open Democracy News Analysis - American Humanitarian efforts: good or bad?, - Comments

Joeanna Nee on "American Humanitarian efforts: good or bad?"

Joeanna Nee — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 15:11:41 +0000

Ok Matt: I gothcha, but that is the politics of giving money. Some due to countries which never had any intentions of repaying us. Our own stupidity, which should bite us in the ass. But if the debt is and has been repaid then I agree with you. As for other governments that ask for the loans it is up to those citizens to be vigilant or we open the flood gates of our government interfering, which got us into trouble in the first place. All loans have conditions, in business law thats what they call the pork or the cover your ass clause. Although, I agree that if we are to fix this global poverty mess we should have an independent outside source look at these accounts and rectify these issues if we are to truly straighten things out. We shouldnt put a fox in charge of the hen house. On another note, I was kind of wondering what happened to Dave? I was really interested in seeing if my visual picture of him was close. Thanks for food for thought Matt-still trying to research all the other points that were given to me by so many kind posters. Thanks, Joeanna

Matt Murrell on "American Humanitarian efforts: good or bad?"

Matt Murrell — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 08:54:38 +0000

Joeanna Nee, 3.) As in any loan agreement (ie lates say your house mortgage) You've lost your job, you've got thirteen kids and one of the bread winners of you'rd household dies, do you think that bank is going tosay "oh hey, ya know what, just go ahead and keep the house, we dont mind eating 150,000 dollar loan, which is technically investors money in a rather frightning juggling act to create more profit. Yes, sure I believe that ending poverty is a priority, but if you want a huge shocker look up under our own governmetn census of poverty in our country. While I understand your point here, I feel that there are some big differences between personal and international debt. For example, imagine that the loan you are being made to repay wasn't taken out by you, but by someone claiming to act in your interests. The money was either then spent on projects that have no benefit for you, or hidden away in someone else's private bank account. Also, imagine that the loan came with certain conditions. That you had to buy certain brands, or work for certain companies. Neither of which were to your benefit. Finally, you'd have to put up with the knowledge that the original loan was paid off decades ago. Yet the extortionate interest rates continue to exceed your income by a considerable amount.

Joeanna Nee on "American Humanitarian efforts: good or bad?"

