[Deepblue]

+ 10 heavy lifting helos. God knows what they cost. And like I said, none of this includes private organizations.

[karajorma]

And like I said I couldn't give a flying f**k what private individuals are giving. It's completely irrelavent to the discussion at hand.

And it's not like the US are giving Pakistan the helicopters to keep. All they're getting is the rental for a few days.

[Deepblue]

No it's not irrevelant. Private organizations giving money towards foreign causes is like the government giving the money themselves due to the fact that it takes money out of the country. When Pakistan pledged 1 million, it's not like any more would be coming from private organizations within Pakistan.

[karajorma]

Talk about completely missing the f**king point.

I was talking about how come Pakistan has helped the west out several times in the "War on Terror" and yet when they have a problem how is it going to look to the rest of the world if the west shows themselves up as the fairweather friends everyone has always said that they are.

I just get the feeling that we're missing a major opportunity here on top of being completely useless at helping out a nation that is supposedly a friend.

[Deepblue]

The West is helping. The point is that you can't express the help given in XXX numbers of dollars/pounds or what have you.

[Sandwich]

Guys, calm down. The explanation is simple: America is the center of the world. Something big happens there, it gets lots of coverage, and rightly so. Without America, the sun would go nova and kill us all. So shut up about America getting undue attention, okay? America is the CENTER of the WORLD. Get it through your thick skulls. Gosh - idiots!

[Kie99]

Could someone change the title to 30,000 feared dead instead of 3,000

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Deepblue
You realize of course that the US generally sends aid through way of private charities etc.? That's where the real meat is.

Though you are wrong. The US is putting in $500,000 to the American Red Cross for relief + more.

Regardless of other issues, private charity is pretty much totally irrelevant to levels of government foreign aid.  The reason being that government aid constitutes a political and diplomatic commitment, a formal assignation of 'value' of their concern, etc, i.e. the value or level of their desire to help.

 Individual charity is just that; individual.  If I give xx pounds to this appeal and Joe Bloggs in Kansas gives xx dollars to this appeal, it's not a fair measure of the importance of either the UK or the USAs' commitment to assist and support.

The point kara is/was making is that for the last 4 years, Pakistan has made itself the chief Muslim ally of the US; and at a great cost to its leadership and potentially stability (ignoring that the origins of that stability are pretty much a junta).  They're the ones who've been at the real forefront of this 'war on terror', and they've probably done more to round up Al-Queda and Taliban fugitives than any other country, including the US.

Now, they've been hit by an absolute horror of a disaster here, and they've asked for "massive cargo helicopter support".  That the US has offered a grand total of...8, 3 of which are UH-60s, and less rescue personnel than other nations, may spark some soul-searching on their part as to how valuable their previous assistance has been to the US.  I would expect that number to go up (as the aid has; the initial figure was $100k, which was less than 1/30th of the EU donation of $3.8m) simply because I'd expect them to ask for more.

Certainly, if you were to place a value upon Pakistans role as a US ally, then it'd be exponentially higher than $500k.

EDIT; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Kashmir_earthquake#International_response

[Flipside]

So the UK is sending out 100 grand and 50 Doctors?

That's embarrasing.

[aldo_14]

Yup.  Bloody Belgium is sending more.  More than anyone else, I think, except maybe the whole EU.

[Clave]

At least 19,000 people are thought to have been killed in Pakistan, and it is feared the toll could rise much higher.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
and at a great cost to its leadership and potentially stability (ignoring that the origins of that stability are pretty much a junta).

To be fair to Musharraf his choices at the time were to stage a coup and remove the increasingly dictatorial prime minister or have his plane run out of fuel and fall out of the sky.

He has since held general elections and won.  

Originally posted by aldo_14
They're the ones who've been at the real forefront of this 'war on terror', and they've probably done more to round up Al-Queda and Taliban fugitives than any other country, including the US.

Now, they've been hit by an absolute horror of a disaster here, and they've asked for "massive cargo helicopter support".  That the US has offered a grand total of...8, 3 of which are UH-60s, and less rescue personnel than other nations, may spark some soul-searching on their part as to how valuable their previous assistance has been to the US.  I would expect that number to go up (as the aid has; the initial figure was $100k, which was less than 1/30th of the EU donation of $3.8m) simply because I'd expect them to ask for more.

