Yet another reason to tell the UN to fuck itself

[Relbeek Einre]

Sindarre, I think you know about the absurdity in comparing personal donations to charity versus governmental and global response to crisis.

"Really, Egeland, you think it's stingy? Well fuck those hundreds of thousands of people dying right now!" Doesn't make sense, does it? That'd be absolutely the wrong thing to do, you know it, I know it, so your comparison is meaningless.

Here's a similarly absurd allegory.

A bus crashes outside your house. Fifty people are injured. The driver comes to your house asking for help. You hand him a quarter and tell him a pay phone is at the end of the street, you can't call 911 yourself just yet because you're on a call with your brother. He accuses you of being crass. You act all offended and tell him how you gave the quarter out of the kindness of your heart and as soon as you're done with your brother you were planning on calling 911 and coming out to help with triage, and how dare he think you were anything but generous.

In that scenario, you're within your rights, but you're still the asshole.

As for Annan, he was already on the ball and issuing orders (and public statements) the day of the disaster. Bush wasn't heard from (except for one brief statement through a press secretary) for three days, and we had no idea what he was doing, if anything, during this time. Comparing the two is not remotely favorable to the President. Plus, the UN is structured differently than the US and disaster relief is Egeland's job, not Annan's, and Egeland was on the job within hours.

Your insinuations about equal scrutiny fall apart when you're trying to regard two unequal situations as equivalent.

[Crelone]

Plus, the UN is structured differently than the US and disaster relief is Egeland's job, not Annan's, and Egeland was on the job within hours.

Well if England was on the job, as they were supposed to be and Annan is off the hook because it's not his job it's England's, then why do we have to hear from the President of the United States? It's not his job either. The disaster didn't happen here.

[Eidolon Faer]

I find Sindarre's analogy far more compelling than Relbeek's in this case.

What strikes me as fascinating about the commentary I have seen here is how amazingly self-negating some of the logic is here.

For example, we have the President of the United States blasted for failing to slap on track shoes and sprint for a microphone, but instead quietly working to put together aid and forming a relief coalition. And yet, Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy Clan are praised glowingly for contributing to charity with their wallets instead of their flapping gums.

Both Kofi Annan and President Bush happened to be on vacation at the time of the disaster. Given the time of year it's hardly surprising. Both have access to Top Secret ultra-advanced technology like CELL PHONES and Administrative Staffing. And yet Kofi Annan is assumed to be personally lifting logs from atop distant victims via mental telekinesis while Bush is apparently spending his time twiddling his thumbs.

Frankly, there's little either could do other than order assessment teams into action and consult with their staffers. Both did so. The quick formation of the 4-nation coalition and the rapid deployment of military observation to the area speak to Bush's prompt response

I doubt the people in the damaged areas had power to run their television sets, so they probably weren't overly comforted by the promptness of the Secretary General's pretty speech.

[Eidolon Faer]

Oh, and did you notice how, as the assessment teams worked during the first couple days the estimated death tolls climbed from 10,000 to 20,000 to 40,000 and then to the current estimate over 100,000?

And did you notice how the amount of aid pledged by President Bush went up every time the estimates got revised?

Yeah, the initial pledge looks paltry now, but it was quite reasonable given the initial levels of damage estimates Bush had to work with when he put forth that pledge.

[Relbeek Einre]

Another gripe ...

Why is Bush forming a separate coalition? Why not work with the existing infrastructure? Isn't it counterproductive?

[vaulos]

One could just as easily ask why the UN is forming a seperate coalition to ours! On a serious note, by creating a seperate entity to collect funds, the Presidents-three have enabled US citizens who are uncomfortable with UN run funds (see oil-for-food) will have an outlet for thier charity. I see nothing horridly wrong with it.

[Relbeek Einre]

The outlet for their charity could be any of a number of private relief organizations, vaulos. The coalition Bush is forming seems superfluous.

[vaulos]

The same could be said about the UN fund. In fact, we might argue that there could only possibly be one non-superfluous charity, since they are all involved in perty much the same activities. We could go further and suggest that anyone who gives to any charity other than the "non-superfluous charity" is being irrational and stupid. We could further suggest that such activities are not helping, but rather hurting the situation by waisting presious resources. We could further pressure them to stop being so amazingly hurtful to the process.

Or perhaps we might choose to thank people for whatever ways they are willing to help- and leave it at that.

[Relbeek Einre]

That's absurd, and I think you know why.

[vaulos]

It was meant to be rediculous. As was your suggestion that there is something wrong with the Bush-Clinton-Bush coalition, simply because it is "superfluous". Be happy when people try to do good. Encourage it. Don't condemn it.

[Relbeek Einre]

Oh God.
No, recruiting the help of Bush I and Clinton was a good thing.

I'm talking about forming a separate coalition of nations.

[Riggen]

It seems superfluous to you because you trust the UN to do the right thing with all the money that will be flowing during this process.

Other people do not share that trust. Fool me once...

[vaulos]

How is that any different than the above example?

[vaulos]

Incidentally, according to Mr. Egeland, during his recent U.N. news conference, the US effort is "well coordinated" with the other efforts in the area. Furthermore, he was profuse with his praise of ALL efforts being made, regardless of who/how.

[Relbeek Einre]

Yes, I heard that, and I'm hoping it's more than just an effort by Egeland to soothe foaming Bushies.

Riggen: I wonder why you don't apply the same "Fool me once" standard to this Administration.

[davidking]

Again.. I think Relbeek is really funny.

[Riggen]

Relbeek: Who ever said I didn't? It's just not the topic at hand.

[Relbeek Einre]

Because you offer the US as an alternative to the UN based on the "Fool me once" principle.

Never mind the amount alleged to have been skimmed from the oil for food program is less than the amounts alleged to have been skimmed from US reconstruction programs.

[Rsak]

But he is not offering the US by itself as an alternative, but rather a mulitnational coalition!

[foeham]

Yep fuck them let them die, mother nature just doing some pruning of her own.