PDA

View Full Version : How much the world has donated to Tsunami...


Sam L
Jan 7th, 2005, 12:09 PM
... relief appeals.

Here's a graphic:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffxmedia/2005/01/07/world-responds.jpg

My comments:

Australia: Good, and as expected seeing as we're so close.
Japan: Good, and again as expected seeing as they know all about earthquakes and tsunamis.
Germany: Excellent, especially because they don't have anything to do with the region at all except the holidaying tourists from Germany. It really goes to show what a terrific country Germany is and Germans are. :)
USA: Pathetic, selfish and racist. Too bad those who died were non-whites and more importantly non-Christians. :rolleyes:

"Sluggy"
Jan 7th, 2005, 12:42 PM
thou speakest with fork tongue SamL. Patheric, perhaps, selfish, perhaps, Racist - now that is out of bounds. Who are you to judge if America is racist? if you really wanted to know, you would find out which Americans black/white/and in between gave to the disaster relief.

Jarrett
Jan 7th, 2005, 12:48 PM
No, $35m was selfish and pathetc. $450m is a good start.

-Em-
Jan 7th, 2005, 12:51 PM
Nothing is pathetic and selfish in this situation. it's not a contest who gives more. every help counts.

Wigglytuff
Jan 7th, 2005, 01:03 PM
My comments:

Australia: Good, and as expected seeing as we're so close.
Japan: Good, and again as expected seeing as they know all about earthquakes and tsunamis.
Germany: Excellent, especially because they don't have anything to do with the region at all except the holidaying tourists from Germany. It really goes to show what a terrific country Germany is and Germans are. :)
USA: Pathetic, selfish and racist. Too bad those who died were non-whites and more importantly non-Christians. :rolleyes:

could not have said it better myself!!

Australia: MVP :worship: :worship: :worship:
Japan: nihonjin wa fucking kickass desu.
Germany: wow!
USA: fucking greedy bastards these bushies are! and its not like the moneys not there, look how much the bushies spend on that godless operation iraq liberation (O.I.L.) i mean the war for O.I.L. is more important than disaster relief. O.I.L.. god, i hate bush and his ilk. most americans are good people who let greedy evil bastards pillage the treasury to go to hawaii on tax dollars (see 20/20) and let thier sons & duaghters be killed because of this O.I.L. war. :fiery: :fiery: :fiery:
p.s. does n e 1 know how much these donations r per capita?

Wigglytuff
Jan 7th, 2005, 01:15 PM
Nothing is pathetic and selfish in this situation. it's not a contest who gives more. every help counts.
its not a cost
but as someone living in america it fucking pisses me off that there seems to be a bottomless pit into how much the US gov. will spend to go to war with whomever, but when it comes to saving lives all of a sudden the US gov has to check its budget.

cost of war in iraq: $148,745,200,000 (i couldnt even copy paste the cost from the source page because the number keeps rising so fast)
http://costofwar.com/

its sicking.

"Sluggy"
Jan 7th, 2005, 01:18 PM
But JigglyPuff, you did not go as far as to call America/Americans racist, no?

Sam L
Jan 7th, 2005, 01:26 PM
I'm talking about the government and people who are in power.

The average American doesn't decide how much money to spend in aid. :rolleyes:

I'm talking about people like Bush, Cheney etc... and the Republican Congress.

^^^ They're America right now.

Wigglytuff
Jan 7th, 2005, 02:03 PM
But JigglyPuff, you did not go as far as to call America/Americans racist, no?

1-i was referring the bushies and their policy of killing brown people at any cost, but giving as little money in relief aid as possible
2-i wasn't saying that America is racist, now that you mention it, it is. :lol:
3-i am sure that Americans as individuals will treat a black man lurking in a corner just as suspect as a white man lurking in a corner, LOL. :lol: ok maybe the black is seen as just tiny, minute bit more fear-able. but you get the point, but COLLECTIVELY America has some (not all) of the most racist "traditions" and practices in the west. and while individuals don't enact these practices, they vote into office those who do, and maintain systems that they understand to be fundamentally racist, classist and sexist. and even though individuals may hold different personal beliefs then the figure heads, they do support and maintain these racist practices, systems and "traditions". they support them both emotional and financial.

individually: lots of Americans would be ok with a black family moving in next door.
collectively: some of the most racist bastards in the west today. just wrong as shit. i mean everything from the way education is funded k-12, to the way colleges use legacies to keep black students (and poor whites) out of the best schools (44% of those in IVY colleges are legacy students), to the way that those with "ethnic" names have been shown through scientific survey and study to have a MUCH harder time finding work. or the fact that a black woman only makes 60plus cents on the dollar than a white man for the SAME JOB WITH THE SAME EXPERIENCE, EMPLOYER AND THE SAME EDUCATION and yet she has not the legal right to take her employer to court and demand a raise.

these are all just examples, but in all cases the collective has enacted these things outside of the individual, but the individual has the power to force change and refuses to do so. In fact the last example their are a number of bills in place that would give anyone the right to sue an employer if they feel others in the same skills, experience, training ect are being on a different scale. these bills have not been well received, even though all the seek to do is level the paying field.

gentenaire
Jan 7th, 2005, 02:09 PM
It's not a competition!!

