Why is the World Allowing Pakistan to Drown?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MadForIt

Refugee
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
2,248
Location
New Zealand
Is it because they are Asian?
Is it because they are Muslim?

This is the West's chance to win some of the bad guys over. If you abandon them now, in 10 years time they will be all Taliabanised.

Why havent the stars come out and said they'll do a concert or write a song for charity?

Where is Bono?
This is usually his moment to shine
 
I read somewhere that Angelina Jolie is doing something for Pakistan, but that's about it. :shrug:
 
Is it because they are Asian?
Is it because they are Muslim?

This is the West's chance to win some of the bad guys over. If you abandon them now, in 10 years time they will be all Taliabanised.

Why havent the stars come out and said they'll do a concert or write a song for charity?

Where is Bono?
This is usually his moment to shine

Maybe it is partially that but I also think that it is a case of 'disaster overload'.
 
This article covers the same question you're asking here.

Money for aid trickling in for flood-ravaged Pakistan - CNN.com

The money poured in for survivors of Haiti's quake, but the funds are only slowly trickling in for people left homeless or ill in the wake of widespread flooding in the South Asian nation.

Is it because the earthquake was such a sudden shock, destroying huge chunks of cities and villages within a matter of 35 horrifying seconds while Pakistan's floods evolved over three weeks?

That's part of the reason, said Alex Wynter of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

"Floods are always more difficult to raise money for than dramatic seismic events that happen suddenly, because the scale of it only creeps up on people," Wynter said. "However, this is a totally exceptional flood. I have seen quite a number of floods in my time, but never anything remotely approaching this scale."

Much also depends on media coverage and the images that permeate television and computer screens. In Haiti, pictures of the collapsed presidential palace and vast tent cities tugged at hearts.

"It's very hard to compare disasters," said Nicholas Reader, spokesman for the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). "Haiti was instant, extremely visual. There was an outpouring of sympathy. Pakistan has been a slowly evolving disaster."

I'd also say you're dealing with the fact that the West is now broke. The Middle East and China may have to start chipping in to global relief funds. Of course, they likely won't in any meaningful capacity.
 
I wonder also how many people saw the recent reports of how awful things are in Haiti, and how little of the money seems to have gotten to the victims at this point, that some people just throw up their hands and say "Why bother?"

Which is sad, but I can understand frustration in giving money only to see it sit and gather dust.
 
This article covers the same question you're asking here.

Money for aid trickling in for flood-ravaged Pakistan - CNN.com

I'd also say you're dealing with the fact that the West is now broke. The Middle East and China may have to start chipping in to global relief funds. Of course, they likely won't in any meaningful capacity.

Agree completely. I don't like saying it but I'd like someone to explain how it doesn't end in a war.

We were warned repeatedly about the bubbles building up, but we didn't listen.

In the US; Peter Thiel, in the UK; Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, in Ireland; David McWilliams. When they issued their warnings, they were derided as doom-mongers and negative nay-sayers. Now, they are still denounced, for the cardinal crime of expressing an unpopular truth.

Currently, says my fave guru, AEP, we're in 1932:

With the US trapped in depression, this really is starting to feel like 1932 - Telegraph
 
BTW, I recogise that the travails of the busted economy in the US and Europe is nothing compared to the mass tragedy in Pakistan, I am just making the point that folks aren't helping out largely because there is probably nothing left in the kitty.
 
I find it shocking that India (so called new superpower) has only chipped in with $6 million of aid.

I know they dont get on with their neighbours, but this could have been a starting point. Maybe send a few helicopters and a load of food.

Iran have sent loads and they are hardly Saudi Arabia
 
I know there is a U.S. Navy ship on station running helicopters out to drop food and water.

I think as far as physical help goes, floods are incredibly difficult because there are few good safe havens and the road infrastructure gets f-ed up.

What is the current death toll? BTW

I sent money to UNICEF back in 2005 with their horrific earthquake. I haven't done anything yet this time, but it is still unfolding, too.
 
The fact that disturbs me the most is that the west ALWAYS helps when big disaster happens. No matter where in the world, people will donate and send help.
Now there's a disaster in the middle east, where are those super rich oil countries? Why aren't they helping their arabic brothers? Why does the west have to come in when there's more than enough money in those countries to help? :huh:
 
The fact that disturbs me the most is that the west ALWAYS helps when big disaster happens. No matter where in the world, people will donate and send help.
Now there's a disaster in the middle east, where are those super rich oil countries? Why aren't they helping their arabic brothers? Why does the west have to come in when there's more than enough money in those countries to help? :huh:

^Fair question.


Pakistan could trade the U.S. their nukes for our food.
That'd be a good deal for both of us.


Also, regarding the earlier question...the U.S. has been dropping food and aid into Afghanistan for 3 decades and that hasn't stopped the hate. :shrug:
I guess it takes more than aid. Diplomacy and understanding maybe?
 
Pakistan could trade the U.S. their nukes for our food.
That'd be a good deal for both of us.

Would never happen. It's their bargaining chip with India.

The desire for nukes is generally about regional, rather than international power broking. Iran would probably like to be the regional power in the Middle East, for instance, now that Iraq is weakened.
 
Would never happen. It's their bargaining chip with India.

The desire for nukes is generally about regional, rather than international power broking. Iran would probably like to be the regional power in the Middle East, for instance, now that Iraq is weakened.

Yeah, I know.

(I'll :wink: next time)
 
Yep
USA has promised $150 million
UK has bumped their donation up to £65 million

With regards to the super rich arab countries
Saudi Arabia has chipped in with $100 million

And Pakistan is in Asia. Its part of the Indian Sub-contient of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal
They are not an Arab country and Arabic is not their official language. Urdu is the official language of Pakistan (plus numerous regional languages like Pashto)

Shockingly, Pakistan has yet to accept India's offer of aid or to issue Indian doctors and emergency staff visa's to enter Pakistan

Zardari should be ashamed
 
There could be one very glaring reason why countries are "reluctant" to help Pakistan.

Nobody here has mentioned it, maybe because its politically incorrect to do so.

One reason for the reluctance could be Pakistan's direct and indirect involvment with extremly questionable organizations as well as terrorist activities.

The Pakistani spy agency , it was discovered recently, was helping train and probably equip numerous insurgent groups in Afghanistan.

Bin Laden, at this point is most likely hiding on the Pakistani side of the border.

just a couple of years back, a group of terrorists trained and equipped from Pakistan slipped into Mumbai, India, took over and destroyed two major hotels in the city and killed quite a few people.

Oh and don't forget, the USA, over the last few years has probably given billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan. All of that money was given under the condition that Pakistan will help fight terrorism. At this point it looks like we may have indirectly helped finance our own enemies.

I know the common folks are suffering due to the floods but, the Pakistani government itself has been very slow to provide any type of assistance and the people are finally starting to question their own government's motives.
 
There could be one very glaring reason why countries are "reluctant" to help Pakistan.

Nobody here has mentioned it, maybe because its politically incorrect to do so.

One reason for the reluctance could be Pakistan's direct and indirect involvment with extremly questionable organizations as well as terrorist activities.

They mentioned this on CNN this morning, saying individuals may be reluctant to give to aid agencies in Pakistan because the money may be funneled to extremists.
 
Would not surprise me if that's the case. Which sucks, because those people suffering from the floods deserve as much help as they can get. That probably factors into the lack of "celebrity aid", too, in this particular instance, sadly. Little hard for celebrities to go on TV and rally to help a country that's had ties to extremists.

I feel bad for the people dealing with this. I hope they do get aid soon of some kind.

Angela
 
Back
Top Bottom