Well Done America

Nodin

It's often said America doesn't get credit for the good it does, so...here's some credit.

Up to 10,000 US troops will be on the ground or off the coast of Haiti by Monday to help deal with the earthquake aid effort, US defence officials say. Aid distribution has begun, but logistics continue to be extremely difficult, UN officials say.
Tuesday's earthquake has left as many as 50,000-100,000 people dead.
US President Barack Obama described the scale of the devastation as extraordinary and the losses suffered as "heartbreaking".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8462221.stm

Victor

Sure, "thank you", but please don't sit in your laurels.

Overheal

The real question is how long will we be there after the cameras stop rolling?

SLUSK

Nodin wrote: »

It's often said America doesn't get credit for the good it does, so...here's some credit.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8462221.stm

They should not have sent troops to Haiti. American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for stuff like this. If people want to help let the private sector do it.

Victor

SLUSK wrote: »

They should not have sent troops to Haiti. American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for stuff like this. If people want to help let the private sector do it.

I take it you aren't a very nice neighbour then?

Do you want to help people or do you want an unstable country on your doorstep?

Overheal

SLUSK wrote: »

They should not have sent troops to Haiti. American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for stuff like this. If people want to help let the private sector do it.

"How Dare the administration Help people (Political Capital or no Political Capital)"?

No Im sorry. I dont think I have heard Any opposition to sending aid and manpower to Haiti. Differing opinions on why, but no opposition to the act of helping these people.

Iwasfrozen

SLUSK wrote: »

They should not have sent troops to Haiti. American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for stuff like this. If people want to help let the private sector do it.

Heavens forbid you may have to pay an extra $2 of tax to help those that have lost everything. Your attitude is sickening.

SLUSK

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Heavens forbid you may have to pay an extra $2 of tax to help those that have lost everything. Your attitude is sickening.

Why could this not be done in private without government interference?

mickoneill30

SLUSK wrote: »

Why could this not be done in private without government interference?

Which private company can send in 10,000 troops?

banquo

I kinda agree with Slusk. I think we should help (!) but I don't think we should be handing over taxpayer money. If asked, I'd have gladly paid the extra tax, probably even far more. But when someone else starts handing my money away to a country with no building codes - well, that's where I gots beef.

I see no reason why we can't just have private donations and let individuals decide how much they wanna help.

Car (a) will cost me e100 in tax this year, car (b) will cost me e200. So I have two options and can decide how much tax I want to pay. And it goes back into the roads I need to drive on. But paying tax and the govt handing it out as they see fit is like me paying a builder to build a house but he gives it to a needy family instead and now can't afford all the building materials, which affects the quality of my house. Had I seen the needy family myself I'd probably have helped them out any way I could, but to just give my money away, whatever the cause, is wrong.

SLUSK

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Which private company can send in 10,000 troops?

Multiple private groups could probably match that quantity together and even if they couldn't they should still not send troops because the whole purpose of the army is to protect american soil, everything else including humanitarion missions and foreign wars is not what their army should do.

mickoneill30

SLUSK wrote: »

Multiple private groups could probably match that quantity together and even if they couldn't they should still not send troops because the whole purpose of the army is to protect american soil, everything else including humanitarion missions and foreign wars is not what their army should do.

So send in 10000 aid workers from various companies that won't have guns or training to protect themselves and all managed by their individual companies so a lot of them will disappear or die. Meanwhile leave your troops training wherever they normally train waiting to protect American soil.

Last week we had uproar in Ireland because the army wasn't out clearing snow. Now we get arguments saying the US army shouldn't be deployed to help people in natural disasters. I know it's not the primary function of any army but I'd prefer that they help out in Haiti rather than invade another country. I'll stop now. This argument is pathetic.

SLUSK

mickoneill30 wrote: »

So send in 10000 aid workers from various companies that won't have guns or training to protect themselves and all managed by their individual companies so a lot of them will disappear or die. Meanwhile leave your troops training wherever they normally train waiting to protect American soil.

Last week we had uproar in Ireland because the army wasn't out clearing snow. Now we get arguments saying the US army shouldn't be deployed to help people in natural disasters. I know it's not the primary function of any army but I'd prefer that they help out in Haiti rather than invade another country. I'll stop now. This argument is pathetic.

To be honest I fail to see why we should do anything at all, why should we make a disaster in a dirt poor part of the world our problem?

smellslikeshoes

SLUSK wrote: »

To be honest I fail to see why we should do anything at all, why should we make a disaster in a dirt poor part of the world our problem?

