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.

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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

Give Aid, prevent Nuclear Apocalyspe.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

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.

Id help an ally out. But screw those guys.

imo we ought to give them nothing.

How much help did Pakistan give to the US when Hurricane Katrina sacked New Orleans?

This makes me sad for dakka.

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.

dogma wrote:

If giving someone you wallet is cheaper than dieing, then why not do it?

You kill them first.

Frazzled wrote:
You kill them first.

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.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
You kill them first.

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.

I'll restate. You kill them first.

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?

pre-mediateted mass murder...

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.

CT GAMER wrote:

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?

pre-mediateted mass murder...

Hyperventilate much?

Frazzled wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

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?

pre-mediateted mass murder...

Hyperventilate much?

Indifferent and condescending much?

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.

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?

CT GAMER wrote:

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.

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:

CT GAMER wrote:

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."

djones520 wrote:

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.

O rmoney to the UN, or military aid.

Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

Who are say the top three?

dogma wrote:

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.

CT GAMER wrote:Who are say the top three?

As I posted on the previous page;

Frazzled wrote: or military aid.

That is part of foreign aid.

sebster wrote:

As I posted on the previous page;

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote: or military aid.

That is part of foreign aid.

I doubt that graph agrees.