Tsunami Relief: America Takes The Blame

[rmnunez]

Comparing dwarfed former European colonialists to the US is unfair, the US is many times larger than any of them. Likewise we can't expect much smaller countries with a tenth of the population to be fielding armies and fleets like the gringoes can as the 5th most populous country in the world.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Comrade Well, if your idea of the purpose of a military is to sit behind the Maginot Line.

I see your appreciation of the UK's help in every major operation you undertake (vietnam excluded, we're nowhere near dumb enough to join that war) is overwhelming. Tell me, why do you ask us to help? Afterall, when Argentina invaded us, you did nothing.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez The USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) is presently active in the Tsunami relief effort. The keel for the latest US aircraft carrier (named after Bush Sr.) and slightly larger, was laid in 2003. Both are Nimitz Class, huge, fast, nuclear, about 80 combat aircraft, dozens of helicopters, thousands of sailors. I'd have thought the fate of the Belgrano in the Falklands war would have favored the European model of smaller but more agile carriers, but the US keeps making them bigger and more powerful.

Here's an interesting article on the USS Lincoln, also presently assisting in the relief efforts in Indonesia. This kind of thing really is disgusting.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/c...45541651761496

[rmnunez]

Take solace in the fact they are sufering trying to help, if it were easier it wouldn't be worth as much.

[Melvyn]

Quote by: tinybear So why are we being blamed? Views anyone?

The entire world is resentful of our power and wealth. It takes no courage to take a shot at the biggest guy on the block if that guy genrally does not respond. Of course when you add some unpopular policies such as Iraq and the general behavior of the Bush administration then they actually have something to talk about. But really it is just human nature to resent the biggest and the best. Should be no skin off our back. At least with the Tsunami, we know we're doing the right thing.

Melvyn

[Matrixxx]

You just have to consider the source that is slamming the US.

[tinybear]

So the UN hates us? Why?

And why should America take the blame when this sort of thing happens?

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/s.../GB03Wd05.html

"Ranavirajah said bureaucratic incompetence and ignorance of tsunami survivors had considerably slowed aid delivery. His figures excluded areas in the north and east under Tamil Tiger rebel control.

The comments came a day after the government began investigating complaints that food aid intended for tsunami victims in eastern Batticaloa had disappeared and that some of the homeless living in camps were being fed rotten supplies.

Hundreds protested Monday in the eastern town of Trincomalee, claiming the government had given them no food aid or offers of help to rebuild their lives."

[rmnunez]

The US should take the blame because the bags of wheat and blankets emblazoned with the USAID logo are being sold on the black-market instead of delivered to their intended recipients. The fact that they have about 120 helicopters, 20 thousand men and several capital ships, plus more airpower than anyone else in the area, guarantees the wheat gets delivered properly, regardless of the tigers. Its the hyper-puissance's responsibility to do things right.

[tusaki]

The US takes the blame, or to be more specific, the bush administration takes the blame because they gave a relatively small amount of money. Especcially on a per-capita basis, even if you include the 324 million of private donations (cnn.com). I mean, the Netherlands alone raised 160,5 million euros (giro 555 is the national bank number for actions such as these) in private donations (+ a 35 million government donation), as a country of 16 million inhabitants. But ofcourse, it is all about politics, and other countries are milking it for all its worth. (Just so you know: France for example also donated very little) And as somone who lived there said:

dear Friends, I am from a country which suffered from the Tsunami. Someone here said American's gave little and others gave more kind of things.Bottomline is no one has to give anything to us. There is no obligation. It does not matter it is 1 dollar 1 pound or a million. What matters is you gave us that money, you are talking about us and trying to help. That is more than enough. Whole world is supporting. Whichever the amount you have you gave us and we are thankful. Americans, Britis, Germans. Australians and all the smaller countries helping whichever the way they can we don't measure that. Does not matter it is a Sinhalese or Muslim or Tamil receives the aid. We just say we are greateful and Thank You WORLD. A Sinhalese from Sri Lanka

(which came from here: http://blogger.xs4all.nl/marcone/arc.../03/19687.aspx)

[Matrixxx]

Quote by: tusaki The US takes the blame, or to be more specific, the bush administration takes the blame because they gave a relatively small amount of money. Especcially on a per-capita basis, even if you include the 324 million of private donations (cnn.com). I mean, the Netherlands alone raised 160,5 million euros (giro 555 is the national bank number for actions such as these) in private donations (+ a 35 million government donation), as a country of 16 million inhabitants. But ofcourse, it is all about politics, and other countries are milking it for all its worth. (Just so you know: France for example also donated very little) And as somone who lived there said: (which came from here: http://blogger.xs4all.nl/marcone/arc.../03/19687.aspx)

When I was a kid my sister used to slag my fathers parents at Christmas time for being cheap bastards. See, both my fathers dad and my mothers dad worked for Pratt and Whitney aircraft, their wages were comparable. Both wives did not work as they were homemakers...that was not unusual for my generation and those prior. My mothers parents used to lavish their children and grandchildren with expensive gifts around the holidays while my fathers parents made a conserted effort but a conservative one none the less. The fact of the matter was my father came from a 9 child home that gave my paternal grandparents over 29 grandchildren and 2 great grandchildren before they passed on. My maternal grandparents only had 2 children who gave them exactly 6 grandchildren to this day, 27 years after their passing.

