[Troll]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
And I (and countless other citizens of the US) contrbuted far more than $40. We think for ourselves and make our own contributions, not relying on our gov't. You guys should try it some time.

Here's what gets me. Not that Americans are stingy. I couldn't care less how little or how much you give. Every little bit counts. Every cent is useful and no one expects all countries to give the same.

But that people like you go around proclaiming that you give more than anyone else because in fact the rest of don't make private donations the way you do. You insist on perpetuating the myth that people in other countries don't give as much money through private donations as Americans do. I'd quite happily stay out of this debate but for this arrogance and this insistence on the part of people like you to belittle the contribution of others. What you are saying is complete nonsense. I've shown you the figures for the tsunamis. Americans give less period. The US government gives less and private individuals give less. Norwegians give around 40 times more in private donations than Americans do and the total of private donations by English people is more than those from Americans despite the fact that their population is 5 times smaller. That doesn't make them heroes, but then they aren't proclaiming themselves world champions in private donations, are they?

I repeat that the fact that America gives less doesn't matter. The fact that you give is amazing on its own and for me it's quite natural that Norwegians can afford more than the US particularly given the state of the Dollar at the moment. But it really gets me this arrogance to keep saying others only appear generous and don't give out of their own pockets like Americans do. At this point, everyone can do more, especially our governments.

[ThinkInsane]

Let me make sure I understand. The whole point is to throw as much money as possible, regardless of what is actually needed for the initial response, without taking any time to actually figure out what will actually be needed in the long term? Basically, this is just a big pissing match so we all can pat ourselves on the back and say "my country gave the most"? How very ****ing humanitarian. We should all be proud.

Here�s something to keep in mind while you are squabbling over which country gave the most: 150,000 people are dead. Countless others have lost everything they own. Entire countries have been devastated. I hate to point out the obvious like that, but it seems some of you have lost site of what is really important here. Don�t worry, your old buddy TI is here to help you keep what really matter in perspective; a lot of you are acting like ****ing assholes, not the evolved, socially conscious, intelligent human beings you claim to be. I only hope that when disaster hits your neck of the woods, people don�t sit around bitching and bickering, but act with goodness and decency to help. Not that a lot of you deserve such consideration after the way you�ve behaved in here.

[BRussell]

I'm not sure what you expect, thinkinsane. This is a forum for political debate. That's what we're here for. You obviously don't like it. Fine, lots of people hate politics and political debate. But why do you come here? Why do you moderate this forum?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, because I condemned that anti-French agenda a couple of pages ago in my first post in this revolting thread:

As a matter of fact, this was in response to your post. Nice to see you didn't bother reading it.

I actually responded to it, IIRC.

And yes, I saw that post above as ironic in the context of this thread in general.

I apologize if I ended up misrepresenting your standpoint.

-s*

[Troll]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Let me make sure I understand. The whole point is to throw as much money as possible, regardless of what is actually needed for the initial response, without taking any time to actually figure out what will actually be needed in the long term?

Sri Lanka today announced that cleaning up the debris will cost $1.4Bn. Just cleaning up the debris in Sri Lanka alone. Never mind Aceh. Debris that contain perhaps thousands of bodies. There's $2Bn in the kitty for the whole region at the moment. Look at the pictures. Who really thinks that's $2Bn is going to be anywhere near enough. Who thinks 5, 10 times that amount is going to be enough. $13Bn was probably a realistic figure for the Florida hurricanes even with private insurance contributing. Powell has confirmed what others have said. This is unlike any disaster anyone has ever seen. There is absolutely no question that they need more money.

We don't have time to sit around debating whether they have enough or not and what might be needed in the long term. 5 million people stand to die of disease while you sit around working out how much they need and who should give how much. Besides, in 2 months time pockets will be closed. If there's too much after all is said and done (which is more than unlikely), then use it for something else. Put it into the tsunami warning system, or give it to the AIDS victims who still haven't received a cent of Bush's promised Billions, for example.

[SimpleLife]

Still, a lot of that money will go in the drains of bad written contratcs, repossessions, new arguments over land use, abuse from opportunists from anywhere.

