Having lived through Hurricane Andrew and several in Florida (yes I had damage)last year I never thought of these questions before, but now with this latest one, and many of my buddies heading off to help for several weeks (they are police officers heading to help out as part of our inter-state aid program), this question was raised today in Orlando at the Law Enforcement Conference I am at.

“Where is all the international help for the US?” And I was taken back by that comment. I never thought of it before, even after living through several myself and serving in Dade County Florida for 6 months after hurricane Andrew(where my parents home was destroyed). Where are all the other countries that cry for help and America helps them, when America could sure use some where are they? So I went to Google and searched for any news of aid on the way from outside the US. And guess what, I could not find any mention of any other countries helping the US. Not one!

I thought of this today. If America were to strip all of the monies that we're putting into foreign governments, humanitarian aid, international relief, loans to other countries and sunk all of those billions of dollars back into America, how much better off could America be? How much greater (read: more prosperous) would this country be? How bad off would the remainder of the world become in the absence of the money that the US puts into the global society?

I think it's interesting that Americans are blasted for not giving enough (when many Americans and the American government gave plenty) during the tsunami crisis last Christmas. Now it's time to blast the rest of the world. When the world needs help, they first look to America with their hands held out. Now, if America is looking for the rest of the world, not with a hand out for help, but with a pleading look - for others to acknowledge that it is time for the generosity of the American people to be acknowledged and repaid with whatever means are available, each according to their own capacity. Where are they?

The US gave to the Tsunami countries, and have given over the years to many other disasters. But when the US needs help, where are the other countries?

So I pose these questions to you:

1. Should other countries offer and provide assistance to the US in this time of need?
2. Should the US ask for help with hurricane relief from the international community?
3. Should there be an expectation of reciprocal help when we aid other countries in time of need?

I eagerly await your comments.

1. Should other countries offer and provide assistance to the US in this time of need?

Sure, if we really need the assistance and they have the means to help.

2. Should the US ask for help with hurricane relief from the international community?

With regard to the current aftermath from Hurricane Katrina? I don't know. Although the situation in New Orleans and surrounding areas is desperate and will require emergency action, it still seems like it is within the capabilities and abilities of the rest of the country to handle. It will take time to organize refugee relief and establish order, but the costs involved will not bankrupt or significantly hurt the United States financially, and while other nations might consider sending disaster relief specialists and supplies, I would think we could provide those supplies ourselves much more quickly and effectively rather than waiting for them to arrive from overseas.

3. Should there be an expectation of reciprocal help when we aid other countries in time of need?

When it comes to like matters, I would think certainly - when others are in need, we come to their aid, so isn't it fair to expect the same in return?

But in the current situation, I don't know if there is much parity between what happened in Hurricane Katrina, and something like the tsunami that hit Indonesia and India. The tsunami hit impoverished third world nations that have difficulty taking caring of themselves as it is without considering lending emergency support to other nations, and the death toll was over 200,000. We certainly have every right to grieve over the hundreds dead in wake of Katrina, but the death statistics and the financial status of the nations involved strike me as being different.

1. Should other countries offer and provide assistance to the US in this time of need?

They could, but something tells me our current administration would view our acceptance of help as a sign of weakness. And if they didn't, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage would sure as hell make sure they did. The problem isn't really that they won't offer help. It's that, since we are the most powerful nation in the world, I don't think other countries really know what they could even offer us.

2. Should the US ask for help with hurricane relief from the international community?

Tough call. It's certainly not on par with the tsunami that ravaged Southeast Asia, but it has ruined a few cities and will take months, if not years to repair. The loss of life could escalate, although it will be a mere pittance compared to other global disasters in less-developed countries.

We could ask for help, but like I said, it might show weakness. I think we should at least ask for it.

3. Should there be an expectation of reciprocal help when we aid other countries in time of need?

No. If we're going to be a Christian nation, we better act like one. Expecting a return for something during a time of disaster is rather selfish. And likewise, if Canada suffered some catastrophic disaster, I doubt we'd have much to do. The times we give aid usually involve those countries who can not survive such a blow to their economy.

I think some serious perspective is in order.

This is the richest nation on earth. If there was something that the international community could offer that the US itself couldn't provide more quickly and efficiently I have little doubt it would be offered.