Joeanna Nee — Sun, 05 Jun 2005 13:45:54 +0000

Ok, for what it is worth, I went from the very start of this thread and read through everyones posts.(some more difficult than others to decifer, due to ... lets just say different personalities making it difficult to read "sarcasms" or language that lawyers use.-no offense cloudy) Even though I am going to college for a degree in paralegal studies and technology. There were alot of good points made on both sides of the issues, which Ill address in a moment. 1.) I would say to Tim that what was done by our military to help those who were devestated by the tsunami should be appreciated. As, well as the other countries that helped, no matter how much or how little. Giving is giving. Condaliza Rice and not Colin Powell was the one who made that idiot comment. But, she and Bush are "great orators" of our times.(yikes) 2.) No offense Dave, but Ive got this wicked mental image of you wearing old berkinstock sandals, long unkempt hair, stomping a foot turning quickly in huff to march off after a posted point has been made. Your point about Sweden, Ask the swedes about the money, paintings and gold stored there by the Nazi's that really belongs to the jewish family they were stolen from, which to this day they refuse to give over to the families because they dont have death certificates. If your wondering where I got that from I am an avid watcher of the history channel, discovery and pbs. So, dont even talk to me about the swedes. (Ever wonder why Hitler never invaded them?)But, not really Tims point, though. All he is saying that the military isn't just a bunch of bloodthirty huns, and while in the midst of war, took the time and the resources to try to help those victims. Does it matter how much they gave? They were told by the local government they werent even allowed to land or carry weapons, which they did do ... making their job that much harder and subsequently slowing efforts. Now, I really hate Bush, but am proud of the navy/marine corps job. 3.) As in any loan agreement (ie lates say your house mortgage) You've lost your job, you've got thirteen kids and one of the bread winners of you'rd household dies, do you think that bank is going tosay "oh hey, ya know what, just go ahead and keep the house, we dont mind eating 150,000 dollar loan, which is technically investors money in a rather frightning juggling act to create more profit. Yes, sure I believe that ending poverty is a priority, but if you want a huge shocker look up under our own governmetn census of poverty in our country. I did and right on the computer. Might I say I had to cry when I discovered as hard as I work and thinking, hey Ive got a modest three bedroom two bath house im paying for that I am on the "under the Federal poverty level" in my just my state (not includign the numbers for the other states shown on the federal poverty census), comprised as part of 14% of our population. Out of the 14%-90% of that number are single mother households. Gee, I would like my debt to be erased. Ive got two kids, my hubby suddenly died while I was pregnant and had to quite my job due to day care costs and the aid that I do NOT qualify for. Now, on another one of your points, matt i agree that this global in debtedness is like robbing peter to pay paul and eventually will come back to bite every one the ass if we dont start crunching some numbers globally and forecast ahead instead of the here and now. 4.) No, we should not have gone into Iraq they didnt attack us. I think that like any evil regime, eventually the poor have a revolt. Take the French revolution, it took them long enough but eventually they did it. We should have let them decide if their own freedoms were worth dying for. As for WMD's, well hell who doesnt have them? Really, North Korea, India, Pakistan, the Former soviet union (which now cant account for all their nukes: some being the size of suitcases ... yipes) So, now that we have beaten that dead horse into dust ... There are global movements The One campaign, the UK has a branch of the same campaign (i just cant recall the name right now) and no one else has said anything about any other countries, yet. Plan to bring these signed petitions to the G8 summit. The superstars of movies and music are giving to this campaign, as well as their endorsements. (they are ones that have been known for their activism) OH, and another thing, Dave apparently you werent watching Oprah, when she showed women from around the world and what their lives were like. The woman from Saudi Arabia, they arent poor by anymeans. Their government actually gives them a gift of 30,000 dollars as a wedding present if you a citizen. They also promote higher education for all citizens including the women. So, Im sorry 21,ooo per year is what my sister makes as a teacher at a catholic private school. 5.)Capfka, I really have to do some more research before I can properly address that, sorry. I just dont have enough to make an informed opinion, but if thats true whatever happened to the division between church and state? But I will look it up and Ill get back to you on that. It seems to me that the state of the disasters hitting not only Florida but California getting aid by our own country would be elementary. Alot of people died in the tsunami, indigenous as well as many tourist from all over the world. Apparently, it is a country that was a preferable vacation destination, both my sister and I were rather surprised. We had no Idea that so many foreigners vacation there. I guess, I would just have to say, to ALL, why does it take a natural disaster for us to forget where we are from and look at each other as human beings in desperate need. Only to see that it gets ripped to shreds by who did what in what decade. It diminish's us all as people when the good that is done for the sake of just being human is picked apart as some secret agenda. J. Edgar Hoover lives!!!! Joeanna

cloudynuageux on "American Humanitarian efforts: good or bad?"

cloudynuageux — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 14:08:48 +0000

