It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Other Countries Offer Aid After Hurricane Charley?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Did other countries offer the US any aid after Hurricane Charley caused billions of dollars of damage and destruction? I was just curious. The US always offers aid in money and services after a disaster in other countries (even "hostile" countries like Iran).




posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Hahaha, oh man. That was funny. Don't you remember, no one likes the U.S. Why would they help US out? Even though the U.S. helps countries all the time.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Aid offered to the US after a national disaster
not likely. Maybe if we were lucky a country asked if we were OK

And it looks like another Hurricane is heading too Florida again
the wang of america is taking a pounding. I remeber seeing that guy Bill Nye the science guy on tv a few weeks ago and he said global warming was going to make Hurricanes appear on a more frequently and it looks like he was right.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   
With the exception of Israel, wealthy countries don't get aid.
I don't think France, Germany or Great Britain have gotten disaster relief in the last couple of decades but I could be wrong.

[edit on 1-9-2004 by AceOfBase]



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Yeah, we didn't get any help this August with our flooding etc.... (I am UK)

I doubt anyone even heard of it either...........



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
the wang of america is taking a pounding.


Thank you. I found that nearly as amusing as Zell Miller challenging Chris Matthews to a duel.

I don't expect anyone to help, unless maybe four or five more cat 4s come in. Then one of our less respected allies (France perhaps) will offer aid in as smug a way possible.

Although it doesn't help much, stumason, I did raise an imaginary pint (as I don't drink very often) to my friends in the UK who were hit with the floods. Losing your things to Nature isn't a very fun experience. I'd imagine quite a few of your fellows could use a good stiff drink.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 06:06 AM
link   
With national disasters in western country's help is rarely asked or offered except if its really extreme.
On 9/11 I know quite alot of country's sent out resque and medical teams to the US. Belgium sent nearly all of its K9 resque units over to NYC, although we didn't get to do much, the feds didn't let foreign nationals on the WTC grounds that easely(by now I think most people know the reasons for that ...).

A few weeks ago we had this huge gas explosion here in belgium and had to ask help of holland, france and germany because of the numerous people with heavy burns. Burn victims need special care and most country's only have a limited amount of hospital beds specialized in heavy burns. So they usualy spred them out over several nations.

In case of disaster a western country asks for help if they need any, if they don't ask they still get more then a bit of sympathy.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 08:57 AM
link   
With the 9-11 attacks, most of the "foreign aid" came into NYC from countries who lost their own nationals (1/2 of the dead in the 9-11 WTC attacks were NON AMERICANS): there was not a lot of concern for the "American victims", just (naturally) their own people that they lost.

As for the World coming to the aid of the US during a humanitarian disaster such as an earthquake or hurricane etc. (except for blood relatives living abroad) most of the world community right now (at the moment at least) hates our guts so much after our immoral, unjust, heinous and inhumane behaviour in Iraq, they would probably just shrug their shoulders and say, "See!...God (or Karma or the Universe) is punishing those stupid Americans for all their evil ways...they deserve every stinking thing that happens to them...payback at last!"

Which is a pity, really. Mr Bush and his cronies certainly have a lot to answer for.


kix

posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Just because they dont get coverage on the "news" it doesnt mean that other countries dont give aid.

For example Mexico Always send relief to weather stricken areas of Central america Countries, also in case of earthquake, Mexico sends people with experience of rescueing people from crumbled buildings.
We sell cheap oil to a dozen of countries ( less than 12 a barrel) and other things and when Mexico ask for aid for some reason they give back en we are grateful for any help (that includes the US.)

In case of 9/11 the US goverment said theyd need all the help they could get and they did, it just did not make the news because the US TV gave an unprecedented coverage on the disaster and basically on the terrorists and the way they did it (they repeated the airplanes chrashing a gazillion times -revolting).
I am sure that if the US asked for aid a lot of countries would send it.....youd be surprised



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by BangorangRufio
Hahaha, oh man. That was funny. Don't you remember, no one likes the U.S. Why would they help US out? Even though the U.S. helps countries all the time.


Yeah REALLY "help"!

Come on instead of spending billions on guns spend it on you people for once.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Yeah, we didn't get any help this August with our flooding etc.... (I am UK)

I doubt anyone even heard of it either...........