It is still not clear how everyone will really benefit from all this cashflow. Don't get me wrong: I think we need t provide, but at the same time, I really wonder how this money will be really given, managed, distributed, and how it will really benefit the people whom will need it most.

We can compete as much as we want about who gives the most and whom has the most capacity to provide, but in the end, uncertainties about the future abound. The consequences of this tragedy will cross several generations in countries plagued by undescribable social issues, countries benefitting from tourism of richer countries with nvery small profit for the overall populations.

Nothing is written, all is to be done, and no one really knows what it will be like imho.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I'm not sure what you expect, thinkinsane. This is a forum for political debate. That's what we're here for. You obviously don't like it. Fine, lots of people hate politics and political debate. But why do you come here? Why do you moderate this forum?

What I expect is very simple. I expect people to be decent, and not use a huge human tragedy to further their own ridiculous little stereotypes and personal agendas. This is not the time to bicker over trivial things like who gave the most. What purpose does that serve? There will be plenty of time for that when people are kept from starving to death, have adequate shelter and medicine, and clean drinking water. Why is that so hard to understand? If people really need to measure their johnsons so bad, there are plenty of other benchmarks to use. To use something like this to do it is absolutely disgusting and repellant. You are a bright and reasonable guy; I can't imagine that you are really too happy with the responses of some people around here. I mean seriously, you didn't have a problem with the asshole in Mastrap's aid thread that said "Who cares about 70,000 dead, in that part of the world they'll replace them in no time".

As for the political forum, it�s true that I don't have a lot of use for it, and even less for some of our members. People in here tend to be nasty, hypocritical, assholes. Of course, I don't know these people personally, but by reading some of the posts in here, I have no trouble labeling them as such. Maybe I should have done what so many other decent contributing members did: leave when this place started going down the toilet.

Troll, I have no idea how much money is enough. But it seems to me that there is probably enough to take care of the most immediate concerns. These people need to be taken care of. And given that NGO's are starting to turn away donations, I think those concerns are more than likely being met, or are at least capable of being met. That should be the first and foremost concern. Everything else is secondary, in my opinion. One that is accomplished, and they have an idea of what needs to be done, priorities set, disburse the rest as needed. Under the best of circumstances, I feel a 'blank check' policy is a bad policy. I want the human being that have lost everything taken care of. Rebuilding hotels can come later.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by yakkiebah:
a billion Australian dollars (US$764.5 million)

This is still good news, but don't forget the fine print:

The aid package will be made up of $A500 million in grants and $A500 million in concessional loans.

Personally, now that it is pretty obvious that we have started talking about long term reconstruction and development, not emergency relief I would prefer to see the talk shift to investment, not loans that will in the long run just increase third world debt.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Troll:
Here's what gets me. Not that Americans are stingy. I couldn't care less how little or how much you give. Every little bit counts. Every cent is useful and no one expects all countries to give the same.

But that people like you go around proclaiming that you give more than anyone else because in fact the rest of don't make private donations the way you do. You insist on perpetuating the myth that people in other countries don't give as much money through private donations as Americans do. I'd quite happily stay out of this debate but for this arrogance and this insistence on the part of people like you to belittle the contribution of others. What you are saying is complete nonsense. I've shown you the figures for the tsunamis. Americans give less period. The US government gives less and private individuals give less. Norwegians give around 40 times more in private donations than Americans do and the total of private donations by English people is more than those from Americans despite the fact that their population is 5 times smaller. That doesn't make them heroes, but then they aren't proclaiming themselves world champions in private donations, are they?

I repeat that the fact that America gives less doesn't matter. The fact that you give is amazing on its own and for me it's quite natural that Norwegians can afford more than the US particularly given the state of the Dollar at the moment. But it really gets me this arrogance to keep saying others only appear generous and don't give out of their own pockets like Americans do. At this point, everyone can do more, especially our governments.

You have no idea what US citizens have privately donated (all the estimates I've seen vary greatly), and honestly, it's none of your business. All you should be focusing on is what YOU are doing to help those people. Tighten your belt, get out your checkbook, and use your writing hand for something other than typing up poison pen messages to those who are doing what they can, ie. put your money where your mouth is.

