Bush should not fly to South Asia to extend his sympathies. He would just get in the way of relief efforts, especially with the kind of security force he would take with him.

To some extent, I actually applaud Bush's willingness to stay out of the limelight after disasters. It would be even classier if he could do it without taking veiled swipes at Clinton.

Indeed - a politician's visit disrupts relief efforts - even the Indian Prime Minister has not visited the areas to avoid disturbing relief efforts.

It is crass to call any country that shares it's bounty, no matter how little, stingy - the real issue is the inability to address world problems with the limited resources that do exist.

So, because the U.S. only gives about 40% of what ALL OF EUROPE gives, that makes us stingy?

And after we give it the world shits on us anyway?

Makes me proud to be AN UGLY AMERICAN!

Well, Britain has given 50million pounds=100MILLION dollars to the Tsunami cause. The great British Public in this short time have donated 25million pounds=50 million dollars. So, I should think that all the recent rhetoric of America being the number one with cash donations so far will probably stop because I should think 150million dollars is the most any country has given so far.

This is not about how much a country can give or has given, but as is always the case with Americans(note to Andy marsh) in every opportunity even in the worst situations, they are still trying to show they are the biggest and the best. Sometimes that is just not the case I'm afraid and it doesnt make u a bad nation. If y'all could just learn to appreciate others sometimes and know that it is possible to be second or third and still be good in certain circumstances.

Tony Blair hasn't shown his face yet. I would have expected that he would have by now. I think it was wrong of he and Bush not to have at the very least given a short televised statement immediately the magnitude of this disaster was known which was at least 3 days ago. I dont expect either to go to the epicentre of the crisis. Neither do I expect Blair to return to England from Egypt. Of what use will they be from far off? Still, a statement earlier would have been appreciated.

Clinton would have been out within a couple of hours offering his condolences.

People already hate Bush and Blair, why give them the opportunity to criticise further?! Who runs their PR dept anyway?!

People give time and money for different reasons. However, the measure of the gift isn't always in how much is given but rather how much can be spared. Someone on a tight budget or with little time versus someone who has plenty of money and no need to work are really on different scales.

I think the greater question is why we have so much technology devoted to our need to know news like this tragedy and so little devoted our need to prevent such tragedies.

From a coldly political standpoint, it seems as though it would be a no-brainer to issue a quick statement immediately following the tragic events acknowledging the loss and human suffering. And from a non-cold perspective, it's also the right thing to do for a US President or a UK PM. Perhaps they thought the events were too far off to really be on the minds of their constituents.

However, money is what really matters in such times, and I would think this would be the type of tragedy to really open up the coffers.

But what do I know?


Eric Berlin
Dumpster Bust: Miracles from Mind Trash
http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com

The US actually was aware of the coming danger but it was the lack of technology, and such, in that part of the world.

In general we give more than anyone in many ways. We are not stingy, we are the greatest country in the world. Unlike that bearded Scotish lady SS.

I heard one person from the US establishment say on NPR that they could not pass the information on because there are no agencies 'over there' to pass it on to - I guess he has never heard of the Indian Geological Survey, et al.

This is a decent article on the Asian Tsunami warning system.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FL31Aa01.html

There was a report posted on Slashdot or Boing Boing that said that the Indian Geological Survery DID know, but couldn't relay the information to the areas where it mattered. I wish I could find the link.

There's a bit more on this link. I guess this is a situation where you have to let them handle these things the way they choose and not how we would like for them too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/27/science/27science.html

The natural disaster is unfortunate, and I believe that any donation given by any person or nation should be seen as a blessing, and greeted with only two words: "thank you".

But in policy terms, I am very much in favor of taking care of Americans first and the rest of the world later, if at all.

"If at all"? Mike - I'm sure we have a fundamental disagreement on this, but I'm just curious, in an age of globalization, pandemics, non-state-based terrorism, and nuclear proliferation, that it doesn't pay off, long term, to help others along with ourselves?

In my judgment, it's self-serving to help other nations. It's also a nice thing to do, but that doesn't always make the best argument.

Mike, with that attitude, I hope America never has to turn to the rest of the world, begging bowl in hand, Ozymandias-like, in despair. Thankfully, this is not characteristic of the general weal, and the world knows it, and appreciates American efforts through the twentieth century (The Peace Corps, aid, education, etc)

"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.'