The fact is, even if five (or fifty) Katrinas struck the US we couldn't even begin to imagine the type of trouble some of the recipients of our aid live through 365 days a year.

I agree with Turnea. One of the reasons the US is seldom the recipient of outside aid is because we don't need it. We have almost always been able to take care of disasters on our own. I also agree that much of the aid we do send is to countries which really aren't in a position to help us even if we needed it...and I don't have a problem with that. However, I do also think that 'the world' is often too quick to expect aid from the US, and sometimes too slow to offer either thanks or reciprocity if needed. I will offer that, for those who have seen the oil rig pinned besides the bridge in Mobile, that they were waiting on equipment/personnel from Denmark, I think, to help them figure out how to move it (probably a company serving the North Sea).

I will say that I think it would be great if this were an international relief effort. There's clearly plenty that can be done...I doubt any of those in need would turn down help, even from a Frenchman! . There are going to need to be an incredible amount of temporary (is months temporary?) shelter needed, and it would be great if other nations provided some of that. Not only would it help those in need here, but it would probably do wonders for international relations as well.

I seem to be the only one that actually did hear on the news that 10 to 12 countries actually did offer assistance, but is still depending on the US to accept it.

Should the U.S. accept foreign aid?



UN official says Katrina among worst natural disasters



While some people want to think that no other country is offering help that is wrong. The question should be will we except it and should we? At least they are offering which shows we are a world community. What is even surprising to me is the last 2 paragraphs in the first quote. The Swiss who were just hit with a flood last week are trying to find ways to send donations to us.

I don't think the United States needs aid in this case. We can certainly provide aid from others areas of the country much quicker than any other country could.

HOWEVER, there is an old saying that is the the "thought that counts". Offering help, even if help is unnecessary or even unwanted, says something.

The fact that few foreign countries have seriously offered any aid (Hugo Chafes did offer oil, but only for poor people) troubles me.

Canada did offer aid, the only country besides Venezuela that I could find: Canada ready to help



It seems that HHS in the US asked Canada for help in emergency supplies. Thank God that the Canadians are so close to us and so willing to help.

1. Should other countries offer and provide assistance to the US in this time of need?

If they have the resources and we have the need, why not?

2. Should the US ask for help with hurricane relief from the international community?

If they have the resources and we have the need, why not?

3. Should there be an expectation of reciprocal help when we aid other countries in time of need?

If they have the resources and we have the need, why not?


In fact, as Cadman's link demonstrated, several already have made the offer. But there could be a problem - "we" may not want any help. ITAR-TASS reports that Russia was ready to provide assistance, but that the White House said "No, thanks":
Meanwhile, the Army Corps of Engineers plan to drop sand bags into the raceway of the broken levee has fallen through:
Even if a single helicopter wouldn't have made that much difference in terms of dropping sandbags, there were only fourteen helicopters on hand the other night to lift people from the roofs of houses that could have been under water by morning. It's estimated that there are between 188,000 and 300,000 people still stranded in New Orleans. I would think that every available resource that could help save lives - even now - would be accepted happily.

Canada has also offered to assist:

Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan said that Canada is prepared to send everything from water purification systems to the Canadian military's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) and Ontario is looking into whether its medical and hydro workers can help and has offered their Emergency Medical Assistance Team. The Canadian Red Cross said lists of volunteers experienced in large-scale disasters were being assembled and that most of the volunteers would help spell off exhausted American relief workers in the coming months, she said.

However, a Canadian reader wrote the following to Daily Kos (I know, I know):
Hopefully - if true - this is just temporary chaos related to the "bit of a crisis management mode" mentioned in the first piece.

On the other hand, Andrea Mitchell reported on MSNBC earlier that we've declined aid from Canada, Germany, Venezuela and other unnamed countries (presumably including Russia). Now, I could understand this if the disaster relief effort were running smoothly - if we had been prepared for such an emergency and were efficiently coping with it. That, however, does not appear to be the case. It looks more like the White House is saying "We're in charge here - what's going on?"

If these countries are offering assistance, we should accept. It would be ungracious not to. And, as FEMA has been part of the DHS for several years now, we should certainly have a strategy in place for coordinating an international effort in the event of a major tragedy such as this - right?