[jbartone]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Yep. The Australian government has taken $40AUD from each Australian and given it to the nations affected, whereas the US has only taken $1USD (actually closer to $1.30USD) from each American for the same. Meanwhile, Americans have so far voluntarily given another $200 million USD without being forced.

And Australians have given approx another $AU 100 million without being forced. But honestly, I don't know why we're quibbling over this.

Anyways, I want to give praise to the brave souls of the ADF and especially USAID who seem to be doing most of the work on the ground in Indonesia (while the UN sit on their hands and take all the credit)! Everyone seems to overlook the physical task of distributing the aid, and focus only on the money.

[Kilbey]

G.W. Bush is donating US$10,000 himself.

He is challenging the Houston, Texas area residents to donate one hundred million US dollars privately.

Also, Dow Chemical has donated 5 million and is matching workers donations. Wal-Mart has donated one million along with General electric chipping in a million also.

I hope more people and companies give as they are able.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
G.W. Bush is donating US$10,000 himself.

Thank you, Mr. Bush.

[badidea]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
G.W. Bush is donating US$10,000 himself.

Even less than MacNStein...

So far Michael Schumacker has the biggest penis!

[Troll]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
You have no idea what US citizens have privately donated (all the estimates I've seen vary greatly), and honestly, it's none of your business. All you should be focusing on is what YOU are doing to help those people. Tighten your belt, get out your checkbook, and use your writing hand for something other than typing up poison pen messages to those who are doing what they can, ie. put your money where your mouth is.

If no one has any idea how much US citizens have given, then where do people get off saying that US citizens donate more privately than anyone else?

There are figures available and they suggest that America does not give any more than anyone else. People like Carol Adelman are the ones turning this into a contest by beating their chests and declaring America world champion donators. I've made my point enough times for you to understand. I repeat that I don't care how much America gives. I hope they give as much as they can but it isn't a competition. I do care that certain people feel obliged to flaunt their donations and put other people's donations down. If people like Adelman want to put America's johnson on the block and claim it to be the biggest, bigger than the weeny European johnson, then I feel fully entitled to say Norway's is bigger and I do not find that even mildly disgusting. Wanna be the biggest? Contribute more than anyone else otherwise stfu.

You have no idea how much I've given or what I might be doing for these people. And I'm not about to start whipping out my johnson here. I don't think my contribution has any bearing on me saying these people don't have enough.

As for the point about NGO's turning donations away, you may have noticed that the UN is calling for more money, the Red Cross is calling for more money. The only NGO I know that is turning down donations is Medecins sans Frontiers. MSF has a particular task there. They primarily deal with medical treatment. They feel that they have sufficient funding for their task and feel that they should divert some of the donations being made to them to other tasks. I personally think they've made a mistake but having met with some people from MSF it is true that their constitution creates peculiar problems for them. The UN wants $1Bn immediately. That's half of what's been collected. I don't know how much will be needed, but I can do simple math. Sri Lanka says it needs more than that just to clear the debris (including bodies which cause disease) and there's only $2Bn in the kitty. It seems clear to me that more money is needed. Real money, not pledges from governments with histories of not delivering.

[SubGeniux]

Looks like Bush's "coalition" has fallen apart.

" Secretary of State Colin Powell said the group - which includes India, Australia and Japan - had served its purpose and would now work with the UN."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/4149405.stm

[SubGeniux]

oops, wrong place.

[Troll]

The EU has now increased its pledge to $461m. Germany's pledge is up to $674m. EU and EU government pledges combined now exceed $2Bn!

Mozambique has donated $100,000!! This, together with the Beslan donation are really amazing. Mozambicans that are still battling to clear mines that are the legacy of the cold war, still battling to recover from massive floods a few years back, still langouring in the top 10 of poor countries on the planet and battling against HIV/AIDS nevertheless find $100,000 for people on the other side of the planet! Amazing.

[jbartone]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
Looks like Bush's "coalition" has fallen apart.

" Secretary of State Colin Powell said the group - which includes India, Australia and Japan - had served its purpose and would now work with the UN."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/4149405.stm

It has served it's purpose, The US and Australia were already starting an aid distribution effort on December 27th, while the UN was still sitting on it's hands.

