With the current death toll and fear of outbreaking epidemic what should be done by the countries affected, mainly India, Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka and the Maldives --less than a 100 reported deaths. At this point and time the rescue workers in some of the highly affected areas are not even stopping to identify or transport dead bodies but rather burning them on the spot. Many small islands have been burnt completely because of whole villages being killed off. Technically the affected countries cant close their borders yet because of the attempts by rescue personal to get some sick and injured people to safety. People however continually keep going to these ransacked places for vacations. Thailand and the Maldives being really the only 2 as they suffered the least amount of casualties. Some travel companies are refusing to return fares, mainly in Russia and some other parts of the former USSR. Should these travelers/tourists be let out of the country after they have arrived and spent a week there? If they are released from the country there could a spread of diseases like Cholera and Maleria, caused by the dead bodies laying on the beach for 3-4 days in temperatures of 90+ degrees. The bodies have become bloated and infected (pic). It probably would not become as big of a epidemic as the Black Plague, but a widespread of Cholera or Maleria could really hurt a lot of the big cities in Europe. Though if all travel in and out of these countries is brought to a halt the percentage of sick people could keep increasing and increasing. Just looking for some opinions on some international matters, and yes I know the picture is kind of gruesome but I feel the American media does a poor job covering this topic.

oh my god, the picture.
that's terrible. it's a good idea to have them move.. but then there's a chance there might be more casuelties suffering the cholera and maleria. but if it'd save more lives.. then maybe it;d be something to pull through with.

Maybe it killed some of the terrorists.

Wouldnt say so, I doubt terrorists would be so close to the shore, yet alone in non-terrorist countries. More than 70% of casualties are tourists since most resorts are placed near the beach and locals tend to live more in city. Theres a video of a small tidal wave in Thailand. Thats basically how fast the water spread through out a large area of land.

you don't have to be close to shore....

the tsunami reached over a quarter mile inland in some places.

and most toursists were probably at beach resorts.

however, take a look at the pledged aid....

60 some million for spain

35 million from the US

35 million for pfizer ( the drug company)


and President bush has no sympathy...

89 BILLION for ONE county (iraq)

35 MILLION for lots more...


that's 0.04% for the money sent to iraq.

must be because haliburton doesn't get a cut.

I was actually thinking the same thing with Bush pleding only 35 million, he covered his back though with his "this is just an opening donation" bit. From what i've found spain has promised a 68 million (us) Heres a nice list I found at ChinaDaily.com, though its a little outdated

AUSTRALIA: Australia sent four air force transport planes with supplies and medical specialists to the western Indonesian island of Sumatra and committed US$7.6 million to the international relief effort.

BELGIUM: The government is sending a military airbus with 22 tons of aid from Medecins Sans Frontieres and UNICEF to Sri Lanka.

BRITAIN: London sent an aircraft with plastic sheets and tents worth 250,000 pounds (US$481,500) to Sri Lanka. It said it was contributing 370,000 (US$712,000) pounds to the EU aid effort and a further US$100,000 to the World Health Organization for relief efforts.

CANADA: Canada said it would make an initial contribution of 1 million Canadian dollars (US$814,300) to an appeal for some US$6.5 million by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).

CHINA: The government will offer 21.6 million yuan (US$2.6 mi-llion) worth of emergency huma-nitarian aid to India, Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka and the Maldives,

CZECH REPUBLIC: Prague dispatched a plane to Sri Lanka with drinking water. Officials said overall aid worth US$444,400 would be sent.

EUROPEAN UNION: The European Commission pledged 3 million euros (US$4.06 million) and said it could mobilize up to 30 million euros (US$4.06 million) for rapid distribution to aid groups.

FRANCE: Foreign Minister Michel Barnier is heading to Sri Lanka and Thailand on a flight carrying aid. Paris has earmarked 100,000 euros (US$135,000) for initial rescue efforts in Thailand and has sent a plane with about 100 rescue workers and five tons of aid to Sri Lanka.

GERMANY: Germany said it was contributing 1 million euros (US$1.35 million) of emergency aid to the international effort and taking part in the EU programme. It sent a disaster relief team to Sri Lanka.

GREECE: Greece has offered Sri Lanka medical assistance, including 17 doctors and staff.

ISRAEL: Israel sent a medical team with medicines and equipment to Sri Lanka and another to Thailand. It also planned to send a military search and rescue team to Sri Lanka.

JAPAN: Japan will provide around US$30 million in aid to countries hit by an Indian Ocean tsunami that killed more than 29,000 people, and will send three navy vessels to waters off Thailand to help rescue survivors.

