Yet more whining about tight-fisted western societies
Earthquake response too slow, and inadequate (or so they say)
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Yet more whining in the news (such as here) that the great western societies (read: U.S.A. and U.K.) are not being generous enough and aren't being fast enough with pledges of generousity to aid the areas affected by the recent quake in Asia.
You know, I'm getting more than a bit tired of those whines though. Again, if you dig into the article you find that private donations from residents, relief organizations, and others in these nations are quite generous, and quite responsive. Could we do more? Sure. Could we do it faster, probably, but then again spending money too quickly generally results in very poor results, improper management of the money, and opportunities for thieves to make away with a lot of the money when the controls are not adequate.
It's also entirely possible that we are finding that we have other needs for our money -- rebuilding our own badly damaged cities, and helping to nation build in Iraq as we continue to foot the vast majority of the bills there and find that we are running out of money to keep rebuilding that which terrorists there are destroying.
It's great that people keep looking to the U.S.A. to be the big brother or motherly figure that will help out the rest of the world's nations. But demands for more money, and faster responses get very old very quickly. Why do these nations not have their own support structures? Why must they be like the politicians in New Orleans and Louisiana who were so freaking helpless and so dependent on big brother to bail them out? Worst yet, why must nations that normally would be telling us in no uncertain terms to take a hike and just die-die-die (death to America is still far too often a rally cry in some of these places) come crying after the fact that we are not helping them quick enough?
Which is it, oh great opposition parties of Pakistan? Death to America or Thanks to America for their donations and support? How about some of the other nations there as well?
You know, I'm getting more than a bit tired of those whines though. Again, if you dig into the article you find that private donations from residents, relief organizations, and others in these nations are quite generous, and quite responsive. Could we do more? Sure. Could we do it faster, probably, but then again spending money too quickly generally results in very poor results, improper management of the money, and opportunities for thieves to make away with a lot of the money when the controls are not adequate.
It's also entirely possible that we are finding that we have other needs for our money -- rebuilding our own badly damaged cities, and helping to nation build in Iraq as we continue to foot the vast majority of the bills there and find that we are running out of money to keep rebuilding that which terrorists there are destroying.
It's great that people keep looking to the U.S.A. to be the big brother or motherly figure that will help out the rest of the world's nations. But demands for more money, and faster responses get very old very quickly. Why do these nations not have their own support structures? Why must they be like the politicians in New Orleans and Louisiana who were so freaking helpless and so dependent on big brother to bail them out? Worst yet, why must nations that normally would be telling us in no uncertain terms to take a hike and just die-die-die (death to America is still far too often a rally cry in some of these places) come crying after the fact that we are not helping them quick enough?
Which is it, oh great opposition parties of Pakistan? Death to America or Thanks to America for their donations and support? How about some of the other nations there as well?