Strange new developments abound:

Bush 'Undermining UN with Aid Coalition'
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3944374

I believe in something like karma. By helping others, one also helps oneself, if not now, in the future.

My friend lives in the country (Nebraska). She was recently called to help a neighbor whose horse had been bitten by a rattlesnake. Likewise, she later depended on a neighbor to help her when her car became stuck in mud.

Living in California, I've been through earthquakes. I was here during the Northridge Quake, firestorms and the LA Riots. People needed to help other people. People outside of Los Angeles gave aid.

In a global community, helping our neighbors means creating and nurturing a community that will hopefully in turn rise to help us in our time of need.

In a global economy, when one area suffers economically, it effects the whole community.

If these people are our partners in commerce, how can it not effect us?

If we cannot overcome self-interest and see our neighbors as our allies and as a mirror of ourselves, how can we ever expect to find peace on earth?

Canada announced they are donating $40mm so far and the citizens of the country have raised additional funds as well (don't have the exact stats but is over $1mm). This from a country of 32mm people. 1/10th the size of the US.

$35mm is nothing considering that amount is spent in Iraq every 4 to 5 hours.

And to all the conservatives who claim we should be worrying about America first... shouldn't that include "winning hearts and minds"...

As John F. Harris and Robin Wright of the Washington Post cannily note, US President George W. Bush has missed an important opportunity to reach out to the Muslims of Indonesia. The Bush administration at first pledged a paltry $15 million, a mysteriously chintzy response to what was obviously an enormous calamity. Bush himself remained on vacation, and now has reluctantly agreed to a meeting of the National Security Council by video conference. If Bush were a statesman, he would have flown to Jakarta and announced his solidarity with the Muslims of Indonesia (which has suffered at least 40,000 dead and rising). [Ed note: I think sending Powell would have done the trick just as well]

Indeed, the worst-hit area of Indonesia is Aceh, the center of a Muslim separatist movement, and a gesture to Aceh from the US at this moment might have meant a lot in US-Muslim public relations. Bin Laden and Zawahiri sniffed around Aceh in hopes of recruiting operatives there, being experts in fishing in troubled waters. Doesn't the US want to outflank al-Qaeda? As it is, the president of the United States is invisible and on vacation (unlike several European heads of state), and could think of nothing better to do than announce a paltry pledge. As Harris and Wright rightly say, the rest of the world treated the US much better than this after September 11.

Tigress,
Your friend has some balls messing around with rattlesnakes. That should qualify for her friend pushing her out of the mud at least 6 times and dinner.

Big deal canada's 40million. We have and will always surpass these other chump countries. It's only been a few days. Why is everyone getting in line for a pissing match over someone elses misfortune?

Fuck the UN. They have shown nothing but continual incompetence. Kofi Anan is a dman joke. Yeah let the mighty shithole UN do it. Those people might get lucky enough to each get a little clean once Kofi has finished embezzeling. Kofi the biggest failure this world has known.

mr. blake - that was kind of depressing in a "we know you've already started drinking" sort of way.

But you'll piss match it away with the best of them. Congrats on that - shows what you're good for.

I think you're the one drinking. Do you take offense to people picking on Kofi?

If America is so big and bad why on earth did you not just fight the war against terror yourselves? If America does not need any help from anybody you should have gone into Iraq on your own. What the F are you doing in the UN anyway? What on earth are any Americans doing working and living outside the USA? Why dont they all just stay within your borders and when Osama comes "a" calling you sort your own shit out yourselves.

After all, neither France nor the UK, nor Germany et al benefited from whatever you guys were getting from Osama when he was your "friend" and you gave him weapons to drive the Russians out of Muslim land. When Sadaam was your friend as well, you never shared your benefits with the rest of the world. YET, when the student becomes the master you turn round and want sympathy from the rest of the world..

You GET it..and yet there are people like this dimwit MBF who do not appreciate anything.

America is allegedly the most powerful country in the world(The North Koreans must be laughing at that age old belief) but it is not the BEST by a long stretch. Neither is Britain mind you.

The point is, in todays world, it is impossible for any country to exist on it's own. You clearly don't have enough oil that's why you are in Iraq. You clearly don't have enough coffee and the list goes on and on.

After 9/11 you turned to the rest of the world for support and sympathy. It is not too much for the Asians to turn to you now for support and sympathy. Americans died in this quake too.

