George Bush - selfish!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoteMe

Now you sound like an American talking about Europe.

- In Europe they does this, and europe does that.


Well we are 50 differnet countries. With differnt types of leader ship. I guess if Mexico had a monarky (SP?), and you where told to cooperate with Mexico, you would probably feel that it was impossible too. Or what if you had to do it with China and India. So everytime they made a law, you had to follow them, and if you tried to say something against it, you would get a VETO in your face, because you are only 1/20 of their size. So right now I am just laughing at you. We are not even a part of the EU. Why should we. We are not the same country. We have different intrests. Like the US and Mexico has. It is impossible to compare the US and Europe like this. It is too different. Not the same at all. Even if the US states have different agendas, you are not even near the problems in Euope when it comes to culture, Language barrieres, money, and leader ships. Un comparable. And I am so sick of hearing this, because the average american I am talking to can name 4-5 countries in Europe, and have no idea what they are talking about (not saying that you are one of them), but it is true. What happens outside the US, never enters the US. And there is proofs for it too. Like the test that was done on 125++ countries. And the US barely managed to do it better then Mexico, but more or less ended on the last spot when questions about the world came up.


- ØØ -

---

You go NoteMe!
:thumb:

:lol:

Go! NoteMe, Go!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wally Pipp

And comparing the US states to EU membership countries is shortsighted, impossible and shows a profound lack of geopolitical knowledge, not to mention centuries of history.
If anything it proves that thinking along simplified, general black-and-white lines is far too prevalent these days.

---

Wally - no not shortsighted, simplified thinking...

Just sarcastic - pure and simple :D

I have no clue what is driving the EU initiative nor do I get any news in the US about it that sheds any real light on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

But as you've already said, you've only been around for 200 years. A teenage nation by any standard you choose to pick.

---

Actually a government of 200+ years is very mature. What countries in Europe have a longer standing "goverment" structure? Surely not England or France - and Germany has been beat down twice now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

I have no clue what is driving the EU initiative nor do I get any news in the US about it that sheds any real light on it.

---

My point exactly about americans. I am not saying it is ONE persons fault. But in general. People don't care to write in the media, or show on TV what is going on. And very few cares to try to find out either. But regardless of this, everyone in the US has an oppinion about Europe.

It is like when the US wanted to bomb Afghanistan. I can't remember the exact numbers, but very very many wanted it in the start. But more or less NO ONE in the US could point on a map where Afghanistan is. That is an ignorence that is bothering me about how the US works when you put all the pieces togheter.

And as I have indirectly said in my first post here. I can't talk for all countries in Europe. But at least in Norway at childrens school. We have to learn a little bit about every country in every continent. We also have to remember by heart all states in the US, and their "capitals". Can't sey I remember them all now anymore. But I don't think that is even normal for an American. But again, maybe it is, and I have just been unlucky with those I have asked about it.


- ØØ -

Noteme - there are clueless and uneducated people everywhere - most of the people on this forum are not in that category...

Actually, the people in the US that can't name the European countries are usually immigrants (oops, sarcastic again)...

Ok - back on track - I know all the countries in Europe and Asia - I know where Afghanistan is, and more important, I know how Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India are regarded by our federal government. I understand the politics and the military goals and how precarious the situation is. I understand the the prior decades of Russian goals in Afghanistan.

And more important is that we have several hundred elected officials in Washington who do know where Afghanistan is and know why and when it needs to be bombed.

(I even know the states in Italy - but that's cause my grandpa came from Calabria...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

Noteme - there are clueless and uneducated people everywhere - most of the people on this forum are not in that category...

Actually, the people in the US that can't name the European countries are usually immigrants (oops, sarcastic again)...

Ok - back on track - I know all the countries in Europe and Asia - I know where Afghanistan is, and more important, I know how Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India are regarded by our federal government. I understand the politics and the military goals and how precarious the situation is. I understand the the prior decades of Russian goals in Afghanistan.

And more important is that we have several hundred elected officials in Washington who do know where Afghanistan is and know why and when it needs to be bombed.

(I even know the states in Italy - but that's cause my grandpa came from Calabria...)

---

Did I ever say you didn't know? Guess not...


