douchebag UN diplomat complains about Tsunami donations

[Chris OFarrell]

Its the mobility which is really important. With the infrastructure destroyed if they simply pour in supplies now they might get stuck on the tarmac with no way to get out to those who need it.

Oh I don't dobut this. But I would have thought the area would have plenty of airfields and military staging points to set up logistics dumps. Most of the aircraft are rough field capable afterall.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Oh I don't dobut this. But I would have thought the area would have plenty of airfields and military staging points to set up logistics dumps. Most of the aircraft are rough field capable afterall.

Even airfields can easily be heavily damaged by an earthquake of this magnitude, and there have been following earthquakes as well. The 10,000ft runway at India's AFB in the Andamans has only a 5,200ft length operational due to damage.

[Butterbean569]

Sounds like a guy I was arguing with on this board a month or so back. They want to point at only what the U.S. government is directly contributing, but ignore what our private citizens give. Raising taxes wouldn't make more money available, it would likely lessen it as people would be less willing to donate money if they have less of it.

Exactly. Raising taxes = Less savings by the people = Less disposable income = Less money to charity.

Taxes are a very important part of government, to be sure, but keeping them down so that a free-market economy can really thrive is the best way to go.

And before anyone says it, no, I don't support Bush's tax cut to stimulate the economy. Not when there's a war going on and we have such a huge defecit. It's a fine balance that needs to be struck, to be sure

[Butterbean569]

By the way, France had donated a whopping $750k (in euros obviously...although they *should* donate it in dollars as to take advantage of the euro over the dollar hehe). Stupid French

[Col. Crackpot]

Would Americans mind being forced to donate a little bit of their income to help rebuild Asia? Not the reasonable portion of us, no. But forcing people to donate to charity is like holding a gun to a child's head while he brushes his teeth. It's a bit overkillish, and it's probably unnecessary.

The US has only pledged so much money, but don't discount the power of American citizens. I expect that over the next week or so, independent donations will be made to charitable funds that will more than make up for the amount of money not donated by the government.

Yes, people want to help, but people also want to do it on their own terms. Americans especially are more fond of donating what THEY think they can afford rather than what the government determines they can afford.

i got one response in my Red Cross thread: Fgalkin.

[Prozac the Robert]

I'd like to point out again the difference between charity and taxation. If you get the same amount of money from both then you either have an almost unoticable amount of money per person, a penny on beer or petrol for example, or large contributions from the generous and nothing from others. It's simply fairer the other way round.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

i got one response in my Red Cross thread: Fgalkin. :roll:

I've donated $500 so far and will certainly donate more; it's just that most people don't like publicizing their donations to charity--myself included--as we think it impolite to boast or brag about them like it is some sort of competition.

[Col. Crackpot]

i got one response in my Red Cross thread: Fgalkin.

I've donated $500 so far and will certainly donate more; it's just that most people don't like publicizing their donations to charity--myself included--as we think it impolite to boast or brag about them like it is some sort of competition.

sorry if i came across that way, it wasn't intended to be boastful

[tharkûn]

We just don't do very good P.R. in this area. Yes, our charitable donations by private citizens are awesome .... Gates Foundation alone makes a serious difference on vaccinations in Third World countries and the funding of global AIDS research. But it's true that our per-capita government aid to developing countries is one of the lowest in the West.

When you combine that with us having very high per-capita military spending and being the leading arms dealer in the world ..... well, it's not hard to see why people have a jaded view of our humanitarianism. You just have to remind them that governments are one thing, people are another ...

Oh please the vast majority of charity comes from "ordinary" folks, not the Bill Gates of the world. The government aid the US gives out is largely BS, here Egypt take a billion dollars, now stop dicking with Israel. Oh Jordan, you want a hundred million, well if you back us in the general assmebly on the next vote.

I have no problem with bribing other states, but AID should be independent of politics and be given with a goal of eliminating suffering in the long term. I for one would rather be able to decide which charities are effective and which goals I want to see done, rather than see who can cut the best real politik deal in Washington.

