• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

So what is it, billion or million??

thatguywhojuggles

Graduate Poster
T
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
1,335
I'm confused....

http://www.bayoubuzz.com/articles.aspx?aid=2933
In responding to this horrific disaster, our government initially pledged $15 billion. Now, Secretary of State Colin Powell is pledging even more aid. According to Powell
Click to expand...



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/28/politics/28cnd-aid.html
Mr. Egeland was referring to the United States donation of some $15 million announced on Monday. Today, the State Department said the United States Agency for International Development had decided to send an additional $20 million, and that future contributions were certain.
Click to expand...
 
I would guess you are talking millions. $15-20 billion is a seriously large sum.
 
Millions....nothing to blown up/invade, after all.

Problem is, money is not this issue now--getting supplies and aid on the ground is the bigger isuue. I'd rather see us donate some C17/C130 transports to move items quickly to the nearest airfields (and we might very well be doing that) rather than letting aid pile up or not be shipped because the cost of transportation is more than the poorer nations can afford.
 
The US sent 8 C-5's (largest cargo jet we have- able to carry nearly 80 tons) full of food, water, and medicine, as well as 16 scout and spotter craft to look for survivors.

So, we didn't do what you asked. We did more.

a c-130 is a SMALL jet compared to a C-5. We are also actively paning the ocean with planes looking for survivors and those stranded.


Quite frankly though, i find the UN's DEMAND for aid appalling on it's basest level. If we choose to help, so be it, but how dare a country DEMAND aid from another. You know... technically, a country is supposed to handle it's own affairs... the whole sovereignty and all...

If the government would stop taxing the crap out of us to do things like this, we as independant citizens could FAR better afford to provide direct support through private aid and charity groups (and VASTLY more efficiently too). Instead, the government has decided, without consulting with the american people whatsoever, to spend our money in a way THEY feel is appropriate.

I'd rather see the Red Cross and CARE get better/bigger donations and volunteers by a less-taxed America.

(and before a word is said, I personally have done GOBS of privately funded charity as an Eagle Scout and while traveling duriing a semester off college, both nationally and internationally, so I am not just running my mouth off).
 
Larspeart said:

Quite frankly though, i find the UN's DEMAND for aid appalling on it's basest level. If we choose to help, so be it, but how dare a country DEMAND aid from another. You know... technically, a country is supposed to handle it's own affairs... the whole sovereignty and all...
Click to expand...

The US uses the lion's share of the world's resources. Quite a lot of those resources, including cheap labour to keep the prices of the products the US consumes low, comes from the regions hit by the tsunami. It's within the US's best interests to help these regions as much as possible. Expecting others to pick up the tab would be appalling, IMO.
 
The US sent 8 C-5's (largest cargo jet we have- able to carry nearly 80 tons) full of food, water, and medicine, as well as 16 scout and spotter craft to look for survivors.
Click to expand...
I did not see this in the news yet. Where were these sent? Where did they land? Many of the airfields were destroyed.

The C5 is "Able to take off fully loaded within 8,300 feet (2,530 meters) and land within 4,900 feet (1,493 meters)." C5

C130s are more versatile in less than civilized conditions.
C130
 
Larspeart said:
The US sent 8 C-5's (largest cargo jet we have- able to carry nearly 80 tons) full of food, water, and medicine, as well as 16 scout and spotter craft to look for survivors.
Click to expand...


Good. I'm glad to here it. But the C-5 needs prepared and hardened runways (for an loaded aircraft weighing about 750,000 lbs), while the C17 Starlifter II and the C130 Hercules (Turbo-Prop) are designed to land on short, unprepared runways, so they can hopefully get in closer to the area in need.

Just to show I knew what I was talking about....;)
 
thatguywhojuggles said:
I'm confused....

http://www.bayoubuzz.com/articles.aspx?aid=2933




http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/28/politics/28cnd-aid.html
Click to expand...

Millions in cash so far. I'm not sure of the price for the material aid though. Considering you can fit quite a bit on the known and verifiable 12 C-130s being sent and we've sent two carrier groups into the region along with a decent amount of equipment and personel that they carry, they plan to use the ships ability to desalinate(sp?) water to ship in potable water.

That is the federal supplies though and does not include all the various charity groups that are getting checks written to them as we speak
 
Larspeart said:
The US sent 8 C-5's (largest cargo jet we have- able to carry nearly 80 tons) full of food, water, and medicine, as well as 16 scout and spotter craft to look for survivors...

we as independant citizens could FAR better afford to provide direct support through private aid and charity groups (and VASTLY more efficiently too).
Click to expand...

I agree. If I were taxed less, I'd fly my own C-5 over there, and the Salvation Army's fleet of choppers could pick up survivors.


Larspeart said:

Instead, the government has decided, without consulting with the american people whatsoever, to spend our money in a way THEY feel is appropriate.
Click to expand...

I believe we elect representatives to act in our stead. If we aren't being represented adequately, we should vote differently.
 
Mr Manifesto said:
The US uses the lion's share of the world's resources. Quite a lot of those resources, including cheap labour to keep the prices of the products the US consumes low, comes from the regions hit by the tsunami. It's within the US's best interests to help these regions as much as possible. Expecting others to pick up the tab would be appalling, IMO.
Click to expand...

Right. And we get all those resources for free, not putting any money into the communities at all. We simply take them.

--edit: And noone else benefits from those areas, apparently. At least in Mr. Manifesto's world.

I am glad that we, as a country, are sending aid. I certainly hope that what was said about supplying some transport planes is true, too, as that would definitely add alot to the relief efforts beyond the actual monetary cost.
 
'Zactly Dave. We never actually pay for any of that stuff. Nope, not us.

We just take it, and they are happy to hand it over.

Yup.


uh-huh.
 
No, "you" pay minimum wage to make sure that those nations have a decent standard of living so that poverty isn't a problem, especially in the areas hardest hit by the tsunami. It's a wonder your economy is doing so well (deficits aside), you're throwing so much cash at them.

But seriously, folks, do you people ever learn anything about the rest of the world? Or do you just make it up as you go along?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom