The U.S and the wrold [Archive]

Strike For The South

08-31-2005, 02:45

Slyspy

08-31-2005, 02:56

Point 1 is clearly a matter of scale. The natural disaster is less devastating and the country hit by it more able to deal with it (warnings, evacuations, planning, infrastructure, resources etc etc). So you get sympathy and nothing else.

As for the global warming thing well who can say? I certainly cannot and neither can most forumites (or experts in the field even) so I would ignore them.

_Martyr_

08-31-2005, 03:05

Dito, except to add... what could anyone really offer the US in this situation except sympathy and wellwishes?

Kaiser of Arabia

08-31-2005, 03:11

Maybe we should have done what Germany did to us now when the Tsunami hit asia, blame them for not being energy efficant. How many nations would embargo us?

Papewaio

08-31-2005, 03:12

Well maybe more illegal immigrant constructions workers to rebuild the city and make bigger levies?

Seriously the Tsunami killed over 150,000 people, the count is between 175 and 250 thousand people. That is 3 orders of magnitude larger.

Also there was a major amount of finger pointing at those nations lack of early warning systems.

Red Harvest

08-31-2005, 05:00

strike for the south,

I understand the frustration. Right now I don't know what other countries can even send us. Heck, I don't even know what is needed. The main problem right now is access and lack of a power grid as well as flooding that is still present.

Chavez did make some statement today about providing heating oil--talk about an unlikely source of aid. This might not make sense to some, but there is concern that heating oil (which was going to be tight) will be too tight this winter with the refinery outages. It is at least a reasonable gesture.

As for global warming/oil etc., yes, I think it is a bit inappropriate for others to kick us when we are down, but I could point to some very strident U.S. posters who make similar statements about others at inappropriate times. Frankly, we should expect a bit of this since Dubya decided to snub the international community with Kyoto, and we are the biggest energy user having more impact than any other nation. Global warming is real, whether or not we agree about the causes, or the role of CO2. Telling everyone else to go screw themselves was not in our own best interests--despite what the short term thinkers believe.

Redleg

08-31-2005, 05:26

strike for the south,

As for global warming/oil etc., yes, I think it is a bit inappropriate for others to kick us when we are down, but I could point to some very strident U.S. posters who make similar statements about others at inappropriate times. Frankly, we should expect a bit of this since Dubya decided to snub the international community with Kyoto, and we are the biggest energy user having more impact than any other nation. Global warming is real, whether or not we agree about the causes, or the role of CO2. Telling everyone else to go screw themselves was not in our own best interests--despite what the short term thinkers believe.

So lets blame George Bush for not signing a treaty that Congress would never ratify in the first place. Anyone remember another treaty that was signed by a President but never ratified.

Kyoto does not address one of the biggest threats - the cut and slash of Rain Forests - but lets just blame the United States because its easier.

Yea right.

Soulforged

08-31-2005, 05:29

Note: You might not agree or even like me after this one ~:cheers:

Rant begin As Katrina rumbles onward and parts of the south are underwater some foreigners (none on this board) have seen this as time to tell the US we brought this on ourselves by energy consumption and thereby causing the greenhouse effect. Yes people are dying and losing loved ones and all some people can do is bitch. Not to mention the US the wrolds leading aid giver and always first one the secene to a crisis has not had one offer for internatinol support Im starting to see how it works tsunami hits asia they get help (all of which they mightily deserved) but when we are hit you hear one of two responses 1. They can take care of themselves we don't need to help although they've lent a hand when we needed it or 2. Die capitalist pigs choke on your oil CHOKE! Rant over

Well i know how you might be feeling because something of the same happened here arround 2002, and we didn't received much outsiders help. USA appears to be the center of the world, for good and for bad words.

The thing about global warming, after seeing Penn & Teller's, i really don't eat it, is not a scientific certainty so blaming any country on bringing it upon themselves is stupidity. Even so i do think that your country is way more capable that almost all the rest to help themselves, both economicaly and in personal capacity, so i don't see the need for help. But in some point you need it i'm sure that you'll have it. ~:cheers:

PanzerJaeger

08-31-2005, 06:13

As for global warming/oil etc., yes, I think it is a bit inappropriate for others to kick us when we are down, but I could point to some very strident U.S. posters who make similar statements about others at inappropriate times. Frankly, we should expect a bit of this since Dubya decided to snub the international community with Kyoto, and we are the biggest energy user having more impact than any other nation. Global warming is real, whether or not we agree about the causes, or the role of CO2. Telling everyone else to go screw themselves was not in our own best interests--despite what the short term thinkers believe.

Yes, all our problems are George Bush's fault. ~:rolleyes:

Ignoring the fact that it really isnt the place of the president to sign a treaty that wasnt ratified by congress, American jobs and the economy are more important than a treaty of which the results are questionable at best. Just because something feels good - or makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside - doesnt mean we should jump on board without taking broader perspectives into consideration.

Also, it has never been the American way to simply go along with the crowd. It is of great importance that we consider the effects of every treaty on ourselves and act on that consideration. Just because everyone else is doing it - whatever the current "it" happens to be - doesnt mean it is the right thing to do.

It wasnt too long ago that the whole world went to hell and America was one of the last bastions of freedom and normalcy.

Crazed Rabbit

08-31-2005, 06:15

Also there was a major amount of finger pointing at those nations lack of early warning systems.

And at the US becasue we were somehow responsible for that.

Crazed Rabbit

Papewaio

08-31-2005, 06:16

I agree the Kyoto treaty should not be signed until we understand things better.

Also the role of trees as carbon sinks is debatable...

Productivity

08-31-2005, 06:25

Not to mention the US the wrolds leading aid giver

Actually, adjusting for economy size, only Italy is worse. (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/59/51/34700392.pdf)

Before people go off on a rant, if you include private aid which I've seen estimates at ~twice the level of public aid, that still puts you nowhere near the top, and that is assuming that only the US has private aid.

