Originally posted by 3733csvt:
i wont be suprized if its going to be a million sometime... i guess the united states is right when it says $35 million is enough. 35 billion wouldnt be enough, the united states is stingy, and king bush's war is more important



Hmmm,

Is the west being stingy?

Quote:



the U.N. World Health Organization (search) said, saying it needed $40 million dollars to get those supplies to victims.





So if the US is putting up $35M in relief, isn't this 7/8ths of what WHO needs. I'm not saying they are giving it to WHO, but rather pointing out the scale of what the US is giving.

News Story

Then there are the 1000 soldiers who are going in to meet medical needs etc.

How much aid did the US provide last year?

Quote:


Asked about a U.N. official who accused Western nations of being "stingy" with humanitarian aid, Bush responded that the United States is a very generous, kind-hearted nation, and the response that is emerging from the government as well as individuals is indicative of its nature.

"I felt like the person who made that statement was very misguided and ill informed. Take, for example, in the year 2004, our government provided $2.4 billion in food, in cash, in humanitarian relief to cover the disasters for last year. That's $2.4 billion. That's 40 percent of all the relief aid given in the world last year," he said.




News Story 2

So if the government of the US (a nation of 300 million on a planet of 5 or 6 billion people) provided 40% of all humanitarian aid, how are we selfish and thinking only about war?

This isn't about Bush or the war, this is about ignorance, and I'm not buying what I read from the UN or the Bush Bashers, go do the research and see how much we really do provide to the world.

TB

"Seems like our society is more interested in turning each successive generation into cookie-cutter wankers than anything else." -- Jato 8/24/2004