This is a discussion that came up on another forum. Thought I'd discuss it here....

Do you think that the victims of the storm in New Orleans deserve donations from the rest of the world, as happened with the Asian tsunami?


Argument against:
1: the US is the richest country in the world. It should be able to sort itself out - the asian tsunami affected countries that literally couldn't afford to fund any aid.
2: a sense of the US getting what's coming to it - Bush's environmental policies coming home to roost, and Louisiana is a pretty red state (correct me if I'm wrong). Perhaps this might be the slap in the face that the american people need to start pushing for better environmental policies.

Argument for:
1: if the people affected aren't getting the help that they need from their own government, then that puts them in the same category of need as the tsunami victims, regardless of the reasons for them not getting aid.
2: It's not ethical to force people to suffer in the name of scoring political points against their government.


Whaddya think?

The US Government should be perfectly able to provide all the aid needed for the victims, and they should do it. Even if they did appeal, who's going to donate money to America? They are the most powerful, and one of the richest countries on Earth.

If however, the government don't provide all the aid needed then it's more important to help the people then blame to government for not providing the aid. Therefore I think that aid should be sent if the government don't do enough.

As for this affecting the environmental policies I doubt it will do anything. Mainly because most people won't equate gass emissions, causing global warming and rising sea temperatures with hurricanes.

Interesting topic, and something I hadn't put thought to before. It strikes me that not realising the difference between the situations in the first place, as I had done, was a bit of an odd way to look at things when considering that yes, the US government *should* have the resources and manpower to help their own people. My default answer would be that it would be inhumane to not send aid if the government weren't doing enough on their own, but why wouldn't they? There seems to be something here that I'm missing about the government's aid policy for their own people; are they not supplying the necessary aid? Are they asking other countries to help out with it? What's the full story on what is actually happening, as I would need to know the facts to really think about this further...

People there are suffering and potentially still dying. Other nations have the capabilities to allieve this suffering, so why not lend a hand? Correct me if I am wrong, but New Orleans is one of the poorest cities in the US. Many of its residents lacked the money to prepare for this event or leave beforehand. Not only that, it's hell getting into the city in the first place. Dehydration and disease are a real threat.

The US has some rather questionable policies, but it and its people have donated to help other nations in their time of need. To not offer help now would be a slap in the face. Think of how many more people would have died in recent natural disasters had the US public not donated, or the government not lent out its forces. Its navy was instrumental in rescuing people from the Tsunami, were they not?

Even Chavez, the US's ebil Venezuelan arch-rival, has offered to sent cheap food, water, and especially fuel if it can help. Whether this is out of compassion or simply to score political points does not matter, the offer has been made.

All in all, I think that letting people suffer (perhaps die) to simply 'teach them a lesson' is rather repugnant.


Not to mention that I do not think the US HAS the money. Florida is still waiting for funds to repair from it's last natural disaster. The funds to stop New Orleans and its levees sinking in the first place wasn't recieved because there are no funds. I believe the Times-Picayune recently ran a piece about this. A huge amount of the budget has been diverted to the war in Iraq, there simply isn't enough in the kitty to stretch to disasters or disaster prevention like this.


US foreign policy coming home to roost? Perhaps so, but you should not politicise a disaster like this. Help first, spread blame later.


EDIT: 1.5-2 million people have supposidly been displaced by the storm. Many towns have been completely obliterated. They are fleeing to neighbouring states and cities looking for shelter. Many have to pay to stay in hotels. What happens when they run out of money? It will happen long before any great rebuilding is completed. Estimates look like thousands may already be dead. Even those who managed to flee to shelters have since died of dehydration.

Not only that but anarchy seems to be setting in. First thing looters took from shops were weapons. National Guard and rescue workers have already come under fire. The whole place is quickly going from worse to worser.

Here's a thought. What will happen to those people who were too poor to prepare for the disaster or to leave New Orleans? Will their homes be replaced for free or are we going to end up with a large number of homeless people because of this. It seems doubtfull they could aford to replace their homes if they couldn't even leave the city but will the government in turn be able to replace these peoples homes for free? If not for disaster relief now then certainly for this, the rest of the world ought to donate money. And blaming a people for it's governments actions is morally wrong, they personally are not responsible. They may, or may not, have voted for said government but once the government is in power they have no control over it's actions.

