PDA

View Full Version : Asian Tsunami (Donations?)



Jackish
01-04-2005, 05:30 AM
Hello to you all,

I wasn't sure if this belonged in the political area of the forum, but it seems the closest for it. I was just thinking about the disaster in and around the Indian Ocean, and how much it makes my heart ache.

It’s hard to imagine the synchronized death of 190,000 people, and the fact that figure keeps rising is a disturbing one, to say the least. You can't imagine what that’s like, even after you've seen the images and interviews. Your home wrecked, family dead or missing in front of your eyes, no basic toilet or facilities, and no food. And those are the more fortunate ones.

I just feel this makes the war in Iraq completely shadowed, and perhaps even September the 11th, no matter how horrific both of those are. So I ask from you all, if you will be donating any money to the cause. I for one will be trying to donate as much as I can, which so far is around £50, but every little helps. I ask from you all to at least consider donation, putting that western money where it can be used best.

I also ask what the offspring’s/noodles opinion is on this, as I know he has good political views, and was wondering if he has, or is considering donating any amount.

Thank you for your time, I just hope you can all reply maturely. :)

wheelchairman
01-04-2005, 06:26 AM
I would say the war in Iraq is worse. It's an occupation and continued oppression of a group of people by another group of people. And it will end up killing more and more.

The tragedy in South East Asia, is obviously a tragedy. Although unless Noodles hates those rice-boys, he isn't going to have much of a different opinion than anyone else, that he feels sympathy for them.

But then again, you find 9/11 to be a worse tragedy than the Iraq war, so obviously you're confused.

intothevalleyofdeath
01-04-2005, 06:28 AM
were collecting money at church for the red cross to help victims in the tsunami disaster

RXP
01-04-2005, 06:43 AM
But then again, you find 9/11 to be a worse tragedy than the Iraq war, so obviously you're confused.

9/11 IS a worse tradedy than the Iraq war. It precipated the Iraq war. You cannot deny this.

My logic is flawless.

PS: Regieme change is necessary, all the dictators need to go. Short term pain, long term gain. If we were all hippies nothing would ever get solved and the UN would sit idley by while people die. The law is a means to an end not an end itself, breaking international law is no crime when it's tyrants that hide behind it.

wheelchairman
01-04-2005, 06:49 AM
9/11 IS a worse tradedy than the Iraq war. It precipated the Iraq war. You cannot deny this.

My logic is flawless.

PS: Regieme change is necessary, all the dictators need to go. Short term pain, long term gain. If we were all hippies nothing would ever get solved and the UN would sit idley by while people die. The law is a means to an end not an end itself, breaking international law is no crime when it's tyrants that hide behind it.
A string of lies and propaganda precipitated the Iraq war. In which you can claim that the greatest tragedies in the world happen whenever leaders make decisions.

P.S. Regime change for another regime is futile and stupid. The Americans are the hindrance to Iraqi democracy now. And they were always going to be. Saddam didn't have to go, he was relatively tame against his people compared to our allies in this war, and he had no power to do anything outside of his country. What we have now in Iraq, is the exact same Ba'athist political infrastructure being used by Americans to run Iraq.

RXP
01-04-2005, 06:55 AM
Why do you think there was no upheavel in Iraq pre regime change? Because one man was there and his power was supreme.

What would have been your solution to the problem? Infact pro UN/international law/hippies never seem to make normative arguments of what ought to happen merely critise what has happened. They are content to sit idle and let the world rot because their heart bleeds more for the deaths a regieme change war causes then the deaths under that same regieme which stay cloaked.

If the US stay in for the long term Iraq is better off, however, if public opinion changes it's not. It's the same story as Vietnam. If the US had public opinon they would have won, easily. But the hippy protests meant all those deaths were in vain. That's why I like GWB, he's got his population brainwashed so they should stay in for the long term.

Also pre 9/11 Bush was going to be isolationst. When the planes hit that all went out the window. It was 9/11 which was the spark which meant they had an excuse to go into Iraq. It was 9/11 which enabled Bush's propaganda machien to whip the population into a frenzy over Al-quida. Without 9/11 none of that would have happened.

wheelchairman
01-04-2005, 07:02 AM
The history of the Iraqi regime, is a history of social upheaval. From the beginning it was a representation of two factors at power, in the early 70's it was the communists and the Ba'athists running Iraq, and Iraq flourished. The fact that Saddam took reigns and cut out not only the left-wing of the ba'athists, but also the entire communist party (basically from existence) was an example of a social upheaval by his own new ruling class.