That's the beauty of nature as opposed to man. She doesn't ask for your passport before you are killed. Unless the likes of Mike and MBF can ensure that Americans remain within American borders and never set foot outside, I'm afraid you WILL have to be interested in what happens elsewhere.

I have a friend who lives in an Arab country. The American bars are always empty because they know if there's an attack, thats the first place to blow up. So, Yah, Mike, American life before any others if you wish. I bet you would like it if the rest of the world adopted YOUR attitude and asked the terrorists to please tell us when next they are going to attack you guys or American spots anywhere. We won't tell you beacuse you don't need us. You are so big and bad by your damn selves.The rest of us would like to get out of there first. By all indications, it's you guys they are after and they are only after us because we support you guys. That's because you went about lying with strange bedfellows and it's now come back to bite you in the ass. Now, its wa wa wa..we need coalition, these barbarians are after all of us and our liberty. No Shmuck. It's you guys they really hate. They just hate us because we support you. We support you beacuse we stand for liberty too but everyone knows the terrorists' real hate is America and not necessarily hatred for freedom.

Mike, keep up your attitude, just hope the rest of the world is better than you. If not they'll all be thinking...Osama and friends....indeed...AMERICANS First. By all means. Be our guest.

Damn, why don't you right a book. Ask Tony Blair why he chose to go to war. The goddamn UN is really fucked up. Look at all of Kofi's stupid shit. I personally don't want to wait on fuck-up's like him to decide what's best for me or my country.

I'm satisfied, it's idiot's like you who may or may not even be from the UK, and all of the, "we ain't got no civil right's" fuck's crying. If you're not from here and don't pay taxes then fuckoff!

A part of your cake hole babbling is called history. Alot of it crosses party lines for decades.

You have a muslim friend? I've had five close friends from Lebanon from the time they moved here some 14 years ago. Don't run that dick sucker to me. Know your damn role if you don't know who and what you're talking about.

Kofi is Rwandan genocide king. Kofi should be charged in his international court on several hundred thousand counts of conspiracy to commit murder. Kofi is the no-confidence king.

The last time I checked George W. got re-elected and won the popular vote by the largest margin ever. You take Kofi and I'll take my President.

Wow, you guys must have read "How to win friends and influence people".

You sure have my vote in the poor grammar, ignorant and malicious comments, and foul language categories.

Grow up and get a real argument before you keep spewing vitriol. It's a waste of everyones time.

MFB = mrblake

I've been meaning to get back to this discussion, but unfortunately I've been busy righting my book.

By the way, Bush's re-election victory was not nearly the largest of all time. It was a three-point victory, a modest win for the incumbent. He did receive the highest number of votes in US history.

Kerry received the second-highest in history.

=walter = Mr5bag.

I have that book I think. Is Dale Carnagie the author? Or something like that? We used to give those books out at work 10 or so years ago. No I'm not reading the motherfucker again!

Did it take you that long to figure it out. My real name is Walter but I have two middle names. MF last name B. I saw my name on some papers and came up with Mr5Bag out of sarcasm on the dimebag thread. Get it? Oh, I don't like the name Walt.

Popular Vote Eric. Kerry's a loser! Not over yet?

sneaky marketing ploy... make it seem like there are more converts to your point of view to drown out the rational voices.

beautiful really.

Yes, as I pointed out, Bush won the popular vote. But not by the "largest margin ever," as you stated. In fact, it was one of the closer elections in US history.

Sandra - I could really care less if the U.S. is the biggest and baddest in anything. Or of some other country's opinion of whether or not we're the biggest and baddest.

The thing that bothers me is that someone, that works for the UN, a group that just finished bilking the world out of BILLIONS of dollars in the oil for food scandal, would dare to call the U.S. stingy! All the money that the UN has stolen from the rest of the world should pay nicely for anything that Asia needs!

Man you need to learn math. Bush got 3.5 million more popular votes than Kerry. You are still living in 2000. Sorry that was 4 years ago and ya still lost.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/prez.key/

Here is a different perspective on the UN and the oil for food scandal, by Paul Heinbecker, senior research fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation and Director of the Centre for Global Relations, Governance and Policy at Wilfrid Laurier University. He recently retired after 38 years with Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs, most recently serving as Ambassador to the United Nations (2000 to 2003).

From the Toronto Star:

The Oil for Food Program was launched by the U.N. Security Council, including the United States, in 1996 to relieve the very serious side-effects of the sanctions regime imposed on Iraq following the first Gulf War.
The purpose of those sanctions was to prevent Iraq from becoming a threat, again.