Soulforged

08-31-2005, 06:26

It wasnt too long ago that the whole world went to hell and America was one of the last bastions of freedom and normalcy.

Oh i see. :dizzy2: . Sure go USA. :dizzy2:

:no: :no: :no: :no: :no:

Aenlic

08-31-2005, 06:28

It seems to me that other countries should be wary of signing treaties with the U.S. anyway. After all, we didn't manage to abide by a single treaty we signed with native tribes until 1930. We broke every treaty we signed with them prior to that. Not a great track record. Add the ABM treaty to that and one might get the idea that the U.S. has more respect for used toilet paper than its treaty obligations. ~D

Gawain of Orkeny

08-31-2005, 06:30

Before people go off on a rant, if you include private aid which I've seen estimates at ~twice the level of public aid, that still puts you nowhere near the top, and that is assuming that only the US has private aid.

I believe our private aid is considerably more than double our public aid. I think more like 10 times.

Productivity

08-31-2005, 06:41

I believe our private aid is considerably more than double our public aid. I think more like 10 times.

If we work on ~$19B of public aid, I'm struggling to work out where the other $160B of private aid is coming from given that only ~$34B of private aid can actually be detected.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/082102N.html

Indeed, when making an attempt to adjust for how useful the aid is, the US consistently ranks at the bottom of the pile.

http://www.cgdev.org/files/3646_file_WP_67_Revised.pdf

I'm not trying to bash the US here, just don't kid yourself about how great your aid really is.

Gawain of Orkeny

08-31-2005, 06:53

“Private international giving by Americans is over three and one-half times that of U.S. government foreign assistance,” Adelman told participants in the Internet chat. “When you take into account this U.S. private giving, our foreign assistance far exceeds other countries by any measure.”

She has estimated that U.S. private international giving to the developing world exceeds $62 billion.

Addressing questions concerning American giving abroad, Adelman called the standard measure of U.S. foreign assistance “outdated” and “flawed.” The standard measure of foreign aid, which ranks the United States last in terms of the percentage of its Gross National Income, grossly underestimates the total amount of U.S. foreign assistance, she said.

LINK (http://usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/2005/Jul/27-997226.html)

Papewaio

08-31-2005, 06:59

Adelman also includes Foreign workers sending money back home as foreign aid.

In fact for 2003 half of the private aid that she listed was from Foreign workers remittances,

Productivity

08-31-2005, 07:11

“Private international giving by Americans is over three and one-half times that of U.S. government foreign assistance,”

So will you revise the following down to 3.5 instead of 10?

I believe our private aid is considerably more than double our public aid. I think more like 10 times.

ddressing questions concerning American giving abroad, Adelman called the standard measure of U.S. foreign assistance “outdated” and “flawed.” The standard measure of foreign aid, which ranks the United States last in terms of the percentage of its Gross National Income, grossly underestimates the total amount of U.S. foreign assistance, she said.

Ok, so let's assume that total US aid is 4.5 times that of it's public aid (ie. 3.5public aid + 1public aid). That puts the US in the position of giving 0.72 of it's GDP as aid. Great, good number, good level etc. However, it is still not the highest level in teh world, as SFTS had previously asserted. There are still at least five countries giving more in public aid alone, than the US is giving throuh public aid combined with private aid.

The only time the US manages to come top is in absolute numbers, which quite frankly it should. It's the worlds largest economy by a long way. I'm not meaning to bash the US, it's just the original assertion by SFTS is incorrect in anything other than a useless measure.

PanzerJaeger

08-31-2005, 07:32

I'm not trying to bash the US here, just don't kid yourself about how great your aid really is.

Do we or do we not give the most aid of any country in the world? It seems like you are saying 1 billion swedish(or whomever) dollars are somehow better than 10 billion american dollars because of GDP comparisons. Money, grain, aid is aid. No amount of comparisons changes that basic fact.

There's a saying here in America that doesnt really make sense to me, but its sort of funny. "Dont look a gift horse in the mouth."

Considering how much "the world", which the US is so often excluded from, hates the US, they are lucky to get anything at all.

Of course the american guilt complex, as Aenlic demonstrated, will always force us to collectively feel guilty about living a good life - therefore compelling us to throw more money at people who hate us. ~:rolleyes:

Soulforged

08-31-2005, 07:46

It wasnt too long ago that the whole world went to hell and America was one of the last bastions of freedom and normalcy.

Well there's many foundaments for the hatred. But this sentence of yours may explain some of them.

Sure just take a pill or two man your sickness will pass with the time. :dizzy2:

Roark

08-31-2005, 07:51

PJ: The "gift horse" adage comes from the fact that, historically, one way of checking a horse's health was to examine its teeth.

So they're effectively saying "don't quibble over the details, just accept the gift".

As the richest country in the world, it is simply appropriate that a democratic country like the US would also be the no. 1 provider of foreign aid.

PanzerJaeger

08-31-2005, 08:01

Well there's many foundaments for the hatred.

I get it, you hate the US! Ive understood that since Gawain's "Greatest Military Organization in the World" thread in the monestary. Never do you let a post go by that even casually admits a positive about the US.

I simply dont care enough to respond to each and every piece of bait you throw in the lake, although I couldnt resist this one. ~;)

Truth is, people like you are a dime a dozen once you leave the states, and there are plenty here too. You see nothing good in America and thats your perogative. Whether thats based in secret jealousy, feelings of national inadequacy, or whatever little psycho-babblings that make you feel the way you do is beyond me.. but ive seen it all.

I learned a long time ago to simply ignore anti-americans. Such feelings are planted and nourished since birth, and only living here and knowing the people can change them in most people. My mother still hasnt changed. She espouses everything not american and misses the "old days" in Germany when we were about 1/10 as successful as we are now.

