Certainly all unlucky and poor people left in New Orleans require and deserve all help they can get.
But:
Do we (as the international community) have to donate money and help the richest nation on earth, which just spent billions of dollars for a very questionable war, a nation which disregards the wellbeing of a big part of their citizens permanently, which didn’t do anything to prevent this foreseeable catastrophe, which cannot put together its own ressources to support its citizens, and in which even its own people cannot support each other or sabbotage the help? A nation, which is at the lowest rank of all industrial countries in terms of human aid (at least in percentage of GDP). A nation which associates very clearly all aid to foreign countries to the benefits it gains from it?
Aren’t there other people on the world which would need donation money much more necessary? This really keeps me thinking, so please give me your thoughts…
[quote=“Shiner”]Certainly all unlucky and poor people left in New Orleans require and deserve all help they can get.
But:
Do we (as the international community) have to donate money and help the richest nation on earth, which just spent billions of dollars for a very questionable war, a nation which disregards the wellbeing of a big part of their citizens permanently, which didn’t do anything to prevent this foreseeable catastrophe, which cannot put together its own ressources to support its citizens, and in which even its own people cannot support each other or sabbotage the help? A nation, which is at the lowest rank of all industrial countries in terms of human aid (at least in percentage of GDP). A nation which associates very clearly all aid to foreign countries to the benefits it gains from it?
Aren’t there other people on the world which would need donation money much more necessary? This really keeps me thinking, so please give me your thoughts…[/quote]
Let your conscience be your guide.
That’s part of the problem: It never hits the ones who messed it up. However, in a civilized country (as the US claims to be), you wouldn’t expect the people riot like this instead of helping each other…
[quote=“Shiner”]Certainly all unlucky and poor people left in New Orleans require and deserve all help they can get.
But:
Do we (as the international community) have to donate money and help the richest nation on earth, which just spent billions of dollars for a very questionable war, a nation which disregards the wellbeing of a big part of their citizens permanently, which didn’t do anything to prevent this foreseeable catastrophe, which cannot put together its own ressources to support its citizens, and in which even its own people cannot support each other or sabbotage the help? A nation, which is at the lowest rank of all industrial countries in terms of human aid (at least in percentage of GDP). A nation which associates very clearly all aid to foreign countries to the benefits it gains from it?
Aren’t there other people on the world which would need donation money much more necessary? This really keeps me thinking, so please give me your thoughts…[/quote]
If you don’t like the people or the country, fine, that’s your right.
But there are many animals that need help in the disaster area. How about a donation to the Humane Society’s disaster relief fund?
I think you misunderstand me. I like the country and also the people (especially in the southern states), I just doubt to donate to people, which could be easily (and should be) helped by their ‘freedom supporting’ government, instead of spending it to people which doesn’t have the luck of such an ‘supportive’ government.
Spending money on animals instead you can’t be serious![/quote]
This is a good question. There are plenty of other regions around the world where immediate assistance is needed. So what do you do? Spread your donations around - some to Katrina victims, some to Niger, and so on.
The world’s richest nation can look after itself. They don’t need my money.
They’ve already allocated US$10,500,000,000 in aid, and that’s before they’ve even started to work out how much more they’ll need in total. National pride is at stake, and they’ll spend whatever they need to spend to show the world that America can take care of itself.
That’s on top of the estimated US$25,000,000,000 in insurance claims that will be funded through increased premiums affecting everybody.
Will any of this money get to the poor people who need it most? The ones who may not have been able to afford insurance. If not then the problem lies with the way the US system treats its citizens, not with our lack of donations. Why should we subsidise their system by giving our money to help their people when they have the money to do it themselves?
Hopefully the clean-up will create jobs for the poor, at least temporarily. Maybe someone way up high will use this opportunity to try and make the New New Orleans a nicer place to live if you don’t happen to have enough money. Whatever they choose, it’s America’s problem not ours.
Problem is that the wankers that run that country would much rather piss money off in foreign wars and enriching the coffers of the top 0.5% of the population than looking after their own people.
So should we donate money to help America’s needy? Sure - becuase they’re ratbag government isn’t going to.
No attempt being made at a p*ssing contest.
Just an observation that the disaster in New Orleans is being used as just another excuse for bashing the USA and the Bush admin.
The USA military had the first responders on the Tsunami scene. The USA is documented time and again as being on the international disaster scene where ever and when ever they occur.
If someone wishes to ties their money to their politics that certainly is their priveledge. And vice versa.