Matt and Everyone: I have been thinking about and active around the issue of absolute poverty ("world hunger") for decades now, though active mainly in the 80s, and have a much more extensive analysis of the issue than I have given. I am going to have to present this in several parts as my computer is having a problem, and just erased about 2000 words I had composed to post. So I apologize in advance. I am doing the best I can -- it appears that someone (a reactionary pit-bull troll at a RW site recently threatened a cyber attack, and my spyware stormer is turning up all kinds of 'hijacker' programs. But more about this another time. THE POLITICS OF ABSOLUTE POVERTY PART I In the United States as in Britain, there are a lot of groups raising money for charity and such for the 'third world' where absolute poverty is rampant. But as Matt correctly noted, all the fundraisers in the world are not sufficient to alleviate a problem of that scope, and it requires massive sustained concerted action by the most advanced industrial nations in the world. It is also true that the majority of the public, especially in the US, is not enthusiastic, to say the least, about any such large expenditure for "foreign aid". If recognized as necessary to counter terrorism, that might help some, but it still would require strong political leadership from the top, something not likely, including from Democrats, for some time. But these reasons underscore precisely why a strategy of POLITICAL mobilization, as on opposing imperialism (a closely related concern) is essential, and essential that it be MASS political mobilization and not merely lobbying groups. The second point is to recognize what is out there, and the third the level of public interest that DOES exist on the issue. On the POLITICAL front, the largest active group in the US, at least when I was more active on that issue, is Bread for the World. I even interviewed the nice fellow who was the head of its cutting-edge political action arm called RESULTS. He happened to be working at Livermore -- I think teaching children there -- while I was active in Berkeley. At least in Berkeley -- where there are over 100 peace groups, or more than one per 1000 population -- I didn't see much visibility for them. Indeed, there was more activism in a month listed in the ACTION FOR ANIMALS calendar that was distributed widely every month than political action around the entire issue of underdevelopment and absolute poverty in a year in the Bay Area CA, and this was true over a number of years, even after I leafletted and spoke out on the issue. (I don't exactly command much power of the press). In addition to Bread for the World, which I term a 'placebo' group, there is also what I term a 'counterplacebo' organization called the HUNGER ACTION PROJECT. They were founded by folk linked with the EST/Werner Erhard crowd ('winning through intimidation') and have been gathering signatures saying 'we will end hunger'. Their book sports the endorsements of Gephardt and Kennedy etc on their cover, but none of these groups has done much compared to what is done around animals' rights -- where not only has there been a lot of grassroots effervescence, but ballot measures successfully in a number of states. The third main group, and this one is small, is called Cultural Survival. At last check, they were still headquartered in Cambridge MA, and their links are to the Harvard Anthropology Dept. They are an excellent group, focused on indigenous cultures and the broad needs of the people in them, but their focus is thereby limited and not comprehensive to the issue of underdevelopment. Let us also remember that the issue of absolute poverty is of great interest to a large number of people, including in the US. Think about how many millions, indeed tens of millions by this point, have at some time in the past 30 years taken at least one semester college and/or graduate course on the issue of absolute poverty, underdevelopment, and related concerns. And there are large ethnic minorities in the US, such as people from India, who have a strong interest in this issue. Thus the absence of substantial political mobilization, even as much as there is around animals' rights, led by people who insist on vegetarianism as a matter of principle and whose 'deep ecology' perspective is far more idiosyncratic than seeking to end absolute poverty, as the Kennedy Administration vaguely pursued. The 'equal-rights-for-lobster-tails' attitude widespread among their circles has little authentic mass appeal, including to authentic progressives such as myself. (I won't claim it is universal to the animals' rights movement). But they have a HUGE and influential movement, and the mass support for ending absolute poverty, potentially greater if the connection to terrorism is successfully drawn for many in the mainstream, although this would require the kind of political leadership that, as I pointed out, is lacking. So the political organizing around the issue is minimal, especially when compared to the massive reservoir, at least among liberals and progressives, of concern for and sympathy for this issue. And we should remember that it does NOT take a majority to have a massive impact on an issue, in a functioning democracy, if the large minority is well-organized. This is especially true on an issue like absolute poverty, as many of the measures to address it are incremental, and could involve, eg, buying up surplus agricultural goods and thereby have a concrete economic set of interests linked to specific measures. More about political strategy in PART II and I apologize again for having to break up this comment

hsp62uk on "American Humanitarian efforts: good or bad?"

hsp62uk — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:37:58 +0000

Clearly ANY attempt to alleviate the devastation left in the wake of the tsunami (even if it comes from the US Armed Forces-better known in the Muslim world for the "Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal") can only be praised amd endorsed. Although I am not knocking the compassion shown by individual officers and enlisted personnel of the US Navy/Marine Corps (or individual American citizens from celebs like Sandra Bullock who donated £1 million to the American Red Cross to ordinary stiffs who gave what they had), the self-praising tone of comments sttributed to then Secretary of State Colin Powell make me nauseous. Terry

brolly2_1 on "American Humanitarian efforts: good or bad?"

brolly2_1 — Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:57:25 +0000

DaveGood, Don't mind owly, he's only on OD to give everyone a laugh and he knows it.

Matt Murrell on "American Humanitarian efforts: good or bad?"

Matt Murrell — Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:10:26 +0000

Owly, "MOST of the relief help was given by the Christian West" Not surprising. The amount we take from these nations in (grossly unfair) debt repayments, we can easily afford it. Very Christian.

owly on "American Humanitarian efforts: good or bad?"