Powell has said the US will probably give more but didn't want to release a figure. I think that's fair! That's probably what Bush should have done instead of proudly announcing the US would give 15 million.

Assess the situation first, find out how much is needed, then decide how much you'll give.

Sam L
Jan 7th, 2005, 02:14 PM
It's not a competition!!

Powell has said the US will probably give more but didn't want to release a figure. I think that's fair! That's probably what Bush should have done instead of proudly announcing the US would give 15 million.

Assess the situation first, find out how much is needed, then decide how much you'll give.
Of course it's not a competition.

But let's say if it were 150,000 white Christians that died. Will the US response be different? That's that question isn't it?

lauryn
Jan 7th, 2005, 02:22 PM
Nothing is pathetic and selfish in this situation. it's not a contest who gives more. every help counts.
well said :)

gentenaire
Jan 7th, 2005, 02:24 PM
Of course it's not a competition.

But let's say if it were 150,000 white Christians that died. Will the US response be different? That's that question isn't it?

Is it? I don't think race has got anything to do with this. Now, had their been some interesting business opportunities there, say, a guarantee that Haliburton would get to be in charge of rebuilding it all, I think the amount offered would be a lot higher.

You can also wonder if Sweden would have given so much if there hadn't been so many Swedish victims?

Sam L
Jan 7th, 2005, 02:25 PM
Is it? I don't think race has got anything to do with this. Now, had their been some interesting business opportunities there, say, a guarantee that Haliburton would get to be in charge of rebuilding it all, I think the amount offered would be a lot higher.

You can also wonder if Sweden would have given so much if there hadn't been so many Swedish victims?
Well money too. I did put in the word "selfish".

cheesestix
Jan 7th, 2005, 02:34 PM
Sam L, you are such a f*cking tool! :mad:

You wanna talk about racist???? How about looking at your own f*cking comments???? ....."Too bad those who died were non-whites"???? :mad: You don't seem to understand how incredibly offensive statements like that are! BTW, maggot, MANY whites died in the tsunami. :rolleyes: What surprises me the most is how NOBODY here seems to call you on that. WTF???

Also, you wanna talk about racism, look at your own country (Australia)! :mad: :rolleyes: And for that matter, look at ALL of the countries that you praised in your first post! :rolleyes: Geez, you're f*cking ignorant! :rolleyes:

martirogi
Jan 7th, 2005, 02:41 PM
you are the devils by constatly bringing up race you are continuing the hate


btw china hasn't given anything but no one's complaining about them

G-Ha
Jan 7th, 2005, 06:07 PM
Firstly, let me say I agree with those who've said that this isn't a competition. And it's to be expected that, as usual, even though the US has given more than most other countries, it is still taken to task.

But as long as some of you are judging countries (well, actually it's just one country being judged, the US), where is the outrage over the lack of response from the rich nations of the Middle East? Why no venom heaped upon that region for it's unwillingness to help out fellow Muslims?

Perhaps some Middle Eastern countries are donating, but just haven't released the figures or the figures just aren't reflected in this map. And I do know that Saudi Arabia recently conducted a telethon to raise money for the victims...which is nice. Of course, it was a telethon seeking private donations so the rich Saudi royal family naturally won't be out a single dime.

But again, only the racist US, as one of the largest donators is a problem...

alexusjonesfan
Jan 7th, 2005, 06:27 PM
oh dear god, some of you people need to stop looking for any excuse to bash Bush.

Justeenium
Jan 7th, 2005, 08:11 PM
I'm talking about the government and people who are in power.

The average American doesn't decide how much money to spend in aid. :rolleyes:

I'm talking about people like Bush, Cheney etc... and the Republican Congress.

^^^ They're America right now.
you imbecile, if the average American had a say in how much the US would be giving then it would be a lot less.

look people, the US gov is in a lose-lose situation, if we pay a lot Americans will be upset he's wasting our money, if we don't pay a lot then the Eurotrash jump all over us

Justeenium
Jan 7th, 2005, 08:13 PM
btw, I'm not surprised to see that no one mentioned that the US bank account is astronomically lower than all the other countries.

beauty_is_pink
Jan 7th, 2005, 08:19 PM
My school is made about $4000+ today, and the school board will match up with that, so I'm real proud of what we did today :)

Sally Struthers
Jan 7th, 2005, 08:26 PM
... relief appeals.

