NationStates Jolt Archive

Is our humanitarian nature the real reason for Australia's $1 000 000 000 "donation"?

"The United States and Australia have made the humanitarian challenge in the tsunami disaster zone a security priority and plan to pour billions of dollars into the region to stop it turning into a breeding ground for Islamic radicalism and terrorism."

One has to wonder...

What's to wonder about? Indonesia is the most populous muslim nation in the world. Sri Lanka and India have large muslim populations. The US wants muslims to like us. Helping people in their time of need is a good strategy to win friends.

Just the cynical side of me coming out... would a more "neutral" country receive the same amount of aid?

Is our humanitarian nature the real reason for Australia's $1 000 000 000 "donation"?

"The United States and Australia have made the humanitarian challenge in the tsunami disaster zone a security priority and plan to pour billions of dollars into the region to stop it turning into a breeding ground for Islamic radicalism and terrorism."

One has to wonder...
And your point is???

Just the cynical side of me coming out... would a more "neutral" country receive the same amount of aid?
I don't know for sure. Would a non-muslim nation get the same ammount of media coverage? It seems to me that it's become trendy among some circles to kiss islam's ass.

I don't know for sure. Would a non-muslim nation get the same ammount of media coverage? It seems to me that it's become trendy among some circles to kiss islam's ass.

If one of the largest disasters in recent times happened to a non-muslim country would it recieve as much coverage? No, they'd just ignore it-hey, there's a new American Idol....

OF COURSE IT WOULD GET COVERAGE-what is it, over 100,000 dead? That goes beyond man bites dog criteria by leaps and bounds.

The sinisterness is in the phrasing "security" and to "prevent it from becoming a breeding ground." That goes a touch beyond good neighbor. Helping out in basic does actually do that, however. You don't convince people to sacrafice their lives when things are getting better, only when they are getting crappier and people are desperate. After the ocean decides to rinse the shoreline desperation surely could happen.

Giving money so that doesn't happen is fine-whatever reason you give as long as the people who need help get it. Asking for special privilage afterwards, that we should keep an eye on.

Regardless of the reason it must be done. Regardless of the outcome it must be done. We should all fly our flags to support our troops in this humanitarian relief effort.

Is our humanitarian nature the real reason for Australia's $1 000 000 000 "donation"?

"The United States and Australia have made the humanitarian challenge in the tsunami disaster zone a security priority and plan to pour billions of dollars into the region to stop it turning into a breeding ground for Islamic radicalism and terrorism."

One has to wonder...
So what? This is a legitamite reason to pump money into the region.

What's to wonder about? Indonesia is the most populous muslim nation in the world. Sri Lanka and India have large muslim populations. The US wants muslims to like us. Helping people in their time of need is a good strategy to win friends.
Hmmm. So why did the US help Russia before and during WWII? Or Germany, Japan and a whole host of other countries on BOTH sides, after WWII? The list is long and multifaceted. Could it be [ gasp! ] that we just think it's the right thing to do to help those in need? What a friggin' RADICAL thought! :headbang:

I suppose it's possible, but it's a dumb reason.

Hmmm. So why did the US help Russia before and during WWII? Or Germany, Japan and a whole host of other countries on BOTH sides, after WWII? The list is long and multifaceted. Could it be [ gasp! ] that we just think it's the right thing to do to help those in need? What a friggin' RADICAL thought! :headbang:

The US helped Germany and Japan to prevent the spread of russian influence just like the USSR "helped" eastern europe to prevent the spread of capitalism onto its doorstop. Each developed its own sphere of influence to protect respective interests.

I'm just wondering whether the amount of money our countries are proposing would have been as large had the incident happened elsewhere.

The US helped Germany and Japan to prevent the spread of russian influence just like the USSR "helped" eastern europe to prevent the spread of capitalism onto its doorstop. Each developed its own sphere of influence to protect respective interests.

I'm just wondering whether the amount of money our countries are proposing would have been as large had the incident happened elsewhere.
It'd probably be larger if the tsunami happened elsewhere. However, I can gurantee you that little would be sent to sub-Sahara Africa if it happened there. Why? Because most of those countries are either in chaos, or are rated as the most corrupt on the planet. In fact, the tsunami did hit Somalia, but no government aid can be sent there, as there is no central authority to distribute it.

It's a valid question and the simple answer is no, the Governments (note the S, the Americans are not the only ones) would not pump this money in to say, Africa, if, for instance, a similar number of people died there every week. Oh hang on, they do.

It's a valid question and the simple answer is no, the Governments (note the S, the Americans are not the only ones) would not pump this money in to say, Africa, if, for instance, a similar number of people died there every week. Oh hang on, they do.
What's the figure there, something like 6,000 AIDS deaths per week or something

Hate to say this... but I heard on the news that it's 6,000 people per day die from AIDS... :(

Hate to say this... but I heard on the news that it's 6,000 people per day die from AIDS... :(
Yeah, but they've been dying off at that rate for years. It's not news anymore. Plus they're poor and not strategically important so it's OK.

in darfur in africa there are literally millions of people displaced from their homes who are refugees because they have been forced out of their homes by rebels, it's genocide and it's disgusting and the government doesnt do much for them.

i dont think we should question the validity of the humanitarian efforts of those helping in south east asia. we should be thankful that so many people in the world have combined their efforts to reduce the suffering and help the rebuilding etc.

governments will ALWAYS have ulterior motives, or at least they will have tried to consider every possible outcome, pros and cons of the situation. i dont think that aussies are in it for the money (oil). we dont know what the governments have up their sleeves in thsi regard, but think of the millions of people who have raised enormous amoutns of money purely through donations, those people have the right spirit, and if more people in the world had a giving, compassionate spirit then i dont see anything worng with that.

cheers to all the people that care enough to do something to help, whatever that may be.

vix

Got to wonder how the USA only affords the equivilant amount of money spent in one day occupying Iraq on Tsunami aid...