But that doesn't change the view here. I have met a LOT of people on forums ranting about Europe. And then when I ask a question they can't answer. And you compared them too, and that ticked me off, since you can't. No, no, no...I mean you CAN'T. Impossible. You can try to compare France to USA, that would be more of the same thing with all their Cantones or what ever you say in English. One country, a lot of Cantones. But Eruope and USA is just two totaly differnt things. Like USA and America. Usa one country lots of states. America (or what you you use to refer to the WHOLE continent over there) is a lot of countries, that is NOT working togheter. And probably don't want to either. See where I am going here?



- ØØ -

It depends on what you mean by 'form of government' ?

Democracy has been around in Britain since AD100 where the Romans permitted regional leaders to represent their local interests to the senate in Rome.

Further on was our 'statement of rights' which was the Magna Carta. This was signed in 1215. This asserted that the Crown was not above the law and effectively paved the way for, and is considered the root of, social democracy the world over. Support for local justice, common law statutes, and trial by jury are all mentioned. Note this precedes the declaration of independence by some 500 years.

The more modern govt Britain currently uses has been around since (late) 13th century with the crown acceding power to the House of Lords. The House Of Parliament was (accidentally) given constitutional power in 1688 because the monarchs of the time were too dumb and stupid to stop them. The Houses Of Parliament conceded final bill ratification to the Crown to stop more revolutions, and to hold onto what had already been achieved.

Even today, the Queen still undersigns each and every law, and the govt 'act' on behalf of the Crown. Very much unlike the US, the Queen is also the head of the Church Of England so all our laws effectively pass through a Christian filter. I understand that the Church, and the State are required to be seperate in the US (yeah right!)

However, the last time a monarch refused the will of parliament, he got his head lopped of. So generally the monarchs do as they're told.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoteMe

But regardless of this, everyone in the US has an oppinion about Europe.

---

And vice versa. In fact, the world over, everyone has an opinion about the US. Somehow it's alright for someone from Bangladesh or "your own country" to criticize the USAs policies, but the opposite isn't OK.

Learning the names of all countries in the world with their capitals is irrelevant. Opinions are how you allow them to be shaped. You could form them yourselves or you could allow a jingoistic media to form them for you. That is where the difference lies.

And out of interest when the colonies rose up for independence they fought for a particualr right:

Quote:

---

No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned,...or in any other way destroyed...except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to none will we deny or delay, right or justice.

---

Magna Carta 1215

I am led to believe that is now manifested in the US consitution:

Quote:

---

No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

---

The fifth amendment.

Quote:

---

..the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.

---

The sixth amendment.

Your forebears rose up to fight against injustice on the basis of an ancient English right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

Somehow it's alright for someone from Bangladesh or "your own country" to criticize the USAs policies, but the opposite isn't OK.

---

I am just critisizing the way they are critisizing..;)..Critisizing something you don't know anything about never ends in anything good. It is like me starting to critize what you wears because I heard that someone in your continent didn't buy the new CK shoos that came out this summer. Completly irrelewant. And completly dumb statment. Just like the empthy statments about Eruope I am refering too in my posts.


- ØØ -

I welcome criticism of the Uk. I am normally first in line in criticising Mr "devil-incarnate, the beast of revelations" Blair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

Your forebears rose up to fight against injustice on the basis of an ancient English right. Nothing more, nothing less.

---

Yeah, yeah - right...

We are, like you, mimicing a democratic form of goverment used in ancient Greece - the English certainly do not have a corner on this form of government because of the Magna Carta...

My point was that 200+ years of a single, steady constitution and stable government is not a "teenager" as previously posted. It's actually an incredible accomplishment being that this country in the past 200+ years has grown physically (land wise and population wise) and econimically at an exponential rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

I welcome criticism of the Uk. I am normally first in line in criticising Mr "devil-incarnate, the beast of revelations" Blair.

---

I love Blair - we get to watch the BBC cable leads of the "house of commons" (I'm guessing here) and I think he debates those other idgit galloots with a great sense of humor. I forget that I'm watching a real form of government and start thinking "is this Monty Python??"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

I love Blair - we get to watch the BBC cable leads of the "house of commons" (I'm guessing here) and I think he debates those other idgit galloots with a great sense of humor. I forget that I'm watching a real form of government and start thinking "is this Monty Python??"

---

It can be very amusing, I agree. :)

I want to know why the back-benchers always chant "Rhubarb" or "Custard" everytime someone says something. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

Yeah, yeah - right...

