Dam the US! We should have been sending Egypt more yachts. :cool:

Are you insinuating that I'm ugly because I think we should procatively help the downtrodden and needy?

Proactive help is a good thing, Spexx, but I think you've lost sight of the scale. Even if we'd gone so far as to give all of Haiti free rebar for life, then the earthquake would have struck rural Mexico instead. Or Costa Rica, or Puerto Rico, or Cuba, or Guatemala... We help a whole lot of countries a fair amount, but you can never predict who's going to end up needing more help than others.

We can't just give them free rebar... we'd have to take over their government, pass a law that they would have to use it and how, and police the construction sites to assure compliance. Chavez would love it. :rolleyes:

i won't argue politics with a socialist. I think you're ugliness goes to the bone because you behave worse than you look.

To which behavior are you referring?

Those are good points. But aren't you tired of going around trying to close the barn door after the horse is gone? It's expensive, and what does it really accomplish, in the long run?

Right. We'll just stop sending aid to Haiti right now since it accomplishes nothing in the long run. :rolleyes:

No, that I do by choice. What I am sick of, is dumping millions Billions of dollars into countries all over the world, with no choice as to who it goes to or what they do with it.

But you don't have a choice where your money goes. You do have the choice of whether to give or not. You may choose The Red Cross, but you don't control who they give it to, or what they do with it. And if you find a charity that you know will give it to, let's say as an example, rebar, why didn't you donate, by choice, to them long enough ago to make a difference during the earthquake. Do you know what I'm getting at? We give now, but it's too late. 100,000 people are dead.

Because I don't know any rebar charities and what the Haitians are going to do with the damn rebar. They could sell it to another island for bananas, for all I know.
I know what the Red Cross is doing with my money, paying McGovern over a million bucks a year.

So you're saying we should cut our losses, and funnel all of the aid currently going to Haiti into rural Mexico instead?

We actually "dump" less than one penny out of the federal dollar on foreign aid.** I dont think that is too much.

But I think it is misdirected in the sense that most goes to corrupt governments or governments incapable of maximizing the use of the funds....or through equally inefficent international organizations like the World Bank and IMF.

I would give more of that one penny to NGOs with a proven track record of accomplishment in improving economic or social conditions in developing countries.

** excluding military aid and trade assistance.

What???? You really believe this was preventable by the US?
lol
How bout that Tsunami? Should we have given them a 50' high wall?
We cannot prevent natural disasters - Hell we have cities built below sea level right here in the US, ferchrissakes.

We already do help proactively - to the tune of untold BILLIONS upon BILLIONS. We cannot fix every ill in the world. It is not possible. We do the best we can and when something happens we help our "neighbors" (many of whom HATE US) in their time of need as well. Just paying for everything any other country could ever need isn't a solution. Its idiotic actually.

Yeah, but you'd happily give them my money too.

Would Haiti make the list? :headshake

Those that didn't get aid would probably turn into havens for burkha wearing terrorists too :p

Of course, Haiti, the poorest country in the western hemisphere would make the list of countries where US aid should be directed...but it is also a very good example of a corrupt or incapable government....so in that sense, that very small piece of that one penny probably accomplished very little.

huh?

Read what I wrote....more of that one penny to NGOs with a proven track record of accomplishment in improving economic or social conditions in developing countries.

NGOs -Non-governmental organizations.

Well, I guess we do everything right. You guys win. Let's not try to save lives, we'll just continue to throw money at dead people.

C'mon Spexx, you can't be that stupid... it's just not possible. Why didn't we do this, or why didn't we do that, in retrospect, is stupid. We can't do it all.
I was reading about how geologists are using satellites to try and figure what moved and how much, to determine if and when a major aftershock might happen. They said there were no monitoring stations in Haiti, unlike there is most everywhere else, because nobody was willing to work there. It just wasn't safe, even after the UN peacekeepers arrived.

THIS


trying to give bruce a guilt trip for not having helped before there was a need? what the crap?

How did quilted northern get into this thread? Is WalMart also trying to poison their kids?

That is ugly to the bone.

The US has sent millions to Hatti at every turn.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100113/...sasters_us_aid

The whole world seems to be helping.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...ntry-donations

I missed it and thats why I asked if Haiti would qualify - you said yes.
Down boy! We're all good.

He was referring to aid BEFORE a disaster.

Sheesh! ;)

In 08, we gave about $260 million in socio-economic aid to Haiti through US AID.

http://www.usaid.gov/locations/latin...ry_Profile.pdf

Given that total US socio-economic foreign aid is about $25 billion (of a $3 trillion federal budget) or less than one penny on the dollar.

That would make US aid to Haiti about one penny of that one penny....to a close and poorest neighbor.

