lukeiamyourdad Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 In the News this morning, I just heard it climbed up to 50 000. Still climbing with possibilities of epidemics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Originally posted by InsaneSith Not my fault nor do I care. You care, or you wouldn't have replied. I know you care. Deeply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wassup Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Originally posted by Piece of metal I dont know why, but i just usually never care about such things... What if something like this happened to your town, my self-centered friend? I'm pretty sure you would care then. What this event should teach us is that nature can dish out the most unpredictable events anywhere, anytime in the world, and that the most important thing is to be prepared (not paranoid, just prepared). I'm willing to bet part of the reason the death toll was so high was because of ignorance like yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 33,000 with estimates of 60,000 by the time this is over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acrylic Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 52,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Originally posted by Astrotoy7 Then perhaps you shouldnt be making up figures to justify your points. That type of fabrication is reprehensible, in any argument, let alone one where you are attacking the worlds largest aid organisation. I see... so now I'm a liar just because I don't care that he doesn't believe me? how interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted December 28, 2004 Author Share Posted December 28, 2004 I belive they thought you didn't care that it wasn't an accurate figure. As did I till I read what you just said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 The thing is I did volunteer work at a red cross setup after the 9/11 attacks with the rest of my family, and out of about 100 dollars we'd get in, only 20 to 30 dollars would ever be sent to the families. So no, the figure is rather accurate. I believe that is good enough reason to dislike them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wassup Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Originally posted by InsaneSith The thing is I did volunteer work at a red cross setup after the 9/11 attacks with the rest of my family, and out of about 100 dollars we'd get in, only 20 to 30 dollars would ever be sent to the families. So no, the figure is rather accurate. I believe that is good enough reason to dislike them. Still, you can't judge an entire, large organization such as the Red Cross based upon one incident in one area. Did you know where the rest of the money (the 80% you proclaimed) was actually going, or did you assume that the Red Cross was just keeping it for themselves as revenue? As much as one might hate to think about it, are there charities that are not exactly "non-profit" and keep a slice to themselves? Sure. But through their work they play a significant role in helping millions of people around the world, and that deserves praise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Originally posted by InsaneSith I believe that is good enough reason to dislike them. oh man. I'm really having to control myself here because you must live in a world full of pixies if you believe 100% of charity should go the the families... These are huge international organisations. Hospitals, Counsellors, Nurses, Doctors, Cars, Interpreters, Communication, Industry and emergency response infrastructure etc. These things cost money, and these are what makes aid agencies effective in dealing with the epidemics and disasters that afflict the world. I suggest you go buy a million loaves of bread, and skip around like the pied piper handing them out if that is your idea of helping to get these nations of millions back on their feet. *thanks goodness the only thing sithy runs is sextracker, as opposed to an international aid agency* mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 no actually I don't think 100% of the money goes to the families. I understand if about 15-20% goes to the organization but 80% and so on, that's just ridiculous. and no wassup I don't think just because one small establishment did that, the entire setup is corrupt. I think considering many states with a very similiar figure doing that makes me feel that way. and Astro when the money goes to the families, it also goes to the medical staff that helps that family, so when I say to the family I mean to them and for their medical treatment. I'm not some naive little child that thinks every cent I donate to a cause goes to help the people, I know some goes to the organization, but 80% is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StormHammer Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Unfortunately large international organisations cost a lot of money to run. I'm not going to debate percentages, etc., but I will say I think it's better to donate something to an appeal fund you feel you can support, rather than not contribute at all. Anyway...current death toll is around 68000+ and still climbing. It will probably exceed 100,000 before very long, and then add deaths due to disease. There are still areas that haven't been tallied yet - including northern Sri Lanka. The saddest thing is that many thousands of lives could have been saved if they had a warning system like the one that exists for the Pacific ocean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Originally posted by Majin Revan Word. It sickens me. This really sucks. What I'd like to know is, why did the puplicize Spain's 3/11 and the U.S.A.'s 9/11 more than this. This event is sometimes getting hard to find. More people were killed in this than 9/11, 3/11, and the War in Iraq put together. I don't think this is hard to find - it has been front page since it happened, and all over the news - as it should be. But the fact that one is a natural disaster and the other caused by evil people leads to a disparity in coverage. They need aid. Now. I know Bush won't send a lot, as he is a fool... Hmmm ... seeing how the 2000 (final Clinton year) humanitarian aid was ~$10B and the Bush total this year (not counting anything with Iraq) is >$24B ... we can see the fools. Originally posted by Astrotoy7 this is the thing Cap....unless you DONT live in America, you will never have an idea of the healthy international disrespect your fine nation has accrued Which, given that the US provides more troops, more tech and logistics support, more food, more shelter and more private and public money than any other country in the world, should tell you why the US could easily view view many countries as spoiled children who can never take enough of Daddy's money ... never get enough Christmas presents ... the rest of the world gets ticked at the US and withholds any support or help we ask for, the US takes loads of crap from the world and takes the blame (and attacks) when we support other countries, yet keeps on giving ... Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoM Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Originally posted by wassup What if something like this happened to your town, my self-centered friend? I'm pretty sure you would care then. What this event should teach us is that nature can dish out the most unpredictable events anywhere, anytime in the world, and that the most important thing is to be prepared (not paranoid, just prepared). I'm willing to bet part of the reason the death toll was so high was because of ignorance like yours. Oh, i would care then, but but it haven't, so.. You guessed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Originally posted by txa1265 ...Which, given that the US provides more troops...yet keeps on giving ... Mike Mike, you miss the point.... It's a cultural thing. Take away the native americans from the US, the migrant nationalities, and you are left with no tangible culture... apart from perhaps materialism?? same situation exists here in australia, and it damn scares me how much we follow your lead.... mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Originally posted by Astrotoy7 It's a cultural thing. Take away the native americans from the US, the migrant nationalities, and you are left with no tangible culture... I don't see the point - and is 'native culture' or 'old culture' the only culture? What about modern culture - Jazz, Blues, Rock, Modern Art, Minimalism, etc ... all American. Anyway, this thread should be about the horrific and overwhelming tragedy ... not about pot shots of any type, and I think that the constant 'bush is teh suxor' thing is old and ignorant. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pie™ Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Last I heard the numbers were past 90k I also just heard that my neighbour miracoulously survived the wave, but her girlfriend is gone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Originally posted by txa1265 I don't think this is hard to find - it has been front page since it happened, and all over the news - as it should be. But the fact that one is a natural disaster and the other caused by evil people leads to a disparity in coverage. True, yet calling them "evil" is somewhat ignorant and sounds like propaganda. Originally posted by txa1265 Hmmm ... seeing how the 2000 (final Clinton year) humanitarian aid was ~$10B and the Bush total this year (not counting anything with Iraq) is >$24B ... we can see the fools. It doesn't matter what Clinton did because it is Bush who's in power now. People who complain about the amount of money given to humanitarian aid by the US also complained about it during the Clinton years. Originally posted by txa1265 Which, given that the US provides more troops, more tech and logistics support, more food, more shelter and more private and public money than any other country in the world, should tell you why the US could easily view view many countries as spoiled children who can never take enough of Daddy's money ... never get enough Christmas presents ... the rest of the world gets ticked at the US and withholds any support or help we ask for, the US takes loads of crap from the world and takes the blame (and attacks) when we support other countries, yet keeps on giving ... Mike You don't get it. A lot of third world countries got screwed by an American Corporation. Look at the Bhopal incident in India in 1984. If memory serves me right, 15 000 dead, thousands injured and some of them unable to work for the rest of their lives. Union Carbide did not respect security measures as if their factory was in the US, just because the laws weren't as strict, they still didn't do what was humanly right. In the end, families were given $400 each which is a miserable amount considering some of them lost their husbands and sons and the babies born there are often weaker then the average. To them, the Bhopal incident is not different from 9/11. There are a lot more less tragic stories but all of them ends up with a western corporation screwing some third world people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad True, yet calling them "evil" is somewhat ignorant and sounds like propaganda. Sure ... they're just misunderstood. Just like if someone walks up to a random person on the street and shoots them in the face, it is ignorant to assume they did anything wrong. Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad It doesn't matter what Clinton did because it is Bush who's in power now. People who complain about the amount of money given to humanitarian aid by the US also complained about it during the Clinton years. Yes, I agree ... the great breast of the US can never provide enough milk for some peoples' liking ... but there is a definite tendency to single out Bush as being mean-spirited and cold hearted, yet he has done *much* more in those terms (not defending him in general, just pointing out yet another of those liberal bias political agenda things) Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad You don't get it. A lot of third world countries got screwed by an American Corporation. To them, the Bhopal incident is not different from 9/11. Bhopal was a horrific *accident*, which is different from a natural disaster, which is different still from an intentional mass-murder. Like a house fire - you lose everything whether the fire started by a lightning strike, falling asleep with a lit cigarette, or if someone takes one of your kids, ties them up and douses them in gasoline and throws them through the window. But the impact is different. Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad There are a lot more less tragic stories but all of them ends up with a western corporation screwing some third world people. I'm not defending the fact that companies exploit lax environmental and safety regulations, but the fact that these countries *knowingly* allow these practices and child labor and such things tends to say that the 'evil corporate' mentality is somewhat mislabelling blame. Everyone takes the money, everyone (including the people) likes the way of life afforded by these jobs, but then when anything bad happens it is the evil corporation solely to blame. It is like the people who weren't even born in '64 blaming the tobacco companies for their health problems - it's called personal accountability, people! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pie™ Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Originally posted by txa1265 everyone (including the people) likes the way of life afforded by these jobs, I'd debate on that, not all of these people are happy with their life, and most of them probably can't imagine anything else, because it's always been a large part of their life. Do you honestly think underpaid workers in unsafe enviroments are any happier in poorer countries than they are in the rich countries in Europe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Originally posted by Pie™ Do you honestly think underpaid workers in unsafe enviroments are any happier in poorer countries than they are in the rich countries in Europe? No ... but the $1 a day they may make is better than the $1 a month otherwise ... I made no claim of good life or good behaviour by corporations or by governments ... Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pie™ Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Originally posted by txa1265 No ... but the $1 a day they may make is better than the $1 a month otherwise ... I made no claim of good life or good behaviour by corporations or by governments ... Mike They still exploit the poor conditions. Just because these people have very little doesn't mean they should make less money for as hard or probably harder work. That they are able to do it is one thing, if it's a moral thing to do is another. But then again, since when was business about morale? :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Originally posted by txa1265 Sure ... they're just misunderstood. Just like if someone walks up to a random person on the street and shoots them in the face, it is ignorant to assume they did anything wrong. They did something wrong, yes. Labelling them as evil? No. Saddam or Osama are far from little Satans. By the way, thieves who steal and kill people are usually desperate people, not the evil "I want to kill just to kill". Originally posted by txa1265 Yes, I agree ... the great breast of the US can never provide enough milk for some peoples' liking ... but there is a definite tendency to single out Bush as being mean-spirited and cold hearted, yet he has done *much* more in those terms (not defending him in general, just pointing out yet another of those liberal bias political agenda things) Well, he did start a war, he is the governor who has executed more prisoners then anyone else so sometimes, it's easy to single him out. Originally posted by txa1265 Bhopal was a horrific *accident*, which is different from a natural disaster, which is different still from an intentional mass-murder. Like a house fire - you lose everything whether the fire started by a lightning strike, falling asleep with a lit cigarette, or if someone takes one of your kids, ties them up and douses them in gasoline and throws them through the window. But the impact is different. I know it was not intentional but the people affected know now that the proper security measures weren't respected. So in their mind, Union Carbide did not care about their lives like the terrorists of 9/11 cared about the lives of the victims. Originally posted by txa1265 I'm not defending the fact that companies exploit lax environmental and safety regulations, but the fact that these countries *knowingly* allow these practices and child labor and such things tends to say that the 'evil corporate' mentality is somewhat mislabelling blame. Everyone takes the money, everyone (including the people) likes the way of life afforded by these jobs, but then when anything bad happens it is the evil corporation solely to blame. It is like the people who weren't even born in '64 blaming the tobacco companies for their health problems - it's called personal accountability, people! Mike Look, in the western world, we can actually use personal accountability in cases like some guy with cancer suing a tobacco company because he smoked too much. Those cases are ridiculous, I know. However, the living conditions of these people is different, their minds are different. Having a shelter and eating is their main concern. In these cases, they'll take whatever job they can. They do NOT like it. Ask a kid in Sri Lanka if he would not rather go to school every day instead of working in a factory for 25 cent a week. They do it because they don't have a choice. Known fact, big corps take advantage of these desperate people for cheap labor. Also, note that the politicians in those countries are corrupted to their cores. A company can just bribe its way through without much trouble. Just because they have lax safety regulations does it mean the company must have lax security regulations? Why didn't they take the time to make sure things are safe? Are the lives of those people worth nothing so that they had to put more risks on their shoulders? I remember those reports of indonesian workers for IKEA having their hands burned by acid because IKEA did not give them gloves or make sure they didn't get burned. If that man looks at how IKEA treats its workers in Sweden, I'm sure at hell that'd he'd label it as an evil corporation who makes money on the back of his people, who looks at them as less worthy then their other employees in Sweden. If you also knew a bit about economics, you would know that it is not profitable for the western countries to see a rich africa, a rich south america or a rich southern asia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surfnshannon Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 I feel so awful about all those children that died, the husbands left without any knowledge of wives, children etc. It's crisis like this that make you want to hop a plane to a foreign country and start helping them out. I hope that the world can stop this finger pointing and start helping these people. I don't care if a country contributes a penny or a billion dollars - the bottom line is these people need help and they don't care who gives it. No amount of money can bring their family members back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pie™ Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Originally posted by STTCT No amount of money can bring their family members back But it can bring them medicine and housing, which is what matters now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.