Ok here is a question. How much aid should the United States give Pakistan because of the floods?
The U.S. has a real chance to win some hearts and minds in Pakistan. Considering the economic times how much should we give to Pakistan if you think we should at all?
There are many issues to consider. How much aid do we provide for our own people in the same situations, hell in different situations also? How much can we afford to give. How valuable is it to win their hearts and mind? Is it priceless, is it worth anything at all? Should we even ask such questions when people need help? Are we obligated to help them. I'm sure you guys and gals can come up with more.
The U.S. has already donated $76 million, a pretty hefty amount, but this is actually quite small compared to the hundreds of millions we gave them during the 2004 tsunami and the 2005 earthquake.
On an interesting side note how should we deliver this aid, when the U.S. had the military deliver aid in 2004 and 2005 it drastically improved our image to the victims versus just letting the local authorities carry out distribution.
I want to provide help, because it is good to do, it could be a great PR thing to do also. But seeing as there is so much domestically that could use that funding I'm kind of on the fence, especially when I hear people throwing around numbers in the hundreds of millions. Pakistani good will could be worth quite a bit, but could it be worth hundreds of millions? But then I feel guilty for even thinking that way and just want to send them whatever they need. But then I see this $100,000,000, that is a lot of 0s especially when we have such a large debt ourselves.
I figure the best way to handle it is to have a discussion.
I edited the question a little bit based on some of the responses to give a little more insight into the situation.
Even given the floods, it would be a better idea to withdraw so-called foreign aid. Such aid distorts the local economies, and much of it gets skimmed off along the way by the third-parties contracted to deliver it.
It's like debt-relief. It sounds good in principle, but the fact of the matter is that countries (and people!) who work to pay off their debts go on to grow economically.
Closer to home that's also why I think that Red River "flood" victims aren't victims: they know that they live on a flood plain. Take the earthquakes in Chile, for example. The Chileans know earthquakes, and were far better prepared for them than the Haitians were for their most recent one. It's more complex than "Well, the Haitians have a joke for a gov't, terrible infrastructure, and no indigenous resources, and the Chileans do." But the fact is that every link of dependence and leverage you give people, is another pound they forgo the ability to carry themselves.
Either we subsidize a lifestyle that requires continual intervention to alleviate the burdens of being insulated from the effects of disaster, or we withdraw and let them sort themselves out.
Nurglitch wrote:Even given the floods, it would be a better idea to withdraw so-called foreign aid. Such aid distorts the local economies, and much of it gets skimmed off along the way by the third-parties contracted to deliver it.
It's like debt-relief. It sounds good in principle, but the fact of the matter is that countries (and people!) who work to pay off their debts go on to grow economically.
Closer to home that's also why I think that Red River "flood" victims aren't victims: they know that they live on a flood plain. Take the earthquakes in Chile, for example. The Chileans know earthquakes, and were far better prepared for them than the Haitians were for their most recent one. It's more complex than "Well, the Haitians have a joke for a gov't, terrible infrastructure, and no indigenous resources, and the Chileans do." But the fact is that every link of dependence and leverage you give people, is another pound they forgo the ability to carry themselves.
Either we subsidize a lifestyle that requires continual intervention to alleviate the burdens of being insulated from the effects of disaster, or we withdraw and let them sort themselves out.
ftr most people on earth live on flood plains. Just so happens rivers were the best place to get water when people wondered where to build their homes before the days of the tanker truck and water pumps.
I see what your saying. But in the case of a flood or another natural disaster it's totally different. They need the money to repair the damage and get on with their lives. They wont gain a dependence on aid by recovering what they already had.
Except that Pakistan (well, the lowland parts at least) experience annual flooding. The problem isn't that there's flooding where there wasn't flooding before. The problem is that there's extra flooding. That means several things. It means that the infrastructure built to deal with the extra water was either non-existent because some Pakistani engineer/civil servant decided that it wasn't worth their time to build a margin of error into their work, or because they didn't bother to build it after all.
Here's the thing: Pakistan is not lacking for rich people. It's not lacking for engineers, architects, contractors, or money to fund infrastructure. It's because they have decided not to.
Would you donate money to a family that lost everything because they decided to skimp on home-owner's insurance in order to buy a bigger pool for their backyard? Maybe you would, and that's noble, but you know what? You aren't helping out the disadvantaged, you're facilitating stupidity. You're not helping that family get their first member in college, you're giving them what they would have gotten from the insurance company had they not decided on a bigger pool for their backyard. It's not punishing them for their mistakes, but refusing to continue to throw good money after bad.
I really don't know what kind of infrastructure would cope with the kind of floods they have just had. There are entire towns under water. Are they supposed to build everything on eight foot high stilts? Still wouldn't have saved the people who got swept away in the water and died or drowned. Your being totally unrealistic.
It's only on Dakka that you'd find people arguing that you shouldn't give a nation emergency relief for their own good. For feth's sake.
Nurglitch, gdp per capita in Pakistan is about $1,000 per head, and it is a country with on-going instability. This places a substantial limit on any infrastructure development, it is not sensible to expect them to build flood levees to exceptional levels when the road networks, plumbing and electricity remains so undeveloped.
To answer the OP's question... yes, the nations of the world should contribute considerably to aid relief in Pakistan. It would build tremendous goodwill, but that's really besides the main point - aid will stop people dying. Seriously, some things are just that simple.
And yeah, $100 million seems like a big number. It is a big number. But your country has an economy that generates 13 thousand billion every year. In the scheme of that this is a very small thing.
Nurglitch wrote:Except that Pakistan (well, the lowland parts at least) experience annual flooding. The problem isn't that there's flooding where there wasn't flooding before. The problem is that there's extra flooding. That means several things. It means that the infrastructure built to deal with the extra water was either non-existent because some Pakistani engineer/civil servant decided that it wasn't worth their time to build a margin of error into their work, or because they didn't bother to build it after all.
Here's the thing: Pakistan is not lacking for rich people. It's not lacking for engineers, architects, contractors, or money to fund infrastructure. It's because they have decided not to.
Would you donate money to a family that lost everything because they decided to skimp on home-owner's insurance in order to buy a bigger pool for their backyard? Maybe you would, and that's noble, but you know what? You aren't helping out the disadvantaged, you're facilitating stupidity. You're not helping that family get their first member in college, you're giving them what they would have gotten from the insurance company had they not decided on a bigger pool for their backyard. It's not punishing them for their mistakes, but refusing to continue to throw good money after bad.
whatwhat wrote:Tell me what kind of infrastructure helps with that sort of flood so I can patent the idea and make a mint.
Wait, I've got one. Pakistan is suffering now "because they decided not to" build a fifty foot deep flood channel system throughout the entire country. No?
Get real. Your argument sounds like an excuse not a reason for not giving aid. A selfish excuse.
It's not for their own good. It's for our own good. I don't think we should send aid to countries experiencing a disaster through their own intransigence regarding infrastructure.
Pakistan, if my co-workers were right about their homeland where they averred people would rob you for a sandwich, is a complete feth-up, and that's not because they started off poor and under-developed. They've been going steadily downhill since Independence and it's been precisely because their own moneyed elites give much less of a damn about their poor and their national infrastructure than your average Joe on the street in the West. They haven't just not gained the infrastructure we take for granted in the West, they've also lost a considerable amount.
The current disaster is man-made, and it's man-made by the political instability that the Pakistanis have manufactured by and for themselves. It's most certainly been exacerbated by aid and intervention on the part of other nations. And the aid that will be contributed will likewise either be wasted, or go towards facilitating a greater disaster down the road.
If you want to make the argument that we should contribute aid to save lives, well guess what, you're saving 100 now so that 1000 can die next year. Something I don't think people understand is just how incredibly crowded Pakistan is. If New Orleans had half of Islamabad's population, Hurricane Katrina would have killed thousands of people, simply from the odds.
But hey, take up the White Man's burden and help a brown dude out. It's not like they can help themselves, right?
While I see what nurglitch is trying to say but the amount of rainwater released during this year is phemononal. No margin of error could account for such heavy rainfall.
