I posted a question about if we should be sending money to Pakistan to help them because of the flooding. Most people were against it. So my next question is how do you feel about helping the Kiwis in New Zealand, the just suffered from a terrible earth quake. If you were against helping Pakistan but for helping the Kiwis (or vice versa) i'd really be interested in hearing your reasons.
Gwar! wrote:The difference is that the poor Kiwis don't have a host of other Kiwi nations who are obliged to help their fellow Kiwis by the Kiwi Religious Text.
Andrew1975 wrote:I posted a question about if we should be sending money to Pakistan to help them because of the flooding. Most people were against it. So my next question is how do you feel about helping the Kiwis in New Zealand, the just suffered from a terrible earth quake. If you were against helping Pakistan but for helping the Kiwis (or vice versa) i'd really be interested in hearing your reasons.
I'm not really against helping Pakistan, but I can see how some people could oppose helping Pakistan and favor helping New Zealand.
New Zealand, to my knowledge, has never claimed to be our ally, accepted military funding from us, and then killed American soldiers while holding it's hand out for more money. While I know that the people of Pakistan who are in need of aid aren't really at fault for that, my knee jerk reaction when I hear "Pakistan" is to mumble "Yeah, whatevah. Feth Pakistan."
Besides, as an English speaker and citizen of a commonwealth country, I feel more of a cultural bond with the Kiwis. Plus, to be brutally honest, they're white.
At least you're honest about it. Personally I'm against aid to New Zealand for the same reasons that I'm against aid to Pakistan, and perhaps moreso. All the problems in delivering aid to Pakistan are multiplied by the remoteness of New Zealand, and then toss in the fact that they don't actually seem to need the help. It's like Chile and Haiti: Haiti wasn't laid low by an earthquake, it was destroyed by its own mismanagement and thoroughly inadequate infrastructure, while Chile suffered a worse quake but far fewer people died because the Chileans were prepared.
There's a reason why in some parts of the world an earthquake or flood or famine will kill thousands, while in others a similar magnitude disaster puts a few people in hospital (the two I heard about where variously crushed by bricks and by broken glass - think about that for a second) and simply causes property damage. That reason is the development of a civic culture on the part of the wealthy.
Khornholio wrote:There is no Hobbiton in Pakistan.
Besides, as an English speaker and citizen of a commonwealth country, I feel more of a cultural bond with the Kiwis. Plus, to be brutally honest, they're white.
I would like to point out the Pakistan was part of the British empire and is a member of the commonwealth.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would also like to say that I'm opposed to giving money to either country but that is more of a general opposition to charity.
Either you are a good samaritan or you aren't. A good samaritan helps the people who need it most.
That's the Pakistanis, not the Kiwis.
Who among us will truly say it is good that thousands of children might die of starvation, disease and exposure in Pakistan so that instead we can send our money to New Zealand, which isn't even asking for help.
I wouldn't be against a government loaning money to either countries if it was inclined to, or for private individuals or organizations to give to those countries or go and help their people. As an institution governments are there to provide a service to it's citizens. Until all the needs of a countries citizens are met I think it's irresponsible of a government to be giving money away to other countries.
Either you are a good samaritan or you aren't. A good samaritan helps the people who need it most.
That's the Pakistanis, not the Kiwis.
Who among us will truly say it is good that thousands of children might die of starvation, disease and exposure in Pakistan so that instead we can send our money to New Zealand, which isn't even asking for help.
This. 2 billion in damage but the Earthquake Commission has about 15 billion for situations exactly like this. We don't need any financial help, so you Americans should give it to the people who need it.
Fallen668 wrote:Thou shalt give equal worth to tragidies that occur in non english speaking countries as those that occur in english speaking countries.
Are people sending money to New Zealand? I would have thought that most people consider NZ a civilized and wealthy enough nation to take care of itself.
Add to this that it's a predominantly white, English speaking country with pleasant scenery. The endless famine, civil war and religious nonsense that comes from ''black'' countries can only bore people sitting on their arses in front of the telly. Comfortable westerners get jaded with third world fallout. Show them New Zealanders who are little different from themselves and they might be forgiven for having more sympathy.
Personally, I find the images of Pakistani kids covered in flies more upsetting than the lesser conflict down under.
Anti-Mag wrote:Are people sending money to New Zealand? I would have thought that most people consider NZ a civilized and wealthy enough nation to take care of itself.