Since then, he was able to mobilize the masses for continuous war, which does wonders for sheeping the people. There was a major uprising in Iraq in the early 90's, however they were indecisive and were eventually slaughtered like sheeps at the alter.

Right now, though real social upheaval is taking place in Iraq. The Iraqi people were able to live with a dictator who was one of their own, but a foreign occupying government promising democracy at gunpoint, was too much, and now the resistance movement has as much support and more than it did during it's peak under Saddam.

What I would've preferred to happen with Saddam and Iraq? Absolutely nothing. A contained and sheeped dictator is no worse than any other leader in the world, especially America. It's hypocritical to liberate the Iraqis, while the CIA funds right-wing death squads in Columbia.

wheelchairman
01-04-2005, 07:04 AM
also, 9/11 had no effect on the Iraq war. It only was able to instill inside the US people a sense of confidence in their leader, which made his propaganda more succesful. The invasion of Iraq was a plan long before the concept of 9/11 was.

RXP
01-04-2005, 07:06 AM
That's the argument my dad uses all the time: hypocracy. But as I say to him no one acts out of the pure goodness of their hearts, no such thing as a free meal. Everyone has selfish interests at heart.

What seems to happen to me is that once people are liberated they go crazy, they see an opporunity to take control and new dawn. I will admit I have no idea how to stop this, people are their own worst enemy. Mass purging sounds about right, but then that would make me no better than Saddam? But at least I'd be working towards a better goal surely? If the ends justify the means....

wheelchairman
01-04-2005, 07:10 AM
Saddam thought his goals were the greater good as well. In fact, Ba'athism is a truly fascinating ideology. He just had to make sure it was implemented without hindrance.

The Iraqi's haven't been liberated yet, so I don't think you can say that they have gone crazy from liberation. Perhaps they're frustrated with their new rulers?

Noodles is gay
01-04-2005, 07:12 AM
PS: Regieme change is necessary, all the dictators need to go. Short term pain, long term gain. If we were all hippies nothing would ever get solved and the UN would sit idley by while people die. The law is a means to an end not an end itself, breaking international law is no crime when it's tyrants that hide behind it.

*snigger* i loved that paragraph!

If everyone was a hippy people wouldn't die because there would be no wars or religion or anything and no one would care! Also no dictators, one they'd also be hippies and two, hippies don't need rulers.



also, 9/11 had no effect on the Iraq war. It only was able to instill inside the US people a sense of confidence in their leader, which made his propaganda more succesful. The invasion of Iraq was a plan long before the concept of 9/11 was.


RXP, wheelchairman is right there (at least in my opinion). Bush needed oil and the 9/11 tragedy provided a good cover story for the american people to believe.

9/11 was a tragedy, but i'd say that the war is Iraq is worse because more people are dying and also it's a continual thing, unlike the 9/11 attack.

RXP
01-04-2005, 07:12 AM
But the figure that was standing over their lives has gone. IMHO it's the equivalent of if law and order broke down in England or the US. There'd be looting, riots etc. etc.

Saddam was the figure of law and order in Iraq. Once that disappeared people react like people do, predictable as sheep.

wheelchairman
01-04-2005, 07:39 AM
Saddam wasn't the figure of law and order, that will always be the man with the gun who enforces the laws that he chooses to.

The American man with the gun wasn't enough to prevent the Iraqi people from going against the American regime.

RXP
01-04-2005, 07:42 AM
Because the American man with the gun doesn't have unlimited power to kill people.

Saddam is the figure of law and order, he is merely not the enforcer of it.

wheelchairman
01-04-2005, 07:45 AM
Of course the American man with a gun has the licence to kill. You would think that would be obvious by now.

Saddam couldn't possibly be the figure of law and order, he was abstract from the population. He represented his oppressive government and it's policies, but law and order came from the barrels of the guns of his police force.

RXP
01-04-2005, 07:52 AM
Dictators work on fear, once he has gone the people below him don't do what they used to do because they're not afraid of their superiors.

For example, in the US the Constitution is the symbol of law and order everything derives from it. In Iraq Saddam was essentially a symbol like a constiution is. But the police, judiciary etc. etc. are the ones enforcing it: not the symbol. I guess you could say the man with the gun is the symbol but I'd say he's the enforcer and the higher authority is the symbol.