Actually the margin of error is built in after you account for variation in rainfall and drainage. Speaking of drainage, was anyone else aware of the massive deforestation that's been going on in the highlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan? People need firewood. Pity about the effect of deforestation on people down-river.
Like you said, this area sees annual flooding. Infact, the depend on the flooding to grow crops in that area and they've never had such a massive disaster before. The amount of rainfall this year (16 inches) was greater than the amount of rain released on Louisiana during Hurricane Katrina. No amount of "margin of error" could account for this.
Nurglitch wrote:It's not for their own good. It's for our own good. I don't think we should send aid to countries experiencing a disaster through their own intransigence regarding infrastructure.
Pakistan, if my co-workers were right about their homeland where they averred people would rob you for a sandwich, is a complete feth-up, and that's not because they started off poor and under-developed. They've been going steadily downhill since Independence and it's been precisely because their own moneyed elites give much less of a damn about their poor and their national infrastructure than your average Joe on the street in the West. They haven't just not gained the infrastructure we take for granted in the West, they've also lost a considerable amount.
Yes, there is corruption and instability and this has impacted growth and infrastructure development in Pakistan. I have no idea how letting people die will somehow spur the people into somehow choosing not to have corruption and instability.
But hey, take up the White Man's burden and help a brown dude out. It's not like they can help themselves, right?
Are you deliberately misusing the idea of white man's burden, or do you just not understand it? Because if it's the latter I'd be happy to explain it, and explain why it doesn’t relate to what I’ve mentioned in this thread. If it’s the former is their any point in continuing this conversation?
Nurglitch wrote:It means that the infrastructure built to deal with the extra water was either non-existent because some Pakistani engineer/civil servant decided that it wasn't worth their time to build a margin of error into their work, or because they didn't bother to build it after all.
As you can see I wasn't claiming that Pakistani civil engineers had simply failed to build sufficient drainage to handle abnormally large amounts of rainfall. It's not the case that existing infrastructure was shoddily built, but that existing infrastructure was designed to be incapable of handling emergency measures. Good to know.
Hey, know something about rope? The amount of weight a rope can handle is actually 10x more than the quoted amount because that's the margin of error required for safe use. But then, since we know it's not a matter of having a sufficient margin of error for emergencies, but not having a rope in the first place because the budget goes towards more important things, why worry about how much of a margin of error was built into non-existent drainage infrastructure in the first place.
Something else to think about: A cat falls off the 10th floor of an apartment building. Until it reaches the 10th floor, it falls without ever getting hurt. The excuse "Well, it never happened that way before" is a weak argument when it comes to dealing with changing climate (and hence weather systems), deforestation, and changing drainage.
Letting people die won't change Pakistan's budgetary emphasis on military spending, or affect their budget, but neither will not letting people die, and either you let some people die now, or more people will die later because this will happen again next year. In fact it's not that simple, but the choice to lend aid is: you either give sufficient amounts or you don't. At least if you don't give, then you're better prepared when disaster strikes in your own 'back-yard'.
I'm using Kipling's reference to the "White Man's Burden" to denigrate the advocacy of interventionist "aid" policies as wrong-headed paternalism.
Nurglitch wrote:Letting people die won't change Pakistan's budgetary emphasis on military spending
Pakistani expenditure is around 2.5%, which is about average for world expenditure and in line with the neighbour with whom they share on-going hostilities.
Now, there is a sensible argument to be made that Pakistan needs to redirect more of its armed forces away from the border with India and towards its internal problems, but that has nothing to do with the overall size of military. Funnily enough, by supplying aid to Pakistan now, we gain greater influence within the country, so that we might be able to encourage greater action against the Taliban.
or affect their budget, but neither will not letting people die, and either you let some people die now, or more people will die later because this will happen again next year.
Yes, because if we provide emergency aid then Pakistan will learn nothing from what happened. You're being silly.
In fact it's not that simple, but the choice to lend aid is: you either give sufficient amounts or you don't. At least if you don't give, then you're better prepared when disaster strikes in your own 'back-yard'.
An expenditure of $100 million from the US will materially draw down on it's own coffers, given it produces $13 thousand billion every year.
I'm using Kipling's reference to the "White Man's Burden" to denigrate the advocacy of interventionist "aid" policies as wrong-headed paternalism.
You're failing to distinguish between the notion of on-going charity by people who consider themselves honour bound to do so as a product of their inherent racial superiority, and emergency relief to a poor country. Given you know the source of the phrase in Kipling's poem, I'm guessing you're familiar with the poem itself, and chose to ignore the actual problem with the poem is its racist outlook, not the idea of charity.
sebster wrote:
Yes, because if we provide emergency aid then Pakistan will learn nothing from what happened. You're being silly.
I think the more damning criticism is that, based on the initial premise of the argument, refusing to help is no more or less likely to produce change than helping is. After all, if the problem is that the state is corrupt and oppressive, then both the provision of aid and the withholding of aid fail to address the actual issue.
For what its worth, there is a lot of research that suggests providing unsupervised aid is highly detrimental to the social state of any given nation, as that aid most often is only used to reinforce the fundamental inequality that ensures the existence of an oppressive government. As such, I can see why aid donations should be avoided, but that doesn't really apply to directly orchestrated civil engineering projects, or food distribution missions. There are reasonable criticisms of both those things, notably the ones that follow from intrusion and dependency, but there are also reasonable responses, notably that we want to be intrusive in order to make states like Pakistan dependent on us. Of course, its that latter bit that makes Pakistan extremely unlikely to accept direct, foreign aid.
sebster wrote: But your country has an economy that generates 13 thousand billion every year. In the scheme of that this is a very small thing.
I didn't even know that was a number.
I'm honestly not one for foreign aid over domestic, as it is economically better to give domestic aid (less money gets skimmed on its way to the people that need it, and costs of providing the aid are generally less, meaning more bang for your buck), but yeah, I would send aid to a potential hotspot in the middle east. We as a country need to do all we can to make that entire region stable and Pro-US. Especially emerging nuclear powers.
dogma wrote:For what its worth, there is a lot of research that suggests providing unsupervised aid is highly detrimental to the social state of any given nation, as that aid most often is only used to reinforce the fundamental inequality that ensures the existence of an oppressive government.
Sure thing, long term aid programs where the funding is provided direct to government have frequently had little actual benefit on the ground. Of course, those aid programs are more about purchasing the loyalty of governments than anything else.
But this is direct aid relief, administered through NGOs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:I didn't even know that was a number.
National economies are a lot bigger than people realise. It's part of the reason that efforts to scare people over debt levels tends to use whole numbers and not percentages of
I'm honestly not one for foreign aid over domestic, as it is economically better to give domestic aid (less money gets skimmed on its way to the people that need it, and costs of providing the aid are generally less, meaning more bang for your buck),
Well, sort of. Counter to that is how few resources are already available, and so how much can be done with so little. Some of the work done with micro-loan programs is amazing, people are being given economic independance and livelihoods so that they can put their kids through school... all from an original loan of a hundred dollars or less. Over here you can't change a person's life by lending them the money to buy a sewing machine, but in many impoverished countries it really is as easy as that.
but yeah, I would send aid to a potential hotspot in the middle east. We as a country need to do all we can to make that entire region stable and Pro-US. Especially emerging nuclear powers.
There's also that, for sure. A couple of weeks ago a muslim fellow at work mentioned that back home in Saudi Arabia there was charity, but it was only really substantial at Ramadan, and it was always flashy, for show. He mentioned how here there's always aid for the poor, government provided. He said our model was much more Islamic than any Islamic country.
National economies are a lot bigger than people realise. It's part of the reason that efforts to scare people over debt levels tends to use whole numbers and not percentages of
Maybe, but The U.S. is running at approximately 93% of annual GDP, ($13.258 Trillion). So as big of a number as $13 thousand billion sounds (world bank estimates that 2009 U.S. GDP was $14,256 thousand billion, or $14.256 trillion) we also have a national debt of $13,258 thousand billion.
Global GDP was $58 Trillion so the U.S National debt is about 23% of the Worlds GDP.