Soulforged

08-31-2005, 08:10

I'll appear forever if you say stupidities like that.

I see good in USA (even the fact that you call yourselves americans and your country America gets on my nervs) and i'm sure if i visited it i'll see a lot more. But that doesn't intitle you to call your country a bastion of freedom, but the most absurd is normalcy!!! My hatred and that of everyone that you profile as "haters" doesn't come from the nothing, it comes from the news we see, it comes from the images we see and the things we read. Maybe you can't see it from there but your country's policies have made much wrong at least in this areas (i would say the world, but). And your country still believes itself as the bringer of democracy, just the simple idea of throwing down foreing governments and replacing it by one elected by yours goes against freedom.
One of the reasons i hate gringos is that kind of statement. But anyway i'll not let this discussion continue because it has little to do with the thread. Just admit you made a mistake and that your views are the biased ones.

PanzerJaeger

08-31-2005, 08:29

By Roark
PJ: The "gift horse" adage comes from the fact that, historically, one way of checking a horse's health was to examine its teeth.

Thanks man. I understood what it was basically saying, but I never quite understood the background. :bow:

By Soulforged
Just admit you made a mistake and that your views are the biased ones.

I was refering to WW2. The only thing that kept democracy and the concept of personal liberty in the world was the Anglo-American alliance. The rest of the world was either Fascist, Communist, or occupied by one of the two. As for normalcy - well compare everyday life in wartime America to everyday life in wartime France or China.. yea, id say it was pretty normal.

Soulforged

08-31-2005, 08:35

I was refering to WW2. The only thing that kept democracy and the concept of personal liberty in the world was the Anglo-American alliance. The rest of the world was either Fascist, Communist, or occupied by one of the two. As for normalcy - well compare everyday life in wartime America to everyday life in wartime France or China.. yea, id say it was pretty normal.

Is just coincidence or you always forget about South America. We never had a facist government, nor communist, nor nothing. In fact we had a despotic government with the support of USA, because this government was the first to let full neoliberalist ideals enter here, thing that was beatiful to USA.
Well normalcy is pretty damn difficult to stablish, but i know what you're saying. Again forgetting about the South.

Quid

08-31-2005, 09:01

I was refering to WW2. The only thing that kept democracy and the concept of personal liberty in the world was the Anglo-American alliance. The rest of the world was either Fascist, Communist, or occupied by one of the two. As for normalcy - well compare everyday life in wartime America to everyday life in wartime France or China.. yea, id say it was pretty normal.

Switzerland was neither in a strict sense but I am just being pedantic.

I did hear on the radio last night that Switzerland did offer help for the flooding in the US. I suppose that is just a normal diplomatic gesture, really. At the moment we are struggling with the effects of the wide spread flooding in our own country. I must say, however, that the US government (embassy) was kind enough to provide $50'000 in aid for the catastrophe. Thank you!

Quid

Bartix

08-31-2005, 09:05

Yes, all our problems are George Bush's fault. ~:rolleyes:

He perhaps is more symptom. After all many Americans vote for him to be re elected. Some think more than 50% of votes! ~;)

Is just coincidence or you always forget about South America. We never had a facist government, nor communist, nor nothing.
This is question of definition, maybe? I am impressed that South and Central America had many far left and far right regimes, some times quite nasty. :book:

I am sorry for suffering and destruction caused by Katrina to people of US. :bow: ~:grouphug:
It may be eye opening experience to some, or at least next time similar storm happens, but it is not good rubbing US nose in it at this time. Not polite. Not considering humanity of those effected. ~:grouphug:

Ronin

08-31-2005, 09:11

Note: You might not agree or even like me after this one ~:cheers:

Rant begin Not to mention the US the wrolds leading aid giver and always first one the secene to a crisis has not had one offer for internatinol support Im starting to see how it works tsunami hits asia they get help (all of which they mightily deserved) but when we are hit you hear one of two responses 1. They can take care of themselves we don't need to help although they've lent a hand when we needed it or 2. Die capitalist pigs choke on your oil CHOKE! Rant over

The US isn´t bangladesh or sumatra or some small country that gets overwelmed by a desaster like this.....

I do´t see how a country that can expend the manpower to go invading other countries for no good reason would have a problem dealing with this situation....you´ve got the manpower in your military forces...put them to use.

bmolsson

08-31-2005, 09:37

Ser Clegane

08-31-2005, 09:40

I have to say that I am actually rather dissappointed about how this thread and the "50" thread developed.

People in Louisiana and Mississippi are still struggling for their life and the situation currently seems to be far from being under control

The first priority should be to save the lives and ease the pain of the affected.
I am sure that the US wil be able to take care about most of the situation without outside help (in terms of logistics as well as in terms).

That does not mean that we (meaning other countries) should not be willing and ready to offer our help and to quickly provide it if the necessity arises.

This can be in the form of equipment and professionals from government and non-government organizations and in the form of donations from each person individually (I did not forget the willingness of US people to offer help and support during the flood in Germany and the heat-wave that hit France 2 years ago, IIRC)

When the situation is under control, it would be time to discuss if there is a way to avoid such disasters and/or if there is any sense in finger-pointing.

EDIT: I see that bmolsson shares my thoughts regarding this :bow:

Sjakihata

08-31-2005, 10:47

I think that the Katrina tornado is really sad and I am already talking to help agencies active to give my contribution. Discussing who's fault it is, just make my stomache sick. Its a natural disaster and we need to help the victims. Period.

I agree with everything, except the fact that Katrina isnt a tornado, but a hurricane.

Meneldil

08-31-2005, 11:06

Advo-san

08-31-2005, 11:30

I agree the Kyoto treaty should not be signed until we understand things better.

