UN disaster relief fund hit with $75m shortfall as world's richest countries pledge tiny contributio

[GarrettFox]

[QUOTE=Contag;33943743]600 million isn't particularly large for a state with an economy in the double digit trillions[/QUOTE]

Of course, my point though is that it is ultimately detrimental to the UN for more money to come from the United States. While it may not be huge compared to our GDP, it is massive to the UN. We lord over them enough already.

[QUOTE=Contag;33943767]The issue is that the US doesn't provide money to this disaster relief fund, which would ensure those who deserve it actually get aid.

The US would rather do so bilaterally, meaning they can continue to support shit regimes in shit places which only fuck the US over later.

Hello Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iraq etc.

Honestly you guys should be just as pissed at your government as everyone else.
[/QUOTE]

In theory I can agree with not providing the fund with money.

Dick waving aside, the US navy is fucking big. When it shows up, it shows up in numbers that generally exceed every other force in the region combined. It moves armadas the way that other nations move single destroyers.

So when the UN says it wants more money to provide aid to people who need help, we have to consider the point of providing the money.

Either A) We like them and are going to show up much quicker than the UN anyways and bring along far more hardware and supplies ooooor B) We don't like the nation and would be mildly annoyed that we indirectly funded their recovery.

So in theory, all things functioning, it makes way more sense NOT to give much money to the fund because we can flat out do it better.

Of course in practice this may very well fall apart. Though the UN isn't exactly free from error either, so who the fuck knows if funding it would really be better.

What I am saying is that I can see why at face value it seems like a dick thing to not fund it, but I can also see that from a politician's point of view, or even a military official, funding it is pointless because we will be there anyways. Also from a political point of view it makes more sense to deliver the aid directly in US stamped equipment, than to allow the UN to deliver it entirely themselves.

[Contag]

It makes perfect sense in terms of global politics and international relationships, the issue there is that morality rarely factors into such equations.

I'd rather the money go to an relatively independent organization, so that lives aren't held hostage to the political whims of the current administration and congress. We've already seen how ineffectual those can be in responding to crises.

[editline]29th December 2011[/editline]

I would also imagine that this fund is a bit more efficient than the US Navy

[clockroach]

Am I the only who thinks that maybe we shouldn't look at donations as some kind of obligation?
Everyone is all "LOL US Y U SO GREEDY" but doesn't considering charity an obligation kind of ruin the point of charity? That kind of attitude belittles the contributions of the more generous countries.

[DaveP]

[QUOTE=nuttyboffin;33942775]What is wrong with England :/
we give out millions to other countrys and such then up our Tax and VAT ect trying to pay back our Debt....

*Mind Blown*[/QUOTE]

Our budget is ring-fenced and prioritised -we can pay down our debts at a level that doesn't affect everything in the coffers (in part because we still have a stellar credit rating -of which we're still in a better position than Germany, France and definitely the US) and we surely have agreements on the international scene that hold us to these contributions

The disaster relief fund is not country-specific, and beyond that its an important part of foreign policy -we are a country that helps fix problems, not create them