Because some of us have a thing called compassion.

SLUSK

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The country you are born in is random, you were lucky to have been born in America or Europe. Those who where not so lucky where born in Haiti.
Why do you think that you deserve more then them due to the place you where born.

When we had a hurricane in Sweden a couple of years back and alot of trees came down and destroyed the wealth of many forest owners I'm pretty sure we did not get any money from Haiti

kev9100

SLUSK wrote: »

When we had a hurricane in Sweden a couple of years back and alot of trees came down and destroyed the wealth of many forest owners I'm pretty sure we did not get any money from Haiti

If you really want to compare the complete devistation in Haiti to a hurricane in Sweden then you really need to cop on.

Overheal

SLUSK wrote: »

When we had a hurricane in Sweden a couple of years back and alot of trees came down and destroyed the wealth of many forest owners I'm pretty sure we did not get any money from Haiti

Did 40,000 people lose their lives? Did tens of thousands more lose their homes or source of drinking water?

Now Im a pretty cynical bastard at the best of times but I think you're beginning to cross a line here.

We are not that kind of Democracy. Wouldnt it be great if we got to vote/have a referendum on every action the office took (or even just the big stuff) but thats not why the Office, the House and the Senate was Appointed. If they want us to go to Haiti, thats what we'll do. Problem with that? Start a petition.

Iwasfrozen

SLUSK wrote: »

When we had a hurricane in Sweden a couple of years back and alot of trees came down and destroyed the wealth of many forest owners I'm pretty sure we did not get any money from Haiti

Oh really ? A hurricane ?
Well did this hurricane cause a mounting death toll of over 200,000 ? With many more expected to die from the in-evitable famine unless food is supplyed ? I doubt it but that is what is happening in Haiti.

But you know what, I'm so pissed off at you now that I'm not going to responde to your posts anymore. In fact keep it up and I may just use my ignore list for the first time.

Victor

When was the Swedish hurricane?

SLUSK wrote: »

To be honest I fail to see why we should do anything at all, why should we make a disaster in a dirt poor part of the world our problem?

You don't have a choice as to whether it is your (and other people's) problem or not. The only choice is how you respond.

Having a destabilised country on the USA's doorstep that would permit criminality, drug trafficking and, say, terrorism to go unchecked is not in the interest of the USA. Do you want an Afghanistan in the Caribbean? Do you want a half million refugees in Florida? Do you want Cuba or Venezuela to make Haiti into a client state?

Overheal

I never even thought that far down the line Victor, cheers.

In order of importance/thought: Compassion->Charity->International Relations->National Security

At the very bottom of that list we have: They're using our money.

dan_d

Have to have the army for that kind of operation because that' s what the army is trained to do and exists for OTHER than war. Private individuals would have no notion how to run something of that scale.

Why SHOULDN'T the US army go in? They're the closest and the biggest.

The difference between Sweden and Haiti is......a huge amount of money and a strong economy. They are not comparable. Enough said.

Mjollnir

Victor wrote: »

When was the Swedish hurricane?You don't have a choice as to whether it is your (and other people's) problem or not. The only choice is how you respond.

Having a destabilised country on the USA's doorstep that would permit criminality, drug trafficking and, say, terrorism to go unchecked is not in the interest of the USA. Do you want an Afghanistan in the Caribbean? Do you want a half million refugees in Florida? Do you want Cuba or Venezuela to make Haiti into a client state?

Ah, but you see, coming to that sort of conclusion requires actual abstract thought and consideration of things that aren't included in empty political mantras and talking points.

I'll thank you to stop using reason and logic, sir!

SLUSK

I suppose it is ok to rob people if you send all the money from the robbery to victims in Haiti? I mean if it is ok to force people to pay taxes and send the money to Haiti why is it not ok to rob people and send the money to Haiti.

The difference between taxes and robbery is quite small.

Overheal

SLUSK wrote: »

The difference between taxes and robbery is quite small.

If only you realized how utterly absurd that comment was.

SLUSK

Overheal wrote: »

If only you realized how utterly absurd that comment was.

Is a protection racket ok if they send all the profits to Haiti?

Overheal

SLUSK wrote: »

Is a protection racket ok if they send all the profits to Haiti?

For reasons Victor already addressed, even in your contorted view of taxation, it's still in your benefit to help the people of Haiti.