[Troll]

Originally posted by jbartone:
It has served it's purpose, The US and Australia were already starting an aid distribution effort on December 27th, while the UN was still sitting on it's hands.

You sure of your dates?

I distinctly remember seeing UNICEF emergency packs being distributed on the 26th and I don't recall the US even being in the area on the 27th. Besides, the coalition wasn't announced until later.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
You sure of your dates?

I distinctly remember seeing UNICEF emergency packs being distributed on the 26th and I don't recall the US even being in the area on the 27th.

This is via Instapundit, and is from the New Zealand Business Review. I'm not from New Zealand, so I can't comment on the source.

TSUNAMI -- Delivering aid stymies UN
Francis Till

While the United Nations appears to be adept at having meetings, the organisation is hopeless on the ground say career foreign service officers in tsunami-affected regions.

As news media are increasingly dominated by footage of US, Australian and regional military forces actually delivering aid to stricken survivors of the Boxing Day tsunami, UN officials are carping about housing in major cities far removed from the front lines and passing around elaborate business cards.

Organising to organise seems to be the word of the day for the UN, say career US foreign service officers anonymously, who fault the international organisation for taking credit where none is due and proving hopeless at actually delivering relief.

You can read the rest
here

Other sources I have seen suggest the same thing. The military response of the Core Group -- U.S., India, Australia, and Japan, was much faster and more immediately effective than the UN response. Militaries are simply better organized, and better equipped to act first, and hold meetings later. The U.N., as you often point out, is only an umbrella organization. It needs member states to act. As is often the case, if you bypass the middleman, you speed results.

By the way, National Public Radio this morning reported that the larger cargo helicopters that we discussed a couple of days ago have now arrived and are augmenting the smaller ones that came with the U.S.S. Lincoln. The larger helicopters were with the Marine Expeditionary Force that sailed from Hong Kong.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by badidea:
Even less than MacNStein...

So far Michael Schumacker has the biggest penis!

Maybe I have more $ than he does?

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Other sources I have seen suggest the same thing. The military response of the Core Group -- U.S., India, Australia, and Japan, was much faster and more immediately effective than the UN response. Militaries are simply better organized, and better equipped to act first, and hold meetings later. The U.N., as you often point out, is only an umbrella organization. It needs member states to act. As is often the case, if you bypass the middleman, you speed results.

No, the UN does not need member states to react to disasters. It has dedicated branches that react immediately. This is not the same as peacekeeping.

UNICEF, the UNHCR, the UNWFP all reacted WAY before any foreign military was anywhere near the scene. NGO's, especially UN and UN affiliated NGO's are carrying this relief effort. The US and Australia together with all of the other countries that have aircraft and military and government personnel in the area are making a large contribution, but the NGO's were the first on the scene by a long shot. I checked the dates and jbartone is wrong.

The Coalition hadn't been announced on 27 December 2004 and US helicopters dropped aid for the first time on 1 January 2005. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Dec31.html)

UN organisations were delivering aid on the 26th and the 27th of December. The UNHCR had established refugee camps by the night of 26th. Looking at UNICEF alone, it is committed to responding to an emergency within 48 hours. Here's what they had achieved 48 hours after the earthquake:

A 45-ton shipment carrying primarily water-related supplies, emergency health kits, school supplies and recreation kits for children had been sent from Europe. It arrived in Indonesia on the 30th. 20 tons of tarpaulins and tents was flown out of Belgium for distribution across the region.

Sri Lanka - more than 30,000 blankets and sleeping mats as well as T-shirts and other articles of clothing from local emergency stocks had been distributed. 100 school in a box kits had gone out.

India - 50 water tanks delivered to the southern state of Tamil Nadu, hundreds of thousands of water purification tablets, 1,600 community water tanks, 200,000 sachets of oral rehydration salts, medical supplies sufficient to serve 30 health centres, and 30,000 blankets shipped.

Indonesia - UNICEF was part of a larger UN assessment team that was already in Aceh province on the 28th. They had already determined the extent of the medical facilities left in tact noting that only 2 ambulances remained. Two planes with 42 tonnes of supplies, including 150,000 oral rehydration salts for sick children had delivered their cargo.