The core of the matter here is that the US also, not unlike my paternal grandparents, dole out the contributions on numerous levels in quantity en masse that the other countries cannot match. There is only so much pie you can hand so many, as most of you I would hope can understand (learning from basic math courses in school), the US can only contribute so much of it's "per-capita" clout to one cause when it already has 11 thirsty pups and only 6 tites. :rolleyes:

[fushigi]

The article originally cited does not stop at tsunami relief, but praises the U.S. for giving so much money to foreign aid.

Well, the truth is the U.S. doesn't give its share. Only 0.15% (just over one-tenth of one percent ) of the the U.S. GDP goes to foreign aid, and 65% of that goes to Israel and Egypt. This is the lowest amount as a percentage for any industrialized country, and that's a shame. Especially considering the high correlation between lack of development and armed conflict today.

Reference article

[rmnunez]

fushigi, could it be that a more appropriate level of US assistance for development, humanitarian or disaster relief would be a serious distortion given the size of their GNP?

Ultimately we are saying we should see about a quarter of what is now spent on development globally multiplied by ten through enhanced gringan contributions. This would reduce non-US development assistance in the third world to a tenth of their current irrelevance.

Doesn't the argument over the inadequacy of US contributions suggest these sort of efforts should be somehow mandatory? What is the basis of this obligation to develop the third world? Does seeing third world development more like an "obligation" by wealthy and developed governments instead of as an instrument to advance their particular foreign policy goals, also entail recognizing some sort of "entitlement" to receive development assistance? If it did, would this entitlement overcome any beneficiary's obligation to improve things like human rights, the environment, transperancy?

[Richard 23]

Quite awhile back, G. Adams presented a list of incidents that (how can I put it?) demonstrate that military force should be applied only when absolutely necessary.

I wish I knew how to express that better.

If the U.S. plans to build an empire (starting with Iraq) it would probably be wise to examine and learn from the British and Roman Empires. This kind of behavior is contrary to the "American way," or at least the idealized version that its people subscribe to. It better not be empire conquest...otherwise other nations will be obliged to do the same. Then we're all in big trouble.

Policies have consequences. While many in the U.S. are unaware of the misery its government has inflicted around the world (for decades), the rest of the world is not so insulated.

Ok, I give up. I'm dangerously off topic anyhow. Get to the point.

I just wanted to add an item to the list that is often overlooked.

In 1974, East Timor was subjected to invasion and genocide.
The U.S. and its media ignored the event. At the same
time there was plenty of outrage about the Khmer Rouge.

The U.S. and the world would be better off the U.S. followed its own stated values, if thought preceeded application of military force. Policies have consequences.

The effects of and reasons for its policies are kept from its public to prevent opposition to war.

In the aftermath of the tsunami, dead bodies became a regular feature of news reports.
This has never been the case when it came to Iraq war "coverage." Something is wrong.

That "they hate our freedom" is acceptable explanation for 9/11 is astonishing.

With the current U.S. Administration, the propaganda is stifling (my opinion).
Now it appears (to me) that its own people are being targeted: cuts to domestic
social programs, an attempt to all but eliminate Social Security (my opinion)....
The military-industrial complex however is rewarded with increased funds.
This last item must be worrisome for the rest of the world.

[Nono]

If the US began acting in accordance with its stated values, dramatic changes would occur. But it won't. The more US "news" media become concentrated in a small number of corporate hands, the further out of touch with events abroad (and at home) Americans will grow and the more willing they will become to be lulled to sleep by the dialtone of their president's voice.

[rmnunez]

Richard, the US alone cannot remedy all that ails the world simultaneously. In 1974, as now, military force is exertable in multiple theatres, however incidents of logistics, politics, economics and proportionality weigh in the consideration of when and where to intervene.

I've always maintained it is better, if you lack the means to tackle all, then erradicate some atrocities and genocide rather than do nothing about it. The US should've helped out in Timor earlier, maybe they didn't because they were pals with the Indonesian regime. They have the excuse of prefering one war at a time and the burden should be apportioned among others affected.

[airmac]

Thr French were moaning about the US in 1944 when De Gaule liberated Paris

[Mia]

I think we did well. In addition to money, we dispatched our military to save people, to set up medical and other shelters. We were the largest contributor in this regard, and that costs a lot of money, folks.

Why is the cost of that aid not added to actual cash given?

[tinybear]

Corruption challenge for Aceh aid
By Rachel Harvey
BBC News, Aceh


Aceh is the most corrupt province in one of the world's most corrupt countries - and it is about to receive $6bn in aid following the Asian tsunami. What are the chances of that money being well - and honestly - spent?

The level of support from governments and individuals around the world was unprecedented following the 26 December tsunami, as the scale of the destruction became apparent.

But Indonesia's reputation for corruption has meant that there are major concerns on how well this money will be spent.

Only last month, the governor of Aceh, Abdullah Puteh, was sentenced to 10 years in jail for the corrupt purchase of a helicopter in 2001.

"I don't think any agency working within Indonesia can fully guarantee that there's absolutely no chance of corruption," Stephen Gwynne-Vaughn, the head of Aceh operations for the aid organisation Care International, told BBC World Service's Assignment programme.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4583557.stm

I hope Indonesia passes the test, but, somehow, from past experience, I doubt it.

[Matt W]

They're also getting somewhat distracted by things like this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/4598419.stm

Nice folk, those Aussies.

[Matt W]

India's problems, on the other hand, get no attention from people round here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4598847.stm

Indonesia's also in the middle of dealing with a polio outbreak:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/4594829.stm