Add to this that it's a predominantly white, English speaking country with pleasant scenery. The endless famine, civil war and religious nonsense that comes from ''black'' countries can only bore people sitting on their arses in front of the telly. Comfortable westerners get jaded with third world fallout. Show them New Zealanders who are little different from themselves and they might be forgiven for having more sympathy.
Personally, I find the images of Pakistani kids covered in flies more upsetting than the lesser conflict down under.
Personally, I think that if a country can afford a nuclear deterrent then it should not be a recipient of foreign aid.
Ah, but those families starving amongst their smashed up homes have no use for nukes. Take issue with Pakistani leadership all you want, but they're not the one's who'll be needing the aid.
Anti-Mag wrote:Ah, but those families starving amongst their smashed up homes have no use for nukes. Take issue with Pakistani leadership all you want, but they're not the one's who'll be needing the aid.
They wouldn't need the aid if they had competent leadership.
if the leadership can afford to have nukes, why can't they afford to look after their citizens?
Anti-Mag wrote:Are people sending money to New Zealand? I would have thought that most people consider NZ a civilized and wealthy enough nation to take care of itself.
Add to this that it's a predominantly white, English speaking country with pleasant scenery. The endless famine, civil war and religious nonsense that comes from ''black'' countries can only bore people sitting on their arses in front of the telly. Comfortable westerners get jaded with third world fallout. Show them New Zealanders who are little different from themselves and they might be forgiven for having more sympathy.
Personally, I find the images of Pakistani kids covered in flies more upsetting than the lesser conflict down under.
Personally, I think that if a country can afford a nuclear deterrent then it should not be a recipient of foregin aid.
Anti-Mag wrote:Are people sending money to New Zealand? I would have thought that most people consider NZ a civilized and wealthy enough nation to take care of itself.
Add to this that it's a predominantly white, English speaking country with pleasant scenery. The endless famine, civil war and religious nonsense that comes from ''black'' countries can only bore people sitting on their arses in front of the telly. Comfortable westerners get jaded with third world fallout. Show them New Zealanders who are little different from themselves and they might be forgiven for having more sympathy.
Personally, I find the images of Pakistani kids covered in flies more upsetting than the lesser conflict down under.
Personally, I think that if a country can afford a nuclear deterrent then it should not be a recipient of foregin aid.
That rules out Israel then.
Fair enough, no argument here.
Anti-Mag wrote:Ah, but those families starving amongst their smashed up homes have no use for nukes. Take issue with Pakistani leadership all you want, but they're not the one's who'll be needing the aid.
Nukes cost money. Aid for disaster victims in addition to better infrastructure in order to lessen the impact of natural disasters also costs money.
I'm not going to insult your intelligence by pointing out a possible correlation between these two facts.
Lets see. Almost fifteen hundred dead in natural disaster in one country. None dead in natural disaster in another country. Which one should I aid? ...well that would depend on whether the people of those countries are english speaking whites or not.
whatwhat wrote:Lets see. Almost fifteen hundred dead in natural disaster in one country. None dead in natural disaster in another country. Which one should I aid? ...well that would depend on whether the people of those countries are english speaking whites or not.
One country has nukes, a weak government, is a major training ground for terrorism and has lots of religious allies to help them.
One is an isolated island.
Maybe I am crazy and evil, but I know who I would help more.
Like it has been said, Pakistan is more than capable of coping, it just doesn't do so because of corruption and such. If they can afford to pay for nukes, why can't they afford to send food to their own citizens?
Of course. Islands have priority. I almost forgot about that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: When someone is already suffering because of the actions of their government and other individuals in their country, then a natural disaster adds to their suffering. Another person in another country giving aid to those perfectly capable of handling themselves without help, over them because of the actions of their government/others in their country. That, that is called a piss take.
Gwar! wrote:Like it has been said, Pakistan is more than capable of coping, it just doesn't do so because of corruption and such. If they can afford to pay for nukes, why can't they afford to send food to their own citizens?
Erm, my point was: It's not right judging a persons right to anything based on the actions of their government. (kind of like how when the allies invaded germany they killed the nazis, not the german population in general)
You just did that again.
And how the feth is helping a country in a major, times 1000 to the power of moses, natural disaster going to make them "dependant on aid"?
"here is my house" *earthquake* "Oh gak my house is gone" *westener builds new one* "I guess my house is back, but now I am dependant on western aid." = dumb.