(is this right? it's pretty late here)
Not saying you are wrong, not even saying this should sway anybody either way. Just putting the numbers in perspective. When I saw 13 thousand billion, I didn't instantly translate that into trillions. I can wrap my head around that better.
Does anybody know how much aid the U.S gives Pakistan on a yearly basis divided into military and non-military aid? I can't find reliable sources for this, one place says this another says this. Just curious. It might help the discussion.
As much as Iran give them.
How do people feel about that also? The U.S. seams to provide a disproportionate amount of aid around the world (to friend and foe alike). However the U.S also appears to have a disproportionate amount of the worlds money to donate.
wow, wasn't really expecting that, the majority seams to not care. Is this because it is Pakistan? What if it was some other country? Say Germany or Ireland, would your feelings be different?
If you want to get the general populace on our side then handing their government a big fat check isn't going to accomplish it. Most of them won't know about it and none of them will ever see the benefit. U.S. Marines handing out food, water, and medicine, rebuilding homes, roads, and infrastructure, that will win hearts and minds. That I'm all in favor of.
Andrew1975 wrote:wow, wasn't really expecting that, the majority seams to not care. Is this because it is Pakistan? What if it was some other country? Say Germany or Ireland, would your feelings be different?
Not particularly. Of course it doesn't hurt that members of Germany/Ireland's military/intelligence services aren't actively trying to kill Americans.
Andrew1975 wrote:wow, wasn't really expecting that, the majority seams to not care. Is this because it is Pakistan? What if it was some other country? Say Germany or Ireland, would your feelings be different?
Not particularly. Of course it doesn't hurt that members of Germany/Ireland's military/intelligence services aren't actively trying to kill Americans.
Frazzled wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:wow, wasn't really expecting that, the majority seams to not care. Is this because it is Pakistan? What if it was some other country? Say Germany or Ireland, would your feelings be different?
Not particularly. Of course it doesn't hurt that members of Germany/Ireland's military/intelligence services aren't actively trying to kill Americans.
Yeah it's kind of what I'm feeling. How responsible is it for the U.S. government to be giving away so much money to anyone when we have a huge debt and plenty of projects of out own that could use this funding. I mean if we weren't willing to put the money in to fix the levies before Katrina, how can we justify just giving so much money away? We could probably use that money to shore up the borders, or help war vets or rebuild our aging infrastructure.
I'm from Cleveland (Cleveland jokes in 5.4.3.2.1) and I see good people that didn't overspend on their houses (seriously you can get a nice house here for nothing anyway) struggling everyday, there is a lot of working poor here. I've seen so many good projects here get shut down because of lack of funding. When I hear about the U.S. department of education hounding U.S. citizens for a few thousand dollars, and then giving hundreds of millions to complete strangers I wonder if our priorities aren't out of order?
Sure many of these projects could be seen as throwing good money after bad (if a city can't sustain itself, is spending money going to help), but what should be done with the money that the U.S government seams to need to give away. Should we pay off the debt? Invest in technology? I get the feeling America is a little lost.
But then again I think these people do need help. It's not really their fault they live in Pakistan. If we are willing to spend US$737 million for each stealth bomber, maybe that isn't too much money. If we can use the money at the same time to build some good will especially with Muslims, maybe we won't someday have to use the bomber (as an example,) to go over there and drop bombs.
Andrew1975 wrote:How do people feel about that also? The U.S. seams to provide a disproportionate amount of aid around the world (to friend and foe alike). However the U.S also appears to have a disproportionate amount of the worlds money to donate.
The US is the largest donor, but comes in pretty low in terms of donations as percentage of GDP.
Then you consider that a whole lot of US aid is actually military aid to Israel, and that figure can be discounted. Then again, if you factor in private donations the US goes up again - nowhere near enough to achieve parity but they shouldn't be diminished.
Oh, and it's worth pointing out that from the 70s almost every Western nation has been a signatory to a foreign development program that pledges .7% of GDP to foreign aid. Hardly anyone comes close to that target.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote:Maybe, but The U.S. is running at approximately 93% of annual GDP, ($13.258 Trillion). So as big of a number as $13 thousand billion sounds (world bank estimates that 2009 U.S. GDP was $14,256 thousand billion, or $14.256 trillion) we also have a national debt of $13,258 thousand billion.
Global GDP was $58 Trillion so the U.S National debt is about 23% of the Worlds GDP.
(is this right? it's pretty late here)
Yeah, that's right. And I certainly didn't want to imply US debt isn't an issue, it is a big issue and there needs to be long term commitments to bringing the deficit under control. Good luck with that
Not saying you are wrong, not even saying this should sway anybody either way. Just putting the numbers in perspective. When I saw 13 thousand billion, I didn't instantly translate that into trillions. I can wrap my head around that better.
Yeah, I find 'trillion' can sometimes be left as just a number, if you know what I mean. A GDP of 13 trillion is just something economists say, people can accept it without realising the actual scale of what's being mentioned. People get what a billion is, though, so saying the US economy generates 13 thousand billion dollars a year gives, in my opinion, a better understanding of the scale of the economy.
Does anybody know how much aid the U.S gives Pakistan on a yearly basis divided into military and non-military aid? I can't find reliable sources for this, one place says this another says this. Just curious. It might help the discussion.
As much as Iran give them.
How do people feel about that also? The U.S. seams to provide a disproportionate amount of aid around the world (to friend and foe alike). However the U.S also appears to have a disproportionate amount of the worlds money to donate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyyr wrote:If you want to get the general populace on our side then handing their government a big fat check isn't going to accomplish it. Most of them won't know about it and none of them will ever see the benefit. U.S. Marines handing out food, water, and medicine, rebuilding homes, roads, and infrastructure, that will win hearts and minds. That I'm all in favor of.
Emergency relief doesn't just see a cheque handed to the Pakistani government. It's used to resource NGOs, bring in health and medical experts. When rebuilding is underway you see a lot more funding of government projects.
Yeah it's kind of what I'm feeling. How responsible is it for the U.S. government to be giving away so much money to anyone when we have a huge debt and plenty of projects of out own that could use this funding. I mean if we weren't willing to put the money in to fix the levies before Katrina, how can we justify just giving so much money away?
Shurma wrote THE LEVIES WEREN'T BROKEN BEFORE KATRINA
.
Shurma, it's well known that the levies were in a sate of disrepair and were a great concern to the people of New Orleans years before Katrina even hit. They were regularly experiencing floods years before Katrina because of the poor levies. Lack of funding caused only the major levies to be reinforced, (not repaired) to what was considered an acceptable level to handle normal conditions, but would break under any real strain.
You will probably come back and blame the people for living in a swamp under sea level, but this has nothing to do with that.
How about not going off half cocked. Really do a little research, your infront of a computer anyway!
The full slow thing was funny when I was exaggerating to make a point. Here I'll just ask you to follow rule 1 as we know frazzled is watching.
Your lack of insight before calling me a slow makes jesus facepalm
Andrew1975 wrote:
Does anybody know how much aid the U.S gives Pakistan on a yearly basis divided into military and non-military aid? I can't find reliable sources for this, one place says this another says this. Just curious. It might help the discussion.
Since 9/11 they have received about 11.7 billions dollars, but by year's end that number could hit 13 billion.
Regardless, I don't have a problem giving Pakistan money. Foreign aid is one the best, and cheapest ways to accomplish American foreign policy goals.
Can we lay off the slow and face palming please. Ta.
Andrew1975 wrote:
On an interesting side note how should we deliver this aid, when the U.S. had the military deliver aid in 2004 and 2005 it drastically improved our image to the victims versus just letting the local authorities carry out distribution.
.
The Pakistani authority has also requested two U.S. water filtration units, which are essential to provide fresh water and prevent disease outbreaks. The units provide pumping, purification, storage and distribution. Each unit can meet daily water requirements of up to 10,000 people.
The United States has begun delivering more than 189,000 halal meals from U.S. supply depots in the South Asia region on 10 separate flights. “The meals are being delivered to Pakistan’s military for distribution in flood-stricken areas,” the embassy said. “Food and water also has been ferried to people still not able to leave the flood areas.”