We are, like you, mimicing a democratic form of goverment used in ancient Greece - the English certainly do not have a corner on this form of government because of the Magna Carta...

My point was that 200+ years of a single, steady constitution and stable government is not a "teenager" as previously posted. It's actually an incredible accomplishment being that this country in the past 200+ years has grown physically (land wise and population wise) and econimically at an exponential rate.

---

I didn't mean to infer that Britain invented democracy, and in fact I think I pointed out that Rome brought it to Britain.

You said that surely no European nation has been around longer in their 'form of govt' That's simply wrong.

200 years is not a long time at all. For as stable govt, or otherwise.

What is a stable government anyway? Where one form of government went on for decades without being threathened by war, revolution, economic woes, strife, invasions etc...? Pretty much every country experienced that within the decade. America is no exception.
Or do you mean being governed by the same type of government with the same laws and rules? Then ancient Egypt has had a stable government for over 4000 years (Pharaohs).

So what exactly is a stable government?

USA-because they are so big and know what is right....*sorry I couldn't hold it....please don't read this post*...:D:D:D::D:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoteMe

I am just critisizing the way they are critisizing..;)..Critisizing something you don't know anything about never ends in anything good. It is like me starting to critize what you wears because I heard that someone in your continent didn't buy the new CK shoos that came out this summer. Completly irrelewant. And completly dumb statment. Just like the empthy statments about Eruope I am refering too in my posts.


- ØØ -

---

Yes, and... you get it. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

Yes, and... you get it. ;)

---

So if I get it, then you get it. And your post was unnessesary. Or maybe aimed to those from the US. I havn't changed a bit since I entered this thread. There is still nothing to compare.

high horse -> noteme
noteme -> high horse

et voilà! Easy peasy.

Perhaps . . .

I prefer a soapbox, myself ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wally Pipp

high horse -> noteme
noteme -> high horse

et voilà! Easy peasy.

---

All I know is that I don't want my work performance to be compared to the work performace of those Swizz guys standing out in the rain right now, working on the runnel around CERN here....;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoteMe

So if I get it, then you get it. And your post was unnessesary. Or maybe aimed to those from the US. I havn't changed a bit since I entered this thread. There is still nothing to compare.

---

Only as unnecessary as yours. There may be nothing to compare but there are two sides to a coin. (Unless we live in the year 2185, we won't have any more of those.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

Only as unnecessary as yours. There may be nothing to compare but there are two sides to a coin. (Unless we live in the year 2185, we won't have any more of those.)

---

I commented his critisizim. And that isn't useless. It was well worth the 2min to write that post. And there is still nothing to compare, not even in 2185...:D..at least I hope..:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

Here we go then: For the tsunami only:

US gave $1981m
UK gave $795.2m

So on the face of it the US has given a vastly larger figure. But if you compare that to 'ability to pay' and extrapolate that as 'willingness to give aid' then the permille of GNP is quite useful

US gave 0.17 pm/gnp
UK gave 0.47 pm/gnp

The US, in this light, does not appear to be particularly generous, does it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanit...f_major_donors

---

I dont think those numbers take into account what the people gave. It also doesnt take into account the US military and the millions spent there to help with the relief. It only reflects what was pledged by the government. If you added everything up I am sure it would paint a different picture.

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

As for the world relying upon the US economy. I think that you're right there. But the tide is turning. The poor economic performance of the US, and thus the reference currency - USD, means exports go elsewhere. Perhaps this is why there is much more of a furtive interest in dropping trade barriers. I mean you don't really believe that it's to help the poor do you?

---

I would check the latest exchange rates. The USD is well off its lows and is slowly climbing back. The reason why it dropped in the first place was that the Bush administration decided to no longer artificially prop up the USD and to let the market influences take their natural course. Today people are selling off Euro's and buying USD due to the relative weakness of Europes economies. Also you mistake the strength of the US economy, I wouldn’t call 4% growth "poor economic performance".

X

Perhaps. I'd be interested to see those figures, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

I would check the latest exchange rates. The USD is well off its lows and is slowly climbing back. The reason why it dropped in the first place was that the Bush administration decided to no longer artificially prop up the USD and to let the market influences take their natural course. Today people are selling off Euro's and buying USD due to the relative weakness of Europes economies. Also you mistake the strength of the US economy, I wouldn’t call 4% growth "poor economic performance".

