Tsunami coalition?
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Tsunami coalition?
Okay, Bush's Tsunami aid coalition seems weird to me. I have no doubt that goodwill is behind the administrations commitment to help the victims and am not implying dark intentions, just sort of a hint of neutral, parrallell agendas.
He's sort of puzzled international aid organizations by forming this coalition in part i think because organizing aid and relief is their specialty. That's what they're there for. They're also there to be an impartial organization so they can help civilians without getting tangled up in diplomatic concerns. It seems to me a US backed coalition might carry some big diplomatic concerns. So is this, in part, a political move for Bush? To help his image as a coalition builder and a force for good in the world?
Is it a good thing for a country to be usurping the role of the UN or NGO's or is that even what might be a result of Bush's coalition strategy?
On the other hand, I think he's on to something. Planes from all over the world are circling for hours over Sri Lanka , unable to land because of the backlog of planes. I don't think there's any specific organization with the mission to organize all the different aid missions from different countries. As someone outside of the US I'm very uncomfortable with the US having that role...But gosh, Bush may have found a real weakness in international aid that we should address with the UN perhaps.
I don't know. I've been thinking about this the past couple of days and have found the coalition alternately disturbing and brilliant. Just wondered if anyone else had thoughts on it.
I too have mixed feelings. I find myself feeling there is a competition going on in aid - like the jump from $35 million to $350 million after criticism from other countries. I also agree that the UN organizations and the NGOs, which have a whole lot of experience in this sort of thing (though not on this scale - there has never been anything on this scale, I think). But, a major serious issue right now is getting clean water, food and medical care into the boonies, and the boonies there are real boonies. If our aid can be in a manner that will facilitate transporting aid, I'm all for it.
As for forming a coalition, one concern I have is the time it will take for this coalition to work out its guidelines and rules, because time is the major factor right now - which is why transporation is so urgent.
But, if we can get ships, troops and material to the coastlines, possibly the best thing we could do is send carriers loaded with helicopters - the kinds of helicopters that can carry a large load - to get the aid where it is needed. And tht is definitely something we could be doing.
I'm tired of Bush bashing and USA bashing. If someone is unhappy with the way this country is run ...well there are plenty of options.
Number One: Obtain a passport and LEAVE. Find a better country. Also remember that the grass isn't always greener on the other side.
I am not going to be sucked into a political debate regarding this HUGE human tragedy. I find it very dispicable. Very petty.
I think we should be putting more $ into the US military before the 3rd world countries. JMO though. Blood is thicker than water and to me, my fellow Americans are my blood and these countries are water.
For once, I agree with Melissa, though I don't think the money should *just* go to military. Annie, you've been awful defensive of this, and I understand your point of not creating a political debate, but when our country is giving $350(!!!!!!!!!) million dollars to this disaster relief, I think it becomes political. That is quite a bit of money that has to come from somewhere (our taxes?), and have you seen that the dollar is at an 9 year low?? We're suffering economically, but hey... what's $350 million more?? You know what? I would pack up, get a passport and leave sometimes, but oh yeah, I can't even afford to. I love my country, I love my fellow citizens, and my troops. I do not love my president, nor do I love giving everything we have to everyone else in the world and not taking care of our own. Disgraceful...
Oh, and back to the original question, I think it's arrogant for the US to try and handle this. Yes, Bush may have found a weakness in the organization of aid, but this disaster is not about the US, and suddenly all eyes are on us. How much aid are we sending, how much help is Bush pledging, where is Bush today, and is he working on the Tsunami disaster? He saw that, and decided to use it to his advantage. Let's focus on these poor people, help them the best we can, and not worry about how the USA's reputation is affected.
Just to keep things on a level, non-political playing field, *any* president would appear to 'use it to his advantage'. I think it would be naive to think otherwise. It's very easy to use events like this to attempt to prove one's point politically.
In my 46 years, I've learned to keep no illusions about any candidate, politician, etc. It's the nature of the game, and yes, it's a game no matter how distasteful that thought is.
The bottom line is, many many people need help from all the world's citizens. Period.
Actually, I am proud of Bush for taking the lead and doing something. When someone has a heart attack in front of you, if you know CPR you DO NOT stand around saying "somebody do something". You point to one guy and say 'Call 911' and then you begin CPR. There has been a horrible, horrible disaster in OUR world. It makes the hurricanes our country suffered look like a day at the park. The UN sits on their duffs saying, "Somebody needs to do something." Bush got on his white horse and just started doing something. And for THAT he takes flack.
