[Unknown Target]

Originally posted by Flipside
It's not just a question of throwing money, it's a question of throwing money accurately.

As for the current situation, I'm just sad that it's turned political in any way whatsoever, yes, what is being done is good, but from the impression I'm getting here, a lot of rich countries are stamping o each others fingers trying to prove how 'nice' they are.

Gets the job done, though, right?

[Flipside]

Yes, but 'getting the job done' is one thing, but when a disaster manages to increase friction between the countries that are helping, rather than unifying them to help with this tragedy, then you know things are ropey.

After all, chewing gum will 'Get the job done' on a leaky radiator, but it's only storing up more problems for later.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
Perhaps Shrike, but referring back to an example of my own - the UKs rail service - I'm fairly sure that the problem could be solved by throwing money at it.

At present - our rail service is abismal. I've heard tales of European countries with computer controlled trains that can run in excess of 150MPH from station to station - are never late and run frequently.

I don't think the problem is one that would simply be cured by throwing money at it. The price of rail tickets is very high in the UK. They make enough money to repair the networks. Problem is they'd rather stick the money in shareholders pockets than spend it on the service they provide while all the time holding their hand out to the government and asking for subsidies.

The problem with the rail network is one of management. To see what I mean take a side step and look at the London Underground.

From before about 10 years ago I can't think of a single train related underground incident. A little while back they had a spate of derailments etc. The reason behind this was in preparation for privatisation London Underground was broken up into 4 companies. Now instead of the old attitude ("There's a problem with the track", "Okay. Lets fix it") there was now a new one ("There's a problem with the track", "Okay. Who's responsible for it? ") With that kind of attitude it's not hard to see why there were problems.

[NGTM-1R]

All problems can be fixed with enough money. Although the solutions may not be the ideal ones, and the sums ungodly huge.

If the US isn't funneling the aid through the UN, how is it being used and by what agencies, exactly?

[vyper]

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0101-08.htm

Clare Short's take on things. I tend to support her.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Janos

This thread is for political discussion concerning the tsunami and aftermatch.

Originally posted by Janos

[spellcheck approved]

w00t!

[Tiara]

Originally posted by vyper
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0101-08.htm

Clare Short's take on things. I tend to support her.

Thats what i'm afraid of. That nations are going to put their own self-interest up front and the needs of the victims in the background. I find this initiative by the US looking a lot like shutting the UN/EU out in an attempt to make themselves look good.

Normally I would applaud relief efforts such as this, but the fact remains that it would be a ****load better if the cooperated alongside the UN instead of going about it themselves. Wether they support the UN or not, this is an inefficient way to do this.

I'm crossing my fingers that it'll all work out though.

[aldo_14]

The key thing has to be long term support; apparently a lot of the money promised to help rebuild Bam after the earthquake there has never reached it; there are still something like 1 million homeless as a result.

[SadisticSid]

If we had enough land to build a high-speed rail network in the UK without the need to demolish the existing one first then there wouldn't be much of a problem (the existing rail infrastructure can't handle high speed trains and can't cater for all the trains running on it simultaneously). But that's why we have such congestion problems over here - claiming land to build road and rail networks is nigh on impossible.

[Liberator]

Tiara, the UN has a history of being more beauracracy and less action(hence Iraq...hello?  14 resolutions?) and is corrupted to the core(Oil for Food...for starters).  The people of the US(almost to a man) have grown sick of total ineptitude of the UN in doing anything else other than line their pockets and enjoy NYC's high life and many that I hear are calling for withdrawal from the UN and the formation of a new organization composed of countries that have proven their stances on Human Rights and other issues.

You don't put China and the Sudan on the Council for Human Rights and then put Sudan in charge.

Coffeecup Annan can't even bring himself to utter the word 'genocide' in relation to the happenings in Sudan because that would mean he would immeadiately have to send the Blue Helmets in.

The UN has failed to live up to it's charter or designed purpose.

[Grey Wolf]

It could be worse. Just remember, it could be like the League of Nations (read: Like what Liberator said, squared.)