After watching the news this evening I absolutely think that there needs to be an intervention. These people are desperate right now and I'm rather baffled that the aid they need doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

I don't know. On one hand, they must have seen it coming, I mean, it is a city on a coast that is situated below sea level. They need pumps to remove water even in normal weather conditions. Surely, they will have known it was likely to happen and been insured up to the back teeth.

On the other, people are obviously in need of help. They shouldn't have to suffer because they chose to live in a geographically stupid place. I'm sure the US can afford to help all these people, and frankly I cannot understand why a lot hasn't been done already. Is the US in any way like Britain? Londoners seem to forget the rest of the country exists- is the north and south of America similar?

Yes New Orleans victims should get charity, but from the US goverment, because unlike victims of the Tsunami, the US can afford to fix things. If they really really cannot afford the fix it, of course they should recieve foreign aid, but they should also rethink their foreign policy and spending habits.

And, dammit, rethink building policies. You live on earthquake/tornado/hurricane areas? Well then you need to be prepared when they happen, and they will.

Er, here's my question.


What in God's name do environmental policies have to do with hurricanes? No piece of paper will stop a storm.

It typically cost so much money to insure people in flood zones, that companies simply won't do it, or if they do, the cost to the purchaser is outrageous.



It's not so much that the North and the South don't recognize that the other exists, as the money takes time to get there. It's not like I can simply drop what I'm doing to go help for a few days, the actual aid needs to come more locally (I live in NJ). Money, while it is a wonderful thing, does not actually solve any problems. THe money must be spent to pay for help, which needs to either be shipped in (very expensive) or it needs to come locally. Unfortunately, the local area was also hit hard...



Two things - first off, these were PEOPLE who were hurt, they are not defined by their country, and so we should not define aid by that. Second off, American's help because we want to, not necessarily because we can. I know that I and some of my friends have given money to other friends even when we didn't really have the money to give. We simply know that we'll all take care of each other, if I need something, I know that I can count on my friends, and if they need somtehing, they can count on me. Do you really think that the world would actually be a better place if the U.S. stopped giving aid so that we could be better prepared for a possible disaster?



Most buildings in New Orleans were old, and trying to make them completely hurricane safe would have been extremely costly. And while I understand that rebuilding will be more costly, I don't think they had the money to update, so the point is moot. I mean, I could save a lot of money by buying a hybrid car, it would even cost me less in the long run, but I don't have the money up front, so it doesn't matter. Besides which, I don't think that the buildings even would have mattered so much, because the city is underwater...

Refusing to take action because "it's the governments responsibility" is lazy, weak and selfish. As is punishing individuals for a countries collective actions. I don't care if America gives so much aid to other countries which means it can't afford to help it's own people. This doesn't stop those people needing help and if you can give help that is needed and not being recieved then morally you are bound to do so whatever country said needy person happens to inhabit.

I never said these people should not recieve help because they are American, but it is an inescapable fact they live in the worlds richest nation. The help they need should be available, and something is very wrong when it is not. I have no problem with people helping people, whoever and wherever they are, but the fact is the US is rich enough to help itself. Lots of internationial aid has been offored and refused already anyway, so clearly the government doesn't think they need help.

And when I said the US needs to rethink its spending habits and foreign policy, I was referring to spending billions on wars and weaponry that could be better spent preparing for this highly predicted disaster. Nowhere did I say or even insinuate that the US should stop giving aid to other countries.

Yes people should help each other. Yes, noone should have to suffer. I am not saying people should withhold Aid, I am saying the US should be rich enough not to need it, and something is seriously wrong with budgeting if they do.

The problem is, like I said, that MONEY isn't an answer. PEOPLE are the answer. The money is only a way to get aid, it is not aid in and of itself. In order to use the money, it has to be spent, and the question is where to spend it. More than anything else, they need people to help them, not just throw money at the problem to try to make it go away.

I am no metereologist (i can't even spell it). But until the G8 summit bush and therefore America in general would not concur with the idea that polutants from cars (amongst other things) contributed to "the greenhouse effect". an effect that, to my understanding, changes the "usual" weather patterns in any given area usually towards a more extreme pole.

Bush has refused to implement policies designed to curb the emission of "greenhouse gasses" and refused to join Europe in a treaty that gives guidlines on "acceptable levels" of these gasses. had these been implemented then maybe the storms seen in recent years wouldn't have been so bad.

in answer to your question they have everything to do hurricanes, and maybe nothing at all.