owly — Sat, 29 Jan 2005 17:57:18 +0000

DaveGood, A childish and pathetic post from you as per usual. The central point I made still stands. MOST of the relief help was given by the Christian West: there was little or no Muslim brotherly solidarity. One moronic Moslem Cleric even said that the Tsunami was God's judgement on the unGodly resident of the area, or some other such crap with which I am sure you concure. What happened on 9/11 was horrendous, it killed nearly four thousand people.... what happened on boxing day 2004 killed over 60 times that number, niether group deserved it.....both groups deserve our support and help in equal measure..... the Tsunami sufferers won't get it, not from us, and not from the USA. On 9/11 just under 3000 people died, so get your facts right. As to the number killed over Christmas the exact number will never be known. Help and aid is flowing but many of the countries effected don't require foreign cash aid - many have large foriegn reserves as was detailed a few weeks ago in The Times - what many required was logistical support which the USA, Australians, British etc, etc have freely given. To turn such generosity into some political point, as you seek to do, shows how empty and shallow your grasp of humanity actually is, for all the posturing and wind. As to the UN it has done little or nothing. All the logistical work has been done on a bi-lateral basis between donor nations who co-operated between and amongst themselves. The UN was nowhere to be seen. It is obvious you would not know what 'reality' is or was even if it got up and slapped you across the face.

DaveGood on "American Humanitarian efforts: good or bad?"

DaveGood — Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:41:45 +0000

Hey Owly? "Oil-rich saudi Arabia?"..... Income per head in Saudi was 21,000 dollars in 1980.... know what it was last year? I'd like to see your country and your people lose two thirds of it's income.....while it's foriegn backed and supported ruling elite ( who use torture on thier own and foriegn nationals ... [ sometimes at the request of OUR governments].....includeing documented cases against UK ex-pats) refuse to cut back on thier own consumption, pissing away thier peoples wealth among European and US and UK Arms Manufacturers as well as our fleshpots.....and still remain a viable nation. Go look it up, it's not hard.... google it.. And while you are it... look up the business connections between Dubya and the Saudi's... the Bin-Laden family in particular. The answers you get might help to explain to you why Saudi Arabia is not exactly a "stable" country right now. And why Bin-Laden thrives and is widely admired amongst Saudis of all classes! DaveGood "proud member of the reality-based community" Ps... On the other hand..... don't bother.... why should the long slog of boreing research I'm asking you to do for yourself stand in the way of your honestly held predjudices.. eh? PPS.... Oh and Owly? the inital 12,000 reported as dead? That's four times the number who dies at the World Trade Centre.... don't ever again try to imply { by turning the event into an attack on the UN) that 12,000 human casualties are a relatively insignificant number of people... ..... Otherwise I'll take great pleasure in coming after, and shredding everything you post from now on as the self serving and selfish bullshit most of it appears to be.... whether it is or not! What happened on 9/11 was horrendous, it killed nearly four thousand people.... what happened on boxing day 2004 killed over 60 times that number, niether group deserved it.....both groups deserve our support and help in equal measure..... the Tsunami sufferers won't get it, not from us, and not from the USA. We could and do have the wealth and resources to provide it though... but don't, and won't.... we'll spend hundred of billions pursueing a failed war of occupation in Iraq, and a grudging few hundred million in the Tsunami area's.. Don't come here and post excuses for that ( excuses based on the actions of other nations you seem to know damn little about)..... mourn it. Message was edited by: DaveGood

Matt Murrell on "American Humanitarian efforts: good or bad?"

Matt Murrell — Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:24:04 +0000

Much bile, and just as much denial, is all I can say. "Public and private aid commitments to countries affected by the tsunami currently stand at some $3bn. But although the magnitude of this sum has been greeted with universal self-congratulation, it is nothing compared to other spending. The annual US military budget is $400bn. When, in the autumn of 2004, Florida was hit by a series of tropical cyclones, causing damage that, though significant, bore no comparison with the current disaster, the US government immediately allocated $3bn in relief. Realistically, the sums promised are insignificant in comparison with the needs of states overwhelmed by the tsunami. Latest World Bank figures indicate that five of the affected countries owe more than $300bn in foreign debt. Annual repayments amount to $32bn, which is more than 10 times greater than the promised assistance. Around the world, indebted poor countries repay more than $230bn every year to the richer countries of the northern hemisphere. This is the world turned upside down. Since the tsunami it has been suggested that a moratorium might be applied to the debt burden of the devastated countries. But what is needed is outright cancellation of the debt. Recently the US persuaded its partners in the Paris Club of creditor nations to write off the debt of Iraq, occupied by its troops. If this can be done for Iraq, which is rich in oil and gas, why should it not be possible for countries that are infinitely poorer and afflicted by this catastrophe? The UNDP has estimated that $80bn a year would be enough to guarantee every human being on earth access to basic services - drinking water, shelter, adequate food, primary education and healthcare. This figure is exactly the same as the supplementary budget that President Bush recently requested from Congress to finance the war in Iraq." http://mondediplo.com/2005/01/01tsunami

rosco on "American Humanitarian efforts: good or bad?"

