I was happier when I thought you were joking.broken_keyboard said:
I can't even begin to explain what I think of your "opinion"
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Asia quake death toll over 11,000
- Thread starter jsw
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I can't even begin to explain what I think of your "opinion"
broken_keyboard said:
Are you a religious person?
I don't think there's anything in the constitution to support your claim. The history of the US offering support to victims of natural disasters goes back a long, long ways. To claim otherwise shows your lack of knowledge.
Your lack of humanity sickens me.
broken_keyboard said:
I too was happier when I thought you were joking. I can't even believe this thought process. Perhaps someday America will be struck with a disaster of this scale and other countries will leave us out to dry.
Wonder how your opinion will sound then.
edesignuk said:I was happier when I thought you were joking.
I can't even begin to explain what I think of your "opinion"
Well, where do our two opinions come from? I think donations should be private. That comes from a belief that people are basically decent and good hearted and will donate in an emergency. You think the government should make the donations. That comes from the belief that people are basically mean spirited and won't make a donation unless they are forced to, by virtue of having their taxes donated. So who really has the best view of his fellow man?
broken_keyboard said:
The best view for the fellow man is to have private and governmental donations. In a situation like this there is no "one or the other".
I would rather have my taxes going to help this cause more than hundreds of other things they are going to already. war....... defense....
When did this turn in to a debate of our opinions of our fellow man? It is a nations "duty" as a civilised member of the developed world to help in whatever way they can (money & resources normally) when huge natural disasters happen. There are budgets put aside for it.broken_keyboard said:
I honestly cannot BELIEVE you think this way. It astounds me.
Blue Velvet said:
No, the one about building a giant wall on the coastline was a joke. Sorry to dissapoint.
edesignuk said:
Well, believe it. What astounds me is when I make a statement that is out of the mainstream, people assume I must be joking, or shooting from the hip, or haven't really thought about it. The idea that someone could have a valid, reasoned out, but differing opinion just doesn't occur to people any more. Have we really all become so brainwashed? I think the U.N. must be putting something in the water.
My prayers and condolences to those who are affected by the tsunami. My family currently live in the island of Java, Indonesia, and fortunately, the tsunami did not reach Java.
The effect of this disaster is just unimaginable. Let's donate to help the victims...
The effect of this disaster is just unimaginable. Let's donate to help the victims...
Hey look, you're entitled to your opinion. Doesn't mean I won't be amazed by it.broken_keyboard said:
Yep, we can send 87 billion of taxpayers money over there, but we better be careful with the 30 or so million we send to this disaster.jsw said:
The amount of money the US Gov. will send for this disaster can not be argued about at this time. The amount will be much more over time. Those who believe that sending money is the role of the gov. than should hold judgement towards US Aid that we send in the billions to many third world countries.
I believe that it is a good thing for us to help out other countries. We are a rich nation and choose to use our resources to help those in need. Most of the time this is done in order to further improve our relations with those countries. During WWII we send billions to Russia while they were starving while at the same time knowing they we running their country into the ground.
I believe that it is a good thing for us to help out other countries. We are a rich nation and choose to use our resources to help those in need. Most of the time this is done in order to further improve our relations with those countries. During WWII we send billions to Russia while they were starving while at the same time knowing they we running their country into the ground.
ipodmann said:
Yes it probably will be more over time but the paltry amount offered initially reflects the fact that gw could care less about those in need.
I'm not sure what you mean by: "Those who believe that sending money is the role of the gov. than should hold judgement towards US Aid that we send in the billions to many third world countries." Please clarify.
Aid is increasingly self-serving yet this is not a case of discretional aid but necessary aid. It needs to get to the survivors as fast as possible to ensure they don't succumb to water borne illness or starvation.
Anyone who equates aid to SE Asia after such an enormous NATURAL catastrophe with the aid given, mostly in kind by the way, which was a huge boost to US exports, to victims of human folly is way off their rocker.