Also the role of trees as carbon sinks is debatable...
I hope our respected mod is kidding...

PanzerJaeger

08-31-2005, 16:48

Redleg

08-31-2005, 16:56

I think that the Katrina tornado is really sad and I am already talking to help agencies active to give my contribution. Discussing who's fault it is, just make my stomache sick. Its a natural disaster and we need to help the victims. Period.

Agreed - payday is this Friday - what is left over from paying my expenses will be going to the Red Cross.

Leet Eriksson

08-31-2005, 17:40

red cross (not crecent) organisation is taking donations here, i might as well spare whatever i can.

My condolences to all the families in the troubled areas.

drone

08-31-2005, 19:36

CNN has a page with links and phone numbers to various local and federal relief organizations.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/30/katrina.advice.us/index.html

I see good in USA (even the fact that you call yourselves americans and your country America gets on my nervs) and i'm sure if i visited it i'll see a lot more.
Not trying to rile you up or anything. The name of my country is the United States of America, not just "America". If somebody doesn't want to type all that out, they should just say USA. But what should the citizens of my country be called (and "imperialist pigs" is not acceptable ~;) )? I understand your point, since technically/literally you are an "American" as well. Suggestions are welcome.

Wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_words_for_American

And for grins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_terms_per_nationality#Offensive_terms_for_citizens_of_the_United_States_of_America

Red Harvest

08-31-2005, 21:34

Yes, all our problems are George Bush's fault. ~:rolleyes:

No, more the fault of his misguided followers who voted for him. ~;) I pointed out the mess he created with his snubbing of Kyoto. Cry foul if you like, but I did my part to get it right, and still am.

Ignoring the fact that it really isnt the place of the president to sign a treaty that wasnt ratified by congress, American jobs and the economy are more important than a treaty of which the results are questionable at best. Just because something feels good - or makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside - doesnt mean we should jump on board without taking broader perspectives into consideration.

Also, it has never been the American way to simply go along with the crowd. It is of great importance that we consider the effects of every treaty on ourselves and act on that consideration. Just because everyone else is doing it - whatever the current "it" happens to be - doesnt mean it is the right thing to do.

It is the president's job to try to lead the country down the CORRECT path, instead of off into the ditch. The anti-Kyoto crowd is typical of his short sighted support. What he and you are doing is DAMAGING to our economy and jobs. Short term thinking usually is, and you guys represent that in all its glory. I don't even believe Kyoto would have even weakened us short term and certainly not long term. It would sure as heck be a lot cheaper than many things we are doing to support our guzzle-it-up approach. I do believe oil would be cheaper today for one, and tomorrow, and next week, and next year, and 10 years from now.

Why should the rest of the world be mad? It effects all of them when Dubya and his supporters decide to think selfish short term. It is rather hypocritical to be calling for international efforts in one area and ignoring them in another.

Redleg

08-31-2005, 22:00

No, more the fault of his misguided followers who voted for him. ~;) I pointed out the mess he created with his snubbing of Kyoto. Cry foul if you like, but I did my part to get it right, and still am.

Crying foul by pointing out President Bush errors about not signing the Kyoto treaty is ignoring about 100 years of past adminstrations not worrying about the environment at all.

It is the president's job to try to lead the country down the CORRECT path, instead of off into the ditch. The anti-Kyoto crowd is typical of his short sighted support. What he and you are doing is DAMAGING to our economy and jobs.

Well show me where the Kyoto Treaty is the correct path - which I don't believe it is when it completely disregards half of the world, it ignores the slash and burn deforestation of the Rain Forests, and many other issues that are not fixing the environment. What the Kyoto does is attempt to halt the already developed countries increase in emmissions - but does nothing to give get developing countries into developing sound environment policies either. The United States can do more to control or emmissions but signing the Kyoto Treaty is just giving a pass to countries that also need to control their emmissions and stop the massive deforestation of the Rain Forests.

Short term thinking usually is, and you guys represent that in all its glory. I don't even believe Kyoto would have even weakened us short term and certainly not long term. It would sure as heck be a lot cheaper than many things we are doing to support our guzzle-it-up approach. I do believe oil would be cheaper today for one, and tomorrow, and next week, and next year, and 10 years from now.

Yes indeed and that is all the Kyoto Treaty is a short term approach on the problem, not a long term fix.

Why should the rest of the world be mad? It effects all of them when Dubya and his supporters decide to think selfish short term. It is rather hypocritical to be calling for international efforts in one area and ignoring them in another.

Yes it is - especially given the way many European Countries also show their hypocrisy on the issue.

Goofball

08-31-2005, 22:15

Do we or do we not give the most aid of any country in the world? It seems like you are saying 1 billion swedish(or whomever) dollars are somehow better than 10 billion american dollars because of GDP comparisons.

You're missing the point Panzer. I haven't checked the numbers, but I'll take your word for it that the U.S. gives the most in absolute terms.

But here is a little analogy for you:

Let's say my house burns down so my neighbors all take up a collection to build me a new one. One of my neighbors is a really rich guy, earning $1,000,000 per year, but the other nine people on my block are average joes earning $50,000 per year. The rich guy gives me $25,000 towards a new home, and the other nine neighbors each give me $5,000.

The $25,000 the rich guy gave me is definitely the most important donation out of the ten.

However, I would be much more appreciative of the $5,000 given by the others as that required more sacrifice of them.

Having said all of that, it would also be extremely bad manners (if not downright hurtful) for me to point this out to the rich guy.

Adrian II

08-31-2005, 22:20

The $25,000 the rich guy gave me is definitely the most important donation out of the ten.

However, I would be much more appreciative of the $5,000 given by the others as that required more sacrifice of them.

Having said all of that, it would also be extremely bad manners (if not downright hurtful) for me to point this out to the rich guy.Now add this: the rich guy demands that you spend those $25.000 uniquely on products of his company.