KUWAIT: The Kuwaiti cabi-net agreed to send aid supplies worth US$1 million to the affected region.

NETHERLANDS: The Nether-lands said it was contributing 2 million euros (US$2.7 million) to the Red Cross-Red Crescent appeal, above and beyond its participation in the overall EU programme.

SINGAPORE: Singapore said it would contribute around US$1.2 million to the global effort, and had armed forces medical teams and relief supplies ready to fly to Indonesia.

SPAIN: Madrid is sending a plane with first aid and sanitary equipment to Sri Lanka. It has promised 1 million euros (US$1.35 million) for aid and planes.

SWEDEN: Sweden sent two communications specialists to help UN relief efforts in Sri Lanka, and said it was sending tents and communications equipment to the Maldives. The Swedish Red Cross said it would contribute US$750,000 to the global IFRC appeal.

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: The government pledged US$2 million in aid and its Red Crescent was planning to send three plane-loads of aid.

UNITED STATES: The United States said it planned to provide an initial US$15 million in aid and had already released US$100,000 each to India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. It said the US Pacific Command had sent three patrol aircraft to assess damage.

IMF: The head of the Interna-tional Monetary Fund said he intended to provide assistance.

UNHCR: The UN's refugee agency said it was providing homeless in Sri Lanka with 18,000 pieces of plastic sheeting, 17,000 plastic mats, rope and non-food relief packages for 2,000 families.

UNICEF: It was distributing clothing and more than 30,000 blankets and sleeping mats in Sri Lanka and 1,600 water tanks, 30,000 blankets, medical supplies and hundreds of thousands of water purification pills in India.

UN DEVELOPMENT PRO-GRAMME: The UNDP provided US$100,000 each to Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia, the Maldives and Thailand to help them assess and co-ordinate emergency needs.

hmm.

maybe i heard it wrong from TV then...

but the total AID is not near enough...

food, water. the US military has in the past distributed these...

this is not an option as the military is at war...

but can not more money be given?

You were actually right about spain, just red up on MSN and noticed I wasnt as updated on the donations, Spain in fact announced a 68 million dollar donation, the most to date.

ahh, that's why, it's a new donation.

spain is a poorer country than the US...

While they do have less money I wouldnt call them poor. Although the support has not been nearly enough to cover the rescue efforts and evacuation efforts I think this is the first time in a while that basically the whole world has ever chipped in on one thing. Be it only a little from some smaller countries its still something. The way ive been researching this is that these countries are going to need atleast 6-8 billion dollars to cover this. I found an interesting article the other day about a total evacuation of Hong Kong during a natural disaster. To evacuate the whole city cost over 3 billion dollars. Compared to that these tsunamis seem like giants. This could be and probably is the worst tragedy on Earth since the Black Plague hit Europe during the High Middle Ages.

wow..that is a lot of money..i feel so bad for all those people..i'm glad a lot of countries are helping out.-sorry, i didn't really debate anything.

Asian countries should take more responsibility. It happened in their backyard.

I do NOT think we should use our military to deliver supplies. We all know what happened last time we tried that.

Black Hawk Down!

It's sad, i was looking on MSN, and in a picture essay, there was a picture of a man whos house burned down in a fire during a mass cremation. Another picture showed a young child missing both his parents and two brothers. The aerial shots of the damage is overwhelming, and with the death toll rising up to 114 000, and a disease warning following close behind, I really don't know what's going to happen to all those people.

Money seems like the most effective way to help these people, and more people need to help.

Coming from an asian country, Singapore, this catastrophe is bringing an great impact to my country and all those countries that are affected.

Yes perhaps you are right that the countries involved should take more responsibility as it happened in our backyard which is next to your "home".
Do you not realise that what affects one part of the world, affects the whole world?

Thats really altruistic of you to say such things. Perhaps you do not happen to be in the region to realise the gravity of the situation, the number of lives lost, the utter desperation survivors face or how devastating this incident is.

May i know, if the military should not be sent for this, then who or what other organisation should be sent?

Mind you, if the countries affected have some form of tsunami warning capability, (read this), maybe you would be better justified to say such things.

I'm really riled up by your caustic comment regarding this issue. Being surrounded by victims, this is no joke.

Maybe next time, you could put yourself in the shoes of the victims before saying anything more.