As much as my government disgusts me, I must say that you are confusing 2 things. The offering you are referring to, which was discussed while rev. Jackson visited the country to offer excuses because of the Robertson affaire is different to the offering made to help in the Katrina disaster.

Venezuela offered to send oil to Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana as a Whole - not only for the poor, even if such a differentiation is possible, as well as rescue teams if necessary. Our president is definitely not my favorite and the thing with the "oil for the poor in the US" just another of his idiotic provocations, but Venezuela as poor as we are has always tried to help when other countries needed.


I guess most countries would be willing to help if they sensed the US is in need of help, but does the US goverment really want help of the "World"?

1. Should other countries offer and provide assistance to the US in this time of need?
Yes, they should. I would be surprised and disappointed if Britain, and most other EU countries (including France), had not already privately offered to help should the need arise.
I would expect such offers would be more in the line of specialist technical support and perhaps additional helicopters, boats and so on, and that such resources, if they haven't already been used, are on stand-by should America request them.

I doubt that many other countries are thinking in terms of purely financial aid; as has been pointed out, America is already the richest country on earth - if money alone is the problem, then that problem must surely be America's own fault?

However, I don't think Europe in particular has yet realised the scale of the disaster - not least the depths of poverty that left many of the people in the area so badly protected from this disaster, because the socialism-lite systems most EU countries operate simply do not permit such relative poverty to exist.

The early political recriminations in the USA seem to recognise that somewhere along the line money has been wasted or incorrectly allocated - though naturally enough the blame is one-sided (and never on "our" side) - which is an internal issue. Frankly I doubt America would greatly appreciate external countries poking their noses in too much at this point, which I suspect is at least part of the motivation for haing turned down most offers of aid so far.

Besides, this is not a situation where the state and federal authorities are in chaos (I hope) and need to be elbowed aside, as has often been the case when America has helped other countries. Any international help needs to be provided as directed by the relevant domestic US authorities. Unless you want a team of French, Russian and Chinese engineers under UN or NGO control to just waltz in and start fixing the levees the way they would in the Third World.

2. Should the US ask for help with hurricane relief from the international community?
Yes, they should, and my worry here is that the offers that the authorities have already turned down might have more to do with how well American ideas strength and independence sit with accepting foreign help in a domestic crisis than with not actually needing any help.
I also have a hunch that some countries that have not yet come forward might be doing it because, rightly or wrongly, they think America thinks in terms of quid pro quo but hates being in anybody's debt or accepting charity rather more than it hates helping the ungrateful.

3. Should there be an expectation of reciprocal help when we aid other countries in time of need?
How much help do you think Indonesia, Thailand and Sri Lanka might actually be in this situation? They are still rebuilding their own countries after the Asian tsunami, never mind about yours.

And I don't think that the expectation of aid should be based on anything more than being in a position to help.

If a rich man gives a poor man money, he can expect the favour to be returned in kind only at some future point where the poor man has become rich himself. If a hostile power ever successfully invades and subdues mainland America, you can expect France to do whatever it can to repel the invaders, just as America did for France. If they don't, that would certainly be evidence of France's lack of gratitude, not to mention moral fibre. But would it make more sense to nurse a grudge against France, or devote your energies to defeating the invaders?

If a newly-rich future Ethiopia or Niger doesn't help out the USA when there's a nationwide famine that threatens half the population, then you can claim your expectations have been dashed. But would it make more sense to nurse a grudge against Niger or Ethiopia, or just make sure you could feed as many people as possible?

Right now the richest country on earth needs to urgently deal with an internal humanitarian crisis affecting perhaps half a million people, and subsequently solve some engineering and building problems to fix the aftermath and mitigate any future repeat. You already have all the financial and engineering resources you need to fix these problems. What you may not have is the immediate number of pairs of hands necessary to fix it quickly before more lives are lost (the waters in New Orleans are still rising).

But aside from all that, I think that one country should help another because it's the right thing to do, not because of any stored-up benefit that can be cashed in when the helper country decides they want payback. Life is not a series of contracts.

The international cooperation America should really be working on, once the immediate crisis is over, is the best way to systematically understand and address the climate change that may (or may not) be causing events like Katrina, and which may (or may not) be partially or completely mad-made.

