Posted on 01/02/2005 4:00:27 PM PST by wagglebee
"I think western countries need no help, because they can bear the consequences of such natural disasters alone."
I can agree because it shows the foreign rationale for what I said earlier. ("...FEMA was doing what has to be done when there is nowhere to turn for help...the aid door only swings out...") I'm proud to say we can take care of ourselves and hope to God we can remain that way! And, staying with that sentence, thanks for admitting that your desire to help people is based on their location and what they have done for you lately. Your criticism is now a badge of honor.
I´m somewhat confused by your conclusions. Show me where and when I said that help depends on what one has done for me lately. Florida residents received help by the US, so there was and is no reason to call for foreign help - and no US politician did. I make help dependable on whether nations can help themselves or not, not on what they´ve done for me. You continue to behave like a child in a sandbox ("they throw mud at me so I will throw mud at them!"). I will not join you in this game, though I stand aside and look at you with pity. I´ll give you the last post, because this ´discussion´ isn´t worth the time. Out there are enough people who need help, and there are enough who have died in this disaster on Dec 26th 04; I´m speechless you even complain about a lack of support for FL disasters...
You're the one who's confused. My citing of the FL hurricanes was done to explain why the amount spent by the government was so high, and I stand by it. It's not the failure of others to offer aid to the US I dislike. That's expected. It's their criticism of the aid the US is offering now that disgusts me. As for the "what have you done for us lately" charge, your remark on the East German floods of 2002 gives the impression you're keeping score.
While I do appreciate your standing aside, I certainly don't need your pity. Only someone who has basked in the shade of the US military's protective umbrella for 40+ years could consider this a game and think they're winning. If the EU gets its wish, perhaps one day the Western world will stand aside, with pity, and say you don't need any outside help. Good luck with that.
Michael81Dus Post 55: I didn´t say that I participate in this game.
It kinda sounds like you did.
Shalom.
Nope. In post 53 I described what both sides are doing - and heavenly criticize it! It is shameful and childish a) to say that a countrys efforts to help are stingy and b) to say that others are worse because they didn´t offer help to FL hurricane victims.
You see?
You don´t read my posts carefully - again and again.
I SAID THAT YOUR CONCLUSIONS CONFUSE ME.
You could read (from the context) that I never blamed other countries for not having offered help to the flood victims in East Germany 2002, but rather find it ridiculous when western nations call for help. We can stand on our own feet!! Period.
No, but it doesn't really matter. I don't have a dog in the hunt. I read what you wrote in 53 as "You do it to me, I do it to you." Then in post 55 you said, "I don't do it."
But I could have read wrong. As I said, I don't have a dog in the hunt.
Shalom.
HAHAHAHA!
Thanks for your reply, Michael.
I think you mistconstrue the intentions of this discussion.
The point is that everytime there is a disaster outside the US, the US is among the first and largest aid suppliers.
When the Russian NUCLEAR PLANT blew, we offered help.
When disaster strikes in the US, we are not offered help by anyone.
We are not whining about not receiving help. We never have.
We are making a rebuttal to those who would say we were STINGY and SLOW about responding.
President Bush started off (limited by law to what he could offer until approriations and bills were passed) with $35mill then went to $350 Mill as the scope of the disaster revealed itself. NOWHERE is measured in all this the cost of turning the USS Abraham Lincoln AROUND, AGAIN. Sending the MARINE CORPS in on foot to start getting supplies to the people over there.
These men and women are foregoing seeing their wives, their children, their families, their homes, to WADE THROUGH CHOLERA INFESTED WATER, among DEAD BLOATED CORPSES, inhaling the SMOKE FROM BURNING BODIES.
US forces have done this time, and time, again.
The ABE LINCOLN was asked to stay past assignment in DESERT STORM I. In OPERATION FREEDOM, the ABE LINCOLN was asked to stay and support the takeover of BAGHDAD completely ALONE.
There was one of the largest DUST STORMS going on in the Mideast, and all other air, water, ground forces were paralyzed. The pilots, crews, shipmates on the Lincoln worked 24/7 during that time. The pilots had to land and take off in almost ZERO VISIBILITY, fierce sandstorms pelting their aircraft the entire time, and each time they returned from a mission, the ship was FARTHER AWAY, running as fast as it could to stay beyond the edge of the storm. Were the storm to have overtaken the ship, the pilots would have had to ditch, and would likely have died. They did this for 8 MONTHS.
They were on a 3 MONTH TOUR of DUTY, and had to stay 8 MONTHS (let this soak in some more), working 24/7.
This time, same thing. (The crew considers the LINCOLN to be cursed in this manner, I know) They were going home. Had to turn around. HOW LONG WILL THEY HAVE TO STAY? No one knows.
How much cost in time away from family must these men and women endure? How much did it cost the US to turn the LINCOLN around and prepare for this rescue mission?
First, there was no thought given to what the cost might be in money. The first thought was the cost in lives if we didn't.
Second, that will never be part of the NATIONAL DONATION or PRIVATE DONATION money being discussed.
