Amidst the horror of the SouthEast Asia Tsunami disaster (reports are now that close to 100,000 people have been killed), the U.N. has found time to criticize the Bush administration for not giving enough money to the cause of restoration and aid. Currently, we have pledged $35 million to the area, and Colin Powell and others have said that's just the beginning, that the total will end somewhere around $1 billion. But the initial amount is what the U.N. and other critics are scoffing at, ignoring the fact that that money has already drained our emergency relief fund, and steps have to be taken now to ask for more. That the U.N. thinks it can make any moral judgment (remember, they have Sudan as the lead nation of the human rights dept.) is nearly hysterical.
Pres. Bush countered such criticism this morning saying that the United States provided $2.4 billion "in food, in cash, in humanitarian relief to cover the disasters for the year...That's 40 percent of all the relief aid given in the world last year."
So, let me get this straight. We're are greedy imperialists who want to take over the world and govern it according to our own policies, but when it comes to situations in which the world wants us to be its "big brother," so to speak, we're not doing enough. So, we're supposed to act like an older brother, but we aren't. Does this confuse anyone else, or is it just me? This can't possibly go both ways. Either we give, and give what we want (even with stipulations), or we don't give at all. Right?
What about mentioning how much the UN is going to put in. I heard it was just a couple million. Wow, and we're the hypocites, right?
Posted by: Jon at December 29, 2004 04:22 PMWell I think it's interesting Bush is willing to spend $200 billion on an invasion but only $1 billion on foreign aid, even though he has claimed his motives are purely benevolent in both cases. How would you explain the discrepancy?
Posted by: Ziggy at December 29, 2004 04:36 PM$200 billion is going towards liberating an entire country, bringing democracy and freedom to people for the first time in millenia--that's amazing. That you cannot see the humanitarianism in Iraq is beyond me.
Why would you be so full of contempt for our nation's aid to Sri Lanka, et al? Certainly you weren't thinking about comparing a natural disaster to what is going on in Iraq. I assume you were a Clinton supporter; did you also support his decision to do nothing in Rwanda while 800,000 people were being slaughtered---because Clinton felt it would be TOO EXPENSIVE? If you are such a humanitarian, where were you then?? (By the way, you never answered my questions in the previous post about which Muslim cities had been 'flattened' or who was forcing women to have babies...still waiting.)
Having OBL openly declaring war on the coming elections in Iraq should be a pretty easy indicator on which side we need to be on.
Posted by: Dee at December 29, 2004 04:56 PMhey girl...that was an awsome post....you said it well!
Posted by: Vicky at December 29, 2004 06:44 PMDee:
I wasn't a Clinton supporter. Your questions about my previous post were clearly not serious.
Posted by: Ziggy at December 29, 2004 07:07 PMum, Ziggy...i think she just asked again, which would make those questions "serious".
Posted by: Peter at December 29, 2004 07:11 PMI believe Bush is going to channel alot of our international aid in response to this crisis through a regional consortium of Australia, Japan, and India. . . perhaps a model for bypassing the U.N.?
Posted by: Spear Shaker at December 29, 2004 07:48 PMSpear Shaker,
The thought of bypassing the U.N. just makes my day! After their oil-for-food scandal how could we ever trust that even a dime of our aid would go to victims rather than line their pockets?
Posted by: Dee at December 30, 2004 07:29 AMDee:
I think you do, which is why the question isn't serious.
Posted by: Ziggy at December 30, 2004 03:43 PMOk, I think I get it, Ziggy. Your accusations were baseless, therefore my questions must not be serious. Weird logic, but I get it.
Posted by: Dee at December 30, 2004 05:16 PMI think you know what I mean.
Posted by: Ziggy at January 4, 2005 04:05 PMWhat I do know is you do not have a basis for your claims.
Posted by: Dee at January 4, 2005 05:21 PM
