"However Pakistan proved one thing.. they had less of an area affected and their response was more horrid than people claim the federal response to Katrina was." I really disagree with you guys. First I don't know how you could even compare Katrina and New Orleans to either of the catastrophes in Pakistan or Central America. Deaths counts alone represent they were much more catastrophic and that is not to mention the wounded needing medical assistance - even right now. Pakistan has at least 50,000 injured. 1000's upon 1000's, many children, are lying in large fields or makshift tents in desparate need of medical care RIGHT NOW. Where would even the US find sufficient hospitals and doctors to treat that many people? Pulling people off of roof tops is no comparison either to all the 1000's upon thousands of people buried - either under tons of concrete or mud. New Orleans people had some outs - they could swim, float or move to attics, rooftops. In the earthquake and mudslides that occurred, there was NO escaping. In both countries, there are villages higher in the mountains who have been cut off where no one could get to them even just to drop food and water. These countries do not have the wealth we have - they do not have the rsources. To suggest that the wealthiest country in the world whose poor have so much in comparison shouldn't be helping is really beyond human decency.

Actually, BTDT, I said: "However Pakistan proved one thing.. they had less of an area affected and their response was more horrid than people claim the federal response to Katrina was. With Katrina some assets were in place before the storm hit, but with in 24 hours emergency teams from cities all over America were mobilized and deployed.. and that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is also considered a part of the Federal Response. Once Blanco sorted out her problems it took the US about 24 hours to get even more assistance into the area. " I didn't say whether you could compare the disaster in Pakistan to the disaster from Katrina. I did, however, imply that one could compare the Pakistani Response to their earthquake compared to the US Response to our Katrina. And you can compare things in that way for you are comparing apples to apples and not apples to oranges. :) Btdt, you do not need wealth to hike into the mountains and drag people out.. you just need two strong arms and two strong legs. If you are lucky you can use animals to haul stuff. People have done this stuff for centuries before the mid-20th century and these Pakistanis are not the slave to modern conveniences that Americans are. Different Cultures, Different Rules. And human decency doesn't enter the picture either. If countries can badmouth the US by pointing out what they perceive as right and wrong.. Americans certainly retain the right to point out honest facts with out having to feel like they violated some greate cosmic consciousness.

Two legs or even four cannot haul in food and water to a whole village that has had supplies and services destroyed and has injured people needing doctors, especially considering the situation that the larger city in the valley is in crisis beyond reason itself, and bearing in mind that roads to these villages have been destroyed or blocked. Some of these villages in Guatemala where in such cloud cover, they could not even get helicopters in to drop supplies until a day ago. I think they are just getting to some in Pakistan now. Bear in mind Central America had mountains turn into rivers of mud and come crushing down, burying some villages completely before getting to bottom land. Those rivers of mud not only wiped out their homes, they wiped out their farm fields - their food supplies, their chickens and pigs and cows. Fresh water was turned to mud - not exactly drinkable. These are Mayans, very poor but accustomed to living in nature except that nature just wiped out most life around them. None of these countries are our enemies. Pakistan is an ally - the population is split, some love the US, some hate it. How do you distinguish? Does it really matter when it comes to something like this? Human decency says no it doesn't. Aside from that, they have rescue teams in there from all over the world - Japan, Austrailia, China, England, Germany, Canada - the US should certainly if for no other reason, show face at the very least. It's a lot better public relations approach than dropping bombs - and cheaper.

Two legs, or four, can't haul in food and water into a whole village... however 20 or 40 can haul quite a bit. The average military squad is 10 to 13 men. That is 20 to 26 legs who are often used to carrying a full field pack. Several WWII Vets I know claim that was 90 lbs., however I think the Marines carry 80 lbs. - so let's go with 80 lbs. That means a squad could carry 800 to 1,040 Lbs. However we are not talking of just one squad.. we are talking of an army. A company is 100 to 200 soldiers, or about 12 squads. The Pakistanis have over 600,00 men in their military, according to Jane's I think, or Nation Master. They can easily send in 2 or 3 companies of men.. i.e. 200 to 600 men. This breaks down to 20 to about 47 squads. That equals a carrying weight of about 16,000 lbs to 48,880 lbs. That could carry enough supplies to a village. But let's be more realistic here. Horses, Oxen, Camels or other beasts of burden can not only carry a lot of weight on their backs... they can be hitched into teams and wagons can be utilized. How do you think the settlers in the old west carried literally tons of weight across the open planes and through the mountains to get where they settled? And have you've seen, or read, how our settlers lowered animals and wagons with ropes into canyons and sometimes back up the other side of the canyons to get where they were going? THey didn't depend on bridges and other niceties like roads. Don't forget the Pakistani are not lazy Americans who are used to moving their goods by Mayflower Moving Vans. They are more more used to using animals to haul things. They are Mayans? :) Good trick, the Mayan Race disappear many centuries ago. The truth is some of these Central Americans are of Mayan Descent, but the blood lines are often so marred that they are about as Mayan as Americans are. Back in the 80s we were told by scholars working at the Mayan Temple that Central Americans loved to proclaim they are Mayan, when in fact they aren't. Being friends or non-enemies have nothing to do with this. The topic is what the Pakistanis could have done to give a better response to help their own people. The whole point is if it matters how slow people perceive the American Response to be, then it matters how slow the response of other countries to their own disasters are.