Anti-Mag wrote:Ah, but those families starving amongst their smashed up homes have no use for nukes. Take issue with Pakistani leadership all you want, but they're not the one's who'll be needing the aid.
The issue is with the leadership of course, but the leadership won't get better of they keep getting bailed out when they make the wrong decisions. Much like TARP.
Guns and butter.
Tough choices to make in Pakistan, they chose guns. If Ktulhut's post is true it seems NZ picked butter. We can see how the choice affected each country.
whatwhat wrote:Erm, my point was: It's not right judging a persons right to anything based on the actions of their government. (kind of like how when the allies invaded germany they killed the nazis, not the german population in general)
You just did that again.
And how the feth is helping a country in a major, times 1000 to the power of moses, natural disaster going to make them "dependant on aid"?
"here is my house" *earthquake* "Oh gak my house is gone" *westener builds new one* "I guess my house is back, but now I am dependant on western aid." = dumb.
Actually this is how it happens, if a disaster, drought, flood or something equally crap occurs the goverment of that country should have installed safe guards and be able to give aid to its people, if a goverment starts to get foriegn aid organisations or goverments bailing them out they feel no need to change this after the disaster and don't prepare for the likely event of another such disaster occuring again. this causes a vicious cycle were the country's goverment never takes responsibility.
an example can be seen from the charities that go to african countries and install wells and safe toilet facilities, yes this is needed, but it should be that country's goverment that pays for this instead of stockpiling AKs. until we stop drip feeding aid to less fortunate countries and actual give their goverments the 'tools of leadership' they will continue to have suffering, poverty, genocide, child brutality and massive death tolls in disasters.
dogma wrote:The Pakistani state spends about 2.6% of its gdp on the military. Significantly less than many nations.
And considerably more than many others, like for instance New Zealand which is in the 1% range. Pakistan is still near the top 20 of military spending % of GDP, being beat out by places like the US and Russia and a few incredibly violent places with active military action.
whatwhat wrote:Erm, my point was: It's not right judging a persons right to anything based on the actions of their government. (kind of like how when the allies invaded germany they killed the nazis, not the german population in general)
You just did that again.
And how the feth is helping a country in a major, times 1000 to the power of moses, natural disaster going to make them "dependant on aid"?
"here is my house" *earthquake* "Oh gak my house is gone" *westener builds new one* "I guess my house is back, but now I am dependant on western aid." = dumb.
Actually this is how it happens, if a disaster, drought, flood or something equally crap occurs the goverment of that country should have installed safe guards and be able to give aid to its people, if a goverment starts to get foriegn aid organisations or goverments bailing them out they feel no need to change this after the disaster and don't prepare for the likely event of another such disaster occuring again. this causes a vicious cycle were the country's goverment never takes responsibility.
an example can be seen from the charities that go to african countries and install wells and safe toilet facilities, yes this is needed, but it should be that country's goverment that pays for this instead of stockpiling AKs. until we stop drip feeding aid to less fortunate countries and actual give their goverments the 'tools of leadership' they will continue to have suffering, poverty, genocide, child brutality and massive death tolls in disasters.
No, what's needed is good old-fashioned liberal empire. Straight up. There are countries in some parts of the world which are just incapable of governing themselves for whatever reason. Actually the reasons aren't that important, so much as the facts. The fact is that almost all countries in Africa, and many in the Middle-east (not to mention the Indian subcontinent) are unstable by western standards, and have citizens that are in need of good government whatever the source. The much-vaunted 'self-determination' is of markedly less worth to the average Somalian than bread, water and less chance that their village will be overrun by murderous machete-weilding rebel fighters.
These countries will not just spontaneously learn to govern themselves well overnight, they need outside administration, and it's about time we in the west stopped sending them money and started sending them boatfuls of our troops. We would benefit and so would they.
caddock wrote:
And considerably more than many others, like for instance New Zealand which is in the 1% range. Pakistan is still near the top 20 of military spending % of GDP, being beat out by places like the US and Russia and a few incredibly violent places with active military action.
I was unaware that Kyrgyzstan was comparable to the US and Russia. I was also unaware that France and the UK were home to crippled civil sectors due to their military budgets, at 2.3% and 2.5% respectively.