Here's a graphic:



My comments:

Australia: Good, and as expected seeing as we're so close.
Japan: Good, and again as expected seeing as they know all about earthquakes and tsunamis.
Germany: Excellent, especially because they don't have anything to do with the region at all except the holidaying tourists from Germany. It really goes to show what a terrific country Germany is and Germans are. :)
USA: Pathetic, selfish and racist. Too bad those who died were non-whites and more importantly non-Christians. :rolleyes:

You're full of **&^ as usual

Justeenium
Jan 7th, 2005, 08:34 PM
No, $35m was selfish and pathetc. $450m is a good start.
look there's a smilie just for you

:retard:

lakeway11
Jan 7th, 2005, 08:47 PM
What about the Children of Iraq?

By Jack Dalton

This past week has shown how people of various religions, nationalities, ethnic backgrounds are able to come together to help in a crisis--the victims of the Tsunami in this instance.

Tens of thousands of children are now orphans, with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, now refugees, to say the least. The death toll, over 156,000, is still rising. No one knows what it will be in the end, but one thing is pretty much certain, it will be a huge number.

It is good to see the outpouring of the world’s people doing what they are able to come to the aid of the Tsunami victims.

My question is simply this, where is the worlds concern for the tens of thousands of Iraq's children that have been so completely decimated by the U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq?

In the 12 years of U.S. sanctions on Iraq prior to the invasion, over 500,000 children died--as a direct result of those sanctions. Where was the care and concern of the world then? Where were the so-called “compassionate conservatives” of the U.S. then? Oops! Forgot for a moment, they are the ones supporting the Iraq war.

Currently in Iraq over 100,000 (and the number is growing rapidly) Iraqi's have been killed by U.S. bombs, "smart" bombs--that keep going to the wrong address and killing more children--and hand held weapons for up close and personal killing. It has been estimated that well over half of that number have been children.

The "collateral damage" the U.S. keeps referring to, that's the Iraqi children, in large part. Where is the compassion for them? Or is it that they deserve to die simply because they are the children of Iraq?

The sanctions that were in place on Iraq, then the invasion, have been responsible, directly, for the wholesale slaughter of Iraq's children. The infant mortality rate in Iraq is now higher than it was 40 years ago. This also is a direct result of U.S. actions in Iraq.

Then there are the children that will die a slow death, over time, due to exposure to depleted uranium--over 4,000 tons of it to date--that has contaminated Iraq from U.S weapons made from depleted uranium. This has been, and is nothing but, a type of nuclear warfare, pure and simple.

I have yet to see, or hear, reports by U.S. corporate media, the White House, the Department of Defense, or the Pentagon about the children of Iraq who have been killed in the tens of thousands by the Bush administration “policies” and its war on Iraq.

What I do hear coming from that bunch, and its talking heads is, “bomb them all in the name of the Lord.” Not long ago Madeline Albright was asked, “Knowing that the sanctions were responsible for the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children, was it worth it.” She took about ten seconds to mull it over, and then said, “Yes, it was worth it.” That pretty much says it all, does it not?

So while Bush and company go about the business of politicizing the horrific disaster the Tsunami caused, the wholesale slaughter of children that was born out of the invasion of Iraq will continue; it is the children of Iraq that have, and will continue to pay, the ultimate and highest cost—their lives.

As a footnote, next month Bush will be asking his republican cheerleader congress for $100 billion dollars more so he may continue the slaughter in Iraq for another year. His war-profiteering corporate sponsors will benefit greatly—everyone one else will pay the cost—especially the children of Iraq who will continue to be the recipients of the U.S. “smart” bombs made from depleted uranium.

cheesestix
Jan 7th, 2005, 08:54 PM
Just a little FYI for you, lakeway, Madeleine Albright served under Bill Clinton. So as much as you want to bash Bush with your article, you're also bashing Clinton. Where is all of the outcry over Clinton's administration that left these sanctions in place for 8 years? :rolleyes:

lakeway11
Jan 7th, 2005, 09:01 PM
Just a little FYI for you, lakeway, Madeleine Albright served under Bill Clinton. So as much as you want to bash Bush with your article, you're also bashing Clinton. Where is all of the outcry over Clinton's administration that left these sanctions in place for 8 years? :rolleyes:

no one was bashing Clinton more on this board years ago as I (as the many libs here know :p )...i know all about Madeline Halfbright and her evil ways and that illegal, immoral bombing of Belgrade that was the precurser this this latest aggressive use of force (the Founding Fathers are turning over in their grave)...and I also WAS THE ONLY one on this board who kept mentioning the horrible results of Clinton's sanctions (he led all president's for them) on the Iraqi children and posted Pat Buchanan's (a REAL conservative) criticism of such and how he'd end them all...the difference b/w this current group of neocons and Pat Buchanan is a big one--Buchanan truly cares about this great nation while the former will destroy it for their own satanic purposes :fiery:

gentenaire
Jan 7th, 2005, 09:04 PM
look people, the US gov is in a lose-lose situation, if we pay a lot Americans will be upset he's wasting our money, if we don't pay a lot then the Eurotrash jump all over us

wasting money? What you're giving now is worth the same as two days Iraq War. Looks like it's somewhere else Bush is wasting your money.