Certainly, if you were to place a value upon Pakistans role as a US ally, then it'd be exponentially higher than $500k.

Exactly. So you do have to wonder why the US and UK are making such an effort to offend someone we should be helping. Especially when you consider that Japan, China and even Turkey appear to have done more to help them.

To be honest I would have thought that backing Pakistan to the hilt would have been a no-brainer for the US and UK (Especially the UK actually seeing as how Pakistan is a Commonwealth country with a sizable ex-pat population living here).

[vyper]

Originally posted by karajorma



To be honest I would have thought that backing Pakistan to the hilt would have been a no-brainer for the US and UK (Especially the UK actually seeing as how Pakistan is a Commonwealth country with a sizable ex-pat population living here).

With a government that has barely been legitimized and only recently accepted by the commonwealth as being democratic.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma


To be fair to Musharraf his choices at the time were to stage a coup and remove the increasingly dictatorial prime minister or have his plane run out of fuel and fall out of the sky.

He has since held general elections and won.  

It's the thing about being president and head of the army I'm thinking of.

However, the democracy or otherwise of a government isn't really relevant  to aiding the people, so it's a moot point.  After all, nary a word of that was mentioned in Iran (albeit they've apparently had bugger all long term aid).

[karajorma]

A widely-quoted Pew Center poll released March 16, 2004 said of Musharraf:

    Pakistanis expressed highly favorable opinions of their president; 86% rate him favorably, and 60% view him very favorably, by far the highest rating of any leader in the survey.

Several other independent polls, including polls by well-known organizations such as Gallup and the BBC, have also indicated that Musharraf has the support of a majority of the Pakistanis surveyed.

Doesn't sound undemocratic to me regardless of how he came to power.

Originally posted by aldo_14
It's the thing about being president and head of the army I'm thinking of.

Yeah. I do agree that it's not a good idea to have both of those in the same person. That said when he first came to power I read a tale about how come his presidential motorcade used to stop for traffic lights so hopefully he's not a man who abuses his power. I do agree it would be better if he gave that power up to avoid the temptation.

Originally posted by aldo_14
However, the democracy or otherwise of a government isn't really relevant  to aiding the people, so it's a moot point.  After all, nary a word of that was mentioned in Iran (albeit they've apparently had bugger all long term aid).

Yep. It's not like we're dealing with a tin pot dictatorship where the mealy mouthed excuse that it would all go into the hands of the corrupt few works. There's a fair bit of corruption out there I'm sure but I doubt it's any worse than most of the countries we helped after the Tsunami.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma


Doesn't sound undemocratic to me regardless of how he came to power.

It's not just about popularity though, is it?  It's about how hard it is to remove him in the event of unpopularity.  I honestly don't know how easy that is/would be.

But, this is kind of veering OT, isn't it?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
It's not just about popularity though, is it?  It's about how hard it is to remove him in the event of unpopularity.  I honestly don't know how easy that is/would be.

But, this is kind of veering OT, isn't it?

I agree that could be a problem. The reason why I brought it up though is that I don't want people using the "It's a dictatorship so we shouldn't send them money" argument. Regardless of the potential danger inherant in the way the country is being run the fact is that at the moment it's a stable democracy so the arguments don't hold.

See. It's not OT. It's a premetive strike against the arguments some would try to use to get out of feeling guilty.

[vyper]

Don't get me wrong, my post wasn't about feeling guilty or otherwise it was about a potential issue that arises from directly "backing" (as aldo said) said nation.

[karajorma]

I agree with you there. Even if you assume that Musharraf can be trusted they've already tried to kill him once and we've got no idea what could happen if they succeed on day.

None of that is a reason for the shoddy treatment I'm seeing so far though.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by vyper
Don't get me wrong, my post wasn't about feeling guilty or otherwise it was about a potential issue that arises from directly "backing" (as aldo said) said nation.

Although worth putting into context that humanitarian aid is about backing people more than about government or even diplomacy.  If it appears that people are lacking that aid support, then that's when the questions begin to be asked.

I kind of regret bringing that whole issue up, now

anyways, as it stands this disaster is looking worse by the minute.  According to a UN guy interviwed on the BBC, there is a population of about 4 million in the affected areas, and almost 96-98% destruction.  So there's potential for a massive humanitarian disaster.