Rex Kickass Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 I think the tsunami did the 'f***ing' here...not Bush. EM That was sort of his point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 I think the tsunami did the 'f***ing' here...not Bush. EM I didn't say bush did the "f***ing" in Asia. He failed to seize an opportunity to change the world's view of the USA. He's showed his tendency to be a world leader when it goes against the wishes of the free world. Yet, when he has a chance to step up and be a world leader in a time of disaster and human suffering, well.... Let's go mountain biking! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 I didn't say bush did the "f***ing" in Asia. He failed to seize an opportunity to change the world's view of the USA. He's showed his tendency to be a world leader when it goes against the wishes of the free world. Yet, when he has a chance to step up and be a world leader in a time of disaster and human suffering, well.... Let's go mountain biking! Ok, in all seriousness, you are living in a fantasy world if you think that Bush could have said or done ANYTHING that would have changed people's minds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Ok, in all seriousness, you are living in a fantasy world if you think that Bush could have said or done ANYTHING that would have changed people's minds. Did he have to give them more fuel to add to the fire? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juddling Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Did he have to give them more fuel to add to the fire? What fuel did he add??? do you think at this time people over in the affected area are thinking to themselves "well....the US did pony up X amount of dollars but dammit...if Geogre Bush would have just spoken sooner it would all be better' ??? I don't think bush added any fuel to any fire other than the ones that people have on their torches ready to burn him for anything they can. juddling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 What fuel did he add??? do you think at this time people over in the affected area are thinking to themselves "well....the US did pony up X amount of dollars but dammit...if Geogre Bush would have just spoken sooner it would all be better' ??? I don't think bush added any fuel to any fire other than the ones that people have on their torches ready to burn him for anything they can. juddling No No No. I'm talking about the other governments and peoples of the world that look at us with contempt. This is a concept that should not be this difficult to understand. Fuel added: Bush (or America.... us) is so focus on creating war that he (us) can't turn loose of money to save lives instead of using money to kill. The US claims the high moral ground. Yet, when there is a major catastrophe, they throw a token amount of money into the mix. hypocritcal America! That's the kind of stuff we'll be hearing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Gleason Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 The people in the s*** might not be thinking that way, but many other people in the world will be. Remember after 9/11 how impressed people were by how Bush handled things for the first few weeks (before bombing the s*** out of Afganastan, and even for a little while after that), even foriegn leaders. He rallied people together quite well, and many people, even Gore backers, said that at that moment he was the best person to have in the White House. He had a chance to redeem himself to some degree with some people. He had a chance to show humanity and caring. He had a chance to be human. Oh well, it was a b****in' hill for biking, of that I am sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juddling Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 That's the kind of stuff we'll be hearing. As Evil Monkey said, you would hear that regardless of what Bush did. For those that hate us, nothing would have been good enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 So basically, what you're saying is that the US is powerless to change things. We live in the greatest country in the world. The one that exerts the most influence on this planet, politically economically and culturally. What Bush says, in terms of platitudes probably doesn't matter. That he says it, does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 As Evil Monkey said, you would hear that regardless of what Bush did. For those that hate us, nothing would have been good enough. I totally disagree. When 9/11 happened, we APPRECIATED the support we received from around the world. Bush had the world in his hip pocket at that point, and then blew his "capital" with his subsequent actions and policies. Bush doesn't give a s*** about anyone or anything but his agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Well before this gets too ugly, I do want to post this link http://www.msnbc.com/modules/interactive.a..._aid_04/data.js This is to a whole bunch of aid agencies who are collecting for relief efforts. This is the real way to help these people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 There's been nothing ugly about this so far. do you think at this time people over in the affected area are thinking to themselves "well....the US did pony up X amount of dollars but dammit...if Geogre Bush would have just spoken sooner it would all be better' ??? Where do you think politics was most affected by 9/11? Here's a clue, it wasn't New York City or the Northeast. It was the Midwest. I remember visiting New York in 2002 and thinking to myself that if someone was driving across the country that summer, that the attack took place in the Midwest rather than NYC, because the people most directly affected by the attacks moved on with their lives. And the people in Lansing, Michigan - where I lived at the time, hadn't. Or they took steps to find out why it happened and to ensure it never happened again. The fact is, what the President says or doesn't say rarely affects the people who are directly affected. It does affect the people in the hinterlands that are watching the tragedy unfold on their TV or in their newspaper. And there are a lot more of those than the ones affected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 (edited) I don't think in 2004 that Bush needs to be in Washington to do his job as I heard one person on the radio say. Hello, we have technology. I do not think Bush has to "feel the world's pain" and wring his hands in public at the grief. He should issue statements, offer encouragement, empathy, sympathy, or whatever moral boost he can. Being an emotional comfort, cheerleader, motivator comes with the job. That can be done in Texas, the same as in Washington. The US will give both privately and through our government. I prefer these efforts to be anonymous, given from the heart, but I can understand scorecard keepers. Since I prefer to donate anonymously, I respect others and do not count the money in their pockets or question their charitable donations. We should give not because somewhere in the world someone may like us, or in hopes that it will be an inoculation against terrorism, we should help because innocent people need our help and we have the means to help them. Edited December 29, 2004 by Texsox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 There's been nothing ugly about this so far. Its