And add this: he demands that you use all the money given (that from the others as well) to hire hands from his company to do things that you could do all by yourself, with your own hands, and for free!

Would you still be grateful?

L'Impresario

08-31-2005, 22:54

This isn't though the whole picture and surely the USA aren't the only ones to blame. The above analogy holds some truth for most western nations (with some bright exceptions I might add).

As I 've written in an older thread regarding aid being wasted - allow me to repeat myself:

Well if you wish to know why such amounts of money aren't used efficiently(and the majority isn't for free, they are just nice loans with usually only a 25-30% donation part, they include managment costs, aid to immigrants during their first year away from home as well as scholarships to students who study in the donating country, many of them not going to ever return to their land) then the main problems are these:
1. corruption.
2. countries not in need of aid do claim portions of it that's much needed elsewhere (the USA offers a considerable amount of aid to Israel, Russia and Egypt, while the EU offers more money to Poland than to Asia and Southern America combined).
3. aid that boosts exports and some of the donating countries' companies (with studies showing that blocking competition leads in a 25% extra-cost , with cases like in Mozambique where drugs were bought 50% higher than in market prices).
4. a large aid portion ,designated as technical aid (25% in 1999) is dependant on an incredibly large number of advisors from the donating coutnries. The costs and salaries of these people consume about 70% of the "technical aid" budget.
5. lack of coordination. Duplication of the same researches and projects is experienced many times, with money and time being thrown out of the window, granted tho that coordination between so many different "players" is difficult.

And this is only one side of the issue. Nevertheless, millions of people have benefited from ODA, but a lot potiental has been wasted as well.

Proletariat

08-31-2005, 23:11

Would you still be grateful?

They're more than welcome to turn down this burdensome aid we dole out. More than welcome.

Azi Tohak

08-31-2005, 23:30

Wow, while PJ and KoA are willing to blame 'Europe/Chirac/Schroeder/France/Germany/Islam/Palestinians/whatever' as soon as something bad happens on this earth, they can't stand that some people blame US for screwing up our environment ?

Bad USA! Bad! Don't have the most manufacturing capacity of anyone on the planet! Bad! Don't make cars, computers, steel, food, (or maybe of more relevance to Europe) tanks, and airplanes, and weapons! You might hurt the environment!

You blame the US for screwing up the whole world's environment? You're kidding right?

Hey Prole, I say we use the money from our burdensome aid to do things here... like maybe get a net set up to transport those incapable of moving themselves, the next time a sledgehammer hits. How does that sound?

Azi

Papewaio

09-01-2005, 00:04

I hope our respected mod is kidding...

Tongue in cheek at the same time I think we should be doing more research into the causes and effects.

As for Carbon Sinks:

I am referring to a few studies that show that trees will only absorb their standard load of carbon. Increased carbon in the atmosphere will not lead to individual trees absorbing more carbon. So forests will not automatically suck up the extra carbon. More vegetation is required... or microbes.

Louis VI the Fat

09-01-2005, 00:18

Im starting to see how it works tsunami hits asia they get help (all of which they mightily deserved) but when we are hit you hear one of two responses 1. They can take care of themselves we don't need to help although they've lent a hand when we needed it or 2. Die capitalist pigs choke on your oil CHOKE! I'll skip point 2.

But about point 1 - look, I don't want to sound insensitive, but some countries can take care of themselves, others can't.
Germany doesn't need foreign aid when they have a flood, Paris doesn't need aid when an overcrowded building burns down, America doesn't need aid after Katrina.

Apart from very specific technical assistance (like Swiss Alpine dogs to search for survivors after 9-11) what do our societies really need?

In the unlikely event that there's anything America needs that it can not provide for itself, I'm sure you only need to ask.

I will stress my sympathy and condolances. ~:grouphug:

Redleg

09-01-2005, 00:26

Tongue in cheek at the same time I think we should be doing more research into the causes and effects.

As for Carbon Sinks:

I am referring to a few studies that show that trees will only absorb their standard load of carbon. Increased carbon in the atmosphere will not lead to individual trees absorbing more carbon. So forests will not automatically suck up the extra carbon. More vegetation is required... or microbes.

In other words slash and burn cuts of the Rain Forest is a bad thing since it takes away more vegetation that is needed to resupply us with Oxygen and to scrub the existing CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Red Harvest

09-01-2005, 01:23

As for Carbon Sinks:

I am referring to a few studies that show that trees will only absorb their standard load of carbon. Increased carbon in the atmosphere will not lead to individual trees absorbing more carbon. So forests will not automatically suck up the extra carbon. More vegetation is required... or microbes.

I'm surprised they had to study the tree aspect much. Tree size is determined mostly on species and soil/temp/precipitation and such from what I've seen. CO2 would be a rather small factor for a tree, like O2 content in the air for a human. Would breathing higher oxygen atmosphere throughout a lifetime make humans much bigger? I doubt it. More food (equivalent of better soil and precip) would...as too many of us can personally attest.

Funny aside: I remember a brilliant engineer coworker of mine astounding me in a conversation over rain forest conservation. He was truly brilliant technically, but lacked common sense in every day matters. He was trying to convince me that the fields that would replace a rain forest would probably be a better carbon sink. He really believed that, not sure where he got that piece of wisdom from. He wasn't exactly an outdoorsly type.

Papewaio

09-01-2005, 01:41

If you harvested the fields for hay and then used the stalks in concrete... it might be a more effective carbon sink.

Soulforged

09-01-2005, 02:14

Now add this: the rich guy demands that you spend those $25.000 uniquely on products of his company.

And add this: he demands that you use all the money given (that from the others as well) to hire hands from his company to do things that you could do all by yourself, with your own hands, and for free!