MacFan26 said:Yep, we can send 87 billion of taxpayers money over there, but we better be careful with the 30 or so million we send to this disaster.
I agree... they're paying to kill people, and won't pay to save people. Weird logic.
Ugg said:
Giving money, (nor the amount of it) does not always equate to being kind and caring. I support any amount of aid to those countries, but not blindly throwing money at them without assessing their needs or getting specific requests. The US gov. already does plenty of that here and abroad. As much as they need our help I think providing aide to ensure our boys don't get blown up further by terrorists shows a great deal of concern and care.
Ugg said:
Sending money to help restore the infrastructure of Iraq and Afghansitan is a noble cause regardless of how one feels about the war. It is aid that needs to be provided in order to assist the millions there. The impression I am getting is that a few here would rather see us leave and just not worry about that part of the world.
Ugg said:
Maybe is that attitude towards openess and inclusion of others that you express that got gw re-elected. Calling anyone who expresses an opinion which one does not agree with "off their rocker" will elevate this little exchange.
But back on subject, we have given billions over the years to assist countries with their medical and social service needs. We have assisted through private and gov. funds in building schools and hospitals in Indonesia, Thailand, India, and many other E Asia countries. If you think it was all done to increase exports here, than all aid is self serving. Now they will have money to buy our x-ray and drugs thereby helping those drug companies and evil corporations in their time of need.
ipodmann said:Giving money, (nor the amount of it) does not always equate to being kind and caring. I support any amount of aid to those countries, but not blindly throwing money at them without assessing their needs or getting specific requests. The US gov. already does plenty of that here and abroad. As much as they need our help I think providing aide to ensure our boys don't get blown up further by terrorists shows a great deal of concern and care.
Sending money to help restore the infrastructure of Iraq and Afghansitan is a noble cause regardless of how one feels about the war. It is aid that needs to be provided in order to assist the millions there. The impression I am getting is that a few here would rather see us leave and just not worry about that part of the world.
Maybe is that attitude towards openess and inclusion of others that you express that got gw re-elected. Calling anyone who expresses an opinion which one does not agree with "off their rocker" will elevate this little exchange.
But back on subject, we have given billions over the years to assist countries with their medical and social service needs. We have assisted through private and gov. funds in building schools and hospitals in Indonesia, Thailand, India, and many other E Asia countries. If you think it was all done to increase exports here, than all aid is self serving. Now they will have money to buy our x-ray and drugs thereby helping those drug companies and evil corporations in their time of need.
What's the count up to now? About 80.000 dead and untolds missing, up to 5 mil. without homes, lots of polluted water, etc. I don't think this is the time for parsimony and the US response has been extremely poor and more worried about defending its role as benevolent father to the poor than actually helping them. The time for discussion is past and it's time to act. The US has major military bases in Diego Garcia and in Singapore. It wouldn't take a lot to offer them some help.
I'm glad that your sons are serving in the military and hope they come home safe and sound. Oh, or maybe you meant the American Women and Men who are serving in the Armed Forces? If that's the case then the US has shown them little or no regard by not having a game plan in Iraq and virtually letting Afghanistan implode yet again. IF the US Govt. was concerned about those in Iraq, the soldiers would have been long gone by now, yet the insurgency rages and all gw can do is clear brush in TX. How long should we stay? We can't stay forever.
As far as the aid in Afghanistan and Iraq, much has been misspent, much is missing and corporate greed rather than what is best for Iraq has eaten up a great deal of it. I hardly see as though all those billions have had or will have any lasting good.
You didn't address the issue did you? How can you equate man-made disasters with naturally occuring ones?
As to your last paragraph? What is your point? It is common knowledge that the Marshall Plan was put into place as much to offer a market for surplus goods as it was to help Europe recover and gw's new AIDS initiative was essentially written by US drug makers benefitting them at the expense of those who have the disease.
The worst things happen in the poorest places to people in the weakest circumstances.