As certified by the Duelfer Report, commissioned by the U.S. administration itself, the sanctions regime, reinforced by weapons inspections, worked. Duelfer found that Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein had been unable to conceal and stockpile existing weapons of mass destruction or to acquire or build new weapons.

The sanctions were effective, but at a great cost to ordinary Iraqi civilians. Child mortality increased dramatically, caloric consumption plummeted, and deadly communicable diseases, such as malaria and measles spread.

To ease the suffering of ordinary Iraqis, the OFFP permitted the sale of Iraqi oil but required that the proceeds be paid into a U.N. escrow account. Those monies were then used to pay for foodstuffs, medicines, and infrastructure materials, including eventually sewage systems, for Iraq. Kuwait was also compensated for losses suffered in the war.
The OFFP worked. Caloric intake rose dramatically, malnutrition of Iraqi children decreased by 50 per cent and disease drastically eased, despite Saddam's spoiler efforts and his marketing of Iraqi suffering to try to end the sanctions against him.

To administer the program, the Security Council established the "661 committee" (after resolution 661) to vet the contracts between Iraq and suppliers to ensure that no proscribed goods were bought, including "dual use" items that had both peaceful and military applications.

The 661 committee vetted every single contract the details of which were known to its members, including the United States, during both the Clinton and second Bush administrations.

The committee could, and did, put "holds" on contracts and no country insisted on more holds that the U.S. did. The point is that while the U.N. secretariat administered the OFFP, Washington was hardly ignorant about it.

In fact, secretariat warnings to the Security Council of oil smuggling and of suspected kickbacks were not acted on.

It had been a Security Council decision, again including the U.S., to allow the Iraqi authorities to determine, within the limits of the program, from whom they would acquire their goods. This decision recognized both that Iraq was a sovereign country and that the U.N. would have to replicate the Iraqi bureaucracy if it were alone to service 26 million Iraqis.

It was, nevertheless, this decision that made it possible for Saddam to demand kickbacks from the suppliers.

The smuggling of oil outside of Iraq by the Iraqi regime was, by definition, not part of the OFFP. Nor was the responsibility for preventing it given to the U.N. secretariat.

As far back as 1991, a multinational interception force, not administered by the U.N., was established to combat smuggling, especially via the Gulf. The smuggling was not much of a secret. The fact that oil was smuggled to Turkey and Jordan was widely known.
...
To investigate corruption and mismanagement allegations, the secretary-general appointed an independent commission headed by Paul Volcker, the former head of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank.

It is hard to imagine who the U.N. might have hired with greater personal integrity. Volcker is supported by, among others, Reid Morden, the distinguished and savvy former head of Canada's CSIS and deputy minister of foreign affairs. If the U.N. secretariat was trying to avoid scrutiny, it would not appoint these people to investigate.

Two subsequent accusations have been made; first, that Annan's son profited from the OFFP and, second, that the U.N. is not co-operating with the U.S. Congress. On the former, the Volcker Commission will report in due course. On the latter, the U.N., like the Canadian government, is not subject to U.S. sovereignty and jurisdiction and, also like Canada, does not permit its officials to testify before congressional committees.

Principle and law aside, in the current climate does it seem likely that Congress would give the U.N. staff a fair hearing?

Belatedly, the U.S. administration has distanced itself from the hawks in Congress. Ambassador John Danforth has said no one is raising questions about the personal integrity of Annan himself.

Given all this, why all the rancor towards the U.N. and its secretary-general and why now?

Two reasons suggest themselves.

First, the alleged Iraqi kickback scheme may have involved U.N. officials and warrants investigation. Second, and more troubling, congressional and other opponents of the U.N., friends of Halliburton to boot, evidently see an opportunity to diminish or destroy an organization they consider an obstacle to U.S. foreign policy.

There is not much doubt that the refusal of the Security Council to endorse the war in Iraq and Annan's characterization of that war as illegal are stimulating the animus of the American right.

A thorough investigation, with interim reports as appropriate, will illuminate the real issues. A rush to judgment, however, would only serve the purpose of destroying the U.N.

Now, there may very well be legitimate reasons to vilify Annan, but so far you have not put forth anything but vague accusations. Please give me a specific example (of which the US would not have been aware of well in advance as they do indeed control the UN) of malfeasance on the part of Annan. You speak of Rwandan genocide... is the US not the main player in the Security Council? The Council which authorizes war and "interventions"?