The premise…[quote]Do we (as the international community) have to donate money and help the richest nation on earth, which just spent billions of dollars for a very questionable war, a nation which disregards the wellbeing of a big part of their citizens permanently, which didn’t do anything to prevent this foreseeable catastrophe, which cannot put together its own ressources to support its citizens …[/quote] is faulty from the start and nothing more than another method of ego-stroking for those who deem themselves better/more enlightened and/or above those who would deign to support the current international policies of this administration. Or anuthing smacking of Republican/conservative.
And comments such as…[quote]"Problem is that the wankers that run that country would much rather piss money off in foreign wars and enriching the coffers of the top 0.5% of the population than looking after their own people.
So should we donate money to help America’s needy? Sure - becuase they’re ratbag government isn’t going to."[/quote]
highlight what I illustrate. Certainly you are free to think, say and post whatever you’re belifs are. Within the rules of the forum;however in this same community you should expect that others will have views in contrast to those you espouse and the ability to post those views when and where the subject presents itself.
Isnt that what…[i]diversity[/i] is all about?
So if giving money to those suffering under such a “ratbag government” is what you deem apropriate - give away.
And if I question the characterizations you post about the gov’t and it policies…learn to love it.
The U.S. might be a rich nation, but it usually takes a long time to get things back to normal. Right now aid goes to just keeping poorer people alive. However, there are others who also need to get there lives back. For example, if you know people with family or friends in New Orleans you could give money to them directly and ask them to use it to help themselves, or to donate it to their community school.
Or, once things start getting past the basic clean-up stage you could donate money to a museum that supports or showcases something that you feel strongly about. To donate money like could also indirectly help the government, because that leaves fewer things for them to have to fix.
And about the animals…there will always be people caring about other people. If a few (and it is probably a minority) wants to help out some animals, why not. If you don’t like it, don’t donate to that cause. However, every animal saved is also one dead carcass that will not be rotting and polluting the water. To find that a beloved pet has been saved could also help to uplift the spirit of a person that has just about lost everything. And once again, it is another cost then that the government doesn’t have to take care of. And for me, the life of a cat is worth just as much as that of a person.
Yes and no. Donating should be something you’re doing all the time (I think). “Big” disasters get get more TV time, but I’m pretty sure that since the hurricane hit more people have starved to death world wide.
Buying a few beers would mean tax money that goes to the Taiwan govermnet and I’m sure a small portion of it would go to something that’s better than bad .
[quote=“Shiner”]
Do we (as the international community) have to donate money and help the richest nation on earth, which just spent billions of dollars for a very questionable war, a nation which disregards the wellbeing of a big part of their citizens permanently, which didn’t do anything to prevent this foreseeable catastrophe, which cannot put together its own ressources to support its citizens, and in which even its own people cannot support each other or sabbotage the help? A nation, which is at the lowest rank of all industrial countries in terms of human aid (at least in percentage of GDP). A nation which associates very clearly all aid to foreign countries to the benefits it gains from it?
Aren’t there other people on the world which would need donation money much more necessary? This really keeps me thinking, so please give me your thoughts…[/quote]
I’ll tell you what. Repay the US all the trillions of dollars in aid it has provided to the “international community” starting with the First World War…and then pissoff. :raspberry:
Oooh. Bitchy. Back to the old “we won the war” routine I see. :roll"
I think the US government as a whole would be too arrogant to accept any aid. The government, however, is not the people. It would be nice to see other countries offering aid as a show of support, even if aid isn’t accepted.
It’s the thought that counts.
It would be pretty strange if they weren’t, seeing as the US Pacific fleet is in the area protecting it’s own interests. I’m not trying to bash the US here, but just looking at things objectively.
Some lady from CNN asked a dude from, I think, the UN or something what the international community would do in terms of aid. He said something to the effect of aid is available, but can not be given unless asked for. She seemed quite agitated when interviewing this guy and interrupted him several times. That was about two days ago, I think.
Does anybody know who the people involved in this interview were?
I thought about your question for a while. Then I stopped.
Yes, I would and should donate. Why? Because why should the people of the USA be punished just because I don’t like the government? (Hypothetically speaking. I care not one bit for any politics.)
Think about it, if you have the resources to help these people, would you say no because I don’t like Bush? Are you asking from a political point of view? Did this question spill out of the IP? Should I stuff it back?
And yes, some people might want to donate money to animals too. People can donate to whoever the heck and whatever the heck they want. Why do you mock that?
.