Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?

Because they spent it on nukes perhaps?

Ah, I see. So we should be enablers and not make them have to choose and instead be dependent on western aid.

And here I was thinking that they hated the US.

Remember Kids, Death to America, Mon-Thursday and Can we have some money please Friday to Sunday.

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.

The Pakistani state spends about 2.6% of its gdp on the military. Significantly less than many nations.

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.

BluntmanDC wrote:

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.

New Zealand has killer sheep. Help them... or else?

We also have the genetic information stored to breed Monstrous Cavalry:




Moas are large, dumb and tasty

And Flying Cavalry:



Haast's Eagle will ruin your gak!


BEWARE!

Ktulhut wrote:We also have the genetic information stored to breed Monstrous Cavalry:




Moas are large, dumb and tasty

And Flying Cavalry:



Haast's Eagle will ruin your gak!


BEWARE!

Kiwi's and Maoris are still more bad-arse.

Real Maoris:

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.

Ktulhut wrote:Real Maoris:

The policeman on the left looks like he's about to undo his fly and piss on the Maoris.

Albatross wrote:Personally, I think that if a country can afford a nuclear deterrent then it should not be a recipient of foreign aid.

I don't think it sensible or at all humane to let people die because we don't like the choices their government has made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:They wouldn't need the aid if they had competent leadership.

Competence isn't the issue. Anyone that can maintain control in Pakistan without suffering a coup has to be competent.

The issues are stability and economic development. Two things that can go hand in hand, if only you can get them both going in the right direction.

That this is very difficult to do is no reason to deny aid and let people die.

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.

Cheesecat wrote:
The policeman on the left looks like he's about to undo his fly and piss on the Maoris.

He probably wants to... Mongrel Mob tend to be fairly abusive towards the coppers.

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.

Gwar! wrote: If they can afford to pay for nukes, why can't they afford to send food to their own citizens?

Because nukes are incredibly cheap compared to food and transport for millions of people.

Besides, Pakistan is a very mountainous country and has farmed nearly every inch of arable land it has. Most of which is underwater now.

You can't hug your children with nuclear arms.

Though perhaps if they blew up a few mountains with them and flattened out the country a bit that would help...

BluntmanDC wrote:

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.

A what?

Liberal Empire? You mean like the one in that sci-fi game we play?

I think that particular empire falls under the umbrella of 'conservative'!

They could probably sort out Pakistan's problems though. Just saying.

Sure they would not just be judged as heretics and clensed from orbit?

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.

To be fair, I'm sure people in the west burn flags and especially effigies of politicians.