Victor wrote:

Having a destabilised country on the USA's doorstep that would permit criminality, drug trafficking and, say, terrorism to go unchecked is not in the interest of the USA. Do you want an Afghanistan in the Caribbean? Do you want a half million refugees in Florida? Do you want Cuba or Venezuela to make Haiti into a client state?

If you don't like it, you can go live in the wilderness somewhere. The cougars dont care if you pay your taxes.

Iwasfrozen

SLUSK wrote: »

The difference between taxes and robbery is quite small.

Wow, so that's what the ignore list does.

InTheTrees

SLUSK wrote: »

To be honest I fail to see why we should do anything at all, why should we make a disaster in a dirt poor part of the world our problem?

Lets see, I'm trying to think back in history to where I've heard something like that before...

Mid 19th century perhaps?

Overheal

InTheTrees wrote: »

Lets see, I'm trying to think back in history to where I've heard something like that before...

Mid 19th century perhaps?

December 7, 1941?

dave2pvd

Don't forget there huge private assistance also. Just about every single US (and non-US) international aid group you can think of was already there before the disaster.

So, if you think the 2c you'll pay in additional taxes isn't enough, you can also voluntarily give your hard-earned to the cause.

LeBash

SLUSK wrote: »

They should not have sent troops to Haiti. American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for stuff like this. If people want to help let the private sector do it.

I totally agree with you. It should be solely the UN for peace keeping and charities doing the rest. After all, a volunteer built the Ark and professionals built the Titanic.

They will however take your money and put it to good use.

dave2pvd

LeBash wrote: »

I totally agree with you. It should be solely the UN for peace keeping and charities doing the rest. After all, a volunteer built the Ark and professionals built the Titanic.

They will however take your money and put it to good use.

It has been that way* - before the earthquake. Now, there is a crisis that needs to be addressed. It became a question who could get there as soon as possible. As far as I know, the UN presence is still larger than any other.

You do know that you are paying for the UN, right?



*For reference, CARE has been there since 1954

alias06

SLUSK wrote: »

I suppose it is ok to rob people if you send all the money from the robbery to victims in Haiti? I mean if it is ok to force people to pay taxes and send the money to Haiti why is it not ok to rob people and send the money to Haiti.

The difference between taxes and robbery is quite small.

Well its not that simple really. America does owe Haiti a few quid.

Since the time of Napoleon through to the US invasion of the country under President Wilson in 1915, which led to the disbandment of the Haitian parliament at gunpoint by US marines after it refused to pass a law granting US corporations the right to turn the country into a US plantation, through to the expulsion of democratically elected Aristide in the 1990's and the US support for the killer and torturer and military dictator Baby Doc Duvalier, the history of US intervention in Haiti has been shameful. Chomsky has written about it here: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20040309.htm

Then there is the small matter of the US insisting upon US corporations having the right to dump their excess products in Haiti. Something they are prevented from doing by law in Canada and Mexico. Haitian farmers are forced to compete with US agri-business but without the massive subsidies (up to 40% of profits) that the US pays to its farmers.

Now that years of exploitation and natural disaster has brought the country to its knees the U.S. can step in, role out operation PR and look like the hero. Utterly cynical.

Of course it's a good thing US aid is now going to Haiti but the US should have been paid out reparations to Haiti years ago.

LeBash

dave2pvd wrote: »

It has been that way* - before the earthquake. Now, there is a crisis that needs to be addressed. It became a question who could get there as soon as possible. As far as I know, the UN presence is still larger than any other.

You do know that you are paying for the UN, right?



*For reference, CARE has been there since 1954

I understand it was a question of who could get there first. According to a goal worker there, it was Cuban (i dont know). I think it is more a case of people may get agrivated at having a US pressence rather than a UN one, even if it is US troops in UN uniform.

It would be nice to see see aid hitting the people alot faster, alot of it is getting tied up in red tape

Victor

LeBash wrote: »

It should be solely the UN for peace keeping and charities doing the rest. After all, a volunteer built the Ark and professionals built the Titanic.

Are you referring to professional UN staff or professional charity staff?

Are you referring to volunteer UN staff or volunteer charity staff?

who will pay the charities and UN?

dave2pvd

LeBash wrote: »

I understand it was a question of who could get there first. According to a goal worker there, it was Cuban (i dont know).

I heard similar. Either Cuban or Icelandic(!), depending on the source.