http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6767190/

What a joke... let's subsidize rebuilding projects, but why play world cop? (or rescuer in this case)

First they called us greedy when we offered $35 million, and now we look arrogant offering 350.

 

where in that article does it say anything about looking arrogant?

 

That's just his opinion.

We should start giving money to people in need, but only if it doesn't make us look bad to anyone. (Good Idea)

 

I wouldn't call it arrogance even though I'm sure other pukes think of it that way. However, I wouldn't be surprised if countries thought we were trying to win affection because of our current relations and reputation. The only problem is that the United States has always been this generous. Rest assured people will forget this generosity down the road and dub us the greedy, stingy bad guys once again when another world tragedy strikes or another country needs saved.

/Me waits for Somalia to come begging once again.

 

Those folks need money. Bad side effect is the politics that surround a nice gesture.

 

The rest of the world can never make up it's mind about the US. Angels or Demons are we.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

 

The leader of Thailand says they need experts, not money. It's rediculous that our country would throw this kind of money (from our pockets at that!) to other established governments. I think it is condescending, to say the least.

Think of what that $350 million would do to help those below the poverty line in this country.

I'll be shocked if we don't immigrate millions of them too. America will kill itself trying to save the entire world.

 

Well it looks like everyone is putting aside their political views on this one.

Japan = 500 million
Total = 2 Billion

I hope this helps some people shut up about how horrible it is for us to give money just because "well nobody else does"

This isn't about how we look giving money it's about helping the families of the now 150,000 dead.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapc...dge/index.html

 

You are missing the point. The don't want or need money, they need their basic needs met. There is a pace and scale at which we are limited because we don't have authority and free reign in these countries. Do you actually think any of that money will get to the people?

The amount of money each country gives is entirely political, nothing else.

Starving people need food, sick people need medical care, etc etc...
Yes, services cost money, but it's obvious that no dollar amount will help these people additionally, because everyone is working as fast as they can already.

 

I'm very sorry for trying to look at the good side of donations.

I bow to the master of all pessimist's.

 

Hahhaha 'bout time. But seriously, I think a few hundred million will suffice, based upon my detailed calculations .

 

Let's look at this another way...

We are donating 1/3 of a billion dollars. Our campaign in Iraq has run a bill higher than $100 billion.

But you do bring up a good point in that, while money is needed, they need other resources as well (most notably civil engineers, doctors, etc...)

 

Yet you support the man that led us into Iraq just to liberate the country...hmmm...

 

It's alot of money to you and me - but it's not that much for an entire country. They spent that much on the cast of "friends" for one season.

 

In Vietnam, we spent a little less than 2 billion...per month.