Euro Myopia and Tsunamis

Not living in the real world...

Published on January 10, 2005 By Draginol In Current Events

People seem to be really obsessed over how much cash different countries are pledging. One thing that doesn't (surprise) get that much coverage is how much money different countries have already spent in reality.

As I surf the web, one thing that comes up over and over is the utter lack of understanding of logistics. It's as if some people imagine that food, water, shelter, clothing just magically appear to victims of the Tsunamis. One almost imagines they they picture a Star Trek like beaming sequence of food stuffs to isolated groups of people in the Indian ocean region.

But in reality, this stuff has to be delivered and it has to be delivered quickly. How long can you go without fresh water? How long can you go without food? How about medical treatment? That's where the US military comes into play. And it's amazing how little coverage this is getting because as a practical matter, the US (and Australia) are the only two countries that are able to effectively deliver aid in a timely manner.

Rebuilding funds from around the world months from now will be very helpful. But they'd be pretty useless to the tens of thousands who would die if there wasn't a US Navy to actually provide the logistics to provide all the stuff.

As Varifrank wrote:

Today, during an afternoon conference that wrapped up my project of the last 18 months, one of my Euro collegues tossed this little turd out to no one in particular:

" See, this is why George Bush is so dumb, theres a disaster in the world and he sends an Aircraft Carrier..."

After which he and many of my Euro collegues laughed out loud.

And then they looked at me. I wasn't laughing, and neither was my Hindi friend sitting next to me, who has lost family in the disaster.

I'm afraid I was "unprofessional", I let it loose -

"Hmmm, let's see, what would be the ideal ship to send to a disaster, now what kind of ship would we want?

Something with its own inexhuastible power supply?

Something that can produce 900,000 gallons of fresh water a day from sea water?

Something with its own airfield? So that after producing the fresh water, it could help distribute it?

Something with 4 hospitals and lots of open space for emergency supplies?

Something with a global communications facility to make the coordination of disaster relief in the region easier?

Well "Franz", us peasants in America call that kind of ship an "Aircraft Carrier". We have 12 of them. How many do you have?

Comments (Page 2)

ParaTed2k

on Jan 11, 2005

Amazing how a disaster in one country can be yet another excuse to criticize other countries.

Oh Paxx, that's just a part of it. You should hear the politicing that goes on between disaster relief outfits during high profile jobs like this!!! Everything from vying for relief dollars to jockying for the "best" sectors of the disaster scene. If you pay enough attention, one disaster to another, you will hear the same org names over and over. Hint: They're the ones who get the sector closest to where the press is stationed, which isn't usually the area closest to the most need.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 11, 2005

Now, I admittedly, would be one initially questioning the use of an aircraft carrier. But, this provides a more than adequate answer and explains why something that might NOT make sense to someone not familiar with the capabilities of certain military machinery (such as an aircraft carrier), might want to obtain more information before criticizing.

It's also a good explanation of why our aid is far from "stingy". The resources we're providing in the form of logistics extend far beyond any measurable dollar value.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 11, 2005

The resources we're providing in the form of logistics extend far beyond any measurable dollar value.

True, but apparently it is only the dollar signs that seem to matter. Sadly.

jeblackstar

on Jan 11, 2005

While I understand that some may have taken Brad's post to be a bashing of those people who "hate America" and "hate Bush", I believe the more constructive interpretation would be a bashing of "stupid people" who don't understand logistical problems or the capabilities of an Aircraft Carrier. Therefore everyone, republicans and Demorcats should get a laugh out of the appropriateness of Brad's response, and those who use this as a stick to beat Frenchies or Democrats, are just as ignorant as the Euros who couldn't understand why Bush would send an Aircraft Carrier.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Bush is the smartest guy in the world, but I don't think he's stupid, nor for that matter are his advisors, and I don't think he would send the "wrong ship" to aid with a disaster. I believe Bush genuinely wants to help disaster victims and this terrible event should not be used as an excuse to snipe at either side.

Cheers

RedneckHunter

on Jan 11, 2005

I believe the more constructive interpretation would be a bashing of "stupid people" who don't understand logistical problems or the capabilities of an Aircraft Carrier.

Let's put it into simpler terms for those who do not understand.

A Submarine: Could you imagine trying to land a helo on the deck of a sub and load up a crate of goats? Better yet, where ther heck are they gonna stow those goats during the voyage?

A Battleship: While being an awesome sight to behold, I do not think lobbing volkswagons into a country that no longer has roads would be considered aid.

Aegis Cruiser: While it may have more logistical capabilities than say, a submarine, it is doubtfull that a Tomohawk can be adapted to drop food instead of exploding over the intended drop zone.

Coast Guard IceBreaker: Unless the islands need to be defended from giant killer icebergs, this is a NO-GO.

Moderateman

on Jan 11, 2005

Reply By: paxxPosted: Monday, January 10, 2005Are we done tooting our own horn here, or are we going to start actually caring for people who need us?

What have you personally done?

Moderateman

on Jan 11, 2005

nice to see more ignorance from the US side by the second post. France also sent a carrier to the region, but can we say well done France? No we can't. We just look at this as an oppertunity to spread ignorance and slander France. China has sent more aid to this disaster than to any other event ever. It's a huge symbol from it and it is heavily involved in helping Thailand identify bodies. Can we say well done China? No we can't.

nice job france.... nice job china.../. hows that? altho I do not think 4 frenchmen inna 12 ft klamath qualifies assa carrier... hahahahahaha

paxx

on Jan 11, 2005

What have you personally done?

Does it matter? I am not going to play the "I donated more than you" game anymore than the "my country donated more than yours" game. What matters is that there are people in need of help over there and that a LOT of countries are helping. We should be proud of our general response as human beings caring for others of our kind. Sure the homo sapiens can be one of the cruelest species on this planet, but in times such as these we can really be proud of ourselves.
It's not about "Americans are sending stupid aircraft carriers" nor about "Stupid frenchmen can't even build a boat" nor about other weener comparison contest... Heck it's not about America, or France, or Germany, or China... it's about people in the Indian Ocean.

Solitair

on Jan 12, 2005

I do not think 4 frenchmen inna 12 ft klamath qualifies assa carrier

Moderateman, what was the point of that comment? Brad wrote this article because of people unjustly laughing at the US aid, and in response you just laugh at the French aid. Why? Why can't you just accept it. Are you really that racist? Do you really take pleasure in insulting French people?

Paul.

Dr Guy

on Jan 12, 2005

Are you really that racist? Do you really take pleasure in insulting French people?

French (or Gaul) is not a race. It is a nationality.

stevendedalus

on Jan 14, 2005

A very fine blog. An aircraft carrier sure beats a camel--that is, if the Middle East had any compassion to pack it with aid.

Solitair

on Jan 14, 2005

French (or Gaul) is not a race. It is a nationality.

While technically true, it's a bit pedantic. French is a culture (as well as a nationality) and therefore protected by the same anti racism laws as a race is (most anti racism laws also protect colour, culture and creed). If it's unacceptable to make anti-semitic remarks than it's unacceptable to make anti-muslim remarks, anti-French remarks or even anti-American remarks. And before someone says it, critism of a government is not the same as demeaning a race of culture.

paul.

Dr Guy

on Jan 14, 2005

Maybe in your country, but not in this one. Making fun of French, Japanese, or Nigerians is not racism. Contempt yes, but not racism. And we would love to make fun of the French Government, but no one can find one!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!