Pakistan for the last couple of decades over the area called Kashmir which, by the way is the most dangerous place in the world to live. had we not sold or given them all those weapons do you think the hostilities would still be at the same level they are right now, continuously threatening to boil over into a nuclear fued? even Russia arguably could not supply them and countless other countries with the amount of small arms and armaments that we do, at least not in the year 2005. this is not an indictment of the people of the US by any means, it is just a demonstration of the way in which the actions and activities of our government negatively affect portions of the world on a regular basis. as many conservatives do, im sure you could disregard this all as some type of leftist liberal babble, but that doesnt prevent it from being a reality and a tangible reason for millions of people around the world to completely hate us for the role they think we play in supporting and enabling their oppressive governments. even if we throw some money at an earthquake now and then or start an illegitimate war to force regime change on a sovreign country because it is politically expedient, its small doings compared to the ways in which our hand is perceived to move events behind the scenes all over the world with massively negative results. and so i guess i think you are pretty ignorant in some ways about whats going on in the world. 40 or 50 whole countries worth of people dont just dislike us because of baseless accusations and pointless idiocy, they live under the crush of our sometimes cruel foreign policy decisions and confront their implications on a daily basis. or they seek to struggle to forever remain in our good graces for fear of getting "blowed up like saddaam did". by the way if you have a beef with our government wasting funds on helping middle eastern countries humanitarian relief efforts, do you have a problem with us marching into iraq and pointlessly destroying half of the country looking for the ghosts of WMD's and then spending about 297$ billion in our hard earned tax dollars rebuilding it? because i have a huge problem with shit like that.
Why do you always asks for proof? Can't you see? Can you read? It's right in front of your eyes if you'd only take the Bush colored blinders off. Whenever a country uses aid/resources to help the people of the country, the USofA has a hissy fit. Shit, it happens right here in this country if only you'd open your eyes and take a look-see.
Make no mistake, Bush isn't considerate or kind, we always get something for our money, even if it isn't obvious to the public. There is always a price to pay for taking America's money.