On July 31, a U.S. Air Force C-130 cargo plane delivered international assistance to Islamabad that included nearly 8,000 halal meals. Early on August 1, an Air Force C-17 cargo jet delivered more than 44,000 more halal meals.
The U.S. embassy said another 62,000 halal meals were scheduled for delivery by Air Force transport on August 1 and over the next few days. The relief flights were coming in to the Pakistan Air Force Base at Chaklala, Rawalpindi.
The United States is sending 12 prefabricated steel bridges that can be used to temporarily replace highway bridges damaged by flooding in Peshawar and Kurram Agency. The provincial government and Pakistan’s military are coordinating their efforts for use of the bridges, the embassy said.
U.S. helicopters were used to deliver more than 11,873 pounds of rations and supplies to flood victims. On August 1 alone the helicopters rescued 165 people and ferried another nine to a hospital in Nowshera.
Sebster wrote:
Does anybody know how much aid the U.S gives Pakistan on a yearly basis divided into military and non-military aid? I can't find reliable sources for this, one place says this another says this. Just curious. It might help the discussion.
Since 9/11 they have received about 11.7 billions dollars, but by year's end that number could hit 13 billion.
Regardless, I don't have a problem giving Pakistan money. Foreign aid is one the best, and cheapest ways to accomplish American foreign policy goals.
That was Andrew's question, not mine. Could you change the quote? Thanks.
And yes, foreign aid is pennies compared to everything else. That said, the aid given to Pakistan, given straight to government, is exactly the kind of aid that tends to get lost in bureaucracy and never reach the people, but it isn't really for that. It's to keep their government on-side.
Id help an ally out. But screw those guys. I also like how when none Islamic nations are affected by natural disasters the mullahs and ayatollahs love to shout out about how its god punishing them for homosexuals or whatever.
Not only do not care at all, I actually was quite happy to see a disaster occur in a Muslim nation, now they might lay off the Allah rhetoric a tad next Time a civilised country is unfortunate enough to suffer from a natural disaster.
If you are actually asking me, give them everything. Or something proportionate to the scale of the issue, directed in the best way to provide aid to individuals effected by the floods.
I think we should finish rebuilding New Orleans and provide all the people there with aid before we decide to move on to another aid effort.
If we can't do the job right in our own country what makes us think we can do it half way around the world?
Sections of New Orleans still look like Pakistan or some other 3rd world country. Oh right, we fixed the tourist districts, the rest is too black and too poor to bother with...
How long have i posted on here red? Your well aware of my background and the fact that i am in no way ignorant of the complex issues that are bogging us down in the middle east, and nobody who has a brain and reads the news daily is unaware of the situation at the moment. Since long before Benazir Bhutto we have all beem bombarded with information about Pakistan, so much so that im tired of reading about the bloody place. Im a Telegraph reader amongst other things, and they have been writing about the place almost daily long before the floods.
But anyway, Im well aware that Pakistan is seen as an "ally" (i use the term loosely) of ours in the war on terror. But lets be realistic, its common knowledge that they playing politics and claiming to assist us while they are actively exporting terror, Mr Cameron mentioned this obvious fact only the week before last, and what do they all do? Yes thats right, its burning flags and effigy time, joy of joys! (Where the feth do they get all the American and British flags from anyway!?)
That so called alliance is built on straw.
In my opinion we should spend a small amount of money on the people of Pakistan, maybe 25% what we are sending now? Im tired of us funding nations that (generally speaking) hate us.
We should then follow this up by engaging in a rigorous psyops campaign (spend the other 50% on putting friendly leaflets in all the food we send, and offer financial rewards for assistance against extremists, information onTaliban members, headquarters, leaders etc...) to let the people know that the US/UK are "helping" them, even though we arent spending as much as we could be, and then save the last of the money for more bombs and gear for Afghanistan. We already pay our fair share
Smart eh?
My deepest sympathies, you can beat this terrible problem however, fret not. We'll all be here for you.
Except on weekends. And if it gets a bit busy, obviously.
I hardly think Pakistan is alone with regards to "playing politics" with regards to their behaviour in the area are they ?
I share your bewilderment about the flag procurement. I think there's an obvious market that we could be tapping into here. Take that trade deficit !
I pretty much concur with the "psyops" plan, I was under the impression though that much of the aid sent already did contain "leaflets" and the like... thinking about it though I have next to no idea where I got this idea from...
...
How long have i posted on here red?
.. too long ?
I agree there's issues to do with exactly what Pakistan "brings to the table", so to speak and there is no doubt that there's sizable numbers of people of there who are "the enemy". But there's a lot who aren't and they are the ones who would suffer if we didn't help them.
Plus I would suggest that whilst the situation is bad already, it would be far worse if Pakistan was totally or actively "working" against us.
That said, if someone was to help us out and do something to their Cricket team that's be cool
Aye they do put leaflets in, i was giving out them big yellow MREs that the Americans make in Iraq and they had bits of paper in them saying "Given by the American People" or something on them, but i think we can turn it up a few notches and turn this disaster into a goal for the coalition if we play our cards right..
Dont get me wrong.. i mean, im a bastard, but im not indifferent to human suffering. I just think that theres a war on, and i want us to win it.
Since 9/11 they have received about 11.7 billions dollars, but by year's end that number could hit 13 billion.
Holy crap! And that is just one country. No wonder our aging infrastructure is being ignored. Not saying that's the only reason...but still that's a lot of money that could be going to education or repairing bridges or research.
I've been listing to the arguments and while I believe aid is just being neighborly. It seams like in some cases we create a situation where the U.S. is in some way creating these situations by not letting outer countries be held responsible for lack of planning. If Pakistan's population is so out of control that they create situations where the flooding is magnified (such as deforestation) I mean i hate to sound heartless, but maybe the heard needs culling (not a racist remark)
If we are neglecting our own infrastructure to build theirs, are we not setting ourselves up for a fall. Who will bail us out when our bridges are collapsing (this has happened).
Why is money so readily availability for this, but not other things like financial aid for students or many other (Don't want to say more important, maybe self serving) things? I mean granted you have to pay the military anyway so you might as well have them doing something....maybe that is part of it.
Still heart strings are heart strings, and I believe in two birds with one stone. If we can help great! If by helping we can build greater support in a hostile environment (yes they are an ally, but lets not kid ourselves) well that's just icing on the cake.
Don't know, still on the fence with this one. I know everyone (except GW) has been hit by this economy. Maybe the U.S. has to look at every aspect and see what is going on. When you look at the numbers our aid is really an insignificant amount of the U.S. GDP. It's not as easy as saying we are giving Pakistan our infrastructure. Sometimes it just seams like it.
Another thought is that maybe we should focus more on giving fishing poles instead of fish if you get my point. Not as instantly gratifying, but better in the long run. It could be said though that the U.S. enjoys these opportunities to play hero.....but what are the costs?
Sorry if it looks like I am being contradictory or answering my own questions. I'm just really on the fence....I hate to be on the fence.
imo we ought to give them nothing. if they didnt have papa bear us around to save their bacon all the time they might act a little bit more responsibly.... like.... idk.... taking disaster planning seriously.
I wonder how much Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, or any of the Islamic nations are giving in aid.
Whatever aid we do give should be distributed directly to the people via reputable organizations. Any money that goes to the government will end up in somebody's personal account instead of helping the poor SOB's on the ground.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:imo we ought to give them nothing. if they didnt have papa bear us around to save their bacon all the time they might act a little bit more responsibly.... like.... idk.... taking disaster planning seriously.
That's part of it, but it also leaves the door open for radical Muslim countries and terrorists to provide aid and then they become papa bear. As much as I believe we really can't afford to give them hundreds of millions of dollars, I think we can ill afford for our enemies to spread their influence.
Yeah it's kind of what I'm feeling. How responsible is it for the U.S. government to be giving away so much money to anyone when we have a huge debt and plenty of projects of out own that could use this funding. I mean if we weren't willing to put the money in to fix the levies before Katrina, how can we justify just giving so much money away?
THE LEVIES WEREN'T BROKEN BEFORE KATRINA.
