Originally posted by Spiderj
Only two rations of food really sounds like a nightmare to me, especially when dietiticians say that everyone should have at least three good meals a
day. Living in such close quarters with strangers for such a long time will cause problems
I'm glad I'm not the only one who wanted to bring this up. Don't get me wrong, I sometimes only have two meals a day but I'm an adult and
sometimes my schedule doesn't allow for three squares.
But the thought of feeding growing children only two meals a day with the possiblity of a poptart snack in between seems fairly disturbing to me, or
perhaps I'm seeing things that aren't there, but I believe even prisoners (murderers and rapists and the like) get three squares a day in prison.
Someone also mentioned guantanomo, the thought that prisoners are being fed better than american children I find a bit disturbing.
[edit on 9/6/2005 by Spiderj]
You do have a point, but prisons are budgeted for and disasters are not - to the same extent (I know that's 'wrong' but it's the way it is.)
The crucial thing is that these people are alive
and these are temporary
measures until things are sorted out.
Having to keep kids happy on two meals a day is much less of a knightmare than feeding them no meals a day because they're dead.
And unfortunatly there are rapists and murderers amongst them, so any motivation for them to act has to be cut back (like anything that can be seen as
favouritism or anyone getting something better) and everyone has to be treated the same for the benefit of them all.
Unfortunatly, it once again boils down to a few people making it crappy for the whole.
Then, as other people have said, there is disease; In the conditions that they have been in there are many diseases that could have infected people.
They have to keep them quarantined until there is little or no risk of any diseases being passed on.
And, as again other people have said, until we see how this pans out over, lets be fair, a year - and bearing in mind any difficulties that may occur
- we won't be able to make a fair assumption.
If this was happening to ordinary people it would be one thing, but it's not. It's happening to a huge number of people that have been subject to a
huge national disaster, conditions are extraordinary and people have to be prepared to realistically give up some creature comforts for survival.
They are lucky to even be alive
I've lived on the streets with no food, fresh water or shelter in the Winter, I would have given my right arm to get the 'luxery' these people are
having right now at the time. Unless you have lived in poverty, even for only a relatively short time like I have - you have NO idea what it's like
and how luxorious these 'harsh' conditions are in these circumstances. These people will be over the moon to get to live like this after the hell of
teh last week.
No matter how bad it may seem it's better then the alternative.
And going back to the prison's, if certain people weren't so up in arms about their precious 'human rights' then those filth behind bars would not
have all the comforts they have now anyway. - that's down to doo-gooders wanting everyone to have equal 'human rights' anyway.
It damn well isn't because the government wants it. If some of us had our own way their lives would be a living hell, but no one's allowed because
of their 'human rights' that the doo-gooders prat on about when they have nothing better to do.
Yes it is wrong their conditions are better than these refugees, but the public only have themselves to blame.
If it all upset's anyone that much - why don't you swap with them- at least you'll still have a roof over your head and food.
[edit on 6-9-2005 by AgentSmith]
[edit on 6-9-2005 by AgentSmith]