Somalia - a UNICEF team was assessing the affected areas with local authorities and had delivered oral rehydration salts, chlorine powder and essential drugs.

Maldives - water purification supplies, food, clothing for children, shelter supplies, and other basics delivered.

Bangladesh, and Myanmar - supportinggovernment-led efforts to meet localized needs.

[SimeyTheLimey]

The problem is the UN has been taking credit for activities that in fact were being carried out by the military of the Core Group. That is one of the major criticisms.

In any case, I think you can agree that the UN did not have a large fleet of helicopters in the region before the military forces got there. Helicopters don't have intercontinental range. They have to be brought there. Some can be transported in transport aircraft, but that requires special helicopters and very large transport aircraft. Or ships, of course. In other words, those aircraft carriers you dismiss.

Unless you are arguing that the UN knew in advance that the Tsunami was coming, I find it very hard to accept claims that they got heavy equipment to the region before the major military powers who already operated nearby.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
Looks like Bush's "coalition" has fallen apart.

" Secretary of State Colin Powell said the group - which includes India, Australia and Japan - had served its purpose and would now work with the UN."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/4149405.stm

What do you mean? The purpose of the coalition was to act while the UN sat around and talked. Now that the UN has progressed to action, the purpose of the coalition is in fact served, and so it is now redundant.

[jbartone]

I don't know about the US, but Australian aid distribution started on the 27th.


Humanitarian aid being prepared for distribution throughout Malaysia after EarthQuake and Tidal Wave. (Date taken: 27 December 2004)

[Troll]

Originally posted by jbartone:
I don't know about the US, but Australian aid distribution started on the 27th.

If you don't know about the US then why did you say that their military forces reacted quicker than the UN? That photo of yours doesn't look like grass roots distribution to me. Looks like a warehous in Australia. The quote even says "being prepared for distribution".

The Australians did start flying supplies to the region quite quickly but the on the ground aid all came from UN personnel and NGO's. Who do you think got the stuff from the airport to the people that needed it. Australia only has 100 troops in Indonesia - the task force is only due to arrive by ship mid January.

It completely normal that the UN was first because the UN has a permanent presence in each of these countries with staff dedicated to responding to this sort of thing. It's simply untrue that any military has made a more significant contribution to this than the UN.

As for the USA,

Although the United States was not among the first at the scene after last week's natural disaster thousands of miles from American shores ...

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:gsp4Hjnu864J:http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...ir+force&hl=en

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The problem is the UN has been taking credit for activities that in fact were being carried out by the military of the Core Group. That is one of the major criticisms.

I'd like to read some of that criticism. I haven't heard anyone else saying that.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
In any case, I think you can agree that the UN did not have a large fleet of helicopters in the region before the military forces got there. Helicopters don't have intercontinental range. They have to be brought there. Some can be transported in transport aircraft, but that requires special helicopters and very large transport aircraft. Or ships, of course. In other words, those aircraft carriers you dismiss.

Unless you are arguing that the UN knew in advance that the Tsunami was coming, I find it very hard to accept claims that they got heavy equipment to the region before the major military powers who already operated nearby.

Why do you need helicopters to deliver heavy equipment to the region? Galle has a working port thanks to the Indian Army. Trucks can drive all over Sri Lanka and Thailand. UN planes had landed in Banda Aceh long before the US started helicoptering the aid out of there to the provinces. How do you think the aid got to Banda Aceh in the first place? Do you think the US brought its own aid along? The UN had access to Indonesian, Indian, Thai and Sri Lankan helicopters that were already in the area. Malaysia, for example, started airlifting people out of Thailand almost immediately. A friend of mine was airlifted out (in a helicopter) by the Red Cross on 27 December and flown to Hong Kong by the Malaysians.

Seriously, I think you are way, way, way ovestating the US's role in this so far. They're playing a valuable role and in Aceh it may even be a key role, but there's stuff happening all over the region, all the way to Africa. The only groups acting in evey territory affected are the UN and NGO's.