That statement is so ignorant its not funny. Monies for the levies had been siphoned off for fifty years to pet projects like river boat casinos etc. Anything within 50 miles of New Orleans is more corrupt then even Chicago.
sebster wrote:
That was Andrew's question, not mine. Could you change the quote? Thanks.
My bad. Fixed.
sebster wrote:
And yes, foreign aid is pennies compared to everything else. That said, the aid given to Pakistan, given straight to government, is exactly the kind of aid that tends to get lost in bureaucracy and never reach the people, but it isn't really for that. It's to keep their government on-side.
Yep. Though most of our aid to Pakistan has been accounted for by increased defense expenditures. Military aid rarely sees the same kind of siphoning that civilian aid does.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote:
Holy crap! And that is just one country.
The total, annual foreign military aid budget is about 22 billion if I recall correctly. Though there are some thing that don't get calculated into it, like the incentives for cooperation in the War on Terrorism.
Andrew1975 wrote:
No wonder our aging infrastructure is being ignored. Not saying that's the only reason...but still that's a lot of money that could be going to education or repairing bridges or research.
In my experience federal highways are in good repair, but then I have lived near, or in, major metropolitan areas for my whole life.
Andrew1975 wrote:
If Pakistan's population is so out of control that they create situations where the flooding is magnified (such as deforestation) I mean i hate to sound heartless, but maybe the heard needs culling (not a racist remark)
If we are neglecting our own infrastructure to build theirs, are we not setting ourselves up for a fall. Who will bail us out when our bridges are collapsing (this has happened).
Well, its not just about heart. In fact, I'd contend that it isn't about heart at all. Pakistan is a nuclear country and, according to RAND (I'll look for this citation if anyone wants it), keeping nuclear states happy and stable is far cheaper than dealing with nuclear terrorism.
dogma wrote:
Well, its not just about heart. In fact, I'd contend that it isn't about heart at all. Pakistan is a nuclear country and, according to RAND (I'll look for this citation if anyone wants it), keeping nuclear states happy and stable is far cheaper than dealing with nuclear terrorism.
dogma wrote:
Well, its not just about heart. In fact, I'd contend that it isn't about heart at all. Pakistan is a nuclear country and, according to RAND (I'll look for this citation if anyone wants it), keeping nuclear states happy and stable is far cheaper than dealing with nuclear terrorism.
Give Aid, prevent Nuclear Apocalyspe.
It's an interesting point. In that case should we trade them aid for nukes? I mean that's emotional black mail, but seams fair if they want to play nuclear blackmail? I know, impossible, so please don't go there.
It doesn't seam a good solution to say they have nukes so we have to help them (I'm looking at you Korea). It's like saying give me your wallet and I won't shoot you. Now I'm moving more towards we shouldn't help them if that is the case, but it still doesn't have anything to do with the people of Pakistan.
You kind of do have to take it as a whole though don't you? You can't just help the people of Pakistan without helping the Government in some way. I know they are an alley, but a tenuous one at best.
I think we really need to work on doling out for our own natural disasters before we even start to consider helping other countries, even with the possibility of improving our national relations. The way we handle natural disasters here is nothing short of fethed up.
Andrew1975 wrote:
It's an interesting point. In that case should we trade them aid for nukes? I mean that's emotional black mail, but seams fair if they want to play nuclear blackmail? I know, impossible, so please don't go there.
What you think is fair is irrelevant. What they think is fair, or are forced to accept as fair is the only consideration. Wilsonianism is a joke.
Andrew1975 wrote:
It doesn't seam a good solution to say they have nukes so we have to help them (I'm looking at you Korea). It's like saying give me your wallet and I won't shoot you.
If giving someone you wallet is cheaper than dieing, then why not do it? Feelings? Feelings are irrelevant.
And if they perform a valuable, not easily replaceable service? Something like, say, overseeing a large tract of land ripe for the type of extremist governance that allowed Al-Qaeda to establish itself sufficiently to plan 9/11? There are almost always mitigating circumstances that complicate analogies, though I think in this case its simple enough to suggest that, for whatever analogical reason, simply 'killing' the people in question is not feasible. Not if we have any reasonable commitment to nonproliferation and nuclear counter-terrorism.
And if they perform a valuable, not easily replaceable service? Something like, say, overseeing a large tract of land ripe for the type of extremist governance that allowed Al-Qaeda to establish itself sufficiently to plan 9/11? There are almost always mitigating circumstances that complicate analogies, though I think in this case its simple enough to suggest that, for whatever analogical reason, simply 'killing' the people in question is not feasible. Not if we have any reasonable commitment to nonproliferation and nuclear counter-terrorism.
History shows us that you can't bribe the beast. Eventually the beast gets too hungry.
Chrysaor686 wrote:I think we really need to work on doling out for our own natural disasters before we even start to consider helping other countries, even with the possibility of improving our national relations. The way we handle natural disasters here is nothing short of fethed up.
Fethed up?
You think?
The way New Orleans was handled could be classified as "genocide through indifference".
In the most powerful country in the western hemisphere in the year 2005 how do you excuse or rationalize the complete indifference to human life?
Frazzled wrote:
History shows us that you can't bribe the beast. Eventually the beast gets too hungry.
Pakistan is now analogous to Nazi Germany? I mean, I should have simply called the analogy out for being inappropriate right away, but I felt it was more appropriate to take the matter into a conversation about regime change. Apparently you felt differently, or didn't read enough of the thread to fully contextualize my initial comment.
Regardless, your reading of history is colored by what I consider to a perpetually illusory ultimate solution. Problems are not often put to rest, and when they are the cost is incredibly high. The last time it happened was WWII, and that took the total mobilization of multiple world powers. Nearly all wars lead to indefinite conclusions, and nearly all of them are prefaced by diplomatic exchanges and the use of soft or monetary power in order to postpone them. This action can be taken for multiple reasons, but historically it has either been a matter of buying time for military, political, or economic preparation.
The point of the RAND study I mentioned was to illustrate the manner in which foreign aid can buttress struggling, friendly states in order to minimize the overall cost to the US. Given the current military and economic situation that we're facing, I'm surprised that you would follow your standard all-or-nothing line of argument. I mean, I guess you might not be concerned with the destabilization of a nuclear state, but that would just make you seem oddly out of touch.
Frazzled wrote:
I'll restate. You kill them first.
I guess I could waste some time breaking the matter down in a fashion which still effectively rebuts your point; leaning primarily on the varying stages of having a gun drawn on you. But that really feels like a waste of time, and isn't directly applicable given that Pakistan is neither directly threatening us with nuclear weapons, nor are nuclear weapons comparable to a hold up. So, instead, I'll just jump into the topic itself.
Are you arguing that we should be aggressively pushing to oust the Pakistani state in order to secure their nuclear weapons, thus hopefully prevent them from falling into terrorist hands. And that if we do not do that , then we should do nothing? Because that's the antithesis of my position, which involves buttressing the Pakistani state in order to facilitate nonproliferation; while simultaneously working to empower the elements of that state that we select. Neither option is certain, but mine is cheaper, less intrusive, and militarily feasible.
Chrysaor686 wrote:I think we really need to work on doling out for our own natural disasters before we even start to consider helping other countries, even with the possibility of improving our national relations. The way we handle natural disasters here is nothing short of fethed up.
Fethed up?
You think?
The way New Orleans was handled could be classified as "genocide through indifference".
In the most powerful country in the western hemisphere in the year 2005 how do you excuse or rationalize the complete indifference to human life?
Chrysaor686 wrote:I think we really need to work on doling out for our own natural disasters before we even start to consider helping other countries, even with the possibility of improving our national relations. The way we handle natural disasters here is nothing short of fethed up.
Fethed up?
You think?
The way New Orleans was handled could be classified as "genocide through indifference".
In the most powerful country in the western hemisphere in the year 2005 how do you excuse or rationalize the complete indifference to human life?
Frazzled wrote:Have you been to NO? Any relatives from there? Any relatives die from Katrina? I did so you might shut the feth up.
Any clue about the levee's history and corruption there?
Again, hyperventilate much.