rosco — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 22:38:27 +0000

Tim, I believe anyone who regards the humanitarian efforts towards Indonesia, by the US Navy(or any other navy for that matter)as anything but a force of goodness, is entirely misguided. There are no losers in this scenario, only beneficiaries. What may be held to question however, is the motivation for helping. I often wonder if we were honest about our motivations, could we always hold our heads high? The motivations of a government in no way negates the noble and righteous efforts of its armed forces personnel, who are at the forefront of the human and environmental tragedy; I am sure they find it a great honour to be helping the afflicted. All power and good will to them. The Bush administration is, as with all public US politics nothing short of a circus. George W Bush is a horrendous orator (which could be forgiven, if there was any integrity or genius behind the idiocy of his bumbling, mumbling facade)and an egoist. I find it astounding that he could be elected to pester the world for a second term. I cannot for the life of me, understand why one of the countless decent, intelligent people of the US is not standing in his shoes? Or maybe I can. George W Bush has pots of cash. Pots and pots. He knows people who have pots and pots of cash. Therein lies the whole reason the US is in either a slough of despondency or a swarm of fanaticism. The way the US runs it's electoral campaigns is a source of great embarrassment and shamefulness, to me, and I'm Scottish; I am embarrassed for the way the good, unheard masses of the US are portrayed globally. How can a country's people expect their government to be uncorrupted, when corporate party supporters are buying influence through donations? "We'll support you as long as you make our businesses boom with your shrewd political decisions George!" How can a country's people expect it's government to be uncorrupted when the leader himself has big business interests that need protecting by his own shrewd political decisions? They cannot, for greed rules America. There is no room for the little guy with the modesty, the intelligence and temperance to make good political decisions - he's not got enough pots of cash. For as long as the US has this farcical election strategy, they shall have a farcical government. And as long as the head of this government stands to lose something by making the correct decisions, he won't; he'll just keep making the decisions that are most lucrative for himself and his chums, all the while lying to cover his jaded motivation. Indonesia may evoke genuine motivation to do good in George Bush, I am sure he does have a heart. In the back of his mind though, is he not also thinking that he may appease a good many irate muslims at the same time? Oh, and is there not a stake or a foothold to be gained in the vast oil reserves in that neck of the woods? Maybe I'm a sceptic. Beware the motivation. It is often oil, the teat on which our way of life thrives. Kind regards, Ross.

owly on "American Humanitarian efforts: good or bad?"

owly — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:55:24 +0000

One must suppose, reading the predictable bile and hate from all the usual pens, that the correct thing for the USA to have done was simply nothing. The reaction of the US was splendid and was a major contribution to the relief efforts. It might also surprise many of you that if you look at the list of donor nations you will find it is the West which has done the most and given the most. Oil rich Saudi Arabia has donated little in money or materials. Most of the major logistical operations have been done by the Anglo-Saxon nations, so rather than crap and criticize may be there is room to offer a word of thanks. The one organization which emerges with no credit from this disaster is not the Bush White House, but the corrupt and incompetent United Nations. Further, it is idiotic to complain about the slowness of the response. First reports indicated that the death toll was in the order of 12000, as events unfolded the true extent became apparent but only after a number of days. Much as most would like to lay the blame squarely at the door of the White House this is just arrant nonsense.

GTJ on "American Humanitarian efforts: good or bad?"

GTJ — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:49:08 +0000

There is absolutely no doubt that the sole reason for any significant humanitarian response to the ts.. was that they saw it as an 'opportunity'to generate goodwill, particulary since one of the major victims was the largest Muslim country in the world. That is not to say that they would not have still made an effort once they realised the magnitude of the disaster, nor that they have not rendered aid in the past from purely altruistic motives, but on this occasion and in this disaster, that was their reason. I accept that initially they may not have realised the magnitude of the disaster (George was on holidays after all, and we all know that his brain loses that razor edge when he is on holidays), but they were then told by the media that they had missed an opprtunity, so they set about repairing the defect. George upped his bid in the Great Aid Auction, and told Colin Powell and his brother to find out where Asia was and get over there to show the flag. Thus they became in thier own humble words ( echoed by the words of those fonts of knowledge on Fox News ) 'the leaders of the aid effort".

DaveGood on "American Humanitarian efforts: good or bad?"