I think before everybody starts fussing about the money, you need to take a look at those pictures they keep showing on tv. Mothers crying from having their babies ripped from their arms or swept away by the rising and falling waters as they played on the beach. The rubble is so high, where do they even begin? Well over 100,000 people are gone in a matter of a few minutes. If somebody doesn't do something very quickly, even more will be gone from the disease that will come from what what left behind. They don't have time for the UN to sit around and debate about what to do which is what the UN is good for. They need clean water, food and some type of shelter NOW. They need help disposing of the bodies and cleaning up the rubble now. You go, W!
I'll get off my high horse now.
Annie - I'm no fan of Bush but I'm no basher either. Asking questions isn't bashing. I find a lot of what's going on around this event interesting and think that some of it might have implications we can't see yet.
As for USA bashing, I'm not fond of your current administration but that has nothing to do with my feelings about your country and Americans in general. I have no respect for our Prime Minister but I still love my country. They're two separate issues.
I think we should be putting more $ into the US military before the 3rd world countries. JMO though. Blood is thicker than water and to me, my fellow Americans are my blood and these countries are water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think at least some of the thinking behind all the aid, besides the fact that people's lives are hanging in the balance, is that for the USA to be seen heading aid efforts might win it some allies in communities where it sorely needs them. Indonesia has a large muslim population for instance. Perhaps being seen to be helping them might have a political value that would ultimately help the USA in the middle east, might save lives down the line.
I was also thinking that if the US administration has chosen to use it's military to try to reshape countries, if it's decided to portray itself sort of the sherriff to the world, it can't NOT offer this aid. I think the admin. is aware that the international community is wary of it and sees them as way too hawkish - this could be an attempt to balance that view.
But nevermind. The USA and Canada and everyone has to help, put aside the fact that these are fellow humans, because events half a world away can have devastating effects on us that we might not understand yet. Poor and devasted countries are breeding grounds for trouble (don't we get this yet?) and if we don't help them rebuild now there may be implications 20 years down the road that will be much more costly. The trouble we have in the middle east today is in part the result of aftershocks of things not done decades ago.
I don't think the aid money will take away from money from the military. This country has alot of money.
I didn't give to the aid project though since my taxes already went there. I was going to donate but seems I already have. 
Definitely political but so what? Isn't everything.
I find it very disturbing that if a person does not agree w/ the government that they are unpatriotic or somehow a traitor. I love my country, I love my fellow citizens, I love my hometown. I cry at the rodeo and ball games when the flag is presented and they sing the star spangled banner. My husband is a vet, my bil was a gulf war vet that ended his life because of his inability to come back to us. That doesnt mean that I have to agree w/ everything my president, congressman or representative decides. After all that is what it is all about. The ability to complain when you dont like what is going on. That is why it is so important to help those that have SO MUCH LESS than we do. If this had happened in the industrial world we would be beating down the doors of the white house to get as much money as necessary sent to aid them. On a moral ground we owe those poor souls just as much.
But Feona, it does come from somewhere!! Yeah, our taxes, but we don't just have $350 million laying around in our SUPER TIGHT budget. We cannot afford the needs of our own people, but we magically have $350 million to help others. I'm not saying we shouldn't help them, but that is a bit extravagant.
That's exactly what my hubby was saying. We don't help our own people, yet we send that much money overseas.
Not helping our own (a big general 'our own' since I'm not in your country) isn't a matter of money, it's a matter of will. Our countries have money but aren't compelled to spend it on helping 'our own'. The current US administration spends 350 million in two days on the Iraq war, so somehow, there's money for that. In light of that it would be disturbing if they did not give money to aid.
Nevermind the fact that I have big problems with the term 'our own'. For one thing 'our own' aren't in immediate danger of dying from disease in the next few days and haven't had homes, family and everything they know wiped away.
Also, who's 'our own'? I could define it as just my community and so not give when a family in the next community needs money because their house burns down. Maybe it should just be my province and so if Manitoba has a disaster I should begrudge any money Nova Scotia would pledge. Is it just Canadians, then gosh, was it a bad thing to donate all the money, time, etc that we did after 9/11? Or does 'our own' just mean white, western people?
I prefer to think 'our own' refers to humans in general. My parents have close Thai friends so I have a personal connection but Canada (and the US) is a nation made up of the world and we have connection to every country.
We'll help our own citizens when there's political will to do so. It has nothing to do with money.
...And just heard a report on the radio about how Al Jazeera was broadcasting the American aid in Indonesia (a muslim nation) across the middle east. 350 million seems at the very least and most cynically to be a bargain basement price for publicity that might abate some of the bad feeling many in the middle east harbour towards the US gov't. It might save American lives in the middle east and shows how events across the world can be intimately involved with our lives.