Spent a number of weeks there and then four weeks in Hati pulling medical supplies and unfortunately dead bodies out of a destroyed pediatric clinic my father-in law funds out of his own pocket.
As to Katrina: Many people died due to intolerable inaction on the part of authorities and controlling agencies and the US Government. What was going to happen was not a surprise, hell even the president was briefed on the likelihood of a disaster and what the severity would be PRIOR to it happening and then he sat with his thumbs up his ass for days while people suffered and died.
many of the deaths could have been prevented or the likelihood decreased with quick and coordinated action.
We are left to ponder how our leadership can coordinate how to obliterate countries half way around the world, but they can't figure out how to drop food and medicine out of helicopters or put soldiers on the ground in our own country to aid disaster victims and restore order?
So what is your point actually other then running your mouth?
Frazzled wrote:Have you been to NO? Any relatives from there? Any relatives die from Katrina? I did so you might shut the feth up.
Any clue about the levee's history and corruption there?
Again, hyperventilate much.
Spent a number of weeks there and then four weeks in Hati pulling medical supplies and unfortunately dead bodies out of a destroyed pediatric clinic my father-in law funds out of his own pocket.
As to Katrina: Many people died due to intolerable inaction on the part of authorities and controlling agencies and the US Government. What was going to happen was not a surprise, hell even the president was briefed on the likelihood of a disaster and what the severity would be PRIOR to it happening and then he sat with his thumbs up his ass for days while people suffered and died.
many of the deaths could have been prevented or the likelihood decreased with quick and coordinated action.
We are left to ponder how our leadership can coordinate how to obliterate countries half way around the world, but they can't figure out how to drop food and medicine out of helicopters or put soldiers on the ground in our own country to aid disaster victims and restore order?
So what is your point actually other then running your mouth?
So brilliantly wrong its not funny.
It was the responsibility of the local and state government, not the Fed.
It was the responsibility of the local and state government to siphon off levee money onto pet projects (aka steal it)'
It was the responsibility of the citizenry to be prepared and if not prepared, get out.
The irony I am seeing here is that most of you are not even American so maybe you should be asking yourself how much Aid is your country giving to Pakistan...
as these types of situations lead to more economic hardship and larger gross national debt...I say screw em...we have own own problems here...and for too long have we delt with everyone elses problems and not our own...
Initially yes local authorities as I already stated, but the fed could see very early on that nothing was being coordinated or achieved rapidly by the local authority and could have moved much more quickly to declare a national state of emergency and take the reins. How many needless deaths occured just in those first five days of inaction?
I assume they had access to the same news, photos and reports from ground zero that nothing was being done that I saw all the way here in CT, unless we are to assume that the feds live in isolation from such information?
Many people did get out if they could, but you do realize that the inaction on the part of authorities also had the fringe benefit of "thinning the herd" so to speak, then when "aid" did come in they shipped out everyone they could, effectively purging the city of those they wanted gone.
If you care to look into the history of the housing projects in NO (all well documented) you will see that HUD and other agencies had been planning and working for a good many years to close all the low rent housing projects in New Orleans so they could "beautify" and remake the city. As a political process this was a slow endeavor with much opposition from the public and certain interest groups who fight on behalf of the poor, etc.
i
katrina did in a short amount of time what might never have gotten done politically: gave them an excuse to exile/relocate lower class citizenry in the way of their goal.
Then they boarded up or demolished everything they wanted gone and told people "sorry can't live here go someplace else".
New housing built on those same sites went from the previous $380 a month rent or similar to over $1500 a month, effectively pricing out many of the now refugees that had been forced out. Even buildings that had been deemed salvageable or re-enhabitable got razed or boarded up if they wanted the land.
Disgustingly opportunistic practices like this that used a disaster to further a political agenda and effectively exile people displaced by katrina through pricing them out of returning.
Oh they did provide all those thousands of trailers for people to live in, you know the ones full of formaldehyde that weren't fit for human habitation...
Frazzled wrote:Have you been to NO? Any relatives from there? Any relatives die from Katrina? I did so you might shut the feth up.
Any clue about the levee's history and corruption there?
Again, hyperventilate much.
Spent a number of weeks there and then four weeks in Hati pulling medical supplies and unfortunately dead bodies out of a destroyed pediatric clinic my father-in law funds out of his own pocket.
As to Katrina: Many people died due to intolerable inaction on the part of authorities and controlling agencies and the US Government. What was going to happen was not a surprise, hell even the president was briefed on the likelihood of a disaster and what the severity would be PRIOR to it happening and then he sat with his thumbs up his ass for days while people suffered and died.
many of the deaths could have been prevented or the likelihood decreased with quick and coordinated action.
We are left to ponder how our leadership can coordinate how to obliterate countries half way around the world, but they can't figure out how to drop food and medicine out of helicopters or put soldiers on the ground in our own country to aid disaster victims and restore order?
So what is your point actually other then running your mouth?
So brilliantly wrong its not funny.
It was the responsibility of the local and state government, not the Fed.
It was the responsibility of the local and state government to siphon off levee money onto pet projects (aka steal it)'
It was the responsibility of the citizenry to be prepared and if not prepared, get out.
Genocide God you've got to be a college kid.
Amen. When a hurricane destroyed New Orleans in the early 1900's, the Federal Government sent tents and nothing else. No one pointed fingers then.
Personal responsibility is dead today, and it's sad as hell.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm a weather forecaster serving in this theatre right now. Aircraft from my base are flying relief missions to Pakistan. To give you guys an idea of how bad this was, the river is so flooded it's easy to spot from satellite imagery. And I'm not meaning like the Mississippi River easy, I'm meaning Lake Michigan easy to spot.
These people are our allies, despite some hardships. It behooves as as such, no as human beings, to aid these people however we can.
To qoute a person of authority in this region, "It doesn't matter what they think about us, we're trying to keep them alive."
Personal responsibility is dead today, and it's sad as hell.
Indifference to human suffering is also sad as hell.
You do realize that some victims had physical ailments or illnesses that prevented them from leaving?
You do realize that children and elderly became separated and trapped isolated from any adults capable of assisting them in leaving?
You do realize that some individuals had handicaps or mental illness that hampered their ability to self-evacuate?
etc.
Personal responsibility is a good thing, but so is charity, compassion, brotherhood and helping those in need regardless of what circumstances or bad choices they may or may not have made.
That makes you the better person.
I don't tend to leave people to die in order to teach them a lesson.
Maybe you should have read the rest of my post. I fully agree that things should have been done. But to have people sit there and cry for the government to save them like what happened in Katrina was beyond ridiculous.
If you are capable, then the only person you should expect to save you is yourself in a situation like that. In Katrina, when the Coast Guard, Navy, and Air Force could have been rescuing the "disabled", they were to busy rescuing the thousands who ignored the warnings. Who took no actions to save themselves when they could have.
Should the Federal Government be blamed for that?
We give aid where we can. It'll never be enough, but we do what we can. Shame on anyone who says it's not enough when they didn't do anything themselves to forestall the disaster.
wolfpack wrote:The irony I am seeing here is that most of you are not even American so maybe you should be asking yourself how much Aid is your country giving to Pakistan...
as these types of situations lead to more economic hardship and larger gross national debt...I say screw em...we have own own problems here...and for too long have we delt with everyone elses problems and not our own...
The USA is one of the smallest contributors of foreign aid of all developed countries. It gives about 0.2% of percentage of GDP.
To put it another way, the USA spends 99.8% of its GDP on solving its internal problems.
wolfpack wrote:The irony I am seeing here is that most of you are not even American so maybe you should be asking yourself how much Aid is your country giving to Pakistan...
as these types of situations lead to more economic hardship and larger gross national debt...I say screw em...we have own own problems here...and for too long have we delt with everyone elses problems and not our own...
The USA is one of the smallest contributors of foreign aid of all developed countries. It gives about 0.2% of percentage of GDP.
To put it another way, the USA spends 99.8% of its GDP on solving its internal problems.
Frazzled wrote:
History shows us that you can't bribe the beast. Eventually the beast gets too hungry.