Eurotrash? Thank you very much. An Aussie attacks Bush, all Europeans here attack said Aussie and defend the US and this is what we get? We're called anti-American every two seconds, but we don't have such ugly words to describe Americans like you do for Europeans.

Justeenium
Jan 7th, 2005, 09:28 PM
wasting money? What you're giving now is worth the same as two days Iraq War. Looks like it's somewhere else Bush is wasting your money.

.
right, just because the gov has wasted so much money elsewhere means its okay for them to waste money here :rolleyes:

The US has a long history of this "aid money" ending up in some dictator's pockets. I think its time we start becoming more independent.

Justeenium
Jan 7th, 2005, 09:29 PM
no one was bashing Clinton more on this board years ago as I (as the many libs here know :p )...i know all about Madeline Halfbright and her evil ways and that illegal, immoral bombing of Belgrade that was the precurser this this latest aggressive use of force (the Founding Fathers are turning over in their grave)...and I also WAS THE ONLY one on this board who kept mentioning the horrible results of Clinton's sanctions (he led all president's for them) on the Iraqi children and posted Pat Buchanan's (a REAL conservative) criticism of such and how he'd end them all...the difference b/w this current group of neocons and Pat Buchanan is a big one--Buchanan truly cares about this great nation while the former will destroy it for their own satanic purposes :fiery:
oh so you're a paleocon, at first I thought you were a libertarian.
nevertheless I still think you're an idiot.

tennispro105
Jan 7th, 2005, 09:38 PM
they've gotten several billions of dollars!

those sons of guns over there complaining we aren't donating enough can shut up cuz we don't 'have' to give them anything! do you think they'd be lifting much of a finger if we had a similar disaster here! no!
ANY money donated is good and 450 mill or however much we're gonna end up donating in total is a ton of money!

Ryan
Jan 7th, 2005, 10:01 PM
Although I think that countries should help relieve those affected by the Tsunami/Earthquake disaster, we are in no way obligated to and should not be criticized for what aid we do send. Australia could send 50 trillion dollars and I would not care if Canada spent a penny more for relief. Individual provinces here have sent money, along with many Canadians themselves who have raised over $75 million for refugees. My school has raised $1200 in 4 days for relief efforts and we have plans to continue donating throughout the remainder of the school year. I don't see any of you posters donating thousands, or millions of dollars so maybe, you shouldn't be so critical.

741852
Jan 7th, 2005, 10:04 PM
The US has done more and will do more to help the people of South East Asia than any other nation. While by no means are ASIA/US relations perfect I think they are putting foreward a good effort. The queston is: why were no nations donating before the Tsunami? It seems as only NOW the rich nations opened their eyes and discovered (and Anglo-saxons love discovering things) a "Third World." Had there not been so much poverty in the region there would not have been 1/100th the number of deaths.

selking
Jan 7th, 2005, 10:08 PM
USA: Pathetic, selfish and racist. Too bad those who died were non-whites and more importantly non-Christians. :rolleyes:You just wanted a reason to bad mouth the US.

Monica_Rules
Jan 7th, 2005, 10:40 PM
I'm suprised the UK's pledge is so low.

Is this public donations or what the governments have offered cos in the UK over £100 million has been raised by the public.Thats what $185 million dollars.

PointBlank
Jan 7th, 2005, 10:42 PM
Religon doesnt matter here..if you say the reason we didnt give 1 billion is because they werent Christians your crazy..We help Israel and there Jewish..we are close to Saudi Arabia and there Muslims..grow up..and why is no one mad South America aint giving money..Brasil isnt poor either..god..