I don't want to criticize any one country for their part in the aid effort. But this (see below) is exactly how I feel about most countries promise to help those in desperate need. I am happy paying taxes that in the end help the poorest of people in the worst circumstances who need the help.
From The National on the CBC
Dec. 28, 2004
Hearing and watching the news over the last few days has left most people numb. However many tens of thousands will have been killed following the earthquake-tsunami, there will be tens of hundreds of thousands more in mourning, houseless, stricken with disease and wracked with pain.
It is a monumental misery being endured by those peoples in the ring of countries where the devastation was most concentrated.
It should remind us here on the heels of Christmas in ways that are far too numerous to count that we, in what we call the West, are always on the top side of fortune's wheel. That whatever are the miseries or contentions of life, say, here in Canada, most of our misfortunes and conflicts are by comparison contracted and trivial. We're lucky, if that's the right word, to live in a part of the world where it's news if an airport is shut down because of a storm or there's a rash of fender benders after the first snowfall.
It is an axiom of this world that the worst things happen in the poorest places to people in the weakest circumstances. If you were born in the West, you've won the only lottery that really counts from the very first moment you take air. It's very early in the response to the calamity now unfolding, but not too early to ask what our country plans to do.
A natural disaster is a miserable combination of words, but a natural disaster does come with one single benefit... it is free of all the fogs of politics. There are just thousands and thousands of truly innocent people living a nightmare of pain, want, and dislocation. We Canadians like to cherish the notion that we are a right-feeling nation. Our present government has given signals that it sees itself and the country it governs as being an agency, a source of international conscience. This week's news is going to test that reputation. Are we going to be one of the countries which waits for others to propose response and action? Are we ready to deploy troops and money, both in substantial amounts, to do the charity and that's the right word that this monumental disaster calls for? Do we have them?
The Prime Minister has had photo ops with Bono, the tinsel of do-goodism lies over this government. Canadians themselves surely pride themselves on the idea that they, we, are a force for good in the world. After the news this week, only two things can happen... we will hear all the right noises from our government, all the low-voiced mumbling of concern and sympathy, the verbal equivalent of tearing up in public for the benefit of the world's cameras, or we will leap far beyond all conventional response and see in the catastrophic misery that is unfolding on the other side of the world an extraordinary responsibility for a country of our wealth and prosperity to make a response proportional to that wealth and that responsibility.
It may be the wrong end of the telescope to look at it this way, but the disaster and death that have visited the world in the interlude between Christmas and New Year's should be or must be the dread stimulus for the First World to begin paying some homage to the perpetual plight of those caught in the Third. There's still enough of the Christmas spirit left to remember 2004 for something more than its orgy of Boxing Day sales. And if an earthquake and a tsunami can't wake us out of the slumbers of complacency and prosperity, well then there's nothing that can. For "The National," I'm Rex Murphy.
I don't want to criticize any one country for their part in the aid effort. But this (see below) is exactly how I feel about most countries promise to help those in desperate need. I am happy paying taxes that in the end help the poorest of people in the worst circumstances who need the help.
From The National on the CBC
Dec. 28, 2004
Hearing and watching the news over the last few days has left most people numb. However many tens of thousands will have been killed following the earthquake-tsunami, there will be tens of hundreds of thousands more in mourning, houseless, stricken with disease and wracked with pain.
It is a monumental misery being endured by those peoples in the ring of countries where the devastation was most concentrated.
It should remind us here on the heels of Christmas in ways that are far too numerous to count that we, in what we call the West, are always on the top side of fortune's wheel. That whatever are the miseries or contentions of life, say, here in Canada, most of our misfortunes and conflicts are by comparison contracted and trivial. We're lucky, if that's the right word, to live in a part of the world where it's news if an airport is shut down because of a storm or there's a rash of fender benders after the first snowfall.