There is evidence that the severity of hurricanes in the region has been growing over the last thirty years. The energy that they have is derived from water temperature, which is directly effected by the greenhouse effect. The US is the world's largest consumer and the world's largest polluter, but has a relatively small proportion of the world's population.

This is not to say that I'm laying the blame at the feet of the people in New Orleans, or saying that 'they had it coming' but I am saying that US environmental policy has been ignoring this threat for too long, and in the current presidency has be blatantly denying the existence its existence in the interests of not hindering commercial interests. The US government could force companies to comply with stricter emissions policies (including car manufacturers and provision of greatly improved public transport systems) but it has chosen not to do so because of the costs involved. I'm not denying that those costs will be enormous, but they will have to be paid sooner or later, and the longer this takes the worse the situation is going to be. Bush's policy is to leave these unpopular measures until the presidency of another person, leaving companies to pollute freely and consumers unaware of the global damage that they are participating in.

A piece of paper could help reduce the severity of hurricanes in future, making this disaster less likely to be repeated. When it's put in those terms, doesn't it seem absurd that Bush is refusing to do this?

Most important people screw the future with the excuse that not screwing the future will damage the present. Every presidency dumps problems by the dozen on the next one so that the next presidency will be blamed for everything. Everything that Bush does is so absurd that I don't bother trying to understand him anymore.
Hotter water means more reaction with air currents, which does indeed create worse hurricanes. Without some sort of measures to try to lessen the greenhouse effect and help the environment, the ice caps *will* gradually melt and flood huge areas all over the world.
Slightly more on topic... the people in New Orleans should recieve aid, but many are driving that aid away by killing people and shooting at helicopters. The city is in a horrendous condition, and the people need help now. Many people who left New Orleans are never going back. They will find jobs elsewhere, in places that are less likely to have natural disasters.
I don't think that the city will ever again be fully what it once was, and it probably shouldn't be. The city is basically in a bowl between three bodies of water held back by levees. The levees are stopping silt from flowing downstream, which means that the land between New Orleans and the ocean has been eroding quickly since the levee was built. No land by the ocean means that the city was smashed at full force. The only secure part of the city was the French Quarter, which was built on a bluff farther above sea level than the rest of the city. The city was an essentially an affront to nature built in an unsafe location. It was an active port, but it was a dangerous place for so many people to live.
Sorry if this jumps from topic to topic too much, but his is the best way I could organize it.

I can't see why anyone would damn a portion of a population for the actions of their government. If Katrina had hit Cuba, there would be no hesitation in sending aid, but they don't have the greatest leader, now do they? But once it becomes an American problem then suddenly we aren't dealing with humans. We're dealing with Americans. I'm kind of sick of that mentality, really. Believe it or not, we share a similar DNA structure to people in Asia... you know... the one's hit by a Tsunami. Believe it or not, we don't drink oil for fun or piss out pollution. Think what you want of Americans, but we're still humans.

Therefore, it becomes hypocritical for any charity to pick and choose their cases. Charity shouldn't be dictated by the marketability of the victims but motivated by the fact that there are victims at all. The charity that hastens to proclaim its good deeds, ceases to be charity, and is only pride and ostentation.

So yeah, there you go. That's all I have to say about that.

Sure. I totally agree.

But (and I'm playing devils advocate), shouldn't a charity aim to help those that get no other help from anyone else? Just like the US government, charity's coffers aren't bottomless either. When there's hundreds of thousands of folk starving in Niger, who will get no help from any other quarter, can I morally justify donating money to the flood victims instead just because the governenment that they voted for is rubbish and is dragging it's heels?


Errm. Sanctions against Iraq after the first Gulf War killed untold amounts of Iraqis. Sanctions against Cuba for the last godknowshowlong?

The victims of New Orleans shouldn't have to pay for the insufficiencies of their government. Correct. The thing is, national disasters are one of the goverments jobs. So is sorting out the nations impoverished population.

But the government wants to blow as much cash as possible into warfare, rape and pillageing in foreign lands, in order to amass as many foreign resources as they can. American social politics have been vicious for decades, and presumably just getting worse.

54% of voting americans said "Yup, I like what the government is doing", and for the second time running too. Well, here you go.