They are Mayans? :) Good trick, the Mayan Race disappear many centuries ago. The truth is some of these Central Americans are of Mayan Descent, but the blood lines are often so marred that they are about as Mayan as Americans are. Back in the 80s we were told by scholars working at the Mayan Temple that Central Americans loved to proclaim they are Mayan, when in fact they aren't. I think your scholar told you wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization The Maya are people of southern Mexico and northern Central America (Guatemala, Belize, western Honduras, and El Salvador) with some 3,000 years of history. The Maya were part of the Mesoamerican Pre-Columbian cultures. Contrary to popular myth, the Maya people never "disappeared." Millions still live in the region, and many of them still speak one of the Mayan languages. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/41/040.html http://www.yucatantoday.com/culture/eng-mayanlife.htm

I don't think so.. she was well schooled in that subject. :) The fact is that when the mayan culture broke up, they intermingled with others in the region.. ergo they are no longer mayans. :)

"The topic is what the Pakistanis could have done to give a better response to help their own people. The whole point is if it matters how slow people perceive the American Response to be, then it matters how slow the response of other countries to their own disasters are. " I haven't gotten into that issue. I don't know enough about how fast outside Pakistanies (sp?) help got there. And I was reading on a site the other night and started to post it but something distracted me from doing so. I can't find it now but I so wish I could. It was either World Vision, Catholic Charities, or the UN (I think). It was about myths of helping in times of catastrophes. The first one they addressed was the belief that assistance should be rushed in immediately. They said that most people who are saved or pulled out are done so by the other people who experienced the same incident but not seriously hurt. According to them, there is an immediate human reaction to start helping and they get something over 75% of the people that are saved. The "official" aid people end up actually saving very few percentage wise. They said the best thing was to send money - then the relief agencies can use it to get what is needed in that particular situation. I read another article on Guatemala about a load of clothes that were delivered from America. They were nothing like the traditional clothes (woven cotton) that the Mayans wear and they found the American stuff appalling. They threw them out - all over the roadway. Animals starting eating them and the soldiers had to stop rescue and pick them all up. (I swear this is true) Anyway, I had at first been upset when the US pledged $100,000 to each of these catastrophes. Then I saw that what we did was to subsequently respond to their requests for what they specifically needed. When you think about it, that actually makes a lot of sense. You have all these countries sending aid and it really should be coordinated so you don't end up with too much of one thing and not enough of another. It is also seeming to me that either the US or the United Nations needs to address international relief systems. Possibly a UN group could be organized specifically to help whoever, where ever.

"Beggars can't be Choosers" is the phrase that immediately comes to mind here. lol You know, I've bought clothes when I was down in Central America and really have nerve to complain about American Clothes. Their material was not woven very well, their inability to sew a button on properly astonished me. They are not very good at making shirt sleeves the same length. In short there is no quality control, or anything I'd consider as quality control. However when the airlines decided to send my luggage to Central America from Miami via California, Alaska, Korea, China, Taiwan, Australia, India, Germany, France, the UK, and New York.. I had to buy their products and wear them. I figured "What the heck they do cover you, at least until the seams begin unravelling and your shorts suddenly turn into a loin cloth.". :) I've always disagreed with sending the Red Cross and UN Money. I also do not agree with sending leaders of a 3rd world nation money. If they need something, request it and we'll send it to them. In that way the money doesn't get misplaced into someone's pocket or swiss bank account. :) The Fact is I refuse to donate to the Red Cross at all. I've had dealings with them in the past and they like to charge people for helping them. Now they don't always charge the person helping, but they get their cut from someone. In WWII there have been reports where the Red Cross came in and out of the goodness of their hearts they gave wounded soldiers half-rations and necessities.. but the soldiers had to sign a form. It turned out the Red Cross was selling half rations for full price to these men.. and their necessities were at inflated prices. In the 80s I knew military who needed help from the Red Cross and for the Red Cross to help.. it cost the people more than getting a loan from the bank. I'll still hear stories of the Red Cross skimming 20 to 30% off the top and claim it's for administrative reasons.. but the funny thing is most of their people are volunteers to begin with. I prefer the Salvation Army, at least they have a history of bringing out goods to people in need and not charging them or bringing out the "Sallie Wagon" to the big fires and giving the "Victims", Cops and Firemen Coffee and donuts for no charge. It's just a personal preference, I guess.