Gailbraithe wrote:New Zealand, to my knowledge, has never claimed to be our ally, accepted military funding from us, and then killed American soldiers while holding it's hand out for more money. While I know that the people of Pakistan who are in need of aid aren't really at fault for that, my knee jerk reaction when I hear "Pakistan" is to mumble "Yeah, whatevah. Feth Pakistan."
You're confusing a nation and the people living there. They're not the same thing. National policy, even in fully democratic countries, is set by a very small number of people. The rest are generally unaware of the complexities of national politics, and if they are aware they argue with friends, or maybe even on the internet, and affect the political not one bit.
The crappy nature of Pakistani politics at the top level cannot allow people to let the average Pakistani citizen starve to death.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote:It's like Chile and Haiti: Haiti wasn't laid low by an earthquake, it was destroyed by its own mismanagement and thoroughly inadequate infrastructure, while Chile suffered a worse quake but far fewer people died because the Chileans were prepared.
A straight misleading of a Richter scale will lead to that conclusion, and it is wrong. The quake in Haiti occurred very near the surface, very near the capital, so little force dissipated before impacting buildings and infrastructure, whereas the Chilean quake occurred much deeper underground, most of the energy was lost before impacting buildings.
You are right that Chile was better prepared, but claiming the quake itself was greater is just wrong.
There's a reason why in some parts of the world an earthquake or flood or famine will kill thousands, while in others a similar magnitude disaster puts a few people in hospital (the two I heard about where variously crushed by bricks and by broken glass - think about that for a second) and simply causes property damage. That reason is the development of a civic culture on the part of the wealthy.
The idea that poverty is the result of the good or poor nature of the wealthy elite is wrong. Economics... just doesn't work like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
Fallen668 wrote:Thou shalt give equal worth to tragidies that occur in non english speaking countries as those that occur in english speaking countries.
Why?
Because people are people, and giving aid to stop a person dying is good.
No, the reason to deny aid is because on odd days the Pakistani people want to burn the US to the ground and salt the land, and on even days they want the US to give them money.
But I am apparently a bad person for this. It doesn't make a difference in the end anyway, us being specs of carbon yadda yadda yadda.
Albatross wrote:No, what's needed is good old-fashioned liberal empire. Straight up. There are countries in some parts of the world which are just incapable of governing themselves for whatever reason. Actually the reasons aren't that important, so much as the facts. The fact is that almost all countries in Africa, and many in the Middle-east (not to mention the Indian subcontinent) are unstable by western standards, and have citizens that are in need of good government whatever the source. The much-vaunted 'self-determination' is of markedly less worth to the average Somalian than bread, water and less chance that their village will be overrun by murderous machete-weilding rebel fighters.
These countries will not just spontaneously learn to govern themselves well overnight, they need outside administration, and it's about time we in the west stopped sending them money and started sending them boatfuls of our troops. We would benefit and so would they.
Sounds good in theory, but it's been tried in Somalia and about the only thing that came out of it was "Blackhawk Down". About the only thing the country has for income is a pirate industry and future site for terrorist camps. It's in all the tourist brochures for the country, donchaknow.
whatwhat wrote:Erm, my point was: It's not right judging a persons right to anything based on the actions of their government. (kind of like how when the allies invaded germany they killed the nazis, not the german population in general)
You just did that again.
And how the feth is helping a country in a major, times 1000 to the power of moses, natural disaster going to make them "dependant on aid"?
"here is my house" *earthquake* "Oh gak my house is gone" *westener builds new one* "I guess my house is back, but now I am dependant on western aid." = dumb.
Actually this is how it happens, if a disaster, drought, flood or something equally crap occurs the goverment of that country should have installed safe guards and be able to give aid to its people, if a goverment starts to get foriegn aid organisations or goverments bailing them out they feel no need to change this after the disaster and don't prepare for the likely event of another such disaster occuring again. this causes a vicious cycle were the country's goverment never takes responsibility.
an example can be seen from the charities that go to african countries and install wells and safe toilet facilities, yes this is needed, but it should be that country's goverment that pays for this instead of stockpiling AKs. until we stop drip feeding aid to less fortunate countries and actual give their goverments the 'tools of leadership' they will continue to have suffering, poverty, genocide, child brutality and massive death tolls in disasters.
You either have hardly any idea of the scale of the disaster in pakistan or your just an impecile. There is no level of infrastructure which could prepare ANY country for that kind of disaster. Get real.