Julian, thank you for the very insightful and thought provoking answer to the questions I posed. You pointed some very good things I had not at first thought of.

Thanks

1. Should other countries offer and provide assistance to the US in this time of need?
Yes they should and the US should accept this aid.

I know that Israel has offered the US any and all assistance that US wants. This blanket offer came two days ago.

They also had assistance in route to the US on 9/11 when the US told them that US airspace was closed and assistance was not required.

But yes it is important in moral to have our real friends help us like we would help them.

2. Should the US ask for help with hurricane relief from the international community?
No here I would draw the line. Accept aid from our friends, but that is not the entire international community.

3. Should there be an expectation of reciprocal help when we aid other countries in time of need?
I am not sure. Our true friends will offer what they can. We need to be big enough to realize that is what they have, and say yes just so that they know that we appreciate the offer, even if we repay them later.

Actually while it might be a little naive to expect aid from anyone, excepting aid from someone you are in arguments about can possible foster better relations. But like you said in your third response I completely agree with you we should accept it for what it is and accept the assistance to show we appreciate the offers, just like when we offer our assistance to others. Might go a long way to show we don't think of our selfs above approach.

1. Should other countries offer and provide assistance to the US in this time of need?

Well, they should certainly offer their help. As to know if they CAN help the US, that is another matter. You can't expect poor countries to respond to the US needs... because they can't even face their own problems! As far as Europe is concerned, it will (would?) take weeks before anything significant is transported over on boats to America. I'm quite certain that if some countries haven't offered their help yet, it is because they are pesuaded that the US can deal with the problem alone.


2. Should the US ask for help with hurricane relief from the international community?


There is no shame in asking for help when you are trying to save the lives of your own citizens. With a disaster of such magnitude, I don't think anyone would have the guts to think that the US are 'weak'. If the US need help, they should not hesistate to ask for it.


3. Should there be an expectation of reciprocal help when we aid other countries in time of need?

Again, things need to be put in perspective with the actual wealth and possibilities of each country. Most countries can't project any significant help and technology. Maybe the UN could do something?

For clarity :



I hope not, given that I donated to the American Red Cross yesterday!



I believe your explanation would still bear meaning if you replaced 'France' with 'any country', right?

Ok, I'm going to break against the mold here. I can't speak for other countries, but I feel quite strongly that Canada should not offer aid to the United States. The U.S. has made it pretty clear that her relationship with Canada is nothing more than a friendship of convenience. In the last fifteen years this country has let its own dignity and sovereignty erode through its increasing closeness with the United States, and we're still treated as international doormats. Friends help friends, yes?

Well, the last time that America faced a huge crisis (9/11) Canada took in something like 42,000 U.S. citizens who were stranded in the air. Bush went on the air repeatedly in the next few months thanking the citizens and governments of numerous nations who helped out... except Canada or Newfoundland/Nova Scotia. In fact, the first time that he acknowledged their help was during an election Campaign in Canada where he gave a speech which hurt the reigning Liberal government.

And of course in the aftermath of 9/11 Canada was frequently identified as the 'source' for the terrorists entering the United States, even after the CIA had found that none of them entered from Canada. As recently as October 2004 Hilary Clinton (and in August '04, etc.) was still making these same statements, as have pundits and journalists. Is the truth KNOWN, yes. Is there any impetus to eradicate this point of view? Of course not, it's an easy concept for Americans to accept, and it's only just Canada.

Americans and Canadians do enjoy a friendship that is unique among nations, and for that I am thankful, and proud. But even a guy like me, who doesn't resort to the Anti-americanism which is so prevalent in this country today finds it distasteful that our first thought is of helping the Americans when are help, and our existence is treated as merely an afterthought.

1. Should other countries offer and provide assistance to the US in this time of need?

Of course they should help us. America and the international community helped when the tsunami hit the countries in the Indian Ocean. WHy can't they help us?

2. Should the US ask for help with hurricane relief from the international community?Of course we should. We shouldn't have to though. We have given way too much money wise to the international community with their own problems. They should at least offer some kind of assistance.