X

---

I was referring to the recent over-valuing of the USD against the US' huge trade deficit, actually.

I'll try to be more specific next time.

Also, economic performance is not measured only in terms of GDP growth, is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

I dont think those numbers take into account what the people gave. It also doesnt take into account the US military and the millions spent there to help with the relief. It only reflects what was pledged by the government. If you added everything up I am sure it would paint a different picture.

X

---

Incorrect.
If you look at the table the first few columns reflect how much was donated by the respective governments (United Kingdom 0.083, United States 0.08)
The last few show the Public contributions, which are the figures yrywddfa provided

The interesting thing from that list is that the UK gave:

USD 140.3M and has 60.000.000 inhabbitants

Norway gave:

USD 175.3M and has 4.000.000 inhabbitants..:)


Who is rich now...:)...or WAS rich before this happend...:D...

Yes, NoteMe, your govt indeed did post a rather generous figure. Shame about the public donations, though. Tightwads. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

Yes, NoteMe, your govt indeed did post a rather generous figure. Shame about the public donations, though. Tightwads. ;)

---

:confused: It is still pretty much more if you look at how few we are. I can't see any countries that have given more for each citizen in a country. If we where the same size as USA we would have had the posiblity to give (theoreticaly) more then USD 6000, that is 6 times more then the US it self....



- ØØ -

Are we talking just cash donations here?

How about infrastructure support - ships and planes and other things?

Does all this cash include the many, many charities in the US - AmeriCares for example?

I don't know - I am just curious...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

Are we talking just cash donations here?

How about infrastructure support - ships and planes and other things?

Does all this cash include the many, many charities in the US - AmeriCares for example?

I don't know - I am just curious...

---

I guess not, but that yields for all nations. Like all the airlplanes Norway provided, and the USD 1.64bn from our oil found... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Incorrect.
If you look at the table the first few columns reflect how much was donated by the respective governments (United Kingdom 0.083, United States 0.08)
The last few show the Public contributions, which are the figures yrywddfa provided

---

Perhaps you missed this portion "The following table is a partial listing of cash commitments from various governments and nongovernmental organisations..."

Not to mention the sources are the UN, the BBC, and Aljezeera??? Hardly what I would call reliable sources. I think CNN is in there somewhere as a source as well, I wouldnt exactly call them reliable either :)

And Szlamany is right it doesnt include US military aid which was quite substantial.

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

Perhaps you missed this portion "The following table is a partial listing of cash commitments from various governments and nongovernmental organisations..."

Not to mention the sources are the UN, the BBC, and Aljezeera??? Hardly what I would call reliable sources. I think CNN is in there somewhere as a source as well, I wouldnt exactly call them reliable either :)

And Szlamany is right it doesnt include US military aid which was quite substantial.

X

---

I can accept that.

Especially when you dig out the figure from more 'reliable' sources and post them to corroberate your argument. Don't forget to tell us why your sources are more reliable than the ones used in the figures.

Until that moment I personally think that those figures will have to do.

Yes, there are ommissions, but curiously as Xanith pointed out, they are clearly marked as is the problem with using pm/gnp.

I'm pretty sure you can all read. It wasn't hidden. It wasn't as though anyone was trying to hoodwink you.

I posted the figures and the source for your delectation. If you choose to not believe them (for whatever reason) you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I believe that those figures are in the ball-park and that it certainly shows the level of commitment to aid from the countries listed individuals, but perhaps not all of the govt commitment (military, and personnel aid is not shown - and ITS CLEARLY MARKED AS NOT SHOWN TOO!!)

Furthermore to redress this outrageous unreliable figure problem may I suggest that you apply to Wikipedia. Once you've found more 'reliable' sources you can add your own entry in there, and correct the rest of the world. Perhaps you'd like to post the military commitments, there, too, so the rest of us can judge for ourselves.

After all 'quite substantial' is rather a little qualitative, rather than quantitative don't you think?

:rolleyes:

[ Removed . . . ]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

How about infrastructure support - ships and planes and other things?

---

Unfortunately this is part of the problem. The vehicles are purchased in the respective countries of ORIGIN, not where the aid is going. Therefore the likes of GM, Ford etc profit from it and thus the government get some money back through the tax on the vehicle.