Hayato
Jan 7th, 2005, 10:44 PM
I would have expected a lot more from USA.

we have donated the most in Australia :eek:

unfortunately the poor countries are in debt and can't affort to give any money away :sad:

sarza
Jan 7th, 2005, 10:44 PM
... USA: Pathetic, selfish and racist. Too bad those who died were non-whites and more importantly non-Christians. :rolleyes:


That is so bad i cant believe u have said that, u really have me speechless here and i cant say what i want to say coz i will get myself banned, but u are just an idiot

Sally Struthers
Jan 7th, 2005, 10:47 PM
That is so bad i cant believe u have said that, u really have me speechless here and i cant say what i want to say coz i will get myself banned, but u are just an idiot

Just bad rep him like I did, hon :haha:

*roddicksinme*
Jan 7th, 2005, 10:51 PM
Just bad rep him like I did, hon :haha:and tell all your friends too ;)

Sally you get a good rep :D as soon as i can rep again :mad:

sarza
Jan 7th, 2005, 10:55 PM
and tell all your friends too ;)

Sally you get a good rep :D as soon as i can rep again :mad:

thats from us both :D

lakeway11
Jan 7th, 2005, 10:56 PM
oh so you're a paleocon, at first I thought you were a libertarian.
nevertheless I still think you're an idiot.

the only fucking idiots are those who think Skull & Bones Bush is a Conservative (and that includes most Liberals)

Martian KC
Jan 7th, 2005, 11:04 PM
Finding another reason to bash Bush.:o

How bout those people that spent tons of money on kerry's campaign and so little now?

Justeenium
Jan 7th, 2005, 11:12 PM
the only fucking idiots are those who think Skull & Bones Bush is a Conservative (and that includes most Liberals)
lol, you brought up skull and bones, you are Free Willy, aren't you.

lakeway11
Jan 7th, 2005, 11:12 PM
Finding another reason to bash Bush.:o

How bout those people that spent tons of money on kerry's campaign and so little now?

of all the reasons to bash Bush this has to be the least substantial

flyingmachine
Jan 7th, 2005, 11:40 PM
It's not a competition!!

Powell has said the US will probably give more but didn't want to release a figure. I think that's fair! That's probably what Bush should have done instead of proudly announcing the US would give 15 million.

Assess the situation first, find out how much is needed, then decide how much you'll give.
At last someone is saying the right thing. :worship:
The most effective way to help the people in these situation is to donated money to chaities such as Oxfam and the Red Cross because (from what happened in the past.) when a goverment said they going to donate xxx amount of money but aften ended up donated less than what they promise in the first place. :rolleyes:
Anyway, I'm very please that British people donated £100million pounds on that. :cool:

CC
Jan 8th, 2005, 12:01 AM
That comment about the US was uncalled for and out of place. Such bitterness ...

Sam L
Jan 8th, 2005, 12:06 AM
I find it funny as hell that one of the head people on this board who used to get outraged at Williams fans for crying racism, is now all over the place crying racism because his so-called white/gay liberal agendas aren't being met by the US Gov't ( i.e the environment that he loves so much):rolleyes: Sam L- please stop polluting this environment with your stupidity- its not a pissing contest- don't use this tragedy to go on with your agenda.
Well the problem for you is that I'm probably a bigger fan of the sisters than you probably were, are and will ever be. :haha:

Sam L
Jan 8th, 2005, 12:14 AM
Well I only ask this about the US because they were SO WILLING to help Iraq and the Iraqis and I mean their cities weren't even under water. So why were they willing to spend so much money and send their soldiers to their death but now would only spend a measly amount and especially when there is no risk involved?

And I'm not the only one asking this, it's all on Australian media too and we're supposed to be allies. :)

I suppose one could see the reasons behind Iraq - money, money and money. From oil to weapons to re-development.

But these are poor regions inhabited by muslims and buddhists in South Asia so they have nothing to gain from it. So that explains their lack of response.

Fact is, Bush and the US gov was going to pledge MUCH lower, they only raised it because Australia kept raising their pledges.

Oh and Sally Struthers I'm from Australia and you can see how much we donated plus you think your bad rep can hurt it? Give me a break. :haha:

Sonja
Jan 8th, 2005, 12:44 AM
People do remember that you can't judge an entire country of people on the President. There are good and bad in every race, religion, color, and country.

Unfortunately we have an ass for a President. I didn't vote for him so I'd appreciate being judged on my actions and not his or being lumped into a "category". ;) Many many Americans have donated privately so I don't see how one can compare them to what the President/Government did...

Sam L
Jan 8th, 2005, 12:48 AM
Should I put in my signature when I say America I'm talking specifically about Americans in power like Bush, Cheney, the Republicans and the "Christian" righteous far right? :confused:

It's the decision makers I'm angry at and their attempt to engineer Amerika and the world into their kind.

Sonja
Jan 8th, 2005, 12:58 AM
Yes you probably should because we can't read your mind.

And we should all be able to debate without slinging insults at each other. Sam L has the right to his opinion, as do those who are calling him on it.

This thread keeps getting ugly and it'll be closed or deleted. Do debate people, question each other but do it without getting ugly.

Sam L
Jan 8th, 2005, 01:06 AM
Yes you probably should because we can't read your mind.

