Originally posted by whodeyChavez offered aid in a PR stunt. The US does not need aid and didn't ask for it. They still got some aid, though:
So only Chavez offered aid? What about the US so called "allies"?
Oh that's right, the allies of the US come over and dump trillions of gallons of oil off her shores. My bad.
"Over seventy countries pledged monetary donations or other assistance. Notably, Cuba and Venezuela (both hostile to US government themselves) were the first countries to offer assistance, pledging over $1 million, several mobile hospitals, water treatment plants, canned food, bottled water, heating oil, 1,100 doctors and 26.4 metric tons of medicine, though this aid was rejected by the U.S. government.[116][117][118][119] Kuwait made the largest single pledge, $500 million; other large donations were made by Qatar and United Arab Emirates (each $100 million), South Korea ($30 million), Australia ($10 million), India, China (both $5 million), New Zealand ($2 million),[120] Pakistan ($1.5 million),[121] and Bangladesh ($1 million).[122]"
Originally posted by sh76Nowhere did I mention disaster relief or foreign aid. Neither is my post a criticism of the US per se.
That's completely ridiculous. The US contributes more towards disaster relief world wide than any other country. You think we gave a damn whether Pakistan "wrung their hands" after Katrina? You think the US expected or received massive foreign aid after Katrina?
Now, obviously Pakistan is not in the same position as we are to give foreign aid and the US sho ...[text shortened]... anic eruptions strike). But your flippant criticism of the US on this issue is bass ackwards.
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettAh; I see. You meant that people in general think that one must sympathize with the US and not with other countries, but not that Americans think that, per se. Okay; I misinterpreted; sorry.
Nowhere did I mention disaster relief or foreign aid. Neither is my post a criticism of the US per se.
Originally posted by sh76My point is that 1,000 dead Americans is much, much bigger news than 1,000 dead Pakistanis. And if there is any criticism of the US, it is that we expect it to be that way.
Ah; I see. You meant that people in general think that one must sympathize with the US and not with other countries, but not that Americans think that, per se. Okay; I misinterpreted; sorry.
Originally posted by rwingettThat goes for any "first world" country deaths vs. any "third World" country deaths; I don't know what you specifically chose the US.
My point is that 1,000 dead Americans is much, much bigger news than 1,000 dead Pakistanis. And if there is any criticism of the US, it is that we expect it to be that way.
Originally posted by sh76I'll give you an example that has always stuck with me. In 1987 Texas eighteen month old Jessica McClure fell down an abandoned well. It took rescuers 58 hours to get her out, during which time it was far and away the top news story. The entire nation hung on every new development.
That goes for any "first world" country deaths vs. any "third World" country deaths; I don't know what you specifically chose the US.
The same day that story broke, in the back of the newspaper, there was a one paragraph article about how an Iraqi Scud missile had slammed into an Iranian school, killing 50 school children. 50 school children killed and no one seemed to care in the least. But they all sat riveted to the TV to see if 'Baby Jessica' would make it out alive. I find that wildly disproportionate display of sympathy (or empathy) to be deeply troubling. As I do with the notion that first world lives are 'worth more' than third world lives.
Originally posted by rwingettMore blatant, or less hypocritical?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Americans in general may be more blatant about it.
It is only natural that people are more emotionally affected by deaths nearest to them physically, and dearest to them psychologically.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAnd I'm gonna hazard a guess what the story of those French people that were killed in that bus bombing in Pakistan, it got more media play than similarly catastrophic incidents that happen in Asia routinely.
I agree, e.g. Katrina was much bigger news than Pakistan floods here.
Originally posted by whodeyIs that a fact?
... it is ONLY the US who has given money to help the people of Pakistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Pakistan_floods#Response_by_national_governments
A quick google, too, reveals dozens and dozens of countries that have sent money and other assistance.
Where exactly did you get your "it is ONLY the US who has given money to help the people of Pakistan" 'fact' from?