Would you still be grateful?

Well that's as normal as human compassion. And it's called greed. I'll not blame anybody for this, but you can't just bother others for the rest of their lives only because you helped them, you had the option of not helping them if you wanted.

PanzerJaeger

09-01-2005, 02:24

Having said all of that, it would also be extremely bad manners (if not downright hurtful) for me to point this out to the rich guy.

Thats my point Goofball. People are so ungrateful, but their hands are just as wide open.

Proletariat

09-01-2005, 04:05

Blog listing donations by domestic corporation. Nice one, Chevron.

http://blog.simmins.org/katrina/ameraidamer.html

And then some signs of sympathy from the International Community.

One official said that Israel's offer of assistance was of a general nature, and that the Americans have not asked for any help. The official said that although Israel does not have any particular expertise in battling floods, it does have a great deal of expertise dealing with collapsed buildings.

Thanks, Jews.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1125454956818

“On behalf of all Canadians, I wish to extend our heartfelt condolences to those who have lost loved ones as a result of Hurricane Katrina, as well as our sympathies to those who have suffered great losses and personal hardship,” said Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan. “During this difficult time, we are offering our support to our friends and neighbours.”

Thanks, America Jr.

http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/publications/statements/2005/20050830_e.asp

On Monday, Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Ali Al-Naimi stated that Saudi Arabia stands ready to immediately increase its crude oil
production to 11 million barrels per day, and sustain that level to replace
any market shortages resulting from the effects of Hurricane Katrina in order
to stabilize world crude prices.

Erm, thanks Saudis.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-31-2005/0004097778&EDATE=

Everyone else, thanks for nothing. Whether we're a well off country is besides the point. It's something countries with respect for humanity do. You don't have to fund the whole effort, it's the sentiment that matters. Send us a bag of Cheetos and a bag of popsicle sticks. Who cares? At least show you give a damn.

Seems like alot of people are watching Americans (or Red Staters) floating down rivers when they are actually humans. Human victims of a horrific tragedy.

(Btw, f the Federal Gov't. Where the hell is the Army air-drops with food for these people? Why do we have that thing that says 'Fed Tax' on our paychecks again?)

sharrukin

09-01-2005, 04:14

Thanks, America Jr.

Well we are sending the Vancouver Urban Search and Rescue and the Canadian Red Cross is collecting donations as well as private citizens helping. It may not be much but at least we are trying!

Proletariat

09-01-2005, 04:19

I was honestly saying thanks, the America Jr thing was just a stupid joke.

Very classy move by our northern friends.

sharrukin

09-01-2005, 04:21

I was honestly saying thanks, the America Jr thing was just a stupid joke.

Very classy move by our northern friends.

Oh, sorry! :embarassed:

Soulforged

09-01-2005, 04:39

Everyone else, thanks for nothing. Whether we're a well off country is besides the point. It's something countries with respect for humanity do. You don't have to fund the whole effort, it's the sentiment that matters. Send us a bag of Cheetos and a bag of popsicle sticks. Who cares? At least show you give a damn.

Well it seems to be a joke, but i'll asnwer you anyway. Does a country wich makes wars cares about humanity? Does one who enpoverish others cares? Please don't give that argument. Why don't you come here and check if we can help your country when there're people here dying beneath mountains of trash.

Seems like alot of people are watching Americans (or Red Staters) floating down rivers when they are actually humans. Human victims of a horrific tragedy.

Well i'm not in that group.

Though it seems that for some people the world does turns arround USA.

Papewaio

09-01-2005, 04:45

PRIME Minister John Howard has sent a personal message of sympathy to US President George W. Bush in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

I'm sure there are many more countries offering their sympathy.

Productivity

09-01-2005, 06:32

I'm sure there are many more countries offering their sympathy.

Was about to post that myself - Really Proletariat, you should know that if you are going to make such an inflamatory statement such as "everyone else, thanks for nothing" to put a caveat on it that if you miss anyone you don't mean to offend them. Unqualified blanket statemetns are an easy way to lose friends.

Ser Clegane

09-01-2005, 07:53

Everyone else, thanks for nothing.

As I said before - ask, and you will receive:
Germany embassy (http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/politics/new/pol_hurricane_katrina_aug2005.htm)

Or did you expect the people to just fly over without an official mandate?

Quite frankly, your attitude is not much more helpful than the attitude of those who just point at the US and say "you had it coming - now take care of yourselves" :no:

Bartix

09-01-2005, 08:05

UN has offered help.
US has not said it needs any.

Red Harvest

09-01-2005, 08:16

UN has offered help.
US has not said it needs any.

Blue hats for looting patrols? ~D

Adrian II

09-01-2005, 08:16

They're more than welcome to turn down this burdensome aid we dole out. More than welcome.Come on, you know who's helping whom (http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1558451,00.html) in most overseas development efforts, whether American, European or Japanese. The Malawi case is typical and has all the trappings of modern 'aid', including flying in pencils and notepads from the U.S. instead of buying them locally.

Ser Clegane

09-01-2005, 09:29

Two things I just came across:

On help from Europe (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,372348,00.html)

Commentary on the ugliness of "playing" politics in the wake of desasters (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,372425,00.html)
(Trittin has always been a self-righteous moron - I won't miss him after the next elections...)

Proletariat

09-01-2005, 12:41

Okay, for anyone I missed, thanks to you too.

(Who really thought that either Austrailia or England would leave them hi and dry?)

Especially Malawi.

Proletariat

09-01-2005, 12:46

Kristina Decker, from Germany's Christian aid group Caritas, concurred, saying help from Germany might even cause more harm than good. "America has a strong army and are well equipped for disaster relief," she said. "It makes no sense for us to go in and try to help. What really would we do? They have enough personnel to handle the crisis alone. Our workers might just be in the way. Of course, if they asked us to come in, we would. But that is not the case so far."