And we should all be able to debate without slinging insults at each other. Sam L has the right to his opinion, as do those who are calling him on it.

This thread keeps getting ugly and it'll be closed or deleted. Do debate people, question each other but do it without getting ugly.
Thanks Sonja. The reason I started this thread was to engage in debate instead what I got was a pack of wolves after me because I hurt their egos.

I mean, this isn't made up by me. It's all in the media. People are questioning and scrutinizing US's lack of response to this disaster.

lakeway11
Jan 8th, 2005, 01:06 AM
January 3, 2005

Let me take this opportunity to wish readers of this weekly column a very happy New Year. I appreciate your willingness to work for liberty by staying informed about the actions of your government, and I hope you will redouble your efforts this year to spread the message of freedom. Remember to visit my congressional website- www.house.gov/paul - throughout 2005 to find new weekly messages and speeches, which you are free to distribute to your family and friends.

You may have heard one United Nations official comment that America is being stingy with its offer of millions of dollars in aid for tsunami victims. His attitude toward your money is typical of globalist bureaucrats, who ultimately view the UN as a means for transferring wealth from America to other nations. Americans are very generous people, and undoubtedly will donate tens or even hundreds of millions to private organizations to help the victims of this terribly tragedy in Asia. We hardly need the UN to chide us about our supposed lack of generosity.

The oil-for-food scandal brewing in the United Nations also has provoked long-overdue denunciations of the organization from several pundits and politicians on the right. Of course most of you didn't need a scandal to convince you that the UN is anti-American, or that it egregiously wastes our tax dollars. I'm glad more Republicans are finally catching on to what many Constitutionalists, libertarians, Birchers, Goldwaterites, and religious conservatives have been saying for decades: we should get out of the UN, and get the UN out of America. I certainly agree with these newly minted critics, having advocated getting out for twenty-five years. This growing anti-UN sentiment provides an opportunity to make a larger point, namely that participation in the organization is fundamentally incompatible with American sovereignty and the Constitution.

Obviously, many of those now calling for the U.S. to withdraw from the UN resent its refusal to sanction our war in Iraq. Few Americans realize, however, that the resolution passed by Congress cited various UN resolutions more than twenty times as justification for invading Iraq-- in contrast to the media images of President Bush doing it alone and disregarding the UN. So despite the anti-UN bluster from the right, a Republican president stated reason for invading Iraq was that it failed to obey UN resolutions!

This approach gives us the worst of all worlds. When we play along and cite UN resolutions as justification for our actions, we grant credibility to the ideas of international law and global government-- signaling our willingness to surrender precious sovereignty in the bargain. Yet we gain little in exchange. Other nations still consider us only too willing to ignore the international rules when it suits our purposes, and we remain deeply mistrusted by much of the envious world. America would be far better off simply rejecting global government as a concept, and openly embracing true sovereignty for every nation.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst010305.htm

Sam L
Jan 8th, 2005, 01:14 AM
wasting money? What you're giving now is worth the same as two days Iraq War. Looks like it's somewhere else Bush is wasting your money.
Yeah. That's exactly my point. Thank you for raising that point. :)

Crazy Canuck
Jan 8th, 2005, 01:24 AM
That comment about the US was uncalled for and out of place. Such bitterness ...
Agreed. As somebody else has already mentioned, it doesn't matter what the US donates, they will still get criticized.

cheesestix
Jan 8th, 2005, 02:18 AM
Thanks Sonja. The reason I started this thread was to engage in debate instead what I got was a pack of wolves after me because I hurt their egos.

Give me a f*cking break! :rolleyes:

You call saying sh!t like "Too bad those who died were non-whites" debate????? :mad: Debate??? :mad:

What if someone said "Too bad those who died were non-gay"????? How the f*ck would YOU feel about it???? :mad:

Debate, my a$$! :mad: You started this thread off by slamming America (specificially white America)! That's ALL you ever do!

Then, you have the nerve to call America racist???? Look in the f*cking mirror! Do we even wanna get started on Australia???? How about Germany and Japan and all of those countries that you praised???? :rolleyes:

*roddicksinme*
Jan 8th, 2005, 02:36 AM
oh, my bad, i wasn't aware that debate is what you wanted with your opening statements about the white racist U.S. Gov't. If so, I would have made this statement instead- why don't the white racist Austrailian Gov't put some of those much needed resources i.e millions in transforming and making the lives better for its own brown citizens- you know those Native Austrailians that you blamed for their circumstance in a thread sometime last year- yeah those people could use the money as well....now how stupid does that sound when comparing it to money being given to help the victims of this terrible tragedy- i hope it put things into perspective for you- then again...things can never be put into perspective in his mind...its hopeless :rolleyes:

korben
Jan 8th, 2005, 02:54 AM
... relief appeals.