quickly moving that way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juddling Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 No No No. I'm talking about the other governments and peoples of the world that look at us with contempt. This is a concept that should not be this difficult to understand. Fuel added: Bush (or America.... us) is so focus on creating war that he (us) can't turn loose of money to save lives instead of using money to kill. The US claims the high moral ground. Yet, when there is a major catastrophe, they throw a token amount of money into the mix. hypocritcal America! That's the kind of stuff we'll be hearing. The first report or two i read said we are sending over $35 million or so in relief efforts. (bush quoted as saying it's just the beginning) I hardly thinnk $35 million is a 'token' amount of money on ANY scale. Just how much money would the US taxpayers have to send before it was 'acceptable' by other parts of the world???? I highly doubt there are people over in Egypt (for example) that are 'on the fence' deciding whether we are 'infidels' or good guys making up their minds based on the time or money involved in our response to this terrible crisis. Besides....wait till it's all done and we'll see who ends up with the majority of the relief effort. I got a $20 burning a hole in my pocket that i'm willing to bet anyone that we end up the biggest contributor in this effort. juddling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 If I read an article right, Bush said there'd be more than what the U.S. has donated already. And as for the complaining countries, did they help us out when Florida got hit by hurricanes right and left, no they didn't. Donating something is better than donating nothing. I just don't think this nation, or any other nation complain about what we're donating yet. Until the whole thing is over. We have no clue how much we're going to donate to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 If I read an article right, Bush said there'd be more than what the U.S. has donated already. And as for the complaining countries, did they help us out when Florida got hit by hurricanes right and left, no they didn't. Donating something is better than donating nothing. I just don't think this nation, or any other nation complain about what we're donating yet. Until the whole thing is over. We have no clue how much we're going to donate to this. Actually I just go done reading on CNN.com is that the $35 million actually just drained the remaining money out of the federal disaster relief program. They actually have to go petition the budget office for more money if they are going to give anymore aid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Juddling: Good points. A couple corrections though, the original pledge of aid was much less than the 35 million we've currently offered. Colin Powell was the one who said it was just the beginning, not the President. And promises of long term aid often go unheeded, just ask New York City. I think that you're mixing up two distinct arguments in this thread. First, 35 million is not a token amount of money. It's comparable to the larger countries in this world. The UN person who said it was "stingy" of the US to offer only 15 million was wrong, and I believe has retracted his statement since the additional 20 million in aid was announced the next day. Second, its important, in a geopolitical sense, for the President to seem like he gives a s*** about the crisis - even if he doesn't. Appearances matter, and given the fact that the bulk of the war we are fighting is represented between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea - every mistake is magnified. By the way, another fact unnoticed so far in this is that nearly 3,000 Scandinavian people are still unaccounted for. Approximately 100 dead are British, and we can count on several hundred Americans having lost their life in this tragedy as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Actually I just go done reading on CNN.com is that the $35 million actually just drained the remaining money out of the federal disaster relief program. They actually have to go petition the budget office for more money if they are going to give anymore aid. At least they're trying, I know trying isn't actually doing it. They're on the right track in order to getting it done. If the petition could pass then that would work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted December 29, 2004 Author Share Posted December 29, 2004 The first report or two i read said we are sending over $35 million or so in relief efforts. (bush quoted as saying it's just the beginning) I hardly thinnk $35 million is a 'token' amount of money on ANY scale. Just how much money would the US taxpayers have to send before it was 'acceptable' by other parts of the world???? I highly doubt there are people over in Egypt (for example) that are 'on the fence' deciding whether we are 'infidels' or good guys making up their minds based on the time or money involved in our response to this terrible crisis. Besides....wait till it's all done and we'll see who ends up with the majority of the relief effort. I got a $20 burning a hole in my pocket that i'm willing to bet anyone that we end up the biggest contributor in this effort. juddling Well 35 million does seem like a very insignificant amount when you consider how much is spent everyday in Iraq (177 million). Then on top of that when you consider approval rates for the War in Iraq are probably close to 50% where as approval rates for giving relief aid would probably be more like 100%. No one seems to be wondering if the US just can't pay any more money. I mean they've got a huge enough deficit as it is. All the other countries funding sucks too by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 We are spending $171 Million PER DAY in Iraq. Helping those people escape a brutal dictator. How much is appropriate in this case? I don't even know if the comparison should be made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted December 29, 2004 Author Share Posted December 29, 2004 We are spending $171 Million PER DAY in Iraq. Helping those people escape a brutal dictator. How much is appropriate in this case? I don't even know if the comparison should be made. Why not? Brutal Dictator, Brutal Tsunami Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 We are spending $171 Million PER DAY in Iraq. Helping those people escape a brutal dictator. How much is appropriate in this case? I don't even know if the comparison should be made. Why shouldn't it be made? The brutal dictator left office 20 months ago, the brutal waves only left four days ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 For the record, the UN dude referred to "rich countries" as "stingy." Oxfam called us stingy - in comparison to other G8 countries. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...mCSW6Y&refer=uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nokona Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Relief Aid - 35 Million Inauguration Bash - 40 mil. What the f*** is that. He already had one inauguaration he needs to spend 40 million more? Take the oath, eat dinner, and send the rest to the millions who are/will be suffering in Asia. America needs to get some of its priorities in shape Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.