If a tsunami happened in Europe we would give a lot more money. Why? YOu could answer several ways. They can pay us back. We like the Europeans. We want to help those in need. The US is suposed to act as a leader...etc. Most likely is a mix of them all.

Allthough I would like to point out that Indonesia has been "friendly" to us recently and participated on the War on Terror so we obviously are friendly towards them. I consider that normal though.

Got to wonder how the USA only affords the equivilant amount of money spent in one day occupying Iraq on Tsunami aid...
Because we have our priorities. Stabilizing Iraq is one of them. Plus how much money is really needed in the tsunami stricken areas? Aside from providing food, water, medicine and rebuilding there is little money will do and the ammount of money contributed worldwide by governments, NGOs, and private donations will handle the above stated needs nicely. The US is covering most of the bill in Iraq alone.

It'd probably be larger if the tsunami happened elsewhere. However, I can gurantee you that little would be sent to sub-Sahara Africa if it happened there. Why? Because most of those countries are either in chaos, or are rated as the most corrupt on the planet. In fact, the tsunami did hit Somalia, but no government aid can be sent there, as there is no central authority to distribute it.
I have to agree with this assessment. The US tried to help in Somalia and we all saw what that brought. Warlords taking the aid for their own and denying it to those who didn't subordinate themselves to them. It put me off donating to anything in Africa. Why should I line the pockets of these blood thirsty bastards?

The US is covering most of the bill in Iraq alone.
By choice.

Is our humanitarian nature the real reason for Australia's $1 000 000 000 "donation"?

"The United States and Australia have made the humanitarian challenge in the tsunami disaster zone a security priority and plan to pour billions of dollars into the region to stop it turning into a breeding ground for Islamic radicalism and terrorism."

One has to wonder...

Reguardless it is a good thing that nations are having a "contest" over how much aif they give. The more they give, I beleive, the better, reguardless of any ulterior motive. As long as the money goes from the wealthy country to the worse off country, (Kofi Annan has said that some nations promise aid yet are not faithful) and is changed into aid, it is a good thing.

By choice.
No argument here. It was a stupid choice, but one we have to live with. We are not a bottomless pit full of cash. If a lot of it is going towards trying to stabilize Iraq then less is available for tsunami aid.

WE TRIED sending aid to Africa, and our soldiers were killed and the supplies that were supposed to go to starving people went to the warlords it is a fact that you can not help people who do not want to be helped. :headbang:

why does there have to be an ulterior motive? People are suffering isn't that reason enough to help?

why does there have to be an ulterior motive? People are suffering isn't that reason enough to help?
I guess so, but it's a pretty crazy reason. You must admit that.

Not realy after all if everyone only looked out for themselves it would be a very sad world. Love thy neighbor as you love yourself. I tend to believe that we are all neighbors and should do what we can to help others by putting others above our own we grow. Besides the only way to end terrorism and hate is in the long run by showing people that the terrorist are wrong and that all people are the children of GOD and equally worthy of help and respect. Maybe I'm just being Naive but helping people for the sake of helping is not a bad thing.

Not realy after all if everyone only looked out for themselves it would be a very sad world. Love thy neighbor as you love yourself. I tend to believe that we are all neighbors and should do what we can to help others by putting others above our own we grow. Besides the only way to end terrorism and hate is in the long run by showing people that the terrorist are wrong and that all people are the children of GOD and equally worthy of help and respect. Maybe I'm just being Naive but helping people for the sake of helping is not a bad thing.
I was just screwing around.

Is our humanitarian nature the real reason for Australia's $1 000 000 000 "donation"?

"The United States and Australia have made the humanitarian challenge in the tsunami disaster zone a security priority and plan to pour billions of dollars into the region to stop it turning into a breeding ground for Islamic radicalism and terrorism."

One has to wonder...

I think it's a bit of both. John Howard's well known for his political opportunism. Indonesia is our nearest neighbour & relations haven't been that good with them lately. This is chance to rebuild that relationship. It may be a bit cynical, but it's hard to argue against if it produces a positive outcome.

On the other hand, Australians tend to be generous people (trying not to generalise too much) & I think people are genuinely moved by the amount of death & destruction.

Hate to say this... but I heard on the news that it's 6,000 people per day die from AIDS... :(
Jeeze, what a cheery first post! ;)

whoa
how did this get on to aids lol
:eek: :sniper:
:headbang: :fluffle: :mp5:
:headbang: :fluffle: :mp5:



lol some random assasination of happy (gay) couples "fluffling"

Obviously it is good that the US and Australia are giving this money to aid. Helping Muslims to rebuild their lives is a much better way to reduce terrorism than dropping bombs on them.

The reality is that Muslim countries hate the U.S. because of it's freedom and it's wealth. Unless Muslim countries become as wealthy as the U.S. (not likely, unless the U.S. goes into a severe economic tailspin) or gains democray (again, not likely unless the U.S. invades them :eek: ), they will always hate the U.S.