20 million homeless more than a thousand dead

rick_chasey

Puts 'crisis' over here into a little perspective.

Really very awful.

Bunneh

Indeed, the more I see it the more my heart bleeds for these poor people. A friend of mine is sending out shoe boxes with clothing and 'essentials' in. I get her bits and bobs like soaps etc from the quid shop just to help her fill them. She's a wonderful person in that regard.

We are lucky to be where we are; scary thing is this sort of thing is likely to become more common if the doom sayers are to be believed.

spen666

who, what? why? when?

during the 2nd World War?


Are we mind readers and meant to know what these random figures mean

Flasheart

TBH I was thinking the same as Spen.

Not everybody reads the newspapers etc. daily

rick_chasey

Flasheart wrote:

TBH I was thinking the same as Spen.

Not everybody reads the newspapers etc. daily

This should provide enough reason to.


It's a reference to the terrible flooding in Pakistan.


How could you miss it? It doesn't get much worse.

Pokerface

Rick Chasey wrote:

Flasheart wrote:

TBH I was thinking the same as Spen.

Not everybody reads the newspapers etc. daily

This should provide enough reason to.


It's a reference to the terrible flooding in Pakistan.


How could you miss it? It doesn't get much worse.

I am away in Canada and haven't heard a peep about it. I have seen some news coverage - but haven't read a newspaper (they are all in french where I am). So.... also surprised to hear about this.

EKIMIKE

A truly massive disaster.

Unfortunately the Monsoon happens every year.

The worst is yet to come though. The problem with this particular disaster is that many will die in the coming weeks and months due to starvation and disease. This won;t get reported on the television news though. Firstly none of the do-good western aid agencies (nothing against them) can do anything about it and it's not very sensational to film unike miles of flooded land and torrents of water ripping bridges to bits.

It all happened not too long ago in Pakistan in 2005. Kashmir earthquake. Thousands were forgotten in the mountains and they froze and starved to death in the harsh winter. Often the 'response' is too short lived.

Frank the tank

It's a tragedy of massive proportions. The monsoons happen every year and with the changing climate (if you believe the info) it seems likely it may well happen more severely, often. The world cannot keep bailing them out (no pun intended) forever. They must put more of their own resorses into the problem instead other things, nuclear weapons for example.

I.E. the Pakistani govornment have got to get their priorities right.

EKIMIKE

Frank the tank wrote:

It's a tragedy of massive proportions. The monsoons happen every year and with the changing climate (if you believe the info) it seems likely it may well happen more severely, often. The world cannot keep bailing them out (no pun intended) forever. They must put more of their own resorses into the problem instead other things, nuclear weapons for example.

I.E. the Pakistani govornment have got to get their priorities right.

Sorry but if the same happened here, we'd be on our knee's much in the same way Pakistan is right now. Maybe not so many of us would die and we'd be able to make alot of insurance claims but it'd be devastating. There is no doubt that we'd need massive external assistance.

The point is, we are at the mercy of nature. Disasters, massive disasters, have and always will happen. There's no trend to suggest they're getting worse btw (as of about 2005).

rick_chasey

Frank the tank wrote:

It's a tragedy of massive proportions. The monsoons happen every year and with the changing climate (if you believe the info) it seems likely it may well happen more severely, often. The world cannot keep bailing them out (no pun intended) forever. They must put more of their own resorses into the problem instead other things, nuclear weapons for example.

I.E. the Pakistani govornment have got to get their priorities right.

With so many homeless and dead, I don't think Pakistan has been 'bailed out' at all.

Your lack of compassion doesn't put you in a great light.

EKIMIKE

Rick Chasey wrote:

Your lack of compassion doesn't put you in a great light.

Whilst not wanting to be a total pen15 they hardly need compassion right now (i'm not even sure that's your point so apologies in advance). That's what is pissing me off about the rather 'empty' BBC reports on this disaster - 'Sanjev has lost his two daughters and his home. He tells our crew that he feels helpless blah blah blah blah'.

What about the real facts of the situation? Who's doing what? What's the strategy? How are they going to help all these people? What are they going to do in the future?

rick_chasey

Double post

Aggieboy

Rick Chasey wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

It's a tragedy of massive proportions. The monsoons happen every year and with the changing climate (if you believe the info) it seems likely it may well happen more severely, often. The world cannot keep bailing them out (no pun intended) forever. They must put more of their own resorses into the problem instead other things, nuclear weapons for example.

I.E. the Pakistani govornment have got to get their priorities right.

With so many homeless and dead, I don't think Pakistan has been 'bailed out' at all.

Your lack of compassion doesn't put you in a great light.