I find it very disturbing that if a person does not agree w/ the government that they are unpatriotic or somehow a traitor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
I find that weird too because it's not really something that happens up here in Canada. I wonder if it's a difference in our head of state? The President is your head of state and commander-in-chief and so a very real representation and symbol of the nation. People have a hard time separating criticisms of him from the nation.
Up here our head of state and equivilent to commander-in-chief is the Governor General who is the Queen's representative in Canada. It's effectively a figurehead postion that carries no political power since we're no longer under British rule in any respect. Insult our head of state and no problem, she's just some figurehead anyway. Insult our Prime Minister and no problem, he's our elected leader but represents nothing about the country. He really IS a dork anyway and we all know it (hee hee).
This is my theory anyway.
Wow! Bush is darned if he does, darned if he doesn't. Initially $35 million was too little---what kind of pathetic humanitarian is he!? And how embarrassing that one of the wealthiest nations in the world would give comparatively so little? Then he either (a) assesses the situation in more detail and/or (b) gives into the pressure and ups the ante to $350 and now he's the bad guy for giving too much money...and what about the poor folks back at home?
Sheesh! Give the guy a break. Even $350 million isn't going to make a dent into the relief efforts---it's a multi-billion dollar disaster. I agree with whomever said on another post that the liberal Hollywood types have an excellent opportunity to put their money where their mouths are and give until it hurts. And not just for the publicity or a photo op either.
P.S. I really don't know anything about the coalition, so couldn't address the specifics of this post. Just a bit tired of the Bush bashing regardless of what he does.
I think all world leaders were getting bashed early on regarding how little they plegded. To be fair, no one realized how big a disaster it was. Plus, those were initial pledges meant to help with quick aid while countries assessed what might reallly be needed. I'm still shaking my head a little at how long it took our countries to up the aid but really, they may have had very good reasons for the delay.
Ditto Pamt!
Well said, Pam.
I don't like to get into the debates, but I agree 100% with Pam. You took the words right out of my mouth.
I did hear a brief statement that Sandra Bullok gave 1 million to relief fund. Woo hoo, good for her. There wasn't a pic of her doing so, just mention on one of those news mags.
I think it is interesting at how much help we are giving and how we are doing it. To be honest I am kind of clueless as to how big of tragedy this is. Have we really not ever had as big as a disaster? How many of these deaths could have been prevented by an emergency broadcast system? What made this so unique, can it happen again, and where? There are tragic things that happen and although I feel like we should pray and help in ways we can. I also know that we can't fix the whole world. It seems like each year we have the worst this and the worst that and it has kind of desensitized me.
There were 150,000 deaths so far, almost 100,00 in Indonesia alone. This is the biggest disaster, barring war and famine, ever.
It was an underwater earthquake that produced a Tsunami. As of right now there is no way to warn people of this but the countries involved, as well as Japan, have committed to developing some kind of system for this.
It's unique because it was so devastating. the wave was as much as 20 feet high and hit shores congested with locals and tourists. Theoretically, it could happen to most coastal areas but it's very, very rare.
This isn't a matter of fixing the whole world. It' was a specific incident that needs immediate attention and has shown specific weaknesses that can now be addressed (warning systems, construction of buildings, ways of delivering aid when infrastructure is destroyed).
I think desensitization can be cured by getting more information. So much coverage of similar events is done in generic manner. Pictures of destroyed building, wailing mourners, a body bag and then on to the next story. There's very little humanizing of the people suffering and we start to think of them as one big third world mass. If we take it upon ourselves to learn a little more it goes a long way to getting rid of the numbness. I heard a story on the radio today of a Thai mother who took her sons to the beach (one that had been hit) despite having dead family members to mourn because she thought it was more important then ever for them to have some fun and to not be afraid of the water. There was a TV report of a Sri Lankan man searching a train that had been wrecked by the wave for people from his town. He sort of smiled through the interview but later found proof of a young couple he knew that had died. You could see the relief of having something to tell people back home and the weight of having to let them know it was bad news.
I think we shy away from more news about events like this time because we think they've depressing but really, I don't find they are. The more I watch the more I can see these people as real, the more I can feel for them, hope for them. It's those short broadcasts that concentrate on numbers and bodybags that are depressing and desensitizing and, convince of of the myth that some people are 'our own' and some people are not.
I have to say that I hardly think that taking THREE days to address this horrific event as our “leader” did, would qualify as charging in on a white horse, though it does seem fairly typical of this administration.
That’s it all I have to say carry on now – just had to get it off my chest.
Quick way to undesensitize to this tragedy. Go to your local supermarket and pick up the Newsweek. If you can get through the pictures w/out crying you are a stronger person than I am. I was sobbing at the first picture. I was unable to read the article, the magazine is in the recycle bin. I probably wont sleep tonight.
|
Members
