The New Road

The $350million plus that we've donated so far isn't enough of a start? Only Japan has given more than we have. As I read, we've given more than the entire EU combined.

And where would this few billion come from? There are legislators that are trying to free up some money that was promised for the Iraq rebuild (that's not currently being used for whatever reason) to move over to relief efforts. That would put our soldiers in an even more untenable situation, but would help those in the Indian Ocean. Who wins? We all lose somewhere in these scenarios.

Every dollar we spend in Iraq is one that is going down the toilet. It's all being mismanaged. $70B later and our troops still don't have the armor they need. And Bush had planned to ask for another $100+B this month.

Preventative money is the best money we can spend. Again, the money we spend in Indonesia today will win hearts and minds and turn people that were against us towards us.

I talked a while back about the economics of Osama's terror campaign. He can spend $100 in Iraq and cause $10M dollars in damage. We have an opportunity to use economics in our favor. To use $1B today getting the populace on our side, versus $70B fighting an insurgency tomorrow.

As to the amount of aid. No. It isn't good. $350M is a pittance. Especially when you look at it in the light of the billions we are pouring into the Republican quagmire of Iraq. Per capita Australia is spending $1.30 per person. We are spending around $0.90.

What's the old saying, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." According to that model we should be spending $4.3B in Tsunami relief.

so, then you direct the funds from Iraq to the Indian Ocean and what? Help those people in what is a massive world-wide effort to help. Leave our soldiers, who as you say don't have what they need, out to dry? Prevent the insurgency, though in Somalia and islands off the Indian coast are completely off limits to aide because their ruling powers will not let them in to help?

I think it's a no-win based on your evaluation.

As I read about the horrors there, a MAJOR problem is getting to those areas that need the help and proper dispersement of aide. There are communities in Sri Lanka that have more than enough aide to get them through the hard times. Yet, communities that can not be entered either because of the ruling powers or impassable roads or simply because people are unaware of the needs in those areas.

Speaking of..what's your opinion on Bush's plan to get Clinton and Former Pres Bush to appeal to the American people to open up their wallets and donate to the national organizations that are leading the charge?

Turns out it's based on your beloved administration's opinion as well. Please read here:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Asia-tsunami/US-pushes-aid-plan-to-avert-terror/2005/01/03/1104601297984.html

I will excerpt:

"Billions of dollars in aid could be poured into Asia in a long-term plan to ensure under-development does not breed Islamic radicalism and terrorism following the tsunami disaster.

The US and Australia have identified a prompt and successful humanitarian aid effort in south Asia as a national security priority.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell said a failed reconstruction effort could result in victims turning to extremism.

"If nations are poor, if they don't see hope, if they're riddled by disease, if no one is helping them, then radicalism takes over, they lose faith in democracy and they start turning in other directions," Mr Powell told CNN. "This is an investment not only in the welfare of these people, which in and of itself is a good thing to do; it's an investment in our own national security."

It was a sentiment Australian Government sources endorsed."

I'm not sure why you believe that there is this fixed pool of money. Obviously your beloved administration feels that debt is it's due. What is a billion more in debt if it can help aid these people and prevent this from becoming a backwater for terrorism.

Frankly, I don't understand what you are saying at all. What do you think we should do? I seem to be providing all of the answers, while you seem to just be digging up more issues.

In answer to your question. I think it's pathetic that this president has so polarized the country that he has to rely on two more moderate presidents to encourage the two halves of the populace to donate money. It's yet another sign that all this president seems capable of doing is failing and breeding more animosity in his failure.

Step down a second here, Jack.

Where do you get this is my beloved administration?

I think it's necessary to provide relief. I think it's necessary to provide it into the billions of dollars if need be. I think it's necessary to provide our troops in Iraq whatever they need until they can get their asses out of there.

I think it's wonderful that the push is going to the people of the united states to provide money to the relief effort. It should not be up to our governments to help out--the people of the world should help out. Real people were affected here and real people should be the ones to help out--we shouldn't depend on governments to do all the work. My donation has gone, has yours? I sent my donation in before anyone asked--it was the right thing to do for me. It's not political. It's just right.

You've been bending over backwards to defend the administration on this topic. Thus, I have to conclude that you support their efforts.

If governments should never send aid then why is there any money earmarked for Iraq. I'm assuming that you believe that large portions of that $70B are going to rebuild Iraq, right? And not to just line the pockets of Halliburton.

I have not defended the administration, I'm simply trying to define your position. The extreme budget deficit has been a problem for sure, but the first idea to come out on your website is that we need to send billions of dollars worth of aide. I had trouble reconciling that with your previous statements and was trying to define your position.

Governments should do what they can, but in an instance like this, like 9/11, like the massive earthquakes that have rocked Japan recently, the massive hurrican damage in the Caribbean this last year, I think people should step up to the plate and help if they can. No political force caused this catastrophe, nature did. Thus, in my opinion, all political crap should be tossed aside to help the people.

I don't think any rebuilding is going on right now, physically speaking. I believe they, the soldiers, the people who have been tagged for leadership over there, are doing what they can to try and make it a better place. They're trying to move towards an election, trying to establish a government, trying to get out from under Saddam Hussein and his systems. Some over there don't want it, some do. Same as we have here--some don't like Bush, some do. We just don't resort to violence to try and make our opinions known. We have the luxury of free speech, of blogs like this, to state your opinion and not be killed for it.

So is the government now wrong in moving towards putting billions of dollars in aid in there to stop what could be a cesspool of terrorism? Is Bush wrong in doing that?

No. I think it is the right thing to do. I just think that people, individuals like you and me who have nothing to do with the political spectrum (save our votes) should be doing something too.

Wait, wait, hold on. So you just said it wasn't the governments role to give aid. Now you are saying that the governments role is to give aid. Which is it?

no, I said that it shouldn't be up to our governments to help out and I don't think it should be left soley to the governments. I think they should do what they can but with major help from organizations and communities around the world willing to step up and help out.

I don't think it should be left solely to governments either. People have been helping out in droves.

But our government represents us. And our president basically screwing off for a week after the disaster hit is a smack in the face to the world community.

Like it or not, the office of the presidency (held now illegally since 2000) has a diplomatic and a world view function outside of just setting policies (or destroying the function of government, which is what the Republicans and neocons specialize in). The arrogance of Bush's response does matter. It reflects poorly on us as a people and a nation.