Isn't this kind of diplomacy what W gets slammed for? They're still looking at this as Americans and not human victims. Just show a little compassion rather then the "Well, they'll figure it out. They're big boys." way out. Sheesh.

If Germany ran out of sauerkraut, sure, they could rectify the situation themselves, but I'd hope the international community would air-drop cabbage in a way that made that fateful day in Dresden look like clear, blue skies.

Aurelian

09-01-2005, 14:07

This thread was at least a day too early. Just before going to bed last night, the local news here was running down offers of aid from a number of other countries. This morning, we have the following stories:

Canada Ready to Help (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050831.waid0831/BNStory/Front)
Germany says ready to help U.S. with Katrina (http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1083718&tw=wn_wire_story)
France May Mobilize Relief from Caribbean (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-france-us-katrina-hk4,0,2223975.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines)

I'm sure that quite a few other countries will be offering relief. Those were just the ones I thought of and Google-searched.

It's too early to be criticizing other countries for not providing aid when we also have this story:

Washington Prepares Aid Package for Katrina (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-08-31T225748Z_01_BAU158744_RTRIDST_0_POLITICS-WEATHER-KATRINA-AID-DC.XML)

Since our own country is just getting relief efforts together, you can't really blast others for not having done anything yet.

Proletariat

09-01-2005, 14:25

Since that was undoubtedly aimed at me, I'd like to point out that I prematurely ripped the Fed, too.

Aurelian

09-01-2005, 14:35

No, that wasn't aimed at you. I was just pointing out that the thread is a little early. Most of the stories about aid from other countries are just starting to pop up, and they all mention that they're waiting on, or working with, the Feds to see what is needed.

Aenlic

09-01-2005, 15:08

Timing has a lot to do with things as well. While not entirely accurate, the old law of threes is still a decent guildeline. A human can survive (on average) 3 minutes without oxygen, 3 hours without warmth, 3 days without water and 3 weeks without food. We're hitting the 3 days limit right now. People are going to begin dying now as a result of lack of fresh water; or else they'll succumb to temptation and drink contaminated water and end up the victim of poisoning or disease.

In light of the above, there isn't much that foreign aid can do in this situation. Even the ships leaving Norfolk (the Iwo Jima and a couple of amphibious dock ships) and Baltimore (the hospital ship Comfort) won't reach the area in time to mitigate the fresh water crisis. Foreign aid might help later in the process, when more access to affected areas is available; but by then the U.S. has the resources necessary to do the same job quicker on its own. I think it will merely be a situation of the U.S. not asking for additional aid; because it doesn't need the aid. They'll most certainly still offer the aid, however.

Those who are making claims of "we helped them, but they won't help us" are just engaging in typical American arrogance, chest-thumping and melodrama. It isn't in the least bit true.

Slyspy

09-01-2005, 19:47

I rather suspect that most countries and agencies will wait to be asked in this case. Firstly the wealth and resources of the USA should be able to deal with all but the most technical aspects. Secondly there was much criticism after the tsunami that aid was disorganised, poorly selected and badly distributed. This was mainly due to the lack of aformentioned cash, resources and infrastructure in the stricken countries but also due to their lack of a suitably organised central authority to coordinate the relief efforts.

Don Corleone

09-01-2005, 19:56

Those who are making claims of "we helped them, but they won't help us" are just engaging in typical American arrogance, chest-thumping and melodrama. It isn't in the least bit true.

That's a bit harsh. I think what SftS was trying to say was there was a tone of sympathy for victims of other disasters that seems to be lacking here. I disagree with his views, as it would seem from the backroom alone, those without sympathy are a distinct minority. But when something is that offensive, it carries a lot more volume than the simple of number of voices would indicate.

That being said, yes, I totally agree. There's really nothing anybody can do that isn't already being done. Well, one exception. I would give those additional national guard units 'shoot to kill' orders for whoever these snipers are that are shooting at evacuation/rescue parties. Am I the only one that's beginning to suspect these snipers aren't locals?

_Martyr_

09-01-2005, 20:03

People are sniping evacuation teams? WTF? Thats pretty sick! WHo do you think they are? :dizzy2:

Don Corleone

09-01-2005, 20:05

_Martyr_

09-01-2005, 20:11

Don Corleone

09-01-2005, 20:17

I dont know? It seems a little tinfoil-hattish to start pointing at terrorists... no? I would say more sick weirdos a la the Washington Snipers or something like that.

And what do you mean you havent been guarding your boarders well?? You obviously havent tried getting through US immigration recently... even on an Irish passport. Pretty extreme. :dizzy2:

I know it sounds tin-foil hattish. I just cannot come up with a good reason for large numbers of snipers. Two or three, sure, but from the sounds of it, they're popping up all over the city, and are pretty well coordinated. I just don't know what to think, and honestly, an Al Queda cell is less scary then believing large numbers of Americans could be so cruel and stupid.

And I said we weren't doing a good job of it, not that we weren't doing it at all. The appearance of doing something is much, much more important than doing what needs to be done, when it comes to this issue. The problem you're facing is that you're actually following our laws. The same laws that tell the TSA they have to search an elderly woman in a wheelchair at the exact same rate as a man flying in from Syria with no permanent address given upon arrival. If you want to get into the USA without any difficulty, simply fly to Mexico or Canada first, then hike/drive/boat on in.

Red Harvest

09-01-2005, 20:25

Well, call me a paranoid, crackpot psycho, but we haven't exactly guarded our borders very tightly for the past 4 years. I'm not claiming I have any proof or that my mind is made up or anything. I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a terrorist cell headed down to the Big Easy once a confirmed hit by Katrina was known.