I think you've misinterpreted Frank the Tank's post. He's saying that with the expectation that this will happen again, Pakistan should spend less on arms etc and be able to help their own in a better way, rather than be so dependant ('bailed out' in his words) on others.

jim453

EKIMIKE wrote:

A truly massive disaster.

Unfortunately the Monsoon happens every year.

The worst is yet to come though. The problem with this particular disaster is that many will die in the coming weeks and months due to starvation and disease. This won;t get reported on the television news though. Firstly none of the do-good western aid agencies (nothing against them) can do anything about it and it's not very sensational to film unike miles of flooded land and torrents of water ripping bridges to bits.

It all happened not too long ago in Pakistan in 2005. Kashmir earthquake. Thousands were forgotten in the mountains and they froze and starved to death in the harsh winter. Often the 'response' is too short lived.

'do good western aid agencies (nothing against them)'


Really, what are you talking about? Why call them 'do good' in an obviously superior and dissaproving tone then say you have nothing against them?

Tell us, which particular aid agencies are worthy of real praise? Not western ones then.

A close friend of mine works for the red cross. They do not, as you seem to think, pack up and leave as soon as the tv cameras leave. It is then when their real thankless task begins in the face of some of the most adverse situations and conditions imaginable ( and they are not even the ones in need of aid in the first place.

Their task is not made any easier by you flippantly casting doubt over their commitment.

Maybe you just don't know what you're talking about but like to appear as if you do.

If you actually want to help then kindly stop rubbishing the efforts of those who actually are.

EKIMIKE

Jim, my gripe is more about media portrayal and coverage of disasters. Hence the (nothing against aid agencies) thing.

And i have nothing against 'western' aid agencies either. It's just that contextually, that's what i hear about through the media - being British (that's not meant to sound as sarcastic as it does!).

And i'm not saying all aid organisations 'pack up and leave' once the camera's are out. It's more the way the media appear to miss a whole chunk of what's happening or what has happened once the consequences of such disasters really set in. But yes, sometimes aid organisations do fail in their missions although it's not a very popular consideration.

I suppose i know what i'm talking about. Thing is i had to do alot of research about this stuff, disasters and aid, for geography A level and whilst i appreciate i'm barely touching the tip of the iceberg it's left me confused about alot of the things we hear.

If i could intentionally be all high and mighty about this subject i'd state one thing: Consider that not all aid is good aid. This is something that needs to be considered a whole lot more often...

EKIMIKE

Incidentally i know of someone who worked for the Red Cross and after her time with them encouraged those she knew to defitnitely NOT donate money to them. She saw alot of wastage, alot of executives in flash cars, alot of mis-directed cash flows.

Maybe she's wrong. In one instance i find it hard to believe that the Red Cross aren't a worthy cause yet it's not beyond the realms of possiblity that they're not doing everything 'correctly' within the organisation. It's worth thiking about - again it seems far too controversial for living room tele unless it's a Military Junta (now that's bait! - take it or leave it).

It's a massive subject of debate and i tend to be a bit cynical but equally i appreciate how much is unknown and un-quantifiable. It's a good debate though 'cos most people have strong opinions about it. All it takes is a mildly controversial statement.....

jim453

Ok. Fair enough.

Sounds like your beef is with media portrayal and not the work of incredibly over stretched aid agencies. Sorry for biting your head off.

However, it seems unfair to uncomplementarily refer to AID agencies as 'do gooders'.

What on earth do you expect them to be?

'Not all aid is good aid'. Well yes, I understand you're trying to make a terribly deep and intelectual point here and for the purposes of an A level essay I do understand. However, try explaining this to someone at ground zero in Pakistan or Haiti. I imagine there would be much less philosophical beard stroking in response.

Good luck next week.

jim453

I'm afraid in any organisation employing many people there is wastage, and usually much worse. Is the answer to boycott aid agencies? I'm not sure. I don't think so.

On an unrelated and lighter note.

Is the very serious fellow looking learnedly off camera in black and white you?

EKIMIKE

jim453 wrote:

try explaining this to someone at ground zero in Pakistan or Haiti. I imagine there would be much less philosophical beard stroking in response.

A good point. You look at the whole thing and think why is it all so complicated? But then what is the alternative? Not worth thinking about!

I've had my 2 pennies worth, i'm not gonna bang on about it. Cheers.

EKIMIKE

jim453 wrote:

Is the very serious fellow looking learnedly off camera in black and white you?

That's my happy face :shock:

plowmar

From Frank the Tank

I.E. the Pakistani govornment have got to get their priorities right.

We are supposedly £120bn in the clart but we are still going for renewal of Trident.
Which begs the question why, if terorism is the main problem it is individuals and not countries we are fighting against, hence nuclear bombs are just a waste of space and money for all countries.

It is a revenge weapon as if we had to launch we'd be heading for destruction ourselves.