You have to face it when something like that happens race, government whatever else is out the window. It's your own humanity which is the deciding factor in whether you help somebody who has their world ripped out from underneath them when there is nothing they could have done about it. If their own government would rather spend the money on AKS like you say, then why do you punish the individual?
Dependencies on aid usually come in when you are pushing a people to a level of development beyond what they are at. Not when you are helping them rebuild what they did have but lost due to no fault of their own.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:No, what's needed is good old-fashioned liberal empire.
Gwar! wrote:No, the reason to deny aid is because on odd days the Pakistani people want to burn the US to the ground and salt the land, and on even days they want the US to give them money.
But I am apparently a bad person for this.
Not necessarily a bad person. Just a silly one for thinking 'the Pakistani people want' is an actual thing, as if they all think the same. It'd be like claiming Americans are hypocrits because some Americans argue for animal rights and some Americans wear fur coats.
Sorry 'other countries' there's a lot of people here in the states who are out of work, getting their unemployment cut, losing their homes, and the LAST thing they want is to be paying taxes for someone else's problems.
Just a couple of years ago there was a big american flag burning mob in pakistan on the front cover of newsweek. There's a lot of angry taxpayers waiting to happen while their jobs get outsourced and they pay for other people's tragedy where their jobs are getting outsourced to. Perspective perspective perspective. I'm really sorry you got hit so hard Pakistan, maybe if you weren't zealous anti-american asses I would be more compassionate.
For now I believe U.S. aid money should be spent on U.S. aid. We get floods, hurricanes, health care travesty, earthquakes, foreclosures, outsourcing, financial ruin, hunger, homelessness... and we don't even take care of our own population. When I was homeless nobody gave ME an aid package courtesy of the American people, but I sure could still pay taxes!
So feth Pakistan and their flag burning mob. Sorry America hating al-qaeda sympathising people we have our own problems. If you weren't so backwards maybe you would have the infrastructure to fix your own problems and deal with your own catastrophies. We have enough of our own.
Edit:
just had a cigarette. calmed down.
It does extend a hand of friendship to offer aid even when we cannot afford to. But when will they turn around and hate us again next? It would be nice to be benevolent and I don't like the idea of famine and lack of life's necessities causing unnecessary deaths. Maybe it would wake them up that we aren't the bad guys? I doubt it, but it could be worth trying. My cynical side says it is a wasted effort. My selfish side says "where was my aid when I needed it", and my compassionate side says "sure, I can't afford my rent but these people don't even have anything to rent. It shouldn't have to feel like sending aid is a bribe for good will though.
It aint rocket science. I like Kiwis, i dont like Pakistanis generally and Muslims as a whole.
Easy choice innit? You dont have to turn it into a fifty page debate, humans are humans, we all have our own likes and dislikes, and thats just the way of it. There is no "wrong" answer. I personally think my dislike of Muslims is entirely logical, i can name at least ten reasons off the top of my head why i feel this way, and it makes perfect sense.
Now, of course, not all muslims are bad, but things like this have to be approached en-masse, because you dont get to pick and choose where the money goes. So sure, if i went over there and met a bloke i actually seemed to like, then i might give him some dough, but en -masse, i dont like Muslims because they like their desert God too much, they treat women like second class citizens and make them dress like ninja, they follow ancient ridiculous dogmas and they are very intolerant.
Sure, im aware that all arent, but i dont get to say "here is fifty quid Oxfam, make sure you only give it to the nice wishy washy, never bother praying, not very devout, pleasant pretend muslims who dont care if i drink booze and eat bacon butties"
And why do they have to burn everything!?
Cheating cricketers?
Politicians?
Flags?
burn it burn it!
Sure there may be some nice people caught up over there, but generally hey dont seem very nice people to me, and as a result i care nothing for their woes.
Hmmm... I guess it all depends on if the water is high enough to cover the "DIE, America, Die" signs and put out our burning flags.
No, wait....feth 'em.
Sounds harsh but maybe a good natural disaster is warranted for a lot of places about now. Hard to fight over what your little book says when you're treading water.
My cousin's roof caved in because of the earthquake.
There were 2 serious injuries and no fatalities afaik.
Not quite the same as 1500 deaths and goodness knows how many homeless with the potential for water borne diseases.
Not had time to read all the posts and am sure this has already been pointed out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sounds harsh but maybe a good natural disaster is warranted for a lot of places about now. Hard to fight over what your little book says when you're treading water.