Perhaps if the aid money was used to purchase the vehicles in the country the aid is going it would help their industry too? :ehh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Unfortunately this is part of the problem. The vehicles are purchased in the respective countries of ORIGIN, not where the aid is going. Therefore the likes of GM, Ford etc profit from it and thus the government get some money back through the tax on the vehicle.

Perhaps if the aid money was used to purchase the vehicles in the country the aid is going it would help their industry too? :ehh:

---

I am talking about the billions we spend on developing planes and ships for our navy that we then send overseas to assist in delivery of food and supplies to help.

I certainly wasn't talking about buying a sedan...

Neither was I, but wouldn't it help their struggling industries if we let them use the aid money to buy vehicles from THEIR economy instead of from the likes of Ford who make enough as it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

I can accept that.

Especially when you dig out the figure from more 'reliable' sources and post them to corroberate your argument. Don't forget to tell us why your sources are more reliable than the ones used in the figures.

Until that moment I personally think that those figures will have to do.

Yes, there are ommissions, but curiously as Xanith pointed out, they are clearly marked as is the problem with using pm/gnp.

I'm pretty sure you can all read. It wasn't hidden. It wasn't as though anyone was trying to hoodwink you.

I posted the figures and the source for your delectation. If you choose to not believe them (for whatever reason) you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I believe that those figures are in the ball-park and that it certainly shows the level of commitment to aid from the countries listed individuals, but perhaps not all of the govt commitment (military, and personnel aid is not shown - and ITS CLEARLY MARKED AS NOT SHOWN TOO!!)

Furthermore to redress this outrageous unreliable figure problem may I suggest that you apply to Wikipedia. Once you've found more 'reliable' sources you can add your own entry in there, and correct the rest of the world. Perhaps you'd like to post the military commitments, there, too, so the rest of us can judge for ourselves.

After all 'quite substantial' is rather a little qualitative, rather than quantitative don't you think?

:rolleyes:

---

How can you believe anything that states its only a partial listing and clearly states its leaving out a large portion of aid? Not only that it quotes such sources as Aljazeera. Then you use this obviously incomplete information from dubious sources in a post to try and demonstrate the lack of giving by the US. Why put forth such sources if not to deceive? I suggest doing your homework a little better before trying to counter someone’s assertion on any subject in the future.

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

How can you believe anything that states its only a partial listing and clearly states its leaving out a large portion of aid? Not only that it quotes such sources as Aljazeera. Then you use this obviously incomplete information from dubious sources in a post to try and demonstrate the lack of giving by the US. Why put forth such sources if not to deceive? I suggest doing your homework a little better before trying to counter someone’s assertion on any subject in the future.

X

---

I don't deny any of it apart from the part about trying to decieve. Yes, I need to do a little more homework. Which I will gladly do if:

(i) You provide me with a complete list of potential sources for aid.
(ii) You provide me with a complete list of trustworty sources.

If you can do that, I'll get working on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

How can you believe anything that states its only a partial listing and clearly states its leaving out a large portion of aid? Not only that it quotes such sources as Aljazeera. Then you use this obviously incomplete information from dubious sources in a post to try and demonstrate the lack of giving by the US. Why put forth such sources if not to deceive? I suggest doing your homework a little better before trying to counter someone’s assertion on any subject in the future.

X

---

Now gentlemen, please refrain from using your handbags in such heated discussions :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crptcblade

Bull****. That's a side effect.

Gasoline costs about twice as much or more than it did four years ago. That's why people are focusing on more fuel efficient cars.

---

Those were meant to be taken as two seperate statements. Sorry for the mix up. Both are true. My wife manages a Honda dealership. Their hybrids are flying out of the door. Yes fuel prices are what's driving it for now. Just wait until they jack up the sticker price on them. Also I'd say that there is a very small percentage of people who don't want to save the environment.

