I’m sorry, but I think the world has responded pretty positively to this disaster, rushing in supplies and funds, as well as other assistance. I’m pretty impressed to be honest by both Europe and America’s response, as well as by that of the rest of the world.
And the aid they have received so far is just the tip of the iceberg…just what could be gotten there fast. Is it everything that could humanly be done? No, probably not. But people (and nations) do the best they can. Its not like there was any warming to get the logistics of massive aid set up to deliver to the region…you know?
As to the comparison between this disaster and 9/11…well, that dead horse has been beaten to death in this thread. It was a stupid assertion to even try and compare the two…as well as to compare the aid sent INTERNALLY by the US people in time of attack to whats sent EXTERNALLY world wide in time of crisis. Two completely different situations.
I work in an Oxfam bookshop and in just four hours this morning we had people walk in off the street and donate nearly £500 . The smallest gift was £5 and the largest £100. People are very generous. The good news is that, for all the tax-paying contributors, we can claim back another 28% from the government via* Gift Aid*.
I did see an interesting news story (on the BBC IIRC) that the insurance industry is saying that this disaster will be very small in comparision to 9/11 for them. 9/11 was a little more expensive than Hurricane Andrew with each near 20 billion but this will only set the insurance industry back around 100 million. People and buildings in that part of the world are not as heavily insured as in the US and rebuiding will be less expensive there. It is essentially a human tradgedy and dollars don’t do much right now. Goods, like bottled water and food are what is necessary, the money will be more needed down the road during the rebuilding.
Because the 3,000 died due to a massive failure on the part of the then-existing government structure to prevent such an act from occurring, and prevent an international terror organization from growing, organizing and ilfiltrating to the point that the attack was even feasible. There was no reason not to think that Al Qaeda was capable of delivering another such blow in short order, and it required a massive multifaceted effort to restructure ourselves and dimantle our enemies.
That is simply not comparable to the worst earthquake in 40 years, which occurred in a region of the world where such an event was not expected to happen but once in 700 years. The restructuring needed there consists of setting up what amounts to a glorified phone tree.
They are not even finished assessing the extent of the damage. How much money is needed. Where is it needed? What does it need to be spent on? It’s far too soon to accuse anyone of not doing enough, because we don’t even know exactly what needs to be done.
Neither here nor there to the main claim of the OP, but there’s an unconfirmed report from Indonesia that 300,000 dead might be an underestimate. No other words to describe this horror here.
it is, so no need for context. all i’m saying is that the two events are comparable (in that sense). while i agree with most that have been said about the reasons for a small starting amount, the same could be said for the governments of other countries who pledged relatively bigger amounts and resources. as someone else said, more were spent on bush’s party celebration or somesort than the initial amount pledged.
Maybe I’m straying into pit territory, but I found the OP’s premise to be, putting it kindly, beyond the pale. It’s an insult to everyone of good will who is making some sort of gesture or effort to help.
My wife and I alone have ponied up $500 (and that’s not trivial money for us, especially after the Christmas gift-giving orgy) and have plenty of friends who are doing the same or better. I won’t use this tragedy to take cheap shots at BushCo. They’re acting, and giving, appropriately.
After all the bodies have been counted, and you factor in those who will succumb to disease and other hardships directly related to conditions wrought by the tsunami, the death toll could easily rise above 300,000. But at this juncture, what’s the point of citing any death toll?
To put these numbers in perspective, the current amount we have committed ($35 million)…which is admittedly not nearly the final amount we will probably send there…is the amount we spend on military operations every 7 hours in Iraq. (See here. Actually, it may even be somewhat less than 7 hours since at this rate, if spent since the war began, would work out to about $77 billion spent so far…which is less than the roughly $125+ billion that I have heard we spent.)
And, that Washington Post article goes on to note:
But you did so by removing half of my sentence and changing the meaning of what I said. Any two events are comparable (or contrastable) on some level, but terrorist acts and natural disasters require different levels of responses that often don’t have any relation to the number of dead. 9/11 would probably have cost the same if just 100 people had died, and this disaster will likely cost the same in aid even if the death toll climbs to 1,000,000.
agreed. i usually quote only those parts of a post which i am responding to, leaving ellipses as an indication for those who wish to read the entire post. no change of meaning was intended. no offense.
i just want to point out what seems *obvious * to me - that the government (or the people responsible for the initial 15 million) were not able to set aside more than small change to help out when they presumably should have the same information as other nations’ governments who faced the same decision. (government != your average citizen)
i am not interested in politics, just stating what seems to be obvious that some others cannot see.
And you seem to be missing the obvious that this was an initial amount and it will be increasing as there’s a framework in place to accept and utilize this money. You are taking an initial reaction as the only factor in determining the US response is adequate, completely ignoring the fact that more money is coming along.
If they had said they were going to give $200 million right away, how would this effect anything on the ground right now? There was no one to accept this money, nor was there any infrastructure in place to deal with it. As the situation developes, more money goes into the pipeline.
Would it have mattered to the people in need whether the US had *said * $15 million or $150 million?
you missed my post #26. anyway, if i’m not wrong, the $15 million were pledged, not given straight away. i think the other governments would up their initial pledge too, should it be not enough.
true, except that some other governments see it fit to pledge more than pocket change to the cause.
on re-reading the thread, i realised that the OP might be taken as a slur against the amount spent on 9/11. that is not right. there is no need to justify the amount spent on what is pretty much an invasion. that is just not… comparable.
I saw a CNN poll asking viewers if they would donate to the tsunami disaster. The result was: 15% Yes, 85% No.
I tried a Google Search, but could not find the poll. Maybe a more saavy doper can search and find that pole on-line. Otherwise, I’d have to call CNN and try to get the cite for you.
Who cares? As long as aid is being given to people what does it matter? It’s just a number, the folks on the ground could care less. What’s important is does aid get through.
At the time the US had donated $35 million, France had donated $150,000. The last I heard France has donated $57 million. Looks like this is a matter of one-up-manship at its finest. So I’ll add mine - Pfizer announced it is donating $35 million, but their motives are being questioned. And so it goes. :smack:
true. dopers however, have been able to say that the disaster was rated lower than a party or a day at war by the government. they can’t be the only ones, so i guess some people do care.
Anyway, the amounts (and other kinds of help) have been increased and more attention paid to the matter. which is as it should have been.
