“There are over six billion people living on our planet. Of that six billion, almost two billion are Muslims. That's roughly a third of the total population of the earth. The earthquake that triggered the killer tsunami was centered just off the coast of the Indonesian island of Sumatra. Indonesia! is the world's most populous Muslim country. It was also the most severely devastated by the wave. Nearly 100,000 of the victims of the December 26 catastrophe were Indonesian Muslims. The vast majority of the victims were either Muslims, Buddhists or Hindu. Got all that? Good. Now, to the United Nations. The United Nations consists of 186 countries. The most powerful voting bloc is the fifty-seven Islamic countries that generally vote with one voice, especially when the United States or Israel are voting the other way. The United Nations' head of humanitarian relief, Jan Egeland, criticized the West for being stingy. He didn't specifically mention America, but he cited the exact percentage of the US GDP that is budgeted for foreign aid, so there is little doubt of who the 'stingy West' was, at least in Egeland's mind. Egeland slammed the United States for not raising taxes so that America could give a greater percentage of its GDP to the UN to distribute as part of the UN's foreign aid package. Editorials in the Washington Post, the New York Times and other liberal newspapers echoed Egeland's charge, with the New York Times calling America's $350 million in direct government aid 'miserly'. The United States makes up some six percent of the world's total population, but we pay a quarter of the United Nation's total budget! . The United States pays forty percent of the world's total disaster relief aid, and sixty percent of the world's total food donations. The $2.4 billion (that's BILLION) dollars Washington spent in emergency aid in 2003 represented 40 percent of the total amount of emergency assistance from all bilateral donors provided that year. Evidently, that isn't enough. It didn't take long for these same liberal elitists to turn Mother Nature into an American right-wing hater of Islam. Not only had America's imperialistic self-enrichment policies created the natural disaster, but also cold-hearted Muslim hating President Bush wouldn't leave his ranch in Texas... which by the way, is his home -- not a vacation destination -- and only offered a 'stingy' initial monetary donation. While these elitist journalist were assailing President Bush and expounding the mantra that America should be giving more money to the devastated region in a token gesture that would 'show Islam that America didn't hate Muslims', UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was still on his vacation skiing in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. He returned to New York four days later. The wave struck on Sunday, and it took only until Monday before the US announced its $350 million in initial aid, sent the USS Abraham Lincoln into the region, including helicopters, and C-130 transport planes, sent hundreds of tons of pre-packaged emergency aid supplies, and deployed some 14,000 American troops to help with the recovery and cleanup. In Indonesia, U.S. helicopters flew at least 30 sorties, delivering 60,000 pounds of water and supplies, from the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln along a 120-mile stretch of Sumatra island's ravaged coastline. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the richest nations in the Islamic world, donated a paltry $10 million each. The United Arab Emirates donated some $20 million to relieve the suffering of their Islamic 'brothers'. Egypt's contribution at the time of this writing is $104,000.00. (Note: Egypt gets $2 BILLION in US foreign aid annually) And did anybody notice that the majority of the private donations came from those evil corporate types the left so loves to loathe? Pfizer donated $10 million in cash and $25 million in drugs. (That is more than oil-rich Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined). General Motors pledged $2 million in cash, agreed to match employee donations dollar for dollar, and is sending vehicles to transport food and medical supplies to the region. Other corporate donors include Nike Inc., American Express, General Electric, First Data Corp., Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Exxon-Mobil, Citigroup, Marriott International and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. On the other hand, where are all the Hollywood liberals? Activist actors such as Ben Affleck, Susan Sarandon, Al Franken, Tim Robbins, Martin Sheen, and Barbra Streisand have not been heard from. And where is George Soros, the world richest left wing liberal? Actress Sandra Bullock donated one million dollars, but Bullock is neither an activist nor a liberal. (She also donated one million following September 11.) Super-rich liberals like Bono and Bruce Springsteen are promising to hold another 'aid concert' to collect money (not theirs) for the victims. America, as noted at the outset, represents six percent of the global population. But in any catastrophe, it gets one hundred percent of the blame. The UN's nose is out of joint because the Bush administration refuses to funnel its aid through the UN's various aid agencies. Kofi Annan wants to use the catastrophe to shore up the UN's sagging image in the wake of the Oil-For-Food thefts from Iraq. The United States wants to ensure the aid doesn't end up lining the pockets of UN officials. So the US is 'too stingy' and gets another black eye. Where is the rest of the Islamic world? There are fifty-seven Islamic nations, and the world's biggest Islamic nation is the one that took the hardest hit. But it is the United States -- the world's largest donor nation -- that is grabbing all the headlines for being 'stingy'. To put things in perspective, I saw a news photo yesterday of one of the Indonesian victims. He was wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the face of Osama bin Laden. Excerpted from the Omega Letter Daily Intelligence Digest, Volume:7, Issue:4 PS, The Susan and Michael Dell Foundation( Dell Computers) donated 14 Million dollars Susan and Michael Dell are Jewish
Couldn't agree more. To this day, I am baffled as to why we're (US) is so anxious to help people who hate us, but we're so reluctant to take care of our own. WHY IS THAT??????