As far as Tsunami relief. ***? They have been given plenty of money to rebuild. What? should the US just hand over all of it's cash? Damn guys, It's been taken care of. I'm not sure if any one in Asia has noticed but our shorelines are smacked with Hurricanes, Tropical storms, massive waves every year (two of them heading in as we speak). Or did someone forget the volcanic eruptions or the earthquakes the west coast constantly getts hit with(Just had one outside Seattle a few weeks ago). Or the fact that by the end of summer millions of acres of forest and communities will be on fire in California, Washington, and Oregon. Or the tornados that like to pop up in the midwest for months straight. How about all of the floods / flash floods we get. One good one by itself can cause millions of dollars in damage. I don't see any one donating anything to the "rebuild my Grandpaps flooded barn fund". Or the "Get Uncle Bucks Cow out of the Neighbors tree tornado fund". Natural disasters suck no matter where they happen. I guess they don't have as much shock value as a tsunami since they're spread out over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

I don't deny any of it apart from the part about trying to decieve. Yes, I need to do a little more homework. Which I will gladly do if:

(i) You provide me with a complete list of potential sources for aid.
(ii) You provide me with a complete list of trustworty sources.

If you can do that, I'll get working on it.

---

I am still waiting Xanith.

There are a few problems with that assessment.

For a start most of the property in the US is insured. Therefore, although it is heartbreaking for the residents I'm sure, they will have sufficient personal funds to rebuild

The US government will often donate billions of dollars to help the stricken city recover from hurricanes, earthquakes and such...the Indonesian government simply does not have the funds for such a disaster.

The US people are generally highly educated and well paid, within the year most will likely be well on track to being back to normal. Seeing as Indonesia is a third world country they cannot recover nearly as quickly

The US people are used to such disasters as hurricanes and often have plenty of warning from weather forecasts. This allows the evacuation of the relevant city and boarding up of property. Indonesia did not have the infrastructure to cope with a tsunami. Where could they run? It is a group of islands

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

There are a few problems with that assessment.

For a start most of the property in the US is insured. Therefore, although it is heartbreaking for the residents I'm sure, they will have sufficient personal funds to rebuild

The US government will often donate billions of dollars to help the stricken city recover from hurricanes, earthquakes and such...the Indonesian government simply does not have the funds for such a disaster.

The US people are generally highly educated and well paid, within the year most will likely be well on track to being back to normal. Seeing as Indonesia is a third world country they cannot recover nearly as quickly

The US people are used to such disasters as hurricanes and often have plenty of warning from weather forecasts. This allows the evacuation of the relevant city and boarding up of property. Indonesia did not have the infrastructure to cope with a tsunami. Where could they run? It is a group of islands

---

That was exactly my point. We cover our own arses when it comes to natural disasters. No one else helps us out. I'm not saying we shouldn't have sent money to Indonesia. I'm just saying people shouldn't ***** that we didn't send enough. Plenty of money was sent there to put everything back to where it was. Saying we should send more is like saying I should spend $1,000 on a slice of pizza because the cook is poor.

That is selfish.
Indonesia was different because it was a third world country that was affected. I myself gave £10 (and I usually don't give to charities) simply because I knew that it couldn't have hit a worse area.
American residents, like you say, get hit all the time and thanks to your developed infrastructure you were able to evacuate to another state for a while. Indonesia had no such warning, simply because most cannot afford a radio let alone a tv, so would not have had any warning even if there was some

Besides, a populated US city has never been hit by a tsunami

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Besides, a populated US city has never been hit by a tsunami

---

We have large populated areas get hit by both earth quakes and extreme tropical storms every single year - several a year actually.

Some cause billions of dollars of damage and displace peoples lives for extended amounts of time.

The tsunami was a freak event - it doesn't happen every year - not even every decade. I feel terrible for all the loss of life and the loss of livelyhood for these people.

But why are we comparing anyway?

And "insured" - what was that point about. Insurance is the pooling of dollars together so that when a tragedy arises, the funds are available for rebuilding. Not everyone pays for insurance - they simply cannot afford it - they lose in these situations...

And dollars from the government - there is no such things - again that's dollars we pay in taxes, that are pooled together in a budget, to assist in the re-building.

There is no free lunch here - no one is getting anything in the US for free.

We also have an extreme amount of tornadoes - come without warning - and seem to always hit trailer parks were low-income, less educated people live. So what was your point about well educated and well paid all about? Well paid is a strange thing to say - it's a capitalist society here - you get a slice of the pie based on your ability to grab it. Less educated/less fortunate people are everywhere in the world - the ones in the US are just as poor as the ones in the third world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

I don't deny any of it apart from the part about trying to decieve. Yes, I need to do a little more homework. Which I will gladly do if:

(i) You provide me with a complete list of potential sources for aid.
(ii) You provide me with a complete list of trustworty sources.