The US troops cannot just go around shooting anyone who is casuing a disturbance. It would be a media nightmare. If they could truly impose martial law where everyone would be killed who caused a fuss they'd be order with only a few rebels.

wheelchairman
01-04-2005, 08:38 AM
Dictators work on fear, once he has gone the people below him don't do what they used to do because they're not afraid of their superiors.

For example, in the US the Constitution is the symbol of law and order everything derives from it. In Iraq Saddam was essentially a symbol like a constiution is. But the police, judiciary etc. etc. are the ones enforcing it: not the symbol. I guess you could say the man with the gun is the symbol but I'd say he's the enforcer and the higher authority is the symbol.

The US troops cannot just go around shooting anyone who is casuing a disturbance. It would be a media nightmare. If they could truly impose martial law where everyone would be killed who caused a fuss they'd be order with only a few rebels.
Well when it comes to deterrance from committing crimes, like we're talking about, I don't think a removal of the constitution will make a difference for the American public. No one thinks about it. The symbol for law and order in the states is most certainly the police officer.

Americans generally tend to shoot people based on the premise that they might be terrorists. The only ones ever punished are the ones stupid enough to get caught on tape. And they don't get very harsh punishments either.

And dictators need a lot more than fear to work on. The most effective use of authority is to make people believe you that you are a conscientious and virtuous person, then when you tell them to do something horrific, they will think it must be okay. It's one of the underlining psychological factors of authority.

Jackish
01-06-2005, 06:42 AM
Thanks for all the replys guys, made for an interesting read.

News just in the british goverment has lied about the amount of english people missing in the tsunami, for political reasons.

Why would that do that?

Marion
01-06-2005, 07:41 AM
Thanks for all the replys guys, made for an interesting read.

News just in the british goverment has lied about the amount of english people missing in the tsunami, for political reasons.

Why would that do that?
Because Blair is now and always has been a lyer! Just look at www.impeachblair.org the lies hes told about the war are there. I can't wait to see him booted out in May

Jackish
01-06-2005, 09:00 AM
Because Blair is now and always has been a lyer! Just look at www.impeachblair.org the lies hes told about the war are there. I can't wait to see him booted out in May

Who would you rather in power, then?

I must say i agree with your opinion on mr Blair.

RobinoZombie
01-07-2005, 03:59 AM
Ok, i arrived from thailand a couple of days ago, sure its one of the lest effected areas, what comes to numbers. Its "only" what, 5 000 Dead or something, and alot of more missing among those 3 000 swedes. I am one of the lucky ones, i escaped this whole disaster just in time, as i fled up in the hills of the small beach of Nai Harn which is in the southest of Phuket. Just When i came up and grabbed some twiggs and some roots, i heard all the houses, shacks & Stores just crashing down behind me, after that the old survival instinct just took over and i got into safety, sat in the jungle for like 5 hours...Anyway, these people helped us even though their homes & LIVES all just was swept into the ocean. Since the fact that alot of people live in their little stores or bungalow receptions. They have no place to go. And its not like they have got money in the bank. Im so amazed that they stood up and helped everyone who seemed injured or seemed to be in danger, even though they had noting left. The Thai peoples love for eachother and tourists is just to overhealming. They really stick together.

So please, if you somehow can help and aid these people, natives, tourists and injured, PLEASE DO! just a few bucks from every single one can give them so much! Im having a fundraiser at my bar this saturday when 20% of the sales will go to the Asian tsunamis...
seriously have the respect and help others!

noodler
01-07-2005, 06:39 PM
As a 19 yr old student who only works part time and in the aftermath of XMAS I could only give 20 EUROS.

But thats more then $20

I reckon if everyone gave that much then there wouldnt be a problem.

RobinoZombie
01-08-2005, 04:14 PM
As a 19 yr old student who only works part time and in the aftermath of XMAS I could only give 20 EUROS.

But thats more then $20

I reckon if everyone gave that much then there wouldnt be a problem.

yes...but unfortunatly everybody dont think like that...myself im 18 and give like around...um....1000 Euros to the red cross...

wheelchairman
01-08-2005, 04:32 PM
what the fuck? you have 9000 SKR. to give away just like that? You must be fucking loaded.

RobinoZombie
01-08-2005, 05:07 PM
what the fuck? you have 9000 SKR. to give away just like that? You must be fucking loaded.

yes...my restaurants and bars that are in the the family gives away 20% of the sales of beer and spirits Etc(not gambling profits) and that might go up to 9000SKR....+that weve got some places to donate change money etc in some red cross "boxes"

noodler
01-08-2005, 06:02 PM
Look all I know is theres 6 billion ppl in the world and they need a billion in aid.