[/novel]

Why has Kofi been facing a no-confidence vote? The bottom line is that if an American was head of the UN and pulled that incompetant shit, he would face unheard of scrutiny. Kofi is a murder facilitating oil for food criminal.

hardley vague. Fact.

provide source links to investigative reports... not just Hannity talking points.

Here read some of this:
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006052

Kofi needs to spend some hard time in a California State prison. He'd make a good bitch for some lifer. Ha!

Here is some more from the Drudge.

http://www.drudge.com/discuss/viewTopic.php/12141

Thanks for the links. I appreciate it.

But... not good enough. Right back at ya from the guy who was there, on the ground, leading the UN force in '94 and has been hailed worldwide as a hero for speaking out about the failures of the UN and world community, Romeo Dallaire.

In his own words from a BBC interview in Sept 2000:

Q: Would you agree that the Rwanda operation reflects very badly on the UN as a whole?

A: I have been taking the position from the start that the United Nations is nothing but the front man in this failure.

The true culprits are the sovereign states that influence the Security Council, that influence other nations into participating or not.

And I would say there are a number of countries who absolutely did not want to get embroiled in any possible complex mission, and brought their weight to prevent others who were ready to go, as, for example, a number of African nations.

And who do you think on the Security Council has the power to influence other nations (considering France was already on the ground with Peacekeepers)?

Yes, Annan should have expressed more outrage and stood up to the US and the SC (incl. Britan, China & Russia) on the world stage, but he is not the ultimate arbitrar of use of force... the Security Council is, on which the US reigns supreme.

Yes, Annan might need to be removed from power, but the reflection looking back at the US in the mirror is none too rosy either.

Perspective is everything.

You said it right Annan may (will) be removed from power.

I've got more to do than set an exchange links with spiders and fight with wussy sharks all night.

And to all a good night and Fuck Off!

I don't know how many different ways I can say it, so here it is for the (very) last time:

The 2004 presidential election was, percentage-wise, one of the closer elections in US history. The 2000 election was just about the closest (I don't feel like checking right now, but I suspect 1960 was a bit tighter by popular vote).

That is all.

~ Eric B.

Actually, in terms of federal aid, the US Government does not give as much as many other nations. But overall US giving is higher than any other nation in the world.

What our government does, in effect, is it subsidizes giving by allowing tax payers to write off charitable contributions and, in that way, it has spurred the American public into giving at levels that other nations envy. Here is an excerpt which gives specific data:

Charitable Giving - The Heart of Giving
When it comes to charitable giving, Americans are the most generous people in the world. Even in a difficult economic year like 2002, charitable giving still rose .5% to $241 billion. In fact, charitable giving was 2.3% of the U.S. GNP, exceeding 2% for the first time since 1971. Remarkably, this increase came after the greatest two-year equity market decline in U.S. history.

Now, one day after the tsunami hit, I went to my favorite charitable site to see what they were planning in the way of disaster relief, then donated to them when I saw that they were already sending teams in to assist. I know this organization is effective because I get reports from them telling me how much return I get for each dollar I donate. If they don't maintain their high standards of service, I'll take my money elsewhere. For sure, I get a far higher percentage of each dollar I spend delivered to those in need than the federal government can provide. Which is exactly why I prefer our system to any other.

So far, I know that US giving towards this disaster is second only to what was donated for 9/11 relief efforts. All told, I'm willing to bet that Americans will donate upwards of 1 Billion dollars to help with this disaster. And the US government will respond logistically by helping to deliver the massive number of supplies with it's military infrastructure, thus making our efforts even more effective.

Is there any nation out there currently pledging a billion dollars in relief?

Inquiring minds want to know.

David

spiderleaf - do you really believe that the U.S. controls the UN? If that were the case, wouldn't we get the votes weneed when we need them?

You can site all the bullshit you want, the UN is full of crooks. They skimmed billions off the oil for food program and no matter how vague you think these accusations are, they're still real to the rest of the world. It goes back to that old deal, if I say a goats tail is a foot, how many feet does a goat have?

The answer's still 4, just cause someone says it's tail is a foot, don't make it so! Just because YOU say that the statements against the UN and ANNAN are vague accusations, doesn't make the UN any less of a mafia type organization that robbed the people of Iraq out of billions!