Pakistan is now analogous to Nazi Germany? I mean, I should have simply called the analogy out for being inappropriate right away, but I felt it was more appropriate to take the matter into a conversation about regime change. Apparently you felt differently, or didn't read enough of the thread to fully contextualize my initial comment.
Regardless, your reading of history is colored by what I consider to a perpetually illusory ultimate solution. Problems are not often put to rest, and when they are the cost is incredibly high. The last time it happened was WWII, and that took the total mobilization of multiple world powers. Nearly all wars lead to indefinite conclusions, and nearly all of them are prefaced by diplomatic exchanges and the use of soft or monetary power in order to postpone them. This action can be taken for multiple reasons, but historically it has either been a matter of buying time for military, political, or economic preparation.
It would be incorrect to claim that Nazi Germany is the only, or even most recent, example. I could point out the Indonesian takeover of West Gueinea, followed by the occupation of East Timor, which appears to be the makings of a ruthless expansionist nation. In both cases Western Countries did nothing (in fact the US continued to supply Indonesia with weapons). However, unlike the case of full-scale war with Nazi Germany, it was the collaspe of the threat of communism and Indonesia's own internal problems that cuased a remission in Indonesia's territory claims. I think when Malcom Fraser had Defence tacticians gather info comparing Australian armed forces to Indonesia's in 1975 was the closest point Australia had been to a conventional war since WWII. The 1999 intervention actually had little risk of blowing into a full scale war as Indonesia now lacked US support. It's a very interesting subject that I love learning more about.
I still fail to see how either cases relate to giving aid to Pakistan though.
Frazzled wrote:So brilliantly wrong its not funny.
It was the responsibility of the local and state government, not the Fed.
That's completely and utterly wrong. FEMA was created with the express purpose of providing resources for disaster relief when the resources of local and state governments were overwhelmed.
Emperors Faithful wrote:I doubt that graph agrees.
True, that graph is showing straight aid, which is about $25 billion. Military aid is another $17 billion or thereabouts, although that is really high right now because $12 billion being given to Iraq and Afghanistan, normally military aid is around $5 billion, basically going to Israel, Egypt and Pakistan.
Military aid to Israel is included in the foreign aid budget.
I don't know about the other countries.
The point is that even if you include all military aid within the foreign aid budget, it is still a tiny proportion of GDP, maybe half a percent at most.
I'm not attacking the USA for this, just pointing out a fact.
People who say that the US needs to concentrate on solving its domestic problems before helping anyone else, need to understand that the US spends almost none of its money helping other countries.
To put it another way, cancelling all foreign and military aid would add proportionally little to domestic aid.
To put it a third way, the reason for disasters like the Malibu wild fires or the Hurrican Katrina floods, isn't that you haven't got enough money to stop them. It is other things like mentioned by Frazzled earlier in the thread.
Apparently the UK public is "leading the way" and "shaming the worlds politicians"
Ok so thats the money sorted, now we commence the psyops campaign to convince the people of Pakistan that we are the good guys and offer some financial incentives to rat out the Taliban and this natural disaster can be turned into a big bag of win!
Maybe a vigorous leaflet campaign to convince them that the Taliban/Islamic Extremist elements invented a flood machine?
mattyrm wrote:Apparently the UK public is "leading the way" and "shaming the worlds politicians"
Ok so thats the money sorted, now we commence the psyops campaign to convince the people of Pakistan that we are the good guys and offer some financial incentives to rat out the Taliban and this natural disaster can be turned into a big bag of win!
Maybe a vigorous leaflet campaign to convince them that the Taliban/Islamic Extremist elements invented a flood machine?
The best way of convincing people we are the good guys is to fly around in helicopters, rescuing victims from drowning and disease, and dishing out plenty of food, blankets and stuff like that.
Frazzled wrote:So brilliantly wrong its not funny.
It was the responsibility of the local and state government, not the Fed.
That's completely and utterly wrong. FEMA was created with the express purpose of providing resources for disaster relief when the resources of local and state governments were overwhelmed.
CT GAMER wrote:Who are say the top three?
As I posted on the previous page;
FEMA was created as a support mechanism. It wasn't designed to be an emergency response unit.
Pro tip Aussie. It helps to live in the region and seen FEMA in action before stating what FEMA does.
Kilkrazy wrote:Military aid to Israel is included in the foreign aid budget.
I don't know about the other countries.
The point is that even if you include all military aid within the foreign aid budget, it is still a tiny proportion of GDP, maybe half a percent at most.
I'm not attacking the USA for this, just pointing out a fact.
People who say that the US needs to concentrate on solving its domestic problems before helping anyone else, need to understand that the US spends almost none of its money helping other countries.
To put it another way, cancelling all foreign and military aid would add proportionally little to domestic aid.
To put it a third way, the reason for disasters like the Malibu wild fires or the Hurrican Katrina floods, isn't that you haven't got enough money to stop them. It is other things like mentioned by Frazzled earlier in the thread.
So if its "not material" klets quit giving it. PLus you ginored the money we give to the UN and payments in kind-primarily through the US Navy support of relief operations. It wasn't Chinese, Australian, or German aircraft carriers off Asia after the Tsunami rescuing people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:...Isn't FEMA a Governmental institution? (As in, not county or State based)
Yes a Federal entity. Now under Homeland Security and way more crappy as a result.
Emperors Faithful wrote:...Isn't FEMA a Governmental institution? (As in, not county or State based)
Yes a Federal entity. Now under Homeland Security and way more crappy as a result.
But...doesn't that defeat your argument? FEMA isn't state based, so therefore it doesn't matter which state you live in to know how it works.
1. FEMA's activities are in areas where disasters have occurred. Unfortunately on the Gulf Coast that occurs often.
2. It doesn't do much in say, Montana. It does way less in Australia.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:
Frazzled wrote: It wasn't designed to be an emergency response unit..
okay, but it is the Federal Emergency Management Agency isn't it ? Or am I confusing this with something else.
Thats not what it does, or did for 50 years anyway. After Katrina, who knows? It didn't do after Rita or Ike.
1. FEMA's activities are in areas where disasters have occurred. Unfortunately on the Gulf Coast that occurs often.
Fair enough. So you're saying that you've seen FEMA actually in action? Where were you?
2. It doesn't do much in say, Montana. It does way less in Australia.
The hell you know. FEMA is the manfodder first line of defence between the shores of Tasmanian and the Mainlaind, ensuring the natives do not escape into the greater part of civilisation. They've got their work cut out for them.
Fair enough. So you're saying that you've seen FEMA actually in action? Where were you?
Said Gulf Coast.
The hell you know. FEMA is the manfodder first line of defence between the shores of Tasmanian and the Mainlaind, ensuring the natives do not escape into the greater part of civilisation. They've got their work cut out for them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:I believe he's arguing more about seeing their inaction , rather.
yep.
Their original intent was to come in after the disaster and provide aid-loans and other aid. They weren't first responders.
Unfortunately like most of governemnt adn the sad state of the US, their ability to do anything is no bureaucracy crappytown. This is compounded by people now often expecting the government to take care of them for the long term. Thats not how it works nor should it be. Thats a post Katrina phenomenon.
Frazzled wrote:
So if its "not material" klets quit giving it.
Its not material to us, but it is often quite significant to the states to which it is given; what with proportionality and all.
Frazzled wrote:
PLus you ginored the money we give to the UN...
This varies from year to year, but a generous average would be 2.5 billion (including contributions outside of nominal dues, and Helms-Biden). Add this to the total foreign aid of ~42 billion and we reach an aggregate of 44.5 billion.
Frazzled wrote:
...and payments in kind-primarily through the US Navy support of relief operations. It wasn't Chinese, Australian, or German aircraft carriers off Asia after the Tsunami rescuing people.
No, but the carriers used in the course of relief efforts were already at sea incurring operational costs. Folding that into the aid budget is ridiculous, and even if you want to include it were're talking about, at most, 2 billion dollars; bringing the total to 46.5 billion.
Even if we, generously, round up to 50 billion the total amount of aid given by the US is insignificant to its overal budget.
Whether or not your sick of paying for it is irrelevant. If its an effective measure of contributing to national defense (and in my view it is), then its money that should be spent.