As far as American defense spending, meh it is around 3.7% right now, that is down from the days of Bush the Elder, Reagan, Carter ... and every other administration since before WWII. There has been a slight rise since the hey days of the Clinton era, but really defense spending is historically low. Comparing American defense spending to just about anyone else is BS, nobody else comes frikken close to the force projections capabilities and even has trouble coming up with men, money, and equipment for the NATO mission to Afghanistan. And notice how bloody nice it is to have the military at times like these. You want to do damage assessement? Awful nice to have all those planes in the air. You want the logistics to bring fresh water by the ton or to set up continious airlift of supply? Isn't it nice to have a military that is trained to do exactly that?.


As far as the arms trade, don't be a moron. Who would you have the US emulate? The French? The Germans? The Russians? Most of the US arms deals go to responsible countries, tinpot despocracies tend not to be able to afford US export models, particularly when Soviet surplus and knockoffs are a fraction of the price.

Last news I heard form the American Red Cross is that they have privately raised more money for disaster relief in Asia than the US government had thus far pledged. I sure as hell would rather give my money to a NGO that I can review and maintain ultimate control of. It will be a cold day in hell before I beleive the extremists in Congress could possibly be more timely, fair, or efficient than the Red Cross. The Red Cross exists for a reason, let's use them instead of pissing around with a government middleman and partisan political process.

Yes it is bad PR when idiots drone on about government relief or fail to remove their heads from their asses when it comes to the real value of the military in disasters like this; but the only way to change that is not not to take counterproductive actions to sooth the naysayers, it is publically call them on their BS and hope that eventually reason will prevail.

[Jalinth]

We just don't do very good P.R. in this area. Yes, our charitable donations by private citizens are awesome .... Gates Foundation alone makes a serious difference on vaccinations in Third World countries and the funding of global AIDS research. But it's true that our per-capita government aid to developing countries is one of the lowest in the West.

When you combine that with us having very high per-capita military spending and being the leading arms dealer in the world ..... well, it's not hard to see why people have a jaded view of our humanitarianism. You just have to remind them that governments are one thing, people are another ...

Many developed countries have a deservedly jaded view of developing governments. What has happened with all the aid given out over the last 30 to 40 years? Much of it has been wasted - corruption, mismanagement, you name it. AIDS research is overfunded in my view - it has gobbled up much of the funding that should be going to other diseases (malaria, etc...) where the money would buy more results.

Also, governments do spend through various NPOs - they view that the Red Cross, etc... gets more "bang for the buck" than direct transfers.

[Glocksman]

Some more news on the stupidity front:

Sri Lanka rejects Israeli help

Israel has cancelled plans to send a 150-person rescue mission to Sri Lanka after the devastated island objected to the military composition of the team.
The delegation - including 60 soldiers - had been due to set off on Tuesday to help after Sunday's tsunami disaster.

Instead, a smaller team will escort a convoy carrying emergency supplies, Israeli officials said.

Sri Lanka restored diplomatic ties with Israel in 2000, despite objections from the island's Muslim minority.

Neither side has officially explained the change of plan, although some reports say the objection came from Sri Lanka's military.

Sri Lanka Ambassador Diffa Digeratna is quoted by Jerusalem Post as saying that the change was due to the "the lack of accommodations in Colombo".

Israel's army had planned to send staff to set up field hospitals, including internal medicine and paediatric clinics, an Israeli army spokesman said.

Other Israeli agencies have sent emergency relief to Sri Lanka and other tsunami-hit countries.

Humanitarian organisation Latet sent a jumbo jet carrying 18 metric tons of supplies to Colombo, medical teams have been dispatched to Thailand and help offered to India, Haaretz reported.

A rescue-and-recovery team from the Jewish ultra-Orthodox organisation Zaka left for the region on Monday with equipment used for identifying bodies, as well as body bags.

Israel's foreign ministry has set up a situation room for relatives to track down hundreds of Israelis on holiday in the tsunami zone, who have not yet made contact.

No one from the country has yet been confirmed dead in the disaster.