[Janos]

Originally posted by Liberator
Tiara, the UN has a history of being more beauracracy and less action(hence Iraq...hello?  14 resolutions?) and is corrupted to the core(Oil for Food...for starters).  The people of the US(almost to a man) have grown sick of total ineptitude of the UN in doing anything else other than line their pockets and enjoy NYC's high life and many that I hear are calling for withdrawal from the UN and the formation of a new organization composed of countries that have proven their stances on Human Rights and other issues.

[/b]

Yeah you know it's really easy to tell someone to live by your standards and follow your morality codes if you don't give them any power at all. Because UN was not built to solve issues diplomatically and be a forum or all nations of the world, ok?

And oh yeah, Oill for Food is the end of all things, right? And you know it was directed by security council, not by Annan?
 Guess who is in breach of something like ~30 resolutions? That's right, Israel. Double standards do exist, no ****, but citing the amount of resolutions and blaming UN for not acting on US's really shady and outright wrong intelligence is pretty STINGY.

You don't put China and the Sudan on the Council for Human Rights and then put Sudan in charge.

Coffeecup Annan can't even bring himself to utter the word 'genocide' in relation to the happenings in Sudan because that would mean he would immeadiately have to send the Blue Helmets in.

Yep. Would you send the troops if needed?

The UN has failed to live up to it's charter or designed purpose. [/B]

You do know what the designed purpose is, don't you?

[Liberator]

I know it not supposed to be a wannabe pseudo-world government full of self-important bozos.

As I understand it was supposed to be a forum where nations could come and have their disputes mediated by a neutral party(ies).  It's not supposed to be a catch-all for international affairs.

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Liberator
(hence Iraq...hello? 14 security councel  resolutions?)

Originally posted by Janos
Guess who is in breach of something like ~30 general assembly resolutions that don't hold the weight of international law? That's right, Israel

[Bobboau]

"Yep. Would you send the troops if needed? "
and miss a chance to play "America: Saviour of the Universe", and getting to blow **** up while were at it too, are you realy asking that question? sure as hell we'd love to, but, would you mind waching Iraq for a few days while we do it?

[Flipside]

Y'Know, funny thing is, everytime I hear a small minded, automatic 'anti-America' response from someone and think to myself 'Oh come on, give 'em a break', someone comes along and makes an equally anti-UN comment that sort of balances it all out

Edit : Newsflash, people are dying while we sit around playing 'Who's most corrupt' when the evidence we've all seen suggests that anyone who thinks either the US or the UN are immune to corruption at the most life-ignorant level is living in fairy lala land.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Flipside

Edit : Newsflash, people are dying while we sit around playing 'Who's most corrupt' when the evidence we've all seen suggests that anyone who thinks either the US or the UN are immune to corruption at the most life-ignorant level is living in fairy lala land.

You are missing the point here. The fact is that this is not some political show that they can use to better their image. It's a disaster and thousands have died and even more bodies are found each minute. Nevertheless, the US and it's 'core group', seem to use it as such. Why exclude the UN from the relief efforts? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Also, Liberator, I'll have you know that most of the problems and issues you are blaming the UN for is because the US veto'd many good programs. Or to make it even worse, they DIDN'T veto something and afterwards the scream bloody murder and make the UN look all bad.

I'm not saying the UN is without it's flaws. Not by a VERY long shot. But it's a bit presumptious to blame it all on the UN. Both are at fault.

However, this is not really the time to bicker about this. Thats why I wonder why the US has gone off to do **** by itself. If they aren't supporting the UN, it's nothing more then another point in their political agenda. And i so hope I'm wrong about that.

[Flipside]

Indeed, political agendas, be they American or UN are costing lives, that's the saddest fact. It just, quite frankly, pisses me off that there are people who think the political side of this is more important than the idea of saving lives.

I don't really care who those people are.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Liberator
You don't put China and the Sudan on the Council for Human Rights and then put Sudan in charge.

Looks at Guantanamo Bay. Nice glass house you lived in Lib. Pity you broke it with all those stones you kept throwing.

[redmenace]

*hums starspangled banner while watching military helicopters drop supplies to out-of-reach hit villages*