He is right though Frazz, i dont like it either, but we gotta throw some cash their way at the end of the day, as we always used to say in the marines, the guy with the bigger pay grade makes the theatre wide decisions, think of the big picture!
dogma wrote:Whether or not your sick of paying for it is irrelevant. If its an effective measure of contributing to national defense (and in my view it is), then its money that should be spent.
Its not irrelevant. I vote. more importantly I give to political candidates. Giving a lot this year.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:He is right though Frazz, i dont like it either, but we gotta throw some cash their way at the end of the day, as we always used to say in the marines, the guy with the bigger pay grade makes the theatre wide decisions, think of the big picture!
Every time we give someone money they hate us. We don't give squat to Canada and they are usually just perplexed by us, except when we make fun of Hockey of course.
West Europe act like we're a mix of scum and Darth Vader
East Europe loves us.
Lose good men trying to feed people in Somalia, and take an inordinate amount of immigrants. How many plots now involving Somalis again?
No, as a nation we owe them nothing, we owe no one.
dogma wrote:Whether or not your sick of paying for it is irrelevant. If its an effective measure of contributing to national defense (and in my view it is), then its money that should be spent.
Its not irrelevant. I vote. more importantly I give to political candidates. Giving a lot this year.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:He is right though Frazz, i dont like it either, but we gotta throw some cash their way at the end of the day, as we always used to say in the marines, the guy with the bigger pay grade makes the theatre wide decisions, think of the big picture!
Every time we give someone money they hate us. We don't give squat to Canada and they are usually just perplexed by us, except when we make fun of Hockey of course.
West Europe act like we're a mix of scum and Darth Vader
East Europe loves us.
Lose good men trying to feed people in Somalia, and take an inordinate amount of immigrants. How many plots now involving Somalis again?
No, as a nation we owe them nothing, we owe no one.
West Europe doesnt hate you mate, the UK is classed as Europe right?
Its not a nation thing, its a poltical thing.
Im centre right and i think America is awesome. I think i have more in common with people from the US than anywhere else.
I dont hug people mate, im too manly for that. Here have a hearty backslap instead!
No I consider Britain its own little bit of reality, like your currency. I'm quite certain you can actually hear "God Save the Queen" from 30,000 feet.
Frazzled wrote:
Its not irrelevant. I vote. more importantly I give to political candidates. Giving a lot this year.
Whether or not you like something, or will vote against someone if he does something, is not relevant to the effectiveness or propriety of an action; which is what we were discussing. Now, if you said that you didn't like something and could then come up with a compelling basis for that dislike, then we would have something to discuss. I doubt you're interested in doing that though.
Remember, there are people that like the idea of banning firearms in the United States, and will vote for candidates that support such measures. However, doing so is neither appropriate due to the Second Amendment, nor effective in terms of reducing gun crime or controlling the social order.
Frazzled wrote:
Every time we give someone money they hate us.
That's because, very often, we give money to unpopular, but relatively friendly, governments.
Frazzled wrote:
No, as a nation we owe them nothing, we owe no one.
Its not about owing anyone anything, and it never has been.
Sure it is. We're broke. Let China do it. We're done. You can't get blood from a turnip. If you want to do it individually as charity great. You do it. The American Empire is over. Like Britain before us we can no long afford these burdens. Time to let the next empire do it or let the world survive without it.
In the words of the immortal bard: "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more."
Sorry, but no. Rightness is not about popular consensus. You can't have a valid opinion about something that you don't have significant knowledge of.
Frazzled wrote:
We're broke. Let China do it. We're done. You can't get blood from a turnip.
So broke, apparently, that we're arguing over 46.5 billion dollar instead of actually trying to determine what can be realistically cut , like procurement, that actually has a significant impact on the overall budget.
Frazzled wrote:
The American Empire is over. Like Britain before us we can no long afford these burdens. Time to let the next empire do it or let the world survive without it.
Unfortunately it isn't that simple, and it certainly isn't about empire. Nuclear terrorism, which is what I'm predicating this argument on, is a global issue because the economic ramifications of it are inherently global. RAND estimated that if a nuclear bomb were detonated in the port of Long Beach the instant economic cost to the world would be, at least, 3 trillion dollars. In the face of that type of risk, 50 billion dollars hardly seems significant.
Frazzled wrote:
In the words of the immortal bard: "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more."
Frazzled wrote:FEMA was created as a support mechanism. It wasn't designed to be an emergency response unit.
Pro tip Aussie. It helps to live in the region and seen FEMA in action before stating what FEMA does.
So living in the US makes you immune to a plain text reading of the stated purpose of a federal agency? FEMA's stated purpose was to provide aid where state and local government resources are not adequate.
They didn't perform their handle that at all well during hurrican Katrina. Whether I live in Australia, the US or on the moon, this can't be disputed.
Now, you can make a number of complaints against state and local government handling of the issue, but that doesn't lessen FEMA's own failures in the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Sure it is. We're broke. Let China do it. We're done. You can't get blood from a turnip. If you want to do it individually as charity great. You do it. The American Empire is over. Like Britain before us we can no long afford these burdens. Time to let the next empire do it or let the world survive without it.
So if you're really not interested in interacting with the rest of the world you'd be quite keen to stop all that military spending? You only need it to protect US interests overseas, because no nation on Earth has anything like the capability needed to invade the US. Even if you kept the national guard you'd be saving around 800 billion dollars. Which is quite big saving compared to the foreign aid budget.
Frazzled wrote:FEMA was created as a support mechanism. It wasn't designed to be an emergency response unit.
Pro tip Aussie. It helps to live in the region and seen FEMA in action before stating what FEMA does.
So living in the US makes you immune to a plain text reading of the stated purpose of a federal agency? FEMA's stated purpose was to provide aid where state and local government resources are not adequate.
No it means I have real world experience. You've read on a computer. Big difference.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Sure it is. We're broke. Let China do it. We're done. You can't get blood from a turnip. If you want to do it individually as charity great. You do it. The American Empire is over. Like Britain before us we can no long afford these burdens. Time to let the next empire do it or let the world survive without it.
So if you're really not interested in interacting with the rest of the world you'd be quite keen to stop all that military spending? You only need it to protect US interests overseas, because no nation on Earth has anything like the capability needed to invade the US. Even if you kept the national guard you'd be saving around 800 billion dollars. Which is quite big saving compared to the foreign aid budget.
I am keen on stopping the military spending and bringing all troops home except for one or two strategic locations. Let the rest of the world fend for itself thank you very much. If we protected our own borders and adopted a Swiss attitude we would have avoided every war since WWI.
Frazzled wrote:
I am keen on stopping the military spending and bringing all troops home except for one or two strategic locations. Let the rest of the world fend for itself thank you very much. If we protected our own borders and adopted a Swiss attitude we would have avoided every war since WWI.
You mean WWII, but that's still false given the manner in which 'borders' were understood following the rise of the Soviet Union.
No WWI. Had the Lusitania not been sunk and Germany prepared to support Mexico in some bizarre attempt to retake the Southwest, we would not have entered WWI.
US intervention in Asia and our support of Britain led to the Japanese attack and Germany's declaration of war in WWII.
Frazzled wrote:No WWI.
US intervention in Asia and our support of Britain led to the Japanese attack and Germany's declaration of war.
Yes, US intervention in Asia and support of Britain, so action beyond the official borders of the United States, and therefore not something based on an isolationist policy of a sort similar to that of the Swiss.
Regardless, you mean the US declaration of War on Germany following the sinking of the armed blockade runner Lusitania. An action, the arming of the Lusitania and similar vessels, which violated the assumed agreement between the US and Germany regarding 'non-aligned' shipping. I placed 'non-aligned' in quotes because it was clear to anyone that cared to take an interest at the time that the US was supporting Britain in a material capacity, which is what lead Germany to lift its prohibition on targeting 'non-aligned' shipping.
And that is just one country. No wonder our aging infrastructure is being ignored. Not saying that's the only reason...but still that's a lot of money that could be going to education or repairing bridges or research.
after Rita or Ike.