If so, they have a rapid response efficiency that far outstrips our own nation's. Just getting to the levies during/after the storm would have been nearly impossible.Why send in terrorists to do what the storm would do for them? Doesn't make sense.

Those levies shouldn't have held. Katrina's drift to the East saved them, and that was in the last few hours when travel was not possible. I was SHOCKED (and relieved) to hear that they had not failed during the initial surge. I honestly believed New Orleans was going to completely flood during the storm, with about 100,000+ casualties, instead they were on the weak side of the storm.

We got lucky, the hit should have been much worse. You are being fooled by the focus on New Orleans. That is just part of the picture. Whole communities all around no longer exist. While many of the people survived there are no homes. Some of these were communities of 20,000+.

Ronin

09-01-2005, 20:41

I know it sounds tin-foil hattish. I just cannot come up with a good reason for large numbers of snipers. Two or three, sure, but from the sounds of it, they're popping up all over the city, and are pretty well coordinated. I just don't know what to think, and honestly, an Al Queda cell is less scary then believing large numbers of Americans could be so cruel and stupid.

there are stupid and cruel people in every society....if you put them in the right situation...pretty extreme conditions from the flooding, a certain sense of lawnlessness because of the evacuation of the town, and add to that large amounts of guns in the hands of the general population and the crackpots are gonna act up unfortunatelly.

Don Corleone

09-01-2005, 20:43

You're misunderstanding my point Red. I know things are as bad, if not worse East of New Orleans. Hell, I think they announced "Biloxi is no more". There's a lot of damage & casualties we haven't even begun to hear of yet. In this thread, I was speaking specificially about the snipers blocking the relief efforts. Who would do such a thing? Sadly and quite frighteningly, it seems that they're growing in number. As I said, maybe Al Queda is a boogeyman I'm using that's a lot less scary than the truth.

yesdachi

09-01-2005, 20:49

but we haven't exactly guarded our borders very tightly for the past 4 years.
Our borders have never been guarded tightly. If anything they have been guarded tighter over that past 4 years than ever before. ~:)

Don Corleone

09-01-2005, 20:52

yesdachi

09-01-2005, 21:47

Correct Yesdachi (cool name btw, took me a while to get it). We are doing better then we were before. But we are still a LONG, LONG way from good. They estimate that 35,000 illegal immigrants enter the country every month. Are you willing to bet your health & livelihood on the belief that America's enemies haven't figured this out yet?
I agree. We are nowhere near as secure as we sometimes think we are. I think that the Coast Guard is doing great things and on official byways (roads and airports) we are doing well also but there are soooo many other ways to get things or people into the country it really is scary. I wouldn’t be opposed if our war on terror included some of our military playing a larger role protecting our boarders. At least until a better system can be put in place.

Thanks about the name ~D

Papewaio

09-02-2005, 00:22

One: Most of the worlds governments have responded quicker then the USAs own congress.

Two: In a desparate situation people do desparate things. The snipers are in all likely hood local nutters not some sort of Al Qaeda cell. What next AQ under the beds?... making burqas out of bedsheets would be the logic behind that I suppose... so blue bedsheets you are a Taliban supporter?

Three: Get small boats in there and start shipping people out. If the UK can do that in WWII when Germany took over France, I'm sure the US can do it without the threat of enemy aircraft bearing down.

Four: No border patrol that I know of can stop hurricanes.

Five: Out of those 35,000 illegal immigrants a month a whole lot more are going to be rebuilding the city and its levies then taking pot shots at the locals.

ichi

09-02-2005, 00:32

Bush's idealogy is more important to him than any concern over people. He might act if it looks like his poll numbers are dropping. He'll need a lot of spinsters to blame this on Clinton.

ichi :bow:

PanzerJaeger

09-02-2005, 02:16

Bush's idealogy is more important to him than any concern over people. He might act if it looks like his poll numbers are dropping. He'll need a lot of spinsters to blame this on Clinton.

I tried out a lot of responses and the only one that works is: ~:rolleyes:

Aurelian

09-02-2005, 05:32

Wow.

It turns out that the real reason we haven't seen any international aid yet is that the US government has been turning down offers of help.

Apparently, Canada has a specialized urban search and rescue team all suited up and ready to go from Vancouver... and a 200 person Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/dart.html) ) ready to send. However, the Dept. of Homeland Security and the administration won't give them permission (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/31/235829/261) to deploy.

When Jamaica (http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20050901T000000-0500_87388_OBS_THOUSANDS_FEARED_DEAD__NEW_ORLEANS_TO_BE_ABANDONED.asp) offered help, it was told by the US embassy there that: "The United States Government is not yet requesting international assistance at this time."

Yeesh. Do you suppose it has sunk in yet that this is an actual emergency? You know, one that requires immediate action?

Papewaio

09-02-2005, 05:42

When people die because of lack of timely decisions it is either Hubris or Incompetence.

sharrukin

09-02-2005, 06:11

They are refusing Russian assistance as well.

https://img235.imageshack.us/img235/2508/peacedartpopupa2lg1rq.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

You might think something like this could be of use in the current situation!

Adrian II

09-02-2005, 08:14

https://img235.imageshack.us/img235/2508/peacedartpopupa2lg1rq.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
You might think something like this could be of use in the current situation!You mean the Toyota pickup in the background? That is the best car ever made, I bet it does better in these circumstances than many a military vehicle.

Red Harvest

09-02-2005, 08:33

I don't think they are ready for them yet. They seem to be having trouble getting people deployed, (ones that we already have available.) And the security situation in New Orleans makes the problem much greater. I think they are going to have to sort out the organizational and logistical mess before they can put outside help to good use.

The damage to the roads, and the nature of the terrain make it very difficult to get folks into many areas. That is partially why the assessment has been so slow and spotty. It shares this characteristic with the tsunami devastation of course (hopefully to a far lesser degree, but similar nonetheless.)