I can only speculate, but the cost to turn that carrier group around, have them stay for the rescue mission (no matter how long it takes), the cost of the manpower, the supplies, laying new runways, the deaths that will be incurred by the NAVY and MARINE forces, will never be able to be measured, and is likely larger than any one country has pledged so far.
Remember, the leaders of these tropical island paradises and child prostitution rings were given warnings of a tsunami force wave, but did not pass it on to the public, for fear of PROFIT LOSS.
All I can say is, they are DAMN LUCKY most of the UNITED STATES is CHRISTIAN.
We are RARELY offered help.
If you read my words carefully you would see that I was pointing out the UN's hypocrisy in calling the US "stingy" while doing exactly nothing to help the US during emergencies.
Michael81Dus,
I think what has really got people up in arms is not that people didn't say thank you for any help offered. People at the grass roots level do remember (as you point out, there are many Germans who remember the generous treatment of Germany and Germans after WWII by the USA)
What has got people angry is someone who was part of the UN, Emergency Relief coordinator Jan Egeland, saying Americans are "stingy".
First, the UN is an organization that many Americans are loath to support, given the general anti-american tone of operations there (if there is any question, one need only examine the wording of resolutions and the voting record of most of the participants).
Secondly, this is an organization that admitted countries such as Sudan, Syria, Libya and Vietnam to the UN Human Rights Commission, which also voted OFF the United States.
Thirdly, this is an organization that is completely steeped and bathed in corruption. How many billions of US Dollars were skimmed off to people in this "Food for Oil" scam, many of them Europeans who railed against the effects of the sanctions on the Iraqi children. How many millions of MY tax dollars ended up in the pockets of people associated with this completely morally bankrupt organiztion?
Then, to have this gentleman from this organization call us "stingy"? Stingy?
As several people pointed out, more money flows out of this country to other countries for any number of charitable operations. Sure, maybe we can afford it. But we are not socialists, and we don't believe in the concept of redistributing wealth. We give, because it is the right thing to do, and for all our real and percieved faults, we want to help because, often, we can.
A lot of it goes unremarked, unnoticed, unreported, and unthanked. Even our military hardware, which costs huge amounts of money is used in these types of operations. I have seen one rough estimate that a carrier battle group costs nearly 10 million dollars per day to operate. We are sending two of them to the Indian Ocean. Or flying all those C17, C5 or C130 aircraft with their crews to the area. Nobody is factoring these things in. It is just taken for granted. But it is OUR money, it is MY money that is being used. And I, and many Americans, are not only fine with that, we enthusiasically approve (discounting, of course, possibly the families of these crewmembers who have waited so long for them to come home)
What we DON'T like, and what really ticks us off, is this guy, with this morally corrupt, do nothing organization, who, to us, appears as the Prototype of the European "Sitzpinkler" telling us that we are not doing enough, THAT is what has got many of us really ticked off.
Please do not take this personally, and I don't think you would, because it is not directed at you. I have read your website extensively, and while I disagree with many things you say, I also find much to agree on. You have taken the time to see through our Hollywood stereotypes to a degree.
While we don't generally mind being taken for granted, it irritates many of us no end to be called on the carpet by an organization the likes of the UN.
,,, the US could have given so much more, but that "so much more" went to UN back dues some time ago.
good point
New Zealand's estimated 2004 GNP is USD$85,340,000,000.
In 2004, after taxes, Americans gave USD$330,000,000,000 of their own money to domestic and foreign charities.
Happy New Year!
I wonder what that will look like next year.
,,, when fiscal deficits are taken into account, NZ and it's total population of four million is in better shape to give more. Hell'n Klark can't comment on that at present as she's cross country skiing over Norway. A $60,000 pay rise enables that sort of holiday.
We're obviously not giving enough independently of the UN. It might have more effect if it weren't being wasted on corruption.
<< We're obviously not giving enough independently of the UN. It might have more effect if it weren't being wasted on corruption. >>
Bullshit.
"We" [Including Australians and the New Zealanders -- the only three Civilized Nations left on a bloody planet the rest of whose population -- often on the same day -- is either grovelling and begging at our feet or ripping at our throats] have been around 98% of the on-the-ground aid and assistance from day one.
the united nations' efforts to date have involved a bunch of otherwise deservedly unemployed mindless bureaucrats who, when they are not supercilliously sneering at our contributions are First-Class and Five-Star junketing it about the bloody globe holding champagne and caviar-catered "meetings" at which they tries to figger how to retroactively force the ANZAC and American forces into un blue hats -- so the un may steal the credit for our efforts.
And America's PRIVATE bloody contributions are greater than the combined total of the Euro-peons' Neo-Soviet's satellite states.
Meanwhile -- while America's war widows cannot afford to put headstones on their dead soliers' graves -- another more than two million Africans have died from the diseases that continent's con-men gummints nowadays call AIDS, two millions more have starved to death or died from Malaria and yet another 350,000 Americans have died from Alcoholism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.