If you can do that, I'll get working on it.

---

Another day, and yet no response. I wonder why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Besides, a populated US city has never been hit by a tsunami

---

Not exactly true. Crescent City, California, 1964 11 dead. Not quite the scale of the Indonesian tsunami.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demotivater

That's just [REMOVED BY MOD] stupid. I guess you think some tinfoil hat wearing idiot could do a better job. [REMOVED BY MOD].

It's a real shame that my nations leader is looking out for the best interests of my country. :confused:

Funny how the US should stay out of everyones business in some cases, then save the world in others. If you're that concerned, contact your local government and plead with them to stop "global warming". Or start a personal campaign. Or, just blame George Bush for not stopping it, give me a break.

---

Save the world?? Excuse me!!

Just in the case of global warming, France has been planning to ban (or probably has already) 4x4s because they cause more pollution. The US is probably the biggest consumer of 4x4 SUVs.

India has the first commercially produced all-electricity vehicle, while in the US, GM and Ford had to withdraw their electric vehicles from the market because they were not financially viable. What a developing country like India can achieve, the US cannot? Gimme a break here. And the Indian government is not even giving the electric vehicle Reva many subsidies that it should be giving.

While going through the reviews of the electrical vehicle, I came across an interview excerpt of Richard Branson who hinted that in the US such a research cannot be successful because the oil companies will effectively kill it for their own profits.

Well, it's an improvement really that over the last few years, Mr. Bush has at least learned that automobiles and other human sources do pollute. Enlightenment at last!

Bush's statements about the climate change at the recent G8 simply show he doesn't want to do anything about it and wants to protect his own oil companies more than the global climate.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

That is selfish.
Indonesia was different because it was a third world country that was affected. I myself gave £10 (and I usually don't give to charities) simply because I knew that it couldn't have hit a worse area.
American residents, like you say, get hit all the time and thanks to your developed infrastructure you were able to evacuate to another state for a while. Indonesia had no such warning, simply because most cannot afford a radio let alone a tv, so would not have had any warning even if there was some

---

How is it selfish. We (as in the western world) gave them enough money to rebuild. That is not selfish that is the opposite of selfiish. What, should we give them more? That doesn't make any sense. They have plenty of money now to rebuild. If anything it will give the the people who lived through it more in pocket money. Natural disasters make for a lot of new low level education jobs like cleaning crews and construction/labor for example. So basically they are being paid by us to rebuild their country. Not all the money goes to medical supplies and food. We are paying their workers their wages to do the actual footwork. That is a major infusion of cash into their local economy. Indonesia will be fine. Also Keep in mind I never said we shouldnt have sent them money. I personally sent $100 myself. I'm saying people shouldn complain and say we are selfish and should send more based on our GNP.

Quote:

---

Besides, a populated US city has never been hit by a tsunami

---

You're right, we get hit by more natural disasters in a year that cause more damage and run up more cost than 15 tsunamis. Look at a weather map. Zoom in on florida right this second. Do it! They have a truckload of suck heading towards them right now. Just like Last week!

here go, here's one, there went 40 mil in about 30 seconds.
tornado

Wow here's 2 in 2 weeks
Hurricane

gee wizz almost 3 million acres burt to a crisp this year already on the west coast. Summer just started

wildfires

only 573 earthquake in the last week. Not to shabby huh? wonder how many people have cracked foundations in their houses now. I know I do and my house is only 3 months old.

earthquakes

And this is what we have to look forward to today

thank god it's friday

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

You're right, we get hit by more natural disasters in a year that cause more damage and run up more cost than 15 tsunamis. Look at a weather map. Zoom in on florida right this second. Do it! They have a truckload of suck heading towards them right now. Just like Last week!

---

That storm is a major force - category 4...

That's wave heights of 15 to 20 feet - not one wave - consistent blasting...

Quote:

---

Category: Four
Definition: Winds 131-155 mph
Effects: More extensive curtain wall failures with some complete roof structure failure on small residences. Major erosion of beach. Major damage to lower floors of structures near the shore. Terrain continuously lower than 10 feet ASL may be flooded requiring massive evacuation of residential areas inland as far as 6 miles.

---

Hey, Valleysboy1978. Ever been hit with a palm tree flying at you at 155 MPH? Betch someone in florida will know the feeling before the day is done.