Ho hum
it is hurricane season is it not? If only such natural disasters could be selective and pick out the chaff of righteous stupidity.
New Zealand is a well developed country. Aid should be offered and given, but it's not nearly as necessary as it was for Pakistan.
And the support for Pakistan is more important then just for the humanitarian aspects. We want that country to be stable. A nuclear power that has a significant terrorist problem, the worse thing we'd want is for that government to fragment.
Might not seem such a threat to you guys back home, but if the Taliban were to get their hands on one of those bombs... Well you could kiss Bagram, or Kandahar, or any other major US base in Afghanistan goodbye. And sorry, but that is not on my list of things to see happen in my lifetime.
Gwar! wrote:No, the reason to deny aid is because on odd days the Pakistani people want to burn the US to the ground and salt the land, and on even days they want the US to give them money.
Wait, are you saying that large groups of people can make seemingly contradictory demands and requests? My God, its almost as if groups don't function in accordance with a hive mind! Quick, someone tell the Queen that her authority is in danger, clearly the peasants have discovered the written word!
I don't know, I would have to ask my Mom about more info on my relatives from kiwi island.
The EQC (Earthquake Commission) covers up to the first 100,000 dollars on each residential claim, the rest would be insurance. If they don't have any, then there's a mayoral fund being set up, and a central government one too, that people can apply for assistance from.
Oh dear, the best you can manage is the playground response of a 5 year old
Guess it makes a change from the lets nuke 'em response to everything that you disagree with. Which apprears to be everything seen in the shade of a black piqued officer's cap.
I make a comment.
You retort by substituting the subect with the object as if I was referring to myself
Like kids do in the playground.
Nah nah nah nah nah nah
Well there are plenty of posts where I bluntly call myself stupid when I have gaffed. In no way is this applicable here and if it was there would be no doubt that I was the subject of my own ridicule.
At least it's been fun taking the pith out of you.
Meanwhile people are suffering but they ain't white folks so thats okay.
whatwhat wrote:Erm, my point was: It's not right judging a persons right to anything based on the actions of their government. (kind of like how when the allies invaded germany they killed the nazis, not the german population in general)
You just did that again.
And how the feth is helping a country in a major, times 1000 to the power of moses, natural disaster going to make them "dependant on aid"?
"here is my house" *earthquake* "Oh gak my house is gone" *westener builds new one* "I guess my house is back, but now I am dependant on western aid." = dumb.
Actually this is how it happens, if a disaster, drought, flood or something equally crap occurs the goverment of that country should have installed safe guards and be able to give aid to its people, if a goverment starts to get foriegn aid organisations or goverments bailing them out they feel no need to change this after the disaster and don't prepare for the likely event of another such disaster occuring again. this causes a vicious cycle were the country's goverment never takes responsibility.
an example can be seen from the charities that go to african countries and install wells and safe toilet facilities, yes this is needed, but it should be that country's goverment that pays for this instead of stockpiling AKs. until we stop drip feeding aid to less fortunate countries and actual give their goverments the 'tools of leadership' they will continue to have suffering, poverty, genocide, child brutality and massive death tolls in disasters.
You either have hardly any idea of the scale of the disaster in pakistan or your just an impecile. There is no level of infrastructure which could prepare ANY country for that kind of disaster. Get real.
You have to face it when something like that happens race, government whatever else is out the window. It's your own humanity which is the deciding factor in whether you help somebody who has their world ripped out from underneath them when there is nothing they could have done about it. If their own government would rather spend the money on AKS like you say, then why do you punish the individual?
Dependencies on aid usually come in when you are pushing a people to a level of development beyond what they are at. Not when you are helping them rebuild what they did have but lost due to no fault of their own.
you may not have noticed but i never mentioned the Pakistani floods but was refering to how countries become dependent on aid, so i am not an 'impecile' (even with the spelling mistake i try to remain civil with people on the forum even if i don't agree with, try and keep dakkadakka nice).
it is actually 'when something like that happens' is one of the reasons goverments exist and are needed, in a country that goes from one extreme of weather to the other, plus with regular earthquakes, the goverment should plan for this. although it would be near improbable to stop what happened, systems could have been put in place to reduce the magnitube of it (drainage, levees, building codes) and with a military as large as Pakistan's plans could have been made as to how they would be deployed.