Here's a graphic:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffxmedia/2005/01/07/world-responds.jpg

When someone is making such map they should include ALL nations that made donations. Ie. missing Finland and €50m. Maybe it wasn´t big enough amount to make it to the map :confused: Plenty of other nations missing from that too. Btw. How about Russia ?

Dave B
Jan 8th, 2005, 02:54 AM
Well I only ask this about the US because they were SO WILLING to help Iraq and the Iraqis and I mean their cities weren't even under water. So why were they willing to spend so much money and send their soldiers to their death but now would only spend a measly amount and especially when there is no risk involved?

And I'm not the only one asking this, it's all on Australian media too and we're supposed to be allies. :)

I suppose one could see the reasons behind Iraq - money, money and money. From oil to weapons to re-development.

But these are poor regions inhabited by muslims and buddhists in South Asia so they have nothing to gain from it. So that explains their lack of response.

Fact is, Bush and the US gov was going to pledge MUCH lower, they only raised it because Australia kept raising their pledges.

Oh and Sally Struthers I'm from Australia and you can see how much we donated plus you think your bad rep can hurt it? Give me a break. :haha:

I find your comments VERY uncalled for. In the mass of a tragedy, you find a way to bash my country and president because you are bitter about other issues (In a thread ABOUT the relief effort, mind you). I am no fan of bush for several reasons, but I am glad that he is doing something. Tsunami stuff is all over the news and it is all my office talks about, and many government members have talked about it too. In a time when there is a lot of suffering going on in the world we need to all come together to help. Apparently critisizing Bush and America is more important to you than the relief effort itself.

tennispro105
Jan 8th, 2005, 03:51 AM
ok i posted this in the other topic but i'll say it again here...

all of you who were saying how pathetic it is that we aren't giving as much as the other countries! k well japan and australia are 'Over there' by the site of the disaster for one and for another, our donations are coming mostly from individuals, not our countries government. we are also sending many aids not in the form of money such as water, helicopers, food, etc! we're doing a ton to help them and like someone said a few posts ago, none of them helped us when 9/11 happened! i'm sure we lost more money wise

Wigglytuff
Jan 8th, 2005, 04:56 AM
ok i posted this in the other topic but i'll say it again here...

all of you who were saying how pathetic it is that we aren't giving as much as the other countries! k well japan and australia are 'Over there' by the site of the disaster for one and for another, our donations are coming mostly from individuals, not our countries government. we are also sending many aids not in the form of money such as water, helicopers, food, etc! we're doing a ton to help them and like someone said a few posts ago, none of them helped us when 9/11 happened! i'm sure we lost more money wise

i asked this in the other thread too are you saying 3,000 american lives = 147,000 non american lives? whats your point? a tsunami that kills 147,000 is the same as a terror attack that downs big buildings and 3,000 americans? i dont really understand what you are trying to get at.

korben
Jan 8th, 2005, 05:46 AM
none of them helped us when 9/11 happened! i'm sure we lost more money wise
That´s not valid argument in this. First pure amount of casualties / people made homeless. But also that insurance companies paid most of the damage then.

Those millions that are now homeless have only clothes that they are wearing.
Please, stop comparing this to 9/11

PointBlank
Jan 8th, 2005, 05:51 AM
Kind of funny when China is a huge nation and they cant donate that much money but no someone has to bring in USA..sigh.

switz
Jan 8th, 2005, 03:24 PM
a lot of stupid things have been said in this thread but those who say it is a waste of money giving aid for a natural disaster that has killed TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE (YES LITTLE BABIES, PARENTS, THE ELDERLY) and has left OVER TWO MILLION PEOPLE DISPLACED is in my book just the lowest piece of shit and i hope you're never put in a situation where you need someone's help because you won't deserve it and based on your attitude will probably have no one who wants to give it to you anyway.

making this some kind of contest is very low as well. everybody is playing a role and those who give now will recieve greater benefits in the future.

switz
Jan 8th, 2005, 03:29 PM
Kind of funny when China is a huge nation and they cant donate that much money but no someone has to bring in USA..sigh.

well china is still technically a communist country, plus they kind of need to focus on the billion or so people in their country who are living in poverty. doesn't mean the US needs to be criticised but the countries are not really comparable IMO

Harju.
Jan 8th, 2005, 03:42 PM
viva switz.

some people are really ignorant.

Justeenium
Jan 8th, 2005, 04:09 PM
a lot of stupid things have been said in this thread but those who say it is a waste of money giving aid for a natural disaster that has killed TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE (YES LITTLE BABIES, PARENTS, THE ELDERLY) and has left OVER TWO MILLION PEOPLE DISPLACED is in my book just the lowest piece of shit and i hope you're never put in a situation where you need someone's help because you won't deserve it and based on your attitude will probably have no one who wants to give it to you anyway.

making this some kind of contest is very low as well. everybody is playing a role and those who give now will recieve greater benefits in the future.

where in the US constitution does it give the President the authority to give public money to foreign charities?