It is an axiom of this world that the worst things happen in the poorest places to people in the weakest circumstances. If you were born in the West, you've won the only lottery that really counts from the very first moment you take air. It's very early in the response to the calamity now unfolding, but not too early to ask what our country plans to do.
A natural disaster is a miserable combination of words, but a natural disaster does come with one single benefit... it is free of all the fogs of politics. There are just thousands and thousands of truly innocent people living a nightmare of pain, want, and dislocation. We Canadians like to cherish the notion that we are a right-feeling nation. Our present government has given signals that it sees itself and the country it governs as being an agency, a source of international conscience. This week's news is going to test that reputation. Are we going to be one of the countries which waits for others to propose response and action? Are we ready to deploy troops and money, both in substantial amounts, to do the charity and that's the right word that this monumental disaster calls for? Do we have them?
The Prime Minister has had photo ops with Bono, the tinsel of do-goodism lies over this government. Canadians themselves surely pride themselves on the idea that they, we, are a force for good in the world. After the news this week, only two things can happen... we will hear all the right noises from our government, all the low-voiced mumbling of concern and sympathy, the verbal equivalent of tearing up in public for the benefit of the world's cameras, or we will leap far beyond all conventional response and see in the catastrophic misery that is unfolding on the other side of the world an extraordinary responsibility for a country of our wealth and prosperity to make a response proportional to that wealth and that responsibility.
It may be the wrong end of the telescope to look at it this way, but the disaster and death that have visited the world in the interlude between Christmas and New Year's should be or must be the dread stimulus for the First World to begin paying some homage to the perpetual plight of those caught in the Third. There's still enough of the Christmas spirit left to remember 2004 for something more than its orgy of Boxing Day sales. And if an earthquake and a tsunami can't wake us out of the slumbers of complacency and prosperity, well then there's nothing that can. For "The National," I'm Rex Murphy.
Ugg said:
After WWII, it took 6 years of guerilla tactics on the U.S. part to get the city of Berlin clean and ready enough to finally be able to pull out. The Brits helped, too, so that I don't have anyone complain from across the Atlantic Pond. Tactics were used, such as:
Toss a grenade into a window, kill a few of the Nazi's still left inside.
Shoot randomly down a street where there are some Nazis.
Interrogate Nazis that were captured to see just where their higher-ups are.
Mind you, this went on for 6 years. Shooting, killing, and overall purging Berlin from Nazi control. The rest of Germany had to undergo the same effects. For 6 years, Germany was under U.S. control as a dictatorship. The Russians had their stake in Germany, sure, but they were already a dictatorship.
Mechcozmo said:After WWII, it took 6 years of guerilla tactics on the U.S. part to get the city of Berlin clean and ready enough to finally be able to pull out. The Brits helped, too, so that I don't have anyone complain from across the Atlantic Pond. Tactics were used, such as:
Toss a grenade into a window, kill a few of the Nazi's still left inside.
Shoot randomly down a street where there are some Nazis.
Interrogate Nazis that were captured to see just where their higher-ups are.
Mind you, this went on for 6 years. Shooting, killing, and overall purging Berlin from Nazi control. The rest of Germany had to undergo the same effects. For 6 years, Germany was under U.S. control as a dictatorship. The Russians had their stake in Germany, sure, but they were already a dictatorship.
I am not sure that this is the same situation though. Isn't the current insurgency a mix of Iraqis and outside forces?
Also, Germany invited the world to invade them, Iraq didn't really do the same. Do Iraqi citizens feel the same way as the German people did? I have a feeling the German people wanted to see the Nazis gone too.
Iraqis may not have liked Saddam, but the grossly underreported civilian casualties related to this last invasion and human rights infractions that have occured since would seem to make for a completely different situation.
Personally, I have only heard from our side concerning what Iraqis thought about Saddam. Repeated stories of "rape rooms" and other horror stories become more dubious when compared to other exagerations this Administration has made.
Whatever the situation was, it seems to me that the insurgency is getting stronger, how does that compare to Germany after the same period of occupation?