Actually that article is partly true, Tsunami warnings are set up in 3 of the countries that were hit. They are not set up coast to coast but they do exist, the government's of the countries affected just simple saw no reason to use it. Also the American and European officials officially contacted I belive Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand and told them to get everyone out of there. The countries simply ignored it. No one knows why, personally on my own research I say that these countries simple didnt have enough money to pay for a mass evacuation. So they simple ignored it.

That was a serious comment... this is a CIVIL issue, not a military one.

Other countries have proved that they DO NOT LIKE IT when the United States military occupies their territory. This is to be expected. I'm sure a lot of Americans would hate for Singaporean soldiers to be in our country, tsuanmis or not.

Of course natural disasters aren't a joke, but neither is taking money from hardworking Americans to fund an occupation of Southeast Asia and THEN ask those hardworking Americans to put their lives on the line the next time a terrorist from one of those countries bombs one of our barracks or our homelands.

And yes, the tourists should be let go. There is not going to be an epidemic in Europe, as modern medicine is more than able to deal with malaria.

yes, but in this case i belive something of a military is needed....


the roads are down.

what needs to be done is cargo plane are needed to fly supplies to airports, from where cargo helicoptors fly to various spots to deliver the supplies.

who has enough cargo planes and helicoptors?

I agree with you on that.



Yes it's a civil issue but you brought in the topic of the military. Maybe you should have asked yourself on what grounds it was when America occupied other territories. And right now I dont think its about asking America troops to be stationed there but to merely dispatch cargo and other relief materials. For example, UN has a peace keeping force which can be enlisted to help in such dire times of natural disasters. That should be what the American troops should do for the affected countries.

Perhaps you do not appreciate help when needed in times of trouble but that is your solo opinion.

I do not understand your second paragraph as i bear in mind the topic we are discussing - whether it is apt for american troops to be involved in the relief aid.
This topic, to the best of my knowledge and the way i interpret it, is not about terrorists but about the tsunami, the affected countries and people, and of course, if the tourists should be allowed home.

Yes everyone's money is hard-earned but i think its proper for me to say that the average income a US individual takes home a month is perhaps a portion of what some from the affected countries are raking in. Donating perhaps USD$10 would be sufficient and that will definately make a difference.

Some of the countries affected are third-world countries and they do need the money to help rebuild what they've lost. If you can put it past your conscience to not help out, then so be it. To each his/her own.

(sidenote: As we know, there's such a thing as goodwill. perhaps with US chipping in to help out in this situation, its international standing will improve. Or if you need another explanation, let it be karma.)

Someone else brought up the military. In order for the military to dispatch relief, the soldiers will need barrracks, the machines will need refueling stations, etc. Especially because of the magnitude of the disaster, it will turn into a long-term occupation.



If other countries appreciated US military aid, why is there terrorism? Why were we attacked by Afghanistan even though we gave them millions in aid?



If we send our military there, we will create new terrorists as people dislike American military intervention, something that has been proved time and time again in the Middle East. The US just doesn't have a whole lot of credibility.



I'm sure there are very rich people IN THOSE COUNTRIES who would not think twice about using that much money. Why don't they relieve their own countrymen?

After cost of living adjustments, the average American family making $35,000 a year barely gets by WITHOUT income taxes. If we set a precedent that we can invade other countries to perform "humanitarian" tasks, the chain will never stop.



The last time our military attempted humanitarian aid, it caused half of Africa to hate us.

why are we all just talking about it...we should all do something to help... me and my friends are starting a relief fund at my school..

you guys should donate money to the red cross

if you're interested the link is in my sig

I think supporting something you have no knowledge of is ignorant. Talking about helps people truly understand what happens and give them a better view of what they can do other than give away money. Our family has however contributed some money directly to the fund and our neighborhood has contributed some spare clothes and such to the fund going directly over there. It may not be much but its something.

their training the ppl in sri lanka.

This reminds me of a funny joke. A dictator goes to visit his friend, another dictator, in his home country. The first dictator sees that the second has built a magnificent palace, and he asks, "How did you do it?"

The second dictator poinst the first dictator to a river in the distance, and says, "See that bridge over there? An international aid agency paid me to build it. But I padded the cost. One million dollars."

Not to be outdone, the first dictator invites the second over to his country later, and the second dictator sees that the first has built an even more magnificent palace. He asks, "How did you do it?"

The first points the second over to a river in the distance, and says, "See that bridge over there?" The second replies, "What bridge?" The first smiles, then answers, "Exactly... Five million dollars."

The United States increased the aid to $350 million. This of course has NOTHING to do with people criticizing the US.