So now the US government says it can't afford to sort out its own stuff? Your government has a job to do, and is uniquely incapable of doing it. Welfare and social reform have always been laughed at by the "survival of the fittest" squaddies. Maybe in the next elections the american voters shall be more aware of reality. Maybe not, cos it seems all it takes to win an election their is a monkey doing a puppet show with stars and stripes.

I'm not giving a single cent to pay off the US lack of responsable behaviour. Thats what elections are for.

Do I remember correctly Bushs' first offer of help for the Tsunami was 5 million dollars?

I'm sure that the people who are dying or have lost a mother/father/sister/brother/daughter/son in Louisiana appreciate your moral high ground.

Leaving aside the fact that it's absolutely monstrous to give or deny help based on political affiliation, I believe the New Orleans area voted 77% for John Kerry last year.

Tell me, if you were in New Orleans, giving out food and water to the victims, would you first ask them who they voted for?

I do not know much about this matter only what I have just read, so bare with me. I do apologise for this being vague but I can only write what I know.

I believe the US Government would be able to get enough aid for their own country, however I see no reason or real reason why no other country could help, if they can.

Right now it's the many people that are dying that need the aid and help leaving it longer just to argue would only makes matters worse and more complicated in my opinion.

To be honest I can not see how the US Government, one of the richest countries (correct me if I'm wrong) could say they could not get enough money or provide the aid needed for their own country, there is something wrong with that. Even though I am saying this I still would see no problem in getting other help, I would have no problem with helping people. As it's not the people that suffering own fault that their government has failed to give them the amount of aid needed.

The US being one of the richest country I don't see how the Government couldn't provide his own people the amount of help they need. Surely they could afford it.

'The world needs Trees not Bushes!'

Yes indeed, I agree my previous post is massively callous and cold-hearted political posturing and bigotry. That is probably what it was meant to be, and it totally ignores all sentiments of empathy and compassion and other helpful constructive outlooks concerning the actual people actually living the disaster. It was written and delivered in that way as a (emotional) reaction to the modern callous cold-hearted bigotted postures of the arsewipes who run the show these days. If I were to answer the question "so how do you feel about the victims?" a totally contradictory viewpoint would transpire.

I'm not ranting about the victims. They are victims, and were so before I started mouthing 2nd degree abuse. It's a safe bet the same mass of people were already victims before the storm. I'm ranting about the irony of raping and pillageing followed by "give us a hand, gov". And you knew this point of view would turn up eventually in this discussion. Well this time it was me.

As an answer to the specific question, which may have been rhetorical, I'd say that if I was over there helping I obviously wouldn't wonder where the help went, or where it came from. I am, however, not over there.


The sanest wording to express the non-reactionary part of my stance would be



.-.. but I leave the reactionary bits in, for the good of the debate, and getting it off my chest ...

The problem here, which is a universal problem and causes all sorts of unpleasantness, is seeing things in categories.

The view is that "America" has invaded Iraq, and now "America" has been hurt by Hurricane Katrina, and so we're not going to help "America" because "America" doesn't deserve it.

There is no "America". There's no black, white, male or female, no straight or gay. There are only individuals. The individuals hurt in Katrina's path are not the individuals who invaded Iraq. You can't punish people for something that other people did.

I think that Pab's post shows that yes, you can. It may not be right, or morally defensible, but you certainly could. A substantial proportion of this country feels the same way, I think.

Taking the long view, it could be argued that by not helping, you'll force the US government to take care of it's own, rather than relying on the charity of others being diverted away from other causes that have no other options.Which would be a change for the better in the long run.

I was using "can't" in the sense of moral censure, which I thought was apparent.



Assuming the administration cares in the first place; a risky proposition.

edit: And to echo Dave's post above, I'm sure the people starving to death in New Orleans will understand and appreciate their role as an object example for the government.

There's a BBC News article about this very issue.

Yeah, ya see ... I think it worth while to point out that my point of view is NOT "nuts to the victims, let them sort there own stuff out" ... no no ... It's more like "Help the american government to do their job? No way. Their vile and cristalline incompetence needs to be addressed (read punished)". Different, not much, but different. Basically I should have read your other thread there, Commie, and ranted there without saying I'm witholding my cash.