My pieves are the American Heart Association and the American Diabetic Association. I will not give them a penny. My preference would be the Catholic Charities. I guess you agree about the clothes. Sounds that if you were in a catastrophe, you would prefer that Guatemalans not send you their dry goods either.

Where did you get that idea, from the simple fact of how bad their clothing is? I also said I wore it anyway.. and I even bought it instead of being given it. Neccessity is more important than personal preference. Even Central American Loin Cloths are better than nothing.

In the below article, it mentions about other countries sending aid based on what the country with the disaster says it needs and that there is an international protocal that is followed. Same holds true in this country, Louisiana was to tell Brown what they needed and where. http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=46344 Published: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 Bylined to: Patrick J. O'Donoghue El Salvador President says he did not refuse Venezuelan humanitarian aid El Salvador's President Antonio Saca denies that he has rejected aid from the Venezuelan government after the disaster caused by Hurricane Stan. Saca says he has spoken to President Hugo Chavez Frias thanking him but at the same time informing him that El Salvador does not need rescue teams. The Venezuelan government had sent 36 volunteers as one form of its rapid response aid packet. Defending his action, Saca insists that there is an international protocol, stipulating that it is the affected country that indicates the kind of aid it needs ... "President Chavez Frias has promised to send more planes with aid over the next few days." Commenting on aid from Cuba, Sacas says he has accepted the arrival of Cuban doctors that specialize in dengue control because of the amount of rain that fell during the hurricane. 44,135 persons labeled as refugees are in 465 shelters. The Salvadorian government is expected to ask the international community for aid in rebuilding highways and roads and houses.

And the point is? It is perfectly acceptable to send people what is needed. There is no law that says we only have to send them what they request. The fact is if people are hungry enough, cold enough and tired enough.. they will wear, eat, and use whatever they are sent that can be used. It is kind of hard to use Fridges with out electrical power and things like that, but the needy tende to be less critical than those who have what they want.

I think the point in that article was that Chavez was sending search helicopters when El Salvador had ceased search and rescue operations. Sacca was explaining that he wasn't exactly turning down help and being picky, rather the help being sent wasn't what was needed at that point in time as they were then focused on dealing with all the people in shelters, not out looking for anymore. The issue about clothes also came up in news about Pakistan this weekend. They asked no more clothes please but blankets instead were what they needed. I can understand the problem with different cultures and geographic areas with climate issues and clothes. If Pakistan had sent over those wool gowns that many in those mountain areas wear to people in New Orleans, they would have been totally useless and rejected too. (you cant wear such in Gulf coast climate). Just as the Mayas loosely woven cottons would be useless in the colder climate of Pakistan. No it is not about law, it is 'international protocal'. (Its also good manners too) If everyone just sends what ever, you can end up with say 1000's of doctors but no medicine and supplies. Or vice versa, tons of medical supplies but not enough doctors to use it. SO the local authorities inform and coordinate what is coming in. They are the ones who can say, I've got xx number of choppers on the way from Japan, I've got xx tons of water coming from say Australia. England is sending x number of search dogs but we could still use x number more, other things I still need is blah, blah blah. In New Orleans, they needed pumps, they needed more boats. Pakistan didn't need those, flooding was not their issue. I was upset at first at the US for seeminly slow response which at first was just an offer of $100,000 in each of these areas. Then I learned that we were following protocal, waiting to hear exactly what specifics they needed. That's actually much more appropriate and helpful.

I never was upset at the US initial response for I know that in order to find out what really is needed that it takes time. I have said over the years that the initial response of the US should always be Water, Food, blankets, clothing, and the bare essentials. Medical help and supplies, Workers, etc. can come second because it takes time to know the conditions of the area. Now this doesn't mean you have to wait a week or two before beginning any plans on medical and other aid, enough information to know where to send these doctors, mobile hospitals, and relief workers may only take a few hours to a day or two. These things also can be made ready to go and then put on stand-by until it's time to deploy. I've noticed the media isn't real big on reporting that aid is often collected and then held up until it is known where to send it and how to get it in. They tend to post stories which give the impression that all this stuff is just always there and waiting to go.

We are the leader of the world. We are the big brother. We are the richest sibling. If our house got flooded in LA and our brother called asking us for help because his house was knocked down by an earthquake, what should we tell him? I understand your feeling, but the US is the country of the world. It's built by the people from every where on Earth who chose to come here, who chose to stay here to call it their homes and their offsprings. There is a historical linkage between this country to every other countries from a blood line perspective. Please don't tell me that we have to turn our back on our relatives when they are in needs regardless of what problems we may be facing at the moment their needs arise. It's really hard for me to distinguish 'native' Americans from immigrants. Pick anyone here, except the Indians (who might have been immigrants too at some distant time back), and trace back far enough one will find an immigrant in the person's family tree. If one resents immigrants here in the US, one resents his/her own history.