3. Should there be an expectation of reciprocal help when we aid other countries in time of need?

Yes there should be reciprocal aid. I cannot begin to imagine on how many countries that we helped with their disasters/wars etc. It seems like when something happens to another country they look at us like we are <i>suppose</i> to help them, but when something happens to us we are not suppose to get aid.

Ultimatejoe I can certainly understand your attitude. Yes America does take Canada for granted, though it has stood with us far more than some other 'friends'.

I have had a recent visit to Ontario and was made to feel very welcome in your country. Certainly did not encounter any Anti-americanism at all.

These are the reasons that I think that the US should accept any and all aid from those offering, especially Canada. Because then we wouldn't be taking for granted, but as a true friend and neighbor. If we had more countries like Canada the world would be a better place and if we appear to look down our noses at you then we are truly in serious trouble. A nation even a big and wealthy as America can not have too many friends.

My opinion is a hybrid of Amlord and UltimateJoe's. I think that a token offer of aid is not too much to ask from other countries, especially our buddies over there in Europe. I do however, completely agree with UltimateJoe's analysis of the Canado-American [yes, I made that up, leave me alone] relationship, and agree with him that Canada shouldn't offer any aid. I would however, like to twist the "taking for granted" part of that point. I think that the rest of the world takes America for granted, and I think that that explains why no one has even offered help with the exception of those mentioned before my post. The rest of the world knows that we are going to give money to coutries in need, we always do, and we always will. It's a given. Do we need help? No, could we use it, sure. But all of these countries who absolutely, positively, would bet everything they own, know, that we give to those who need it don't have the decency to make a rhetorical offer to us after the worst natural disaster I can remember.

No, we shouldn't. We don't need the help...We could just use it is all.

Well sure. Doesn't we'll help you out and you'll help us out seem perfect? Too bad we don't live in a perfect world.

CP

I think you overstate our generosity, the fact is foreign aid has taken dives in the US before, most poor countries can't really count on that money. After all only about a third of our aid actually goes to poorer countries.

The fact is several countries have already offered aid, and Ethiopia has non to offer, so I don't see where the indignation is coming from.

I think you misunderstood what I was getting at Turnea. My point is that if a typhoon leveled Manilla, we'd be the first ones to offer and give aid. If any extrodinary natural disaster destroyed any major city in the world, we'd be giving whatever country that was affected aid money. I think that's fair to say. I'm not asking the third world to give us money, that would be unfair and unrealistic, I am asking that some of the better off countries just offer to give us aid. I think that we should decline, but as Amlord said, "it's the thought that counts". So far, a good portion of the first world has been thoughtless.

CP

It seems from what I am gathering from some news articles is the same sentiments on both sides of the issue coming out. Where even Germany has offered to rush purification systems asap and portable shelters just waiting to be asked. I don't know but anything brought out there can be helpful for all the displacement in the 3 states to help easy waiting periods for supplies.

Schroeder offers U.S. aid after hurricane Katrina



Even though many know we could probably handle it ourselves they want to help out.

International community offers help, prayers



The last paragraph I highlighted does show what I was saying earlier that even countries that we have been arguing with offering help does show the humanity in people.

Even just an hour ago Bush Jr. had a press conference with Bush Sr. & Clinton to do what they did for the tsunami for Katrina, although aid is already being offered by countries and private citizens from around the world.

Here are two (of the many) updates regarding foreign help :

I would also add this from Wikipedia......



So, not only is international help being made available, it's there now.

1. Should other countries offer and provide assistance to the US in this time of need?
right now, pre hurricane the USA has approval ratings as low as 5% in many nations and very few above 50%. Even with this I will bet even Iran will offer assistance. We have to remember the day after 9-11 the French papers read today we are all Americans. Also note it was about 3 days before the US even pledges a pittance after the Tsunami. It was upped I think 10 fold later and much of it by private fundraising. Also note per capita we are not close to the most generous country in the world.


2. Should the US ask for help with hurricane relief from the international community?
IN my opinion we should have asked the Dutch in before the hurricane was close. They are a country that is below sea level and it is a art there. Their top experts should have been involved in the emergency planning for repair and assessment with their ground level teams landing as the hurricane was winding down to go into action. If not needed they could have flown home right away. That was my first reaction before the hurricane arrived when I heard that New Orleans was below sea level. And should we still ask for their expertise yes. I have heard that their levee plan is based on a 1000 year event. I Heard New Orleans is 100 year. Huge difference.

