Tsunami Aid Justified?
 

Obviously, Indonesia was hit hard by the Tsunami. But giving unconditional aid is a mistake. Indonesia has a history of harboring terrorists, being sexist and racist, and generally not all that keen on tolerance.

You know what I say? The US government should just come out and say, "Those of us in power are prepared to help those of you who are not. But there are strings that come with this help"
An acceptance of the rule of law.
Acceptance of plurality
Acceptance of equality, tolerance of differences

The Government of Indonesia will not accept these demands, but they will accept aid. So why send aid? Simply, its the guilt. Suddenly, the world would be up in arms about the "cheap Americans".

So I ask to those who support aid now: Should we give aid to support intolerance? or racism?
And when you all say no, I'll ask you why you think we should send aid to Indonesia.

I'm sure you'll all hate me now, for thrusting the truth in your face and demostrating how you're hypocrites.

But seriously, the next problem is "How do we get governments such as Indonesia to accept our demands?"

I prefer the "force" card
Dear Mr. Prime Minister,
We recognize that you have a disaster on your hands and that thousands will die no matter what anyone does because it is too late for them. But we can save others; that number tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands.

If we don't cave in, we've helped out another country and brought equality, law, and tolerance to them. I'd say its a fair trade.

I can just about see where you're coming from, but ultimately the idea of one of the superpowers of the world seeing this as nothing but a chance to shape a part of the world to their own liking is disgusting. As is the idea of only helping those who have the Right Mindset, come to that. Yes, I do believe that ignorance, intolerance, racism and sexism should make way for freedom, but if it comes to a fight about that, it should not be fought on the backs of the people who need help.

You know, the way I read your statements the US in 1945 on the same grounds could simply have said, "screw it, the German government is a bunch of racists and they've been setting up and working killing factories for the last few years; let's just go nuke the shit out of the area and call it a day." I'm not quite sure if I would have approved of that one. (Okay, looking around here I very often do feel like it myself, but that's beside the point right now.)

And besides, if the US really cared about these issues in Indonesia, you'd think they would have done something about it already, one way or the other.

I can see why you would think that just waiting for a disaster to happen so they can shape the the world to its own liking. But think about this, doing nothing and appeasing unjust governments is even more disgusting.

Who is the fight supposed to be taken up by then? It NEEDS to be fought by those people, because only then will they truly appriciate the values we take for granted. It wouldn't neccessarily be a military conflict, but a power struggle. Russia collapsed into a democracy, and we never went to war with them.

Outright war is an option. You can take over the government, put up a reign of terror much like the french did, and kill all opposition. The ends could justify the means. Its the easy way.

But is it the right way? Almost all historians agree that WWII could have been prevented between 1922-1926. But other powers weren't willing to step in and help. The US just doesn't have the willpower. It never did. Pick a point in history where the US worked together to help other nations across the globe, without being attacked first.

Tough huh? That's because our heritage prevents it. Most US citizens were once refugee's fleeing from oppresive leaders, and want nothing more to do with it. How many times do you hear that we should take care of the problems here first? Yea, they're all wrong. WWII taught us that. But we need to, because THAT is the right way.

When I mentioned the "force" card, it was not military might. Instead, hold out on them. You want aid? Fine, but you institute these rules first. We don't give aid until you back down and accept equality and tolerance. As far as I can tell, Indonesia doesn't deserve our aid.

The world will not be improved with diplomacy, trade negotiations, and bi-lateral security pacts. It's made in the hearts and minds of the everyday person. By holding out our values to all people, and living them each day, we offer the best hope to the world. Saving one life is like saving the entire world, each person just needs to do "a little bit".

We must be tolerant, but we must not tolerate intolerance.
The law protects all people, but it does not protect the person who wishes to deprive another of their civil rights.

I unfortunately think that the first step is higher oil prices, because that will drive us to find an alternate energy source, which will break the backs of the corrupt governments in the Middle East, ushering a new era.

And there is a good chance that America will become one more footnote in the history books. If another nation carries the ideals better than us, then they deserve to carry the "flag of liberty" instead of us.

Assuming that Indonesian gov't is bad, cuz I'm not a politics buff.

The problem with this argument is the assumption that the people have the fair choice to oppose the government, most likely caused by our own ability to do so. The average Indonesian makes barely enough to survie to the next day. I would strongly suspect that most of the people either live completely independently of the government or try to give the gov't enough to make them go away so they can continue to live. If you were working for your own survival day to day, I don't think you would be worried about who was president.