God forbid that the Evil Joos™ send in their most experienced people to help.

Also we have this from some nutjob in the UK named Claire Short:

Bush 'Undermining UN with Aid Coalition'

By Jamie Lyons, PA Political Correspondent


United States President George Bush was tonight accused of trying to undermine the United Nations by setting up a rival coalition to coordinate relief following the Asian tsunami disaster.

The president has announced that the US, Japan, India and Australia would coordinate the world’s response.

But former International Development Secretary Clare Short said that role should be left to the UN.

“I think this initiative from America to set up four countries claiming to coordinate sounds like yet another attempt to undermine the UN when it is the best system we have got and the one that needs building up,” she said.

“Only really the UN can do that job,” she told BBC Radio Four’s PM programme.

“It is the only body that has the moral authority. But it can only do it well if it is backed up by the authority of the great powers.”

Ms Short said the coalition countries did not have good records on responding to international disasters.

She said the US was “very bad at coordinating with anyone” and India had its own problems to deal with.

“I don’t know what that is about but it sounds very much, I am afraid, like the US trying to have a separate operation and not work with the rest of the world through the UN system,” she added.

Wait for the UN?
Those people would be lucky to have help by next Christmas if we waited for the UN to take action.

[Petrosjko]

Wait for the UN?
Those people would be lucky to have help by next Christmas if we waited for the UN to take action.

Be lucky to see ten cents on the dollar in the money donated, too.

[frigidmagi]

It is the only body that has the moral authority.

I'd like to know what excaltly is meant by that? Only the UN has the right to help people? Only the UN has the authority to set up Coalitions? Niether one of those makes any sense, so I must be missing something here.

[Col. Crackpot]

Wasn't Claire Short run out of the Labour Party in disgrace?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Yes. Yes she was.

[Knife]

Fuck the UN. If we want to do it in other ways, fuck them. In fact, take our UN dues and donate them to the relief.

[Coyote]

Wait for the UN? Why not-- it worked in Rwanda!

UN anti-WEestern wankers crying that they can't come to us and put the squeeze on us any damn time they feel like it... do they ever wonder why we're rich? People work hard because, especially in the US, they know tjhey'll get to enjoy the benefits of their money rather than have a faceless grey bureaucrat take it all away.

The US is practically tax-free compared to Europe and a lot of places...

[brianeyci]

Wait for the UN? Why not-- it worked in Rwanda!

The Rwanda genocide was just as much a part the US's fault as the UN's. In fact,

Repeated attempts by Boutros-Ghali and members of the Security Council to request reinforcements for UNAMIR were blocked by Madeleine Albright the United States’ representative who refused to describe what was happening in Rwanda as “genocide”, saying only that “acts of genocide” may have taken place, an important legal distinction. Boutros-Ghali later wrote: “The behavior of the Security Council was shocking; it meekly followed the United States’ lead in denying the reality of the genocide."

And people are strawmanning the UN representative, he never said for the millions to "wait for the UN" and starve, only that the UN should co-ordinate relief efforts or in other words be in charge of the relief efforts.

Brian

[Prozac the Robert]

Wasn't Claire Short run out of the Labour Party in disgrace?

Uh no. She's still a labour back bencher after resigning from some sort of government post (when it was far too late to do any good, mind, and she might not have stayed there long anyway).

Anyway, it's for disasters like this that the UN is meant for: large scale things affecting more than one country.

As an analogy, if a similar (but not so devastating that it required international aid) disaster happened to the US, and a few states got partly submerged, then it's the federal government who would be supposed to sort it out, rather than a bunch of other states.

[Sharp-kun]

Wasn't Claire Short run out of the Labour Party in disgrace?

Cabinet, not the government. She pops up now and again trying to get attention with some moronic statement.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And people are strawmanning the UN representative, he never said for the millions to "wait for the UN" and starve, only that the UN should co-ordinate relief efforts or in other words be in charge of the relief efforts.

Still stupid. Those with the money should be allowed to donate it as they see fit, especially seeing as the UN has been corrupt and inefficient with humanitarian aid.