DaveGood — Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:51:34 +0000

My view on the subject is this..... That Dubya, chose to do little... to do bugger all... off his own bat. What was Dubya's initial offering? 35 million dollars? less then that? ( can't remember now)..... How does that stack up against the hundreds of millions raised real quick from a single, tiny, country like Sweden for example? how does that compare to the hundreds of billions spent so far reduceing much of Iraq to blood spattered rubble? Let us all bear in mind that our nations signed a treaty over twenty years ago committing ourselves to donateing one seventh, of one per cent, of our GDP, every year, to helping the poorest in the world..... US, UK, included, we signed up too... and our leaders at the time ( Reagan and Thatcher) both basked in the applause, at home and worldwide...... but we have never, not once, not any year, kept our word. Only the Scandanavian nations have ever honoured it.... the US contribition has never gone above 0.14 per cent. That the US Marines and Navy are acting to aid Tsunami victims in significant amounts and ways is not only right and fitting....... It is the best possible use for thier armed services. One that could earn the US Military and America as a whole the worlds lasting gratitude, if only it could become the sustained effort, and aim, of the US. But we all know the effort is temporary, and grudging, ( on the US administrations part, not the US military)... and that when the media spotlight moves off the Tsunami.. (Any day now)..... those troops and navy personnel will be switched back from the task of saving lives to ending them. And I'm damn sure that those US marine and Navy people would, if allowed to choose, willingly spend thier time, effort and skills helping to rebuild and save the Tsunami areas, not destroy and kill in Iraq, or elsewhere. But they can't choose. The likes of Cheny and Wolfowitz will do that. We could have all done better! Let's close this thread, no person whose native language is english has any right to take the high moral ground on this issue. Our own Governments have seen to that:(. DaveGood "Proud member of the reality-based community"

Capfka on "American Humanitarian efforts: good or bad?"

Capfka — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:53:37 +0000

Not everything the US does beyond its borders is pants. No one can deny that the US has usually been quick to respond where there is a need for humanitarian aid. Further, no one can deny that the US has been a large (if not the largest single) provider of economic aid to developing countries IN THE PAST. The US reaction to the tsunami disaster was admirable. Nice one, fellas. But US magnanimity is faltering. What is less admirable are the terms and conditions which the Bush theocratically-deluded Administration is attaching to aid programmes in the third world. The most outstanding example of this is the fact that aid programmes aimed at controlling and preventing AIDS get no money if the aid on the ground includes the use of condoms and contraceptive advice. Since this is the ONLY way that AIDS can be controlled in places like Africa it means that the US is not providing aid. The main aid agencies are also noting that other aid programmes are also either getting less funding or none from the US on "moral grounds" (as if anyone in the Bush administration would know a moral if it got up and kneed them in the crotch). Philosophical differences between the Iranian government and the US government are becoming harder and harder to discern. Both are driven by inane religious agendas devised by ignorant people with too much power who are subject to few controls. Both support terrorism. Both suppress their own populations. Both distort the truth as a means of control. Creationism, anyone?

American Humanitarian efforts: good or bad?,

TimLFrancis — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:47:25 +0000

Given the on again/off-again news coverage of US Navy/Marine Corps humanitarian aid efforts in Indonesia and Sri Lanka, I'm curious how people who disagree with the Bush administrations foreign policies view these tsunami relief efforts? At least one poster (I think it was Maz) said the images of US/UK warships providing help did not warm their hearts, but they appreciated the logistical support. Given the awful slowness with which UN-organized relief efforts unfolded (at least 16 days if one wishes to be nice), is not the U.S. Navy's expeditionary capabilities something to be applauded? Indeed, the U.S. Navy (in the same tradition of British and other European navies, from which it shares roots) has a very long history of humanitarian relief efforts. Is not this a benefit to the world? Please note I'm not saying this is a unique capability per se, as the Australian, Malaysian, Indonesian and Indian Navies as well as others have all down yeoman work carrying supplies and evacuating the sick and injured. But as the target of so much hyperbole, I should think the US military should receive some praise for these operations. Or is it simply assumed and therefore unremarkable? In the same vein, I wonder what will be the response to Keirón Allen's article http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article-1-2302.jsp Here is a link to an FAQ on the tsunamis and the US Navy, including a link to US humanitarian aid efforts since the late 1940s. A remarkable list. Comments welcome! http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq130-1.htm Tim