But I do pass part of the 'blame' for the general utter mishandling of the whole deal to the population of the US. Not the victims, the population, en masse. Because they have been going down the road of trading quality, common sense and preparing for a better future for all , for cut-throat free-market tactics that deny funding for schools, safety, apparently disaster management, and other obvious necessities ... ruthlessly, relentlessly, and in a oh-so-visible and oh-so-well-documented way, ever since GM bought up public transport in L.A. in the early 30s.

The latest installments including the chimp and his not-so-nice guardians has only added to a large pile of what I view as "getting it wrong by a mile". The affrontery of international invasions, unanimously condemned by everybody within 800 miles of me at least, was not only tolerated by the voting body, but actually encouraged in a re-election, apparently because they were promised flag-waving and cookies (cheap petrol). And never mind Iraq. Internal issues are just as virulent, or worse. I mean guys, really ... They HAVE to start acting responsably. I am fully aware that vast amounts of millions of people could expose to me how they didn't vote him in etc etc ... But the democratic process DEMANDS to hold the people responsable for their leaders short-fallings. And this sure is one hell of an opportunity for some wake-up calls ...

So you're saying that when (slightly over half of) the American population voted for the Bush administration, they ought to have somehow divined that a catastrophic natural disaster would be handled inefficiently?

Funny. Not a very smart question. But I'll answer it anyway.

No. I'm saying that the (astonishingly) inefficient prevision and handling of this disaster is just another indication of the inefficiencies of the current government, but also, and on a larger scale, is a logical outcome of decades of shirking responsabilities, looking after number one, drinking martinis and getting fat on the blood of the poor, in and out of the US, for the sake of profit and a brand new stairmaster. With bells on.

The same poor people currently dying in New Orleans?

Once again, "the population" or "the voting body" aren't meaningful categories to which praise or blame can be properly ascribed.

Really, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, apart from the general bashing of Americans...

Remember - While Bush won the election, he lost the popular vote.

True in 2000. In 2004, he won the popular vote.

So we should stop giving aid to any African countries with comparatively wealthy governments/rulers, Dictatorships, Countries that actually do fund Al-Queda and so on, because that will 1) force their governments to take care of their own and 2) it'll be better in the long run? I don't see a lot of evidence that the actions of corrupt governments (after sanctions and such) supporting this theory. Cuba, Iraq, whatever corrupt African nation you want to insert here and on and on.

Americans do have more power in hopefully voting a more capable man into office in the next four years, but a corrupt government (as people have claimed) won't be fixed quite so simply as one election. Personally, I'd like to see people do something more productive with their anger, like try a boycott against American trade/food/whatever rather than make a point of not giving to the poorest of the poor. Or protests or whatever your preferred method is. Punishing the people already being overlooked isn't even practical, considering they were overlooked in the first place. That doesn't really seem to indicate proper concern or caring about said people in the first place, after all.

Personally I did donate money. Not because New Orleans is one of my fav. vaction destinations (which it just so happens to be.). But because they, like any other group of people, deserve help in a state of crisis.
As I believe I have said on here before, most Americans would not hesitate to aid any one of your countries if the same thing happened. Say what you want about the Americans, but you cant say the people (not the government) arent charitable.
I believe that there is some arguement about wether green house gases are responsible. The other theory I believe is that this is how the weather system changes. Systems simply migrate north. Like in Edmonton where we have been getting worse and worse weather every year. It was explained that Edmonton happens to be on the very end of tornado ally, there for as the weather sytems move northward over the years we'll get worse weather. Possibly it's similar for the huricanes.

We aren't as charitable as I'd like to see though.

My prof. was telling our class about a woman who had taken in a family whose home was destroyed. She was white, the family was black. People avoided her everywhere she went, even after knowing they were victems of the huricane. (granted, this woman lives in SC, but still, it saddens me)

[/semi-rant]

from what im hearing in (living in NY), the government is barely doing anything. BUT a lot of private citizens are doing things, and private organizations. for example my school (which at this point i think probably has a better infrastructure than my own government) has set up one club that will organize what all the other clubs will do to benefit the hurricane victims, rather than just having chaos. i went to the meeting for the hurricane aid group and it was pretty unanimous that we ARENT giving money to the government or even the red cross. were going to focus on trying to send actual supplies down there.


bush can take our tax dollars and send it to iraq to kill people, but he isnt smart enough to steal our backpacks full of school supplies and clothing and care packages that we are sending down there and send them to iraq.