Besides, the allegation was that "the US and Australia were already starting an aid distribution effort on December 27th, while the UN was still sitting on it's hands". That is patently untrue.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
I'd like to read some of that criticism. I haven't heard anyone else saying that.

I already gave you at least one link a couple of posts ago.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Eeesh. Let this thread die.
Everyone, wherever they are from, who is actually over there lending a hand and helping people, they deserve much acclamation.

To everyone sitting on their thumbs somewhere else, griping about and dick measuring over the relief efforts of others- get another hobby already.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Troll:
Why do you need helicopters to deliver heavy equipment to the region? Galle has a working port thanks to the Indian Army.

Indeed, and that port can do much for the region it's in. But the tsunami didn't just effect the immediate vicinity of Galle; there are other places which don't have working ports.

Trucks can drive all over Sri Lanka and Thailand.

Not "all over". Not by a long shot. Should we only be serving the needs of those with easy road access, and let the others rot while the roads are cleared? Of course not.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Indeed, and that port can do much for the region it's in. But the tsunami didn't just effect the immediate vicinity of Galle; there are other places which don't have working ports.

Not "all over". Not by a long shot. Should we only be serving the needs of those with easy road access, and let the others rot while the roads are cleared? Of course not.

The point is that the US is supplying helicopters to ONE province in ONE country affected by this disaster. That's great and I'm very happy that the US is doing that, but it is simply not true that the US and Australian armies have done more than anyone else. I don't understand this insistence by certain people to keep blowing their horns. "Europeans only seem more generous but Americans are the champions in private donations. The UN is sitting on its hands while the US and Australia save the day." What good does this bragging serve even if it were based on fact?

The Indian and Indonesian armies have done more than any foreign forces and neither of them have done as much as NGO's. The short-lived "Coalition" did not save the day. The day has yet to be saved and if it is it will be thanks to everyone especially those NGO's who were dishing out aid while certain leaders holidayyed.

[IceBreaker]

Ok.....

I started this discussion topic as a joke.



To seriously complain about any country's contribution for this horrendous event
is insane.


Moderators, please lock this thread.

I mean really to seriously attack anyone for giving is pathetic.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Troll:
What good does this bragging serve even if it were based on fact?

About as much as constantly saying how much more the UN, NGO's and everyone else involved has done compared to the US. It's pointless, and yet everyday, this thread gets longer and longer with exactly that. You are doing the exact sam thing you are accusing others of doing. If it's truly not important, let it go.

I think I've made my opinion fairly well known about how disgusting I find this whole pissing match.

[Troll]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
About as much as constantly saying how much more the UN, NGO's and everyone else involved has done compared to the US. It's pointless, and yet everyday, this thread gets longer and longer with exactly that. You are doing the exact sam thing you are accusing others of doing. If it's truly not important, let it go.

I think I've made my opinion fairly well known about how disgusting I find this whole pissing match.

I'll tell you what my problem is. When people say in the NYT that "The US does more than anyone else and that Europeans only seem generous." When people respond to allegations of stinginess by saying, "We give in other ways such as through private donations or by sending our troops to run the show and we actually do more than anyone else," a lot of Americans will believe the lies and think, "We've done enough, more than anyone else, we don't need to do more." I mean who in their right minds would continue giving if they thought that enough had been given and that their country had given the lion's share?

In that context, you can't just shut up and let it stand. Because people reading that trash will believe it and stop giving. People need to realise that not enough is being done for these people and that everyone can do more. We need to sustain the donations for as long as we can and if that means telling people that they aren't doing enough, I think that needs to be done ... even if you find that distasteful. Americans can afford to give more. They can afford to give at least as much as Europeans have and Europeans themselves can afford to give more. If people are not giving because they are relying on disinformation that says certain countries have done enough, then I think there is value in pointing out how false that is. Whilst I think the world has reacted well overall to this disaster (and I wish they would react this way to HIV/AIDS or Mozambican floods or Darfur), I don't think it serves any positive purpose to suggest that any one country is doing more than any other.