3. Should there be an expectation of reciprocal help when we aid other countries in time of need?
No we should just be there no matter what. You lead by example.

Yet even more aid is being offered despite what some had said at first.

Word pledges hurricane aid



Whats makes me feel like this is a world community is look at Sri Lanka offer donations. Then we have Cuba offering aid also despite the problems that are between us. This goes to show you like I said before its better when we act like a community and help each other when disasters happen.

Cuba offers Hurricane help to long-time foe

1.) I believe so... But they wont...

2.) Honestly, i dont think so... I mean, then that will be seen as a sign of weakness maybe??

3.) None what-so-ever... I mean, we help because we have the means to help, other countries, may not have that "means" to help us...

Your right though, i have seen that the United States is very generous when it comes time to help other countries, cities, whatever in need... But when it comes time to get help back, we get none...

Perhaps this kinda coincides with the whole United States is evil thing, its sad though...

Phoenix, have you read the preceeding posts? Various posters have provided documented examples of numerous countries, both rich and poor alike, offering aid to the United States. The fact that the offers have already been made (and accepted in some cases) pretty thoroughly undermines your argument that other countries won't offer help/

I was oddly surprised by your question, Chris W.
The time you asked [31st of August] not even the President of the USA had cancelled his vacation on his ranch. How was the world to know that the USA needed help at any time then? Someone who claims themselves the Superpower of the 21st Century, the mightiest military power, the biggest economy in the world, who'd think that this rich and prosperous nation would need help?

1. Should other countries offer and provide assistance to the US in this time of need?

Yes, they should and they are doing it.

2. Should the US ask for help with hurricane relief from the international community?

Why not? If the assistance is needed and the stricken country is not capable of helping itself. If it means to save lives the question becomes irrelevant.


3. Should there be an expectation of reciprocal help when we aid other countries in time of need?

Everyone who has the recourses to help others and does not do so in time of need is ought to be ashamed of himself.


One thing. After the Tsunami in the Indian Ocean where 200000 people died, there was no lawlessness, no shooting at aid workers, immediate help between the victims of the flooding. Why are people of third world countries able to calm themselves despite immediate government help and the people in New Orleans are not? On Sri Lanka and Indonesia the Rebels stopped their attacks against the government to help in the relief effort and eventually signed a truce. What's the difference?

This is nothing more than a lie. As if Americans are exceptionally horrible, corrupt humans, more so than any other humans. I hope all realise this is an attempt, and there are many of them in the international opinions being shared, to prove the belief that Americans are uncivilized. Either by our social structures, our human compassion, our environmental policies, our governmental institutions and our priorities as a nation..somehow we lack and we are insufficient.

Well thank you Sevac..thank you for your charity and your contribution to our nation's tragedy. Perhaps once the dead have been counted you can add some more thoughts on our lack of compassion and what makes us different from the rest of the civilised world.

SRI LANKA: 'No one is in charge' ... many devastated

As Tsunami Recedes, Women's Risks Appear

Pirates hijack tsunami aid ship

Your absolutely right... "Offers" have been made... I dont see the fruits from these offerings though... But thats just me...

The United States makes an "offerings" and troops are deployed, food is delivered, people are helped immediately... The presence of these offerings is seen and felt, and quick...

I may see it all wrong, but thats just the problem, i dont see it...

The USA has a logistical capability that no other nation has.

What is it you expect? instant help from the rest of the planet whilst your own nation hestitates?

Get real. Not even the USA delivers 'instant help'. It was nearly a week before the USA finally moved into top gear and it will take time for the help to arrive from the rest of the world.

Help was and is offered, but in many cases, as Jan Egelund pointed out, the help has to be asked for before it can be delivered. Other countries can't just start flying stuff into the USA unbidden. It was only today that the USA finally asked for assisstance from the EU & NATO. Is that our fault?

Help is coming, as fast as we can deliver it. On our own initiative we've already started releasing oil stock piles onto the global market to alleviate the burden on the USA.

Great Britain is sending 500,000 ready meals and I heard today that Kuwait has offered 500 million dollars worth of oil products. Help is being donated from all over the planet, but you say you don't see the fruits from these offerings?

