Reasons the US could be in favor of tsunami

I have come up with a few reasons for why the US could be infavor of the tsunami. I am not in anyway trying to say that the US is responsible for it, just pointing out some things the US could want.

1) A disaster of such calibre would keep the war in Iraq out of the major headlines for a little while

2) It would allow the US to donate a large sum of money in order to show that the US isn't an oil thirsty middle-eastern invading country

any thoughts?

I will state again that I am not implying that the US had any responsibility in causing the tsunami and my heart goes out to those affected by this tragedy.

[edit on 4-1-2005 by UnknownOrigins]

If you look at it that way lot of nations would consider this disaster and a lot of disasters good.

Certainly the points you point out are true, but I doubt they have any major influence.

For one, U.S. is going to help out regardless of looking good or bad. It is a world power and it has keep up its positive side no matter what.

Second Iraq isn't a one week thing. Rebels aren't going to put down their weapons in a week, they are going to be fighting on for a very long time. Since people aren't looking into Iraq right now, next time a big thing happens it would look real big. For example the casulty list.

Surf

Well Powell said it could help boost the Image of the US, thats all I needed to hear. I'm sure there are tons of other ways to boost our image, and taking advantage of a disaster is not one

Joe Vialls has some interesting comments as to the overpreparedness of the heavily armed US flotilla, laden with military personnel that has gone into the area, and the multi-billion dollar reconstruction possibilities for US contractors, and the ability to occupy now de-populated Aceh and might have hoped to have damaged India's threatening alliances
Here
www.vialls.com...

Well it did take Iraq off the front page as they say. Running low in emotional fuel though, time for an "aftershock". Gotta make it too Feb 1st doesn't it.

To step out of the realm of conspiracy for a moment, I know a number of US suppliers who are saying that this will be, in the short term, good for their business. As a result of the tsunami, a number of overseas suppliers to the US will be adversely affected. Either their centers of operation, or simply their shipping routs, are disrupted. This will raise the prices, in the short term, for products from that part of the world. This will make the competing products from the US more even in their price, and should be a boon to US producers. It should be noted, though, that not a one of these folk in the US that I've talked to has expressed anything but regret at the tragedy.

I just have a problem with the word "in favor" as in if given a choice, we would want it to happen rather than not


thats apalling on every level.


most of the dead are children


the slave traders are moving in, one was caught with 100 newborn infants. do you think were in favor of that as well ???

I don't know about number two. The US donated an estimated $2 billion dollars in aid, supplies, and food last year to foreign countries, mainly third world and non-developed; must we prove further that we are anything but a third world war mongoring state?

That compares to $150 billion dollars towards the Iraq mayhem so far

Huh?
Reasons the U.S. would be "in favor" of the tsunami?

What, was it put up for some secret world vote and the dastardly U.S. is suspected to have voted aye?

Why didn't you phrase the statement this way, Ways in which the U.S. benefitted from the tsunami? Is there a chance of a Fruedian Slip there?

By the way, we cannot afford the drain right now. The food, the military assets diverted, the money - this is going to cost us, but we don't shrink from adversity because of costs. We have not benefitted from it at all. We won't even benefit from being liked - the world hates us already because of what good we have done; why should this be different?

For the record... I think the United States responded well to the crisis in Southeast Asia. Whether it did it for reputation or out of goodwill doesn't matter. The people that benefit from it do.

I just listened to a lecture (University of Toronto) where a member of 'Doctors Without Borders' complained about the fact that aid is tied to the running of a war. I won't bother with the details, it's the idea that counts.

The notion is that aid is dependant upon co-operation. If you don't co-operate, you don't get it...period.

The good doctor, who is part of an organization that delivers aid to the victims of war, no matter what side they're on, complained that they are finding it more and more difficult to dispense medical aid to those civilians on 'the wrong side' of a situation.

On the aid being dispensed to the victims of the tsunami, I doubt very much if politics are playing a huge part in it, although 'winning hearts and minds' has always been there, especially in Indonesia with it's huge percentage of muslims.
The sheer numbers of those affected (millions) are being helped by an amazing group of countries, and the fact that some of the first aid to reach the stricken areas had the symbol of the 'Red Crescent' on them showed me that politics really are not the main concern...yet.

Powell's statement, though, played directly into the accusation made by the member from 'Doctors Without Borders'.

IMO...the non-combatents (whether civilian or wounded soldier) in any war should be allowed to be cared for without harrassment...any Red Cross ship, tent or truck should not be targetted, nor one bearing a Red Cescent. Their abilities be not be impaired by political circumstance.

Now, if we could just get all the really evil little despots, terrorists and tribal chiefs to agree to that...