Regardless, suppose that the people DID have a chance to work for their government's change. Then the tsunami came. You have to understand how cruel you look when you give your reason to not send aid to the dying people as "change your gov't and then we'll help." They just went through a f'ing natural disaster and lost everything they had, and are now trying to get fresh water and food. Do they have the (at least) months it would take to start reforms? These people, who were already either starving or just getting by (as in enough food to get you through the day alive, not to be full - never do they get enough food. These people eat MUD CAKES to keep their stomachs full.), just got hit with a HUGE WAVE caused by an EARTHQUAKE. Would you be in a good position to change the U.S. into, say, a communist country if your house just got trashed and you had no place to live? You would need immediate aid and hopefully you would be fortunate enough to live to rebuild your shattered life. I just can't understand your logic.

The way to save these people is not to force them to save themselves, but to show them how much better off they could be.

If the people do not have the fair choice, someone like America needs to interviene. Someone needs to stand up for those people, and dictate to that government certain ideals: such as equality, liberity, and freedom of choice.

So I'll repeat:
I ask you: Should we give aid to support intolerance? or racism?
And when you say no, I'll ask you why you think we should send aid to Indonesia.

Because that is what Indonesia promotes and endorces.

If you lived in an enviroment where terrorists are harbored, there are very few well off people and everyone is poor, and filled with Muslims who think they're superior to everyone else, would you opt for a government that would be different? One that promoted a good life, where everyone is equal, and where law and order reigns? I would.

But you know what? I guess I am being a little creul. You see, for all our dealings with Muslims, they have rarely followed through on any promises, so I doubt that giving them aid and asking them to change later will work. It's tough, I know. But I think its the only real way to insure change. Unless the UN gained enough power to do something about it. Which I also doubt.

PLEASE don't associate Middle East govt. practices with Muslim religion. It is a very beautiful and symbolic religion, but, like Christianity and Judaism, can be extremely dangerous.

I agree that someone should stand up for them and go against the racism etc., but these people need these supplies. Perhaps you put out the bluff "we won't help unless you give in," but you have to help these people if you want to work for their rights - dying from starvation doesn't help your individual rights.

I'm Catholic and Pro-Life. Does that mean that I have to cause a rebellion in the U.S. so that the slaughter stops? If you answered no, then you realized that the upheaval caused by a rebellion would be far too traumatic for the nation, even if, by my standards, it improved the nation's values. In the same way, perhaps these people don't want to create a situation that will cause chaos. Of course they want a better government, but they can't just say "we need a new govt." and it's done - they have to fight with blood against guys with guns. Ever notice that generally, in a hostage situation with hostages 5:1 to terrorists, they don't just swarm and overpower the terrorists? It's because they all are looking out for their individual welfare - they don't want to be the 1/5 of people that get shot.

Don't associate the government's ideals with its people's - there are many people opposed to the wars in the Middle East, and saying that "Indonesia promotes and enforces [bad stuff]" implies that you think all of the people there agree with [bad stuff].

Edit: You know what you do when you're really, really tired? You confuse Islam with Judaism. Sorry for the confusion.

I suppose you're right, it was sort of a heat-of-the-moment type thing. You see, a family of four lived in my county in New Jersey, and one of them apparently went on the internet and spoke his/her views out in a chat room of some type. Apparently, the local Mulsim population wasn't to happy about that.

Because they broke into the house and killed the entire family. Afterwards, I get to hear that those actions might be justified in the Quoran. Obviously I was not happy about this. I love how we all say that Islam is a wonderful religion, yet it is continually linked with acts of violence.

I'm am truly sorry for generalizing a people based on religion, so I apologize. (Muslims are people who follow Islam). It's just that when you use your religion to say that you are superior to others, its upsetting.

In any case, lets get back on topic: Why should we give supplies to a people who are intolerant? Why should we help those that hate us, even refusing our help? Why do we need to support racism?

Because that's whats going on in Indonesia. The question here is "How can we make a compromise with these people?" I say use financial aid as a bargining chip. By appeasing the Indonesian Government, we are not stopping they're ways.