Think what could be achieved with the money spent on other things.

Never the less we as a comparitively rich country should do what we can to help as compassionate human beings.

IronHorse100

No doubt the super-rich- Saudi Arabia, Dubai etc...will be digging deep to help their allies and near neighbours out of this disaster. Would be very interested to hear how much they have spent so far and in total, compared to the UK.

deptfordmarmoset

IronHorse100 wrote:

No doubt the super-rich- Saudi Arabia, Dubai etc...will be digging deep to help their allies and near neighbours out of this disaster. Would be very interested to hear how much they have spent so far and in total, compared to the UK.

I heard a government minister or junior minister on BBC Radio 4 this morning. Total international contributions so far were around £90 million. 1/3rd of that came from Britain - which admittedly has very long and complicated ties to Pakistan. I don't know the actual country-by-country pledges, but if you take out the UK, US, Canadian and a couple of the usual northern European countries, I suspect you'll find that the international community is collectively keeping its head down. And at this point, the UN contingency fund (called a ''surf fund'') of about £10 million has already run out.

IronHorse100

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

IronHorse100 wrote:

No doubt the super-rich- Saudi Arabia, Dubai etc...will be digging deep to help their allies and near neighbours out of this disaster. Would be very interested to hear how much they have spent so far and in total, compared to the UK.

I heard a government minister or junior minister on BBC Radio 4 this morning. Total international contributions so far were around £90 million. 1/3rd of that came from Britain - which admittedly has very long and complicated ties to Pakistan. I don't know the actual country-by-country pledges, but if you take out the UK, US, Canadian and a couple of the usual northern European countries, I suspect you'll find that the international community is collectively keeping its head down. And at this point, the UN contingency fund (called a ''surf fund'') of about £10 million has already run out.

Interesting. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those 'charity begins at home' types. But given the reports that people seem to be reluctant to put their hands in their pockets for Pakistan, it seems doubly outrageous that these oil rich nations at close quarters to the tragedy are seemingly sitting by. I guess putting pressure on is a complex diplomatic minefield.

OffTheBackAdam

It's unfortunate that Pakistan is so close to being a failed state, the lack of help from the rest of the Islamic world is quite staggering, probably the "Wrong Type" of Muslims for them to support.
India should be helping all it can, having a Taliban-ruled country on its borders isn't going to be good for them.

Frank the tank

plowmar wrote:

From Frank the Tank

I.E. the Pakistani govornment have got to get their priorities right.

We are supposedly £120bn in the clart but we are still going for renewal of Trident.
Which begs the question why, if terorism is the main problem it is individuals and not countries we are fighting against, hence nuclear bombs are just a waste of space and money for all countries.

It is a revenge weapon as if we had to launch we'd be heading for destruction ourselves.

Think what could be achieved with the money spent on other things.

Never the less we as a comparitively rich country should do what we can to help as compassionate human beings.

I don't believe we should be replacing trident, IMHO it's an expensive white elephant.
My point was the Pakistani government ought to endevour to put more resorces into monsoon damage limitation for future events. yes I agree the world reasponse has been woefully inadiquate.

davelakers

If we all lived in a fluffy, comfortable stable world with bells on, there would be no need to replace Trident, or for any other country to possess nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, we dont therefore a nuclear deterrent, no matter how abhorrent, is completely necessary.

Pakistan are not in a position to give up their nuclear arsenal either. That part of the world is a shithole of instability.

Anonymous

Pakistans PM lives in Dubai, go figure.

Frank the tank

davelakers wrote:

If we all lived in a fluffy, comfortable stable world with bells on, there would be no need to replace Trident, or for any other country to possess nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, we dont therefore a nuclear deterrent, no matter how abhorrent, is completely necessary.

Pakistan are not in a position to give up their nuclear arsenal either. That part of the world is a shithole of instability.

Did trident deter Argentina from invading the Falklands, errrrr no.

Did we utilize trident in order to force them to retire from their occupation, errrrr no.

So tell me again, what's the reason for trident?

Radioactiveman

Mutual destruction ?

davelakers

Frank the tank wrote:

davelakers wrote:

If we all lived in a fluffy, comfortable stable world with bells on, there would be no need to replace Trident, or for any other country to possess nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, we dont therefore a nuclear deterrent, no matter how abhorrent, is completely necessary.

Pakistan are not in a position to give up their nuclear arsenal either. That part of the world is a shithole of instability.

Did trident deter Argentina from invading the Falklands, errrrr no.

Did we utilize trident in order to force them to retire from their occupation, errrrr no.

So tell me again, what's the reason for trident?

Did we NEED to resort to nuclear weapons? errrrrrrrrr no!!
Were/are Argentina a nuclear power? errrrrrrrr no!!