I gave 20 euro, so whats the problem if everyone else contributes?

Jesus man. I have to work for 7.5euro an hour to get my cash.

I wish My family were loaded enough to donate a 1000

RobinoZombie
01-08-2005, 06:11 PM
I dont demand that people give money....but if you do have the chance please do so...and if you "only" give 1$ or 1Euro...it gives them so much...sorry to lackshit about the us but, sure they gave alot more then anyone else...but not when it comes to some percentage numbers...not sure what percentage numbers but it was something i read when i was in some relifecenter in thailand....
....if everyone in sweden gave 10Kr=1.2Euro there would be around 80million SEK just from sweden....
....sorry to drag out on this...but serious this is important!

the original pyro
01-08-2005, 11:06 PM
There really isnt a place to donate in my area. Next time I see a shoebox at a grocery I'll throw in a few dollars. But what is it about these victims that makes them so special compared to anyone else who could use some food and shelter? I'm not saying they dont deserve it, and anyone who contributes is a lot better than I, but why is this viewed as a problem and people starving elsewhere aren't?

meaning_of_life
01-09-2005, 03:32 AM
in australia they had a concert last night, televised on all the major networks, and people phoned in and donated. 30 million was raised in the concert. i have yet to donate, but il give $20 next time i withdraw money

Marion
01-09-2005, 12:00 PM
Who would you rather in power, then?

I must say i agree with your opinion on mr Blair.
I vant belive I'm saying this but the torries done a better job. When it comes to scotland though I would rather have the SNP. They are doing a great job trying to help people in our own country and they are the ones who insisted that the scottish parly done more for the victims of the Tsunami. They have arranged for over £200,000 in donations just from politians.

L2L1
01-09-2005, 12:04 PM
to jackish (if you have epilipsy dont look)

























http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/spam5.gif

L2L1
01-09-2005, 12:09 PM
in australia they had a concert last night, televised on all the major networks, and people phoned in and donated. 30 million was raised in the concert. i have yet to donate, but il give $20 next time i withdraw money
twenty dollars??!???!?! twenty dollars?!?!?!?!? who the fuck needs twenty dollars? what are they gonna buy with that? 20 dollars isnt gonna pay for its own shipping i mean you can buy a box of waffels? as if 1 box of waffels is gonna save a life or 2 i mean really you are a big dumshit and if you are gonna just donate that just buy a dildo with it and shove that $20 dildo up a drowning victims ass so he can have some pleasure before he dies.



you suck men and i hate you you deserve to die die die die

wheelchairman
01-09-2005, 12:15 PM
twenty dollars??!???!?! twenty dollars?!?!?!?!? who the fuck needs twenty dollars? what are they gonna buy with that? 20 dollars isnt gonna pay for its own shipping i mean you can buy a box of waffels? as if 1 box of waffels is gonna save a life or 2 i mean really you are a big dumshit and if you are gonna just donate that just buy a dildo with it and shove that $20 dildo up a drowning victims ass so he can have some pleasure before he dies.



you suck men and i hate you you deserve to die die die die
If you buy a box of waffles at 10$ a piece then you're an idiot.

Not all of us have as much money as you, you spoiled jackass, we give what we can. I gave considerably less than 20$

L2L1
01-09-2005, 12:28 PM
If you buy a box of waffles at 10$ a piece then you're an idiot.

Not all of us have as much money as you, you spoiled jackass, we give what we can. I gave considerably less than 20$
u r a cheap prick my dad makes only 5.50 an hour working at mikey d's and i gave more than you and my brother has to be a man whore who butt fucks in the back of streets....... he had to do 3 people without condomns because we needed to rais money so we could cover for the cheap pricks like you who give their spending money...... i had to give up food for 2 days straight to donate the 300 dollars i donated and i dont spend 10 dollars on a fucking box of waffels i spend that on 3 boxes of waffels. i just factored in shipping

wheelchairman
01-09-2005, 12:37 PM
ah so you're just a provocateur eh, *adds to ignore list*

L2L1
01-09-2005, 01:08 PM
ah so you're just a provocateur eh, *adds to ignore list*
I thought to use a condom when I fucked your mom.

killboypwrheadjx
01-09-2005, 01:13 PM
my band is playing in an all-day long benefit concert at this church for the tsnunami victims.