IMO, we can do better as a nation (and not discounting at all the outpouring of generosity of the American people in response to the tragedy), but at the same time, we need to guarantee a better bang for the bucks...and that is where the NGOs come in rather throwing $$$ at the Haitian government.

I saw such disparate #'s as to the amount of aid given - Thanks for hopefully clarifying that.
How much have we given over the past say decade? What did they do with it? (Apparently they did NOT buy rebar)
How many people are in Haiti? Whats the breakdown per capita on that aid?

So rebar would have prevented this? Uh huh.

When a country is fubar to the extent of Haiti, the issue goes way beyond rebar.

Well, this certainly sucks.

Surf boards ok, medical supplies not ok. Maybe they could tell them a stretcher was a canvas surf board.

Obviously. I strongly disagree with Spexxvet about the proactive versus reactive stance when it comes to foreign aid of third world countries. First of all, realistically, the potential aid of rebar would have done very little to prevent deaths because normal concrete structures, with rebar, are not designed to withstand 7.0 earthquakes. As far as I know that technology does not even exist yet. We have methods to lower the amount of destruction, but not completely eliminate it. So, just looking at rebar, the cost factor would actually be lower with our current policy. If we include other proactive aid, the cost difference would be even larger. That also makes the assumption we only give that amount of aid to Haiti and not other third world countries that have a probability of being hit with natural disasters as well.

When it comes to foreign aid, I mostly agree with Lookout123 and TheMercenary. We have other bigger problems to focus on in my opinion. We are getting further and further in debt, we are in a bad recession, and our infrastructure isn't that great either (at least compared to first world countries). For now, philanthropy will have to do.

The Japs do it, very high tech, very expensive.

I also requires a strict effective government and anal retentive honest building inspectors. Haiti is zero from four.

In other news, the real priorities are being taken care of:

*... assuming the almighty would work a miracle and allow sound to travel in a vacuum. :p

Really, they need culturally appropriate aid ... chickens, skulls, face paint, black candles ...

Ear buds.

Do the research yourself. Get back to us, and make sure you post some nice colorful charts.

I thought we were finished with your stupidity.
I already tried to do it - which is more than you can say. Apparently Redux has some better source.

Just shush and drink your kool-aid while the adults talk.

If Spexx had proactivly given them all glasses, they would have seen this coming.

sniggle

And failed due to your stupidity. Good response, moron.

i loves me some irony.

I gets your head out of your ass, doesn't it?

Spexxie - you stated your incorrect opinion without any supporting facts or figures. Others proved it wrong with supporting evidence because you were too lazy to do it yourself. Now after you've been proven wrong REPEATEDLY, you call me a moron? :eyebrow:

Of course... he's got nothing else.

Not sure what you're getting at. "Due to" is the correct spelling in this context, not "do to".

However, I believe Spexx should have used the phrase "because of" instead.

http://web.ku.edu/~edit/because.html

What was incorrect? I stated that we're giving all this charity to Haiti after the fact, when it would have been better to have contributed before, when it would have helped. Are you saying that this assertion is incorrect? I'm not saying we didn't give them foreign aid, I'm not saying that we should increase foreign aid - I'm saying that it would have been better if we had contributed to charities that help Haiti before the earthquake. Get it?

That is a completely ridiculous notion.

Do y'all ever get tired of your "strength in numbers" assiness? Stand alone for once, I bet you don't have nearly as much to say, nor will you be nearly so puffed up and stupid looking. Yeah, that'll happen...not a spine between ya.

the irony, dar, was his use of the incorrect spelling whilst calling someone else stupid.

We did.
You implied and argued that we didn't and you were wrong.
Then you called me a moron for proving you wrong.

No amount of aid would have stopped the earthquake, and I doubt like hell they would have changed the way they built their buildings. Even in retrospect, your theory doesn't hold up.:headshake

It's damn near rediculous! ;)

http://static.briansolis.com/wp-cont...me-4001607.jpg

I've been alone in my opinions since I started posting here. There are however, many instances where others have jumped on the bandwagon and far more times its been against me rather than in support of my positions.

SHORE! Yep!

Yeah, I don't get it either. :headshake

What are you doing shawnee?

Trying to figure out why "due to" was incorrect. :confused:

Spexx edited his post obviously.

Oh, I see. Just what merc did with rediculous.

But it's just an old mod trick...only with less window of opportunity.

Aww, don't be ashamed and change your posts for misspellings. Only do so if you regret name-calling and want to hide the proof.

In order to have a drastic effect on the amount of deaths due to building infrastructure, the amount of money spent would be MUCH MUCH greater. Rebar is expensive and ineffective against 7.0 earthquakes and to make an effective structure against 7.0 earthquakes, the design is much much more expensive. This would also probably prove to be ineffective due to corruption and low code standards. And that is with the assumption that we only helped Haiti and not the numerous other 3rd world countries that have a probably of natural disasters