Where the hell is Saudi Arabia?

Why aren't they writing checks for their fellow Muslims in a time of tragic need?

Oh, that's right: they only support anti-American, radical muslim madrasses.

Nevermind...

Well, this thread has degenerated a bit since my comment 12, but there were some earnest questions to my comments about providing international support as a matter of policy.

I'm from the old Jefferson-Washington school of foreign policy: entangling alliances with none, peaceful commerce with all.

Unfortunately, the act of a nation's government giving support in time of natural disaster is scrutinized for its' political motivations, and even frequently has the effect of upsetting other nations who either are political opponents of the country receiving aid, or haven't been on the receiving end to the degree they think they should have been.

In short, the result can be to upset other nations with what our policy-makers perceive as a good deed.

Isn't that precisely the argument against the Iraq war so many have? That the act our policy-makers perceive to be a good deed causes ill-will?

That karma thing- yep, I believe in it. The problem with an official gift is that it is perceived by some as a gift, and by others as an affront. Can't win, so why play?

I believe that our government should not make an official gift. I believe that the individuals who desire to contribute should do so to their hearts content.

my, my, I surely can spout all the bullshit I want, except I at least try to back it up with source links, which is something everyone calling the UN full of crooks refuses to do.

Yes, the US controls the UN. The reason the US didn't get what it wanted over Iraq is because China, Russia, Germany and France decided not to play ball. Except they didn't use the all powerful veto; which the US uses with impunity on a hell of a lot of resolutions that affects the lives of millions of citizens on the planet.

But they were there to back the US when Afghanistan was the target... since that was a legitimate target, not one based on lies and deception. Just because others in the world can actually examine evidence, history and engage in rational thought does not make them weak or unfriendly. Don't friends try to stop you from making a huge mistake? That's what the world community tried to do with the US and Iraq... stop the madness.

I actually happen to believe the UN could do with an overhaul. I think the SC has too much power and the GA not enough. I also think you're going to find crooks everywhere in life.

Umm... is Ken Lay in jail yet? Did California get its $2 billion back from Enron? Has anyone found those WMD's or 9/11 links yet? How 'bout Halliburton... how are those Iraq no-bid contracts working out?

Come on now, the Bush Admin calling anyone else crooked is laughable.

And if you actually read the quote from Gen. Romeo Dallaire you might have gotten the sense that it was the SC council, not the UN per se. But right, why listen to a guy who was actually there and who has become an international hero when you can listen to Rush and Hannity and Drudge.

A house in the Hamptons next door to Steven Spielberg and Calvin Klein sold yesterday for $10 million more than the U.S. government aid package!

Mike - With all respect, your position doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

It's very nice that individuals can give as much charity as they would like, but the truth is that the US gov't has more cheddar than just about everyone combined.

Your point regarding foreign aid and "gifts" seems to boil down to: if there's a bleeding person lying on the ground in front of your path, better not help him because, well, what would the neighbors think?

Anyway, wouldn't a work-around for your hesitations be to infuse international aid organizations (the people desperately trying to lend first-response) with resources and funding?

~ Eric B.

oops.. it was just a typo... we meant $350mm...

actually, this is good news. it means the pressure and outrage worked.

giving credit where it's due, good job, that should actually help.

Have you been following the US donations to the Red Cross? Through Amazon's donations page alone the total is up to over $10 million as of tonight, and I'm sure donations direct to the Red Cross are much more - but they don't post a tally of donations on their website.

Dave
http://www.elitistpig.com

"Clinton would have been out within a couple of hours offering his condolences."

Yup. Style over substance
ALWAYS wins the hearts and minds of the masses...

"I think the greater question is why we have so much technology devoted to our need to know news like this tragedy and so little devoted our need to prevent such tragedies."

Er, how does one prevent an earthquake?

How much money did the "international community" give to the US in financial donations in the wake of 9/11?

"America is allegedly the most powerful country in the world(The North Koreans must be laughing at that age old belief) but it is not the BEST by a long stretch. Neither is Britain mind you."

Then who is? Cuba?

"is the US not the main player in the Security Council?"

Sadly, no. We are an "equal" with the likes of Red China, Putin's Russia, and France...

RJ, it is truly unfortunate that you felt Clinton was style over substance. Also, it means your powers ofa ssessment leave a lot to be desired. I encourage further reading.