All you have to do is read the internet for yourself...



editted to add a link

As I pointed out in a previous post in this thread, international help is there now, on the ground.



It's there now and has been for a few days. Sheesh! What more could one want. The other help that's been offered will be considered based on the need for resources and that information probably isn't very clear right now.

To be honest I think the international community has really stepped up on this one.

You're welcome. By not saying I don't feel with the people who have lost everything, their loved ones, their home, their future you assume that I don't care. You are wrong. I have lived in East-Texas for a year and I hope my fellow friends made it through this tragedy as well as the people in the strucken areas.

Besides, a question cannot be a lie. It can imply such, but by answering the question you may or may not be able to rebuff this. I was asking for the obvious difference that these two tragedies and you seem to react like a beaten cat. You still haven't answered it.

Sevac

What was seen in New Orleans - i.e. the looters and general collapse of society, although tragic, is no more than what happens anywhere where a large scale disaster happens.

That we see the anarchy in New Orleans on tv, when we did not see it in Indonesia is because journalists have far greater access to the disaster scene than in Indonesia, (not because the harsh & unfriendly capitalism of American society has lead to neighbour hating neighbour, whereas everyone in Indonesia loves each other). Every city that has ever suffered a breakdown in law and order has almost immediately suffered from looters and rioting on the street. To say that it is something endemic to America is extremely unfair.

1. I find this a strange question to begin with. If one looks at the international community it is clear that they are always ready to provide assistance in case of a natural disaster. (look at the earthquake in Bam, Iran, and the Tsunami in Asia for instance.) Why wouldn't they send help to the U.S.?I have never doubted the fact that the U.N. and Europe would send assistance as soon as possible. The fact that even poorer countries or hostile countries are willing to send aid is a beautiful gesture and shows that everybody all over the world is ready to help the U.S. in this time of need.

2. I think it would be a proper thing to do. Everybody is willing to lent a helping hand. Put your ego aside and let them help you. Because of the status the U.S. holds in the world, a lot of countries are waiting for a formal invitation before they send assistance. If more countries can lend a helping hand in the rebuilding of New Orleans and the surrounding areas the whole catastrophe can be dealt with more quickly and efficiently.

3. ????????? No, of course not!!! Giving aid should be done out of compassion. Expecting something in return should never be a part of any aid program. Please do not capatilize on sending assistance to people in need!

You hardly innocently only asked a question. You made an ill informed observation, then compared it to a fabricated "fact' and then asked us all to explain an awfully obtuse believed "difference". Why not answer your own question as I am curious..why do you feel Americans are so "different" ?

I did address your lie. I gave three links to articles that claimed looting, rape, violence and gang activities did follow the tsunami disaster and have hampered aid.

The aid is now coming to America but the government does not want much in the way of foreign personnel.

From today's Jerusalem Post


Edited to conform cited portion of copyrighted work to forum Rules -Jaime

George Bush last week........"I'm not expecting much from foreign nations because we haven't asked for it. I do expect a lot of sympathy, and perhaps some will send cash dollars. But this country is going to rise up and take care of it.''

Is it any wonder that there has been little or no aid coming through with statements like that.

On the contrary, a lot of countries offered aid. I know many countries offered navy ships (New Zealand most importantly) and medical teams. I just heard from my countries local news that we were sending med teams and cash.

Turkey's help is appreciated, Fma. I am somewhat mystified about the "urban myth" that seems to continue in this thread and elsewhere that the international community isn't helping us very much. As I've posted here, the Canadians were on the ground pretty much on day one with search and rescue teams. Singapore sent some helicopters and crews from a training base in Texas. I saw last night where French aid workers were manning some shelters. The response from the international community has been tremendous.

1. Should other countries offer and provide assistance to the US in this time of need?
I other countries should provide assistance to the Unitied States, but this probably wont happen. U.S. is the most powerful and richest nation in the world. Poorer countries will help themselves before they help the us.
2. Should the US ask for help with hurricane relief from the international community?
No, the United States has the sufficient amount of resources to recover afer Hurricane Katrina and it will take time to get New Oreleans to recover from the storm.
3. Should there be an expectation of reciprocal help when we aid other countries in time of need? [/b]
That;s a good question. I feel that their should be reciporcal aid when we help other countires. Since the U.S. is the richest and most powerfulest nation, we have the responsibility to help lesser and poorer countries when they are in need, and the other countries dont need to help us because we are suppose to be able to help ourseleves. "with greater power come greater responsibility". That was from spider-man.