Alvarillo
Jan 8th, 2005, 05:11 PM
J.L. Rodriguez-Zapatero has announced today that Spanish governement will send 650 soldiers, 5 airplanes and one hospital-warship to Indonesia with 18 tons of essential products, these products will be carried also to Sri Lanka by some helicopters, it will cost more than 7 Million $, also Spain have donated more than 80 Millions $ (from governement and also from Spanish citizens).
This Sunday the fith airplane chartered by Spain will carry essential material to Indonesia. I hope these will help asian people.
:)

Nacho
Jan 8th, 2005, 05:20 PM
omg@ Germany, Australia, Japan and Norway!!! :eek: :D

Well done!

switz
Jan 8th, 2005, 05:34 PM
where in the US constitution does it give the President the authority to give public money to foreign charities?

you are a sorry excuse for a human being.

switz
Jan 8th, 2005, 05:40 PM
and btw almost no countries are not donating the money to "foreign charities". australia is giving the money directly to the nations affected with certain controls on how the money is distributed and the majority are giving it to the UN who spread it throughout it's various arms designed to the various groups affected. individuals/corporations donate to the charities.

it's called aid. i'm sure it something you're against and believe should all go to you and narrow-minded selfcentred people like you but's it the only way these people are going to get back on track from an event they had no control over.

Wigglytuff
Jan 8th, 2005, 07:00 PM
where in the US constitution does it give the President the authority to give public money to foreign charities?
:fiery: :fiery: :fiery: :fiery:

Scotso
Jan 8th, 2005, 08:30 PM
The US Congress passed a law allowing people to write off any tsunami donations on last year's taxes, in an attempt to get people to donate more.

Please stop attacking the United States. We don't have to give any money to anyone, but we do it all the time. In fact, I would say that the United States probably gives more money in foreign aid than any other country by far. Not to mention how we propped up Europe after World War II, single handedly paid for the reconstruction (and subsequent economic boom) of Japan, etc. As much as some people are attacking us, I almost wish we would stop giving to other countries in the world, perhaps then you would feel satisfied?

Crazy Canuck
Jan 8th, 2005, 09:05 PM
I would say that the United States probably gives more money in foreign aid than any other country by far.

I would hope so, seeing as they are among the richest nations.

single handedly paid for the reconstruction (and subsequent economic boom) of Japan, etc.

I would certainly hope so, in that event.

As much as some people are attacking us, I almost wish we would stop giving to other countries in the world, perhaps then you would feel satisfied?

Look, absolutely nothing will make some people satisfied. Some people just want to bitch that the USA is evil, and that is that. It doesn't matter what forum is used, they find a reason. Sometimes the gripes are legit, often they are petty. There are things that I don't like about the US either, but there is a fine line between not liking a few things and being obsessed with something :p

flyingmachine
Jan 8th, 2005, 11:02 PM
where in the US constitution does it give the President the authority to give public money to foreign charities?
Not you again. :retard:

~ The Leopard ~
Jan 9th, 2005, 12:19 AM
You're all missing the point. It's great that the world including the US has given so much. :worship:

But what is forgotten is that this disaster, terrible as it is, with over 150,000 people killed in one day, is on top of the ongoing disaster that about 18 million people are dying each year - that's of the order of 50,000 every day - of poverty-related causes such as starvation. Despite high-minded UN resolutions etc, very little is being done about it.

The reaction to the tsunami disaster shows how generous the world can be when something captures its imagination and the problem seems solvable. What is needed now is a similar sense of resolution about the larger ongoing problem. That means massive debt relief, foreign aid in a form that does not go to corrupt dictators (rich countries should start paying it to Oxfam etc, but pigs will fly first), fairer trading rules (it's outrageous the way rich countries subsidise their own manufacturers while pressuring poor countries to lower tariffs .... let's have genuine globalisation), refusing to encourage/prop up dictators (which includes a crack-down on the arms trade), taking real action to stop multinationals getting their way by encouraging third-world corruption, just plain getting out the message that this is a global problem that can actually be solved .... etc.

I believe more than ever that ordinary people would support the above policies, and would give more themselves, if they understood the problem, and that it's not entirely the fault of the nations concerned, and above all believed it was solvable. The response to the tsunami disaster shows that we are not basically selfish, but we have poor leadership on this issue. If Bush, Blair, Howard and other Western leaders launched a war on global poverty with constructive steps, they could capture the imaginations of ordinary people.

*Ducks for cover as the flying pigs swoop down again.*