Yes, these people need help. And I agree, not all people are all the names I've said. But the government endorces and continually promotes those ideas, so something must be done about it. Take Germany for instance. Not all those people were bad, but we had to go to war with them right? What good is it if we rebuild their towns and cities just so they can continue with their terrorist harboring, racist ways? We can put a stop to it.

Let me put it to you this way, maybe then you'll get my point.

A bully beats up and controls a little kid everyday. You're clearly tougher than the bully, but you don't want to get involved, your peers would look down on you if you beat up a kid. One day, the bully finishes beating up the little kid, but they both take a nasty fall down a hill. They are battered, bruised and cut. Others rush to aid, but you hold in your hand a first-aid kit. Keep in mind that you cannot give the bandages to the small kid without giving them first to the bully.

Would you just give him the badages, so he could resume beating up that little kid the next day? Sure its a shame that he bruised himself, and he's obviously in pain. But you know he'll get better, and even sooner with your help. You don't want him to suffer, but you don't want that little kid to suffer either.

What would you do? I would say to him "Hey, I'll help you out, but you have to promise not to beat up that kid anymore. No more violence."

Sounds reasonable enough to me.

the first problem with that would be the world PR. America would be lambasted by the world community (whether justly or unjustly)

secondly, it is sort of our heroic human nature that differences in opinion disappear when a life is on the line. Like how doctors dont care whether the person they are saving is a saint, a thief, a murderer, or even someone fighting us in a war. no matter what they do their best to save preserve human life.

any delay would have meant thousands of lives lost, so that also would have to be weighed in with trying to negociate for reforms before we offer assistance.

lastly, many people in the muslim world hate us because they are told to. their media shows pictures of dead babies when talking of US military action. Their leaders deny the holocaust and call us the great satan. These people are fed lies and hate so that they will fear and loathe us.

Going to those countries and helping save their lives pretty much breaks that mental image. its sort of like in the movies when the two advarsaries hate each other and are at each others throat, but then one of them saves the life of the other and they realize that the other guy isnt so bad. We have to find someway to break their false image of America, and this is a prime way to do it.

Keep personal anecdotes out too, as there's no way for us to verify what you said. Plus it's just using emotion as an excuse for being a jackass. No. May as well keep religion entirely out of it too. This isn't about muslims, it's apparently about you wanting to force people to adhere to the policies of another government and people. Regardless of which is 'better' the 'policing of the world and instituting our policies abroad' is just the sort of thing that keeps getting america in more trouble.

It's not our job to tell other people what to do, until it's proven beyond a doubt that we are suffering because of their lack of change. And it's far more cruel and heartless to deny innocents help because of political ideals. I don't even know how you could suggest such a thing.

I'll agree, I've been a little creul. We can negotiate government changes while we are giving aid as Viper Daimao suggested. But, no one has done that, and its a real shame. Also Viper, I agree with a lot of the things you said, but take note. Those leaders will just continue to fabricate lies. We've been giving aid to a number of countries for a number of years now, and they still hate us. They just take the money and continue to lie.

As to Shiney:

I only used that anecdote to show everyone why I was so prejudiced in the post before it. I proceeded to apologize. I'm not using that story to stir up people's emotions. But the example I illustrated in the end is dead-on, and I've notced you've avoided it.

Do you believe that the United States should give aid to the Sudanese Warlords if there was an earthquake over there? You know that they are commiting genocide over there, and we should help them out. I mean besides, we can't prove that it would affect us right?

The United States can no longer follow your isolationst way of thinking. We can't just shut ourselves in our country and ignore everyone else.

Now, I've come up with a solution to effectivly spread equality and liberty.

What's your response? That we shouldn't tell them what to do.
Fine, lets just let them oppress others, right? Let's not change the world for the better. You know all those problems in Africa? Screw it. All the problems in the Middle East? Screw it. Let's just give out money to other nations in need that hate us. Why not?

You know what you're doing? You're thinking in the short-term. Yes innocent people died, but instead of possibly introducing the ideals we all hold dear and bring in a stable economy AND give aid, you just want to throw money at them unconditionally and shut yourself back up in your own borders.

We did that in WWII and look where that got us. We, as a people, ignored the threats of terrorism Clinton forsaw, and look where that got us. Ignoring other people's problems doesn't make the world a better place, and it eventually bites you in the ass.

I'm sure you want the world to be a better place, but you refuse to actively compromise with other nations. How hypocritical.