I just wanted to back up my previous post. I nailed it on the head, Iran has now offered two different times.

Iran aid




If we will not allow our firefighters from the US to help how can we let others help also. Per CNN 600 Illinois firefighters are sitting there idle because department of homeland security will not let them do their jobs. They have been sitting there for days, 600 of them. Just saw the interview, they are playing football because they are not allowed in.. Here is a link that just shows 600 of them are there.

ILLIONOIS firefighters sitting

I found this list with the Help being offered by the international community:

International Community Help


BTW, I hope this is not considered as a bad one-liner!.


I find very sweet examples like Panama offering 120,000 pounds of bananas. Every help no matter how small it could seem should be greatly appreciated.

Over 70 nations have offered aid to us, and yes, they should provide assistance. While we are one of the wealthiest nations in the world, we are not immunte to natural disasters(obviously) and as such, we are just like any other nation that goes through these kinds of difficulties. Helping others out and receiving help shows that while we do disagree on issues, there are underlying basic principles of simply being human that we respect in one another, a respect and desire to aid one another that transcends national borders.



In light of the fact that this is perhaps the most serious natural disaster that we've had-yes!. As stated above, over 70 nations have pledged aid. The Greks have given us two cruise ships, Cuba has offered over 1,000 doctors, and even Bangladesh has pledged a million dollars.(Source) While these things won't end the problem over night, it does show that when we need resources and equipment to get the job done, other nations will have our back.



It shouldn't be an expectation that is done with grudging inevitability. Rather, it should be done out of genuine concern and care for people of other nations that have undergone horrible circumstances beyond their control. We can show that we follow a Lord of the flies philosphy, or that we are more complex and caring than that.

Remember the Alamo! This will help you

Apparently the Mexicans have, cause they're headed back there.

From this story we have the following.....




Once again the answer to the question posed in the title to this thread "Where is all the International Aid" is "It's here"

An excerpt from the CBC, for the elucidation of all...

Louisiana senator: Thank you Canada

A Louisiana state senator has praised a Canadian search and rescue team. Senator Walter Boasso said a Vancouver-based team reached St. Bernard parish five days before the U.S. army got there.

"Fabulous, fabulous guys," Boasso said. "They started rolling with us and got in boats to save people ... We've got Canadian flags flying everywhere."

The suburb of 68,000 people was initially ignored by U.S. authorities who were scrambling to get aid to New Orleans. Boasso said floodwater in his parish is still 2.4 metres deep in some places.

(...)

Boasso saved his praise for the Canadians and their quick work. "They were so glad to be here," he said. "They're still here. They are actually going door-to-door looking in the attics" for people to rescue.


http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...s_20050909.html

I came across this rather interesting and heart-warming little tidbit today. From here....



I think we can officially add Iraq to the list of those who have sent aid.

That's really cool

It increasingly looks likely that the list of countries who haven't given or offered to help in some way will be a lot shorter than the list of countries who have.

Even Sri Lanka has offered cash. They are still cleaning themselves up after the tsunami - I don't think anyone reasonable would have blamed them if they hadn't made any offer of help, yet they did so anyway. Nobody has a monopoly on generosity, it seems.

Yet there are still a few grouchy Americans who will swear blind that nobody is helping and the rest of the world hates you - one or two have posted here - despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Oh well. **shurg** There are none so blind as those who'd rather poke their own eyes out than admit that their own opinions are - let's put this delicately - distended with faeces.

I had to search for a while, but Richard Sennett gives an answer which expresses my thoughts just as well.
http://www.digitalnpq.org/global_services/...-05sennett.html



The Neo-liberal mantra of privatizing most areas of public service, leaving this thin hollow corpse called government ought to be targeted.


In addition to the actual topic:

Seems like help is not wanted as much as we have discussed here:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/internatio...,374268,00.html

First international help is not needed, then it is said that any help is appreciated, now the aid is refused. Supreme!