Who is talking of resenting the immigrant? Certainly not I! LOL America is the only Hyperpower in the world today, however America rules no one but America. What this translates to is that we are the leader of no one. Many Nations resent America for they think that we believe we rule the world. Comments like "America is the leader of the world" adds support for their resntment. Sometimes countries will look to America to lead the way, but that in no way makes us the leader of the world in any form. The world doesn't want to be lead by America, they want to lead themselves. A mother of a starving baby never should take the much needed food out of her child's mouth to feed the kid down the street. The Mother has to take care of her own child first and if she can spare anything to help then it is up to her to share. America is the same way, we have to help ourselves and take care of our own first. Anything we can spare can be given to help others. Pakistan might be a poorer nation, but amazingly they have the 5th largest military in the world, I believe. Go figure that one out.. they have money for the military but none to help their own? Even the US isn't that bad. :)

Pakistan might be a poorer nation, but amazingly they have the 5th largest military in the world, I believe. Go figure that one out.. they have money for the military but none to help their own? Even the US isn't that bad. *********************************************** This is true, we are pouring Billions in funds given by the U.S. to Pakistan to be directly used in bulking up their army so they have the means/manpower to patrol the Afghanistan border in search of al qaeda...Plus they wouldn't even let us in their air space unless we gave them this money...Sort of like being blackmailed by a supposed friend....

Not to mention the time the US Troops were chasing AQ and unknowingly crossed the Pakistan Border.. only to be chased out by the Pakistanis. I have no animosity towards Pakistan, but we must remember that the word "Friend" when using it between Governments and Nations does not mean the same as when we use it for individual people.

I have read this thread with interest, but without comment for the past couple of days. Outlooker and btdt, in particular I found your exchange informative. Btdt, I thoroughly agree with you that we have a humanitarian obligation to help other nations when disaster strikes. Outlooker, I also respect your point that our primary obligations are here at home. In between, I learned some intersting stuff about the Mayans, the Red Cross, the American Heart Association, the American Diabetic Association and the UN. I strongly disagree with the original poster: dl_eastman. In the first place, there is no comparison between US aid to Pakistan after the earthquake, and the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. As Outlooker pointed out, it is apples to oranges. Our government is responsible to coordinate and manage domestic disaster response. With international disasters we only take part in an international response that is coordinated and managed by the country where the disaster occured. I am certain, dl_eastman, that the hundred thousand dollars we sent to Pakistan within 24 hours was but a drop in the bucket compared to what we had spent on Katrina within 24 hours. I think the important point to remember is that we CAN take care of our own and still offer humanitarian aid to others. It isn't an either or situation. I also take umbrage at your comments about immigrants. My ancestors were immigrants, as I'm sure were yours, and I'm grateful they had the chance to come here. I wouldn't wish to deny that chance to anyone who wants to work for an opportunity to provide a better life to their children and grandchildren. I would also like to point out that it isn't ALL President Bush. We have three seperate branches of government to ensure a system of checks and balances. I don't understand your comment that we need to get either a liberal or a conservative in office. Nobody would fit that bill, LOL. Or perhaps everybody would.

When I say Liberal I mean someone who does take a neutral stand on things. I hear all these Politician talking pointing fingers, and really don't see anything changing within our government to help improve the quality of living. Yes I do have ancestors who Immigrated here. But I also have ancestors who were here long before the first Settlers as I am sure most of us do. And what I was saying about the Disaster Relief efforts in Pakistan is President Bush Issued that money for relief in Pakistan much faster than he did for Katrina Victims. It took them quite a while before sending money to the devistated areas of the Gulf Coast. It took them less than a day to send the money to Pakistan. Am I the only one who sees a problem with that? Our country can yes help others at the same time as picking it's self up off the ground, but at the same time I do think that our general focus should be on the Gulf Coast. Not on cleaning up Pakistan. I do agree that we can send money over there but we shouldn't be taking Volunteers and sending over there until we get our country back to somewhat of a state of Normalcy. I do think that we all are happy to live in this great country, to have the freedoms that we enjoy and take for granted every day. That is one of the reasons why I stay in the US. I look at these "Third World Countries" and can't help but to feel bad for them. I don't think that most of us as American Citizens will ever have the idea of what it is like to never know when you're going to eat your next meal, where it's going to come from. Well I can't totally rule out the fact to that we have people here to who are homeless and living like those of the "Third World Counties." I do agree that is why we have the Humanitrian Relief going on.