"Lead by example" These are valid points, but not giving to these countries is not going to solve anything. It won't lower your taxes - the govt will throw the money somewhere else. Who cares if these people are Muslim or not, they are human beings and deserve compassion. They didn't personally bomb America - a few elitists of their religion did. Do you want the world to look down on every Catholic because of the Crusades? The United States of America needs a good PR manager. We need to show the rest of the world exactly how much they rely on us. Yes, this is true - but in order for it to stay true, we have to continue to do what we know is right. That includes helping all people, regardless of their religion or ethnicity. We're reluctant "to help our own" because they become dependent on our help and people in society lose a part of their ambition to work hard. This is a natural disaster, not drunkard bums on the side of the road in Indonesia waiting for a government hand out.
No disrespect, but I kinda think your missing my point. I'm not saying turn a blind eye to those who are suffereing. All I'm saying is take care of Americans first. Everyone else comes second. There's plenty of people in this country that could use and deserve aid more than people abroad. Help our domestic brothers and sisters in need first and foremost. IF there's anything left over, then help the others in need. I don't see the flaw in this philosophy. If any else does, please, state your case.
It's PR and looking out for our best interest. Maybe if they see how helpful we are they will stop hating us. I do see it has helping America, even if the 350 billion plus changes only a few minds - it's a few less people that hate us and people who will not want to see us dead. Americans can take care of themselves - we are reluctant to help them, because we don't want them to be dependent on the government.
I respectfully disagree. In ordinary circumstances, I could see your point, but in that part of the world, we have people with a whole different philosophy on life, a whole different mindset. These are people upon whom the concept of gratitude is lost. History has shown us that when we help these people, generally speaking, they tend to turn around and bite the hand that fed them...and think little or nothing of it. In any case, I'm not advocating helping the bums in this country over these people...Lord knows, we have the "wealthiest" poor people in the world. These people don't know what true poverty is. However, I would advocate helping out first the folks in this country (namely Florida) who have also been the victims of natural disaster (hurricanes). I was in Pensacola last week looking over a jobsite, and the devastation there is still very evident.
I think the concept of gratitude is lost to almost everyone in the world, including the U.S., but I'm a idealist and believe helping them will help us and them in the longer run. Eventhough, as in democracy in Iraq, the impact will not be seen for years to come. We should help no matter what anyway. It's what we do. I went to Mexico a few summers ago and now it's very hard to feel sorry for people here. I think we should cut some of our foreign aid, but not for things like the tsunami or other natural disasters. I live right by Gulf Shores and about an hour from Pensacola. They were helped out plenty, actually to much. FEMA got taken advantage of in my town. I have no problem with federal money going to our own natural disasters, but unlike other countries even if there were no federal aid we would be ok.
While I agree that our own suffering disaster victims must be helped first, it is clearly in our interests to help out others that are in bad shape. America has been very successful for 200 years by being generous. It has bought us a great deal of influence, support and respect. This generosity does not always go unappreciated, by a long shot. And even when it does, it is still important. Most importantly, we cannot allow our military rivals (China, Russia, etc.) and economic rivals (China, France, Japan, Germany, Canada, etc) to outdo us in this area or in any other area. Being the world superpower has its costs . . . but also its benefits.
China and Russia are far from Military rivals anymore. After the fall of the communist USSR, Russia is smaller, and in economic shambles. I saw a show a while back that said alot of the Russian military are using equipment developed in WWII. As far as China goes, if we were to ever negate their Most Favored Nation trade status, their economy would take a nose dive also... Our only military rival at this stage is N. Korea. I always find it funny, not that we help the rest of the world that is in need, but how much MORE we help everyone compared to anyone else. While we have some pretty fricking horrible schools, and people living in eminse poverty. I would have NO problem with the Welfare system in America, if we were to stop spending so much money on the Southern Hemisphere.