Also, if you think responding immediately to such a tragedy is style over substance it is again unfortunate. An American like yourself who lived through the Clinton years, no matter your views on the man's morality or your politics, one would have thought you would find it in your heart to appreciate what he did for your country. Your Economy was booming and the world had a rosier picture of America and Americans. Dubya took less than 6 months to destroy hard work of 8 years that Clinton used to rectify the damage Bush senior had done.

No one can say Clinton was not a compassionate President. It is this very compassion that would have brought him out from wherever he was to offer his heartfelt condolences and pledge aid to South asia. It is a shame Dubya is not of that mould. I guess if Americans prefer a President with no private affairs causing scandals but who is running the country into the ground and doing irreparable damage to the view of America and Americans worldwide, there is nothing more one can say. You make your bed and you lie in it. The future will hold the answer to the 8 years of Dubya in power.

The United States has announced $350 Million to the Tsunami victims so shut your damn cake holes. President Bush also announced the first human clones. It seems that Richard Simmons will be cloned in an effort to use his gay ass as a large enema(s) for future water surges resulting from earthquakes.

Liberals and the Sandra S./spiderleafs of the world are so desperate they all wanted to attack Bush before he finished his speech shortly after the disaster. That is weak and pathetic at best. Loser's! It still hasn't been a week. I think what happened is typical, there are (as I said) the desperate who are grasping at whatever just to launch a weak and bogus attack on the President.

Maybe Kofi Annan would have a better idea. Like large back-hoes and dozers. Oh and the pipeline to his pocket re-routing international aid funds to his pockets. Losers!

The word of the first day of 2005 is Pantywaist... Look it up.

Several sports teams have set up relief funds and are collecting doantions at their games.

My apologies for my html ignorance, thus no link. Go to ESPN's website, and you'll find a feature article today.

hey mfb... being called a loser by you is quite the compliment...

and you were about 10 posts too late on your Bush to give $350mm remark since I had already pointed that out in comment #54...

we "liberal types" actually do give credit where it's due, when it's due... but right, just keep bashing Clinton and hurling insults... really speaks well to the whole "compassionate conservative" PR spin...

Looks like worldwide governmental aid has reached $2billion, with $500mm from Japan and $350mm from the US.

From what I've heard though, the actual needs will be upwards of $5billion. Hopefully with humanitarian aid through the Red Cross, etc. the goal will be closer.

>>"is the US not the main player in the Security Council?"

Sadly, no. We are an "equal" with the likes of Red China, Putin's Russia, and France...<<

Wait, don't forget that the Terrorist Sponsoring Baathist Dictatoriship of Syria is also a current member of the security council. Isn't it nice to think that we have to take their bloody-handed opinion into consideration in setting UN policy?

Dave
http://www.elitistpig.com

Syria could easily become a greasy spot without the kind of mercy shown in Iraq. The above reason's are enough for anyone with one eye and half of a brain to know we don't need the UN. We obviously need the free world, but not to the likes of that circus side show. Kofi Annan is without a doubt a joke.

If Colin Powell or Hillary Clinton was in Annan's place and pulled the shit he's pulled, where do you think they would be? The current UN is buffoonery 101.

do you have any opinions of your own? Or do you just mouth whatever is fed you?

cmon aa - stick with the one name I beseech you.

$12.5 billion - with a B - went to help one state, Florida, after their four hurricanes and, what 50 deaths?

Noooo! We're not stingy, aa is just so cooool. Actually aacool is better suited for the other term of the day: Paraphilic infantilism. Yes it's all you aacool because, well, it's all you!

LOL. Let's all gather together at Blogcritics and donate to this caricature MFB/Dr, Blake and all it's other names. This schizo hasn't a clue, dear heavens! What inner demon would compel a person to spew such drivel on a regular basis in different names, sometimes responding to it's own post, sometimes responding to posts of people it doesn't agree with, all in the aid of bolstering up it's demented view of the world. I think we all need to help it search within. This sort of mad patroling of the blogcritics.org site with different names and not making one atom of sense on any topic is truly the first sign of dementia. Now, we know it suffers from schizophrenia. Surely there is no more dangerous/violent retard than a demented schizophrenic?!

The Lord is your Shepherd, MFB/Dr Blake/M5 or whatever else you call yourself. Or Buddha, Moses, Science or what ever the voices have told you to believe in today. God Speed, dear boy.

That. Was. Too. Funny.

;)