I also think it is true that individuals through NGOs and in their own private capacities have had the greatest impact on the response to this disaster. NGOs should get the nobel prize this year IMHO. I think that the only truly global response to this global disaster has come from NGOs. That highlights the trend towards increasingly important role for NGOs despite recent attempts to make them irrelevant. This development no doubt perturbs people like Simey who want to concentrate power back in the hands of the state, but I think the evidence is overwhelming in this case. Without the NGOs that got involved immediately in helping people, collecting money etc., SE Asia would probably already be a much worse disaster than it is. Which is not to say that the NGOs can do their work without state help, of course. States are still eminently relevant.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:


This development no doubt perturbs people like Simey who want to concentrate power back in the hands of the state,

I do? That's a new one.

[Spheric Harlot]

nm

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by IceBreaker:
Moderators, please lock this thread.

I mean really to seriously attack anyone for giving is pathetic.

+1

[jbartone]

I don't know if this link has been posted yet:

http://diplomadic.blogspot.com

It's a great read, shows how inefficient the UN really is. Especially this article: http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/2005/...ch-get-it.html

[Troll]

Originally posted by jbartone:
I don't know if this link has been posted yet:

http://diplomadic.blogspot.com

It's a great read, shows how inefficient the UN really is. Especially this article: http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/2005/...ch-get-it.html

From that site: "Well, dear friends, we're now into the tenth day of the tsunami crisis and in this battered corner of Asia, the UN is nowhere to be seen." What battered corner of Asia? Jakarta is not a battered corner of Asia. And if these bloggers are doing so much for the quake, how come they find time and internet connections in their 16 hour days to post this drivel?

The US isn't doing any aid supply to Jakarta either. Banda Aceh in Indonesia is the only place that the US and Australia are active and it's the only place that they mention in the blog so I assume we're talking about a diplomat posting from Jakarta about stuff happening in a region that journalists don't even visit. And he feels qualified to say who is and isn't there!

Apparently on 5 January, the UN is "nowhere to be seen" in Banda Aceh. That's an interesting interpretation and precisely the kind of comment I was referring to when I criticised people for lying about who is doing what - lauding the US and Australia as saving the day while the UN does nothing. I wonder who is running the refugee center in Banda Aceh if not UNICEF, the World Health Organisation and the UNHCR. I wonder who distributed aid in the week before the US helicopters started operating if not the UN. I wonder who supplied the aid that the US helicopters distributed when they finally got involved. I wonder who provided the doctors that helicopters delivered the injured to. I wonder who landed the first foreign plane on the Banda Aceh airport.

Here's a picture of the head of UNICEF in the UN-run refugee center in Banda Aceh on 4 January 2005. She doesn't look invisible to me.


Recognise the blue colour in this photograph from Banda Aceh refugee camp?


It might interest you to know that the UN has been dealing with Aceh refugees for years running refugee camps in Malaysia for people fleeing the conflict there and conducting all kinds of relief operation in the war torn area. So in fact the UN was involved in Aceh long before the tsunamis. That's also why they were able to react and it's also why the UN lost some of its own people in Aceh.

It's clear from reading other of the blogs on that website that these guys have an anti-Europe, anti-UN, pro US, pro Bush, pro Australia agenda. Aceh is not the only region affected by the tsunami nor is it the place that is the most at risk nor is it a place where anyone can be most effective at this point. The UN is NOT doing nothing in Aceh.

Of course, there is a bureaucratic side to the UN. Just as there is in any government and it is centred in places like Jakarta where people push paper (and write meaningless blogs) rather than do something about the problem. On the ground, the UN has done a sterling job by most accounts and if you go back and look at the pictures that came out in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, you'll see nothing by Medecins sans Frontieres, UNICEF, the WHO and other NGOs doing the work. Heck, the Rainbow Warrior got to Aceh before the first US heliopter landed there (http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...item_id=700819)

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Troll:
Heck, the Rainbow Warrior got to Aceh before the first US heliopter landed there (http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...item_id=700819)

The right-wing liars in this thread pwn3d by GREENPEACE!?




And no, this thread is not funny.

[villalobos]

One video to try to remember what this is all about after all..... I am afraid people got a little bit side tracked in this thread....

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapc...ami/index.html

You people should be ashamed.