I saw that on the news in Canada. Prince Charles examined the damage and promised to provide relief to the residents.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amadeus


Actualy, If I'm not mistaken, belgium didn't have anyone die on 9/11.
We still went.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Rich countries help poor countries in disasters, not the other way around.
Sounds a little pathetic, the largest country in the world, with all their wealth and proudness asking wether anyone ever cares about them.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
Rich countries help poor countries in disasters, not the other way around.
Sounds a little pathetic, the largest country in the world, with all their wealth and proudness asking wether anyone ever cares about them.


Well, sometimes with alot of wounded more skilled and professional helping hands are needed then any nation can provide.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Yep, for example @ 9/11
And a lot of other countries did help then.
But then we're talking about extreme cases.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I think if we needed help we'd ask, otherwise we're lucky enough to have support structures and plans in place to handle most things that might come up. Also, though we usually get some damage, our death toll doesn't ever seem as high as other places. I think considering the resources we have, we don't need much of anything from anyone except, as has already been said, when we need skilled medical and rescue aid for something of overwhelming scale and urgency.

I've always wondered about the death tolls. I hear about many U.S. natural disasters and there will be maybe 10 or 20 people here, 9 people there... but in other countries it seems like it's in the hundreds and sometimes thousands. Is it because more people are in harm's way when it hits, for example, China or India? Is it an engineering/construction issue?



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by torque
I think if we needed help we'd ask, otherwise we're lucky enough to have support structures and plans in place to handle most things that might come up. Also, though we usually get some damage, our death toll doesn't ever seem as high as other places. I think considering the resources we have, we don't need much of anything from anyone except, as has already been said, when we need skilled medical and rescue aid for something of overwhelming scale and urgency.

I've always wondered about the death tolls. I hear about many U.S. natural disasters and there will be maybe 10 or 20 people here, 9 people there... but in other countries it seems like it's in the hundreds and sometimes thousands. Is it because more people are in harm's way when it hits, for example, China or India? Is it an engineering/construction issue?


Remember Bam In Iran a year or so ago?
80k people were suspected dead or wounded. Reasons for the deathtoll there being so high?
They live on an extremely active and brutal part of land and the main reason would be, construction there is done dirt cheap and even cheaper.

Houses, buildings, whatever other structure you can think of, crumble with even the mediocre shocks they get there.

Also, the deathtoll rizes when you see that medical and rescue aid there is much less developed then here, both due to lack of resources and lack of skilled personel.

In europe and the US, when a disaster strikes, within minutes first rescue teams arrive and start spreading wounded troughout mainly well equiped hospitals. The military high tech also provides very good mobile hospitals that are easely setup and expanded.

In the belgian gas explosion a few weeks back, 30+ poeple died and 50 others are still in the hospital. If they hadn't been brought to the hospital at the speed they were, they would have all been dead.

If the same thing happend in a country like Iraq, noone would have had a chance of survival. Thats how big the difference between the healthcare in the western world and countries like Iran is.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Wow, that's incredible! I guess response and resources are really everything. I wonder, as a preventive measure, how effective construction aid would be? Maybe make the area more stable somehow or construct safer, more durable buildings. Seems like if fatalities and such could be prevented, it would help while rescue resources are brought up to speed.

I sometimes see the "over 800 killed in mudslides" and "thousands killed or injured in earthquake" and my heart squints. We can try to wipe out disease, choose whether or not to go to war, choose whether or not to hurt or kill others, join together to make the world better, but no matter what we will never be able to stop the forces of nature. Sometimes I get so caught up in the News with the war and elections and murders and such that I find myself awestruck by natural disaster. A delegation of the finest diplomatic minds in the world can't stop hurricanes, earthquakes and flooding. No petitions can alter the storm path. No candlelight vigil or rally will put the asteroid off course if it's coming. These things happen and put me back in my place in the universe every now and then.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by torque


Well, seeing the scale of earthquakes like the one in Bam, not even cast steel buildings would be still standing.

The earthquakes epicenter was right in that town, causing massive damage.

If an earthquake of 7 and up scale would hit central NYC, how much buildings would be still standing?

The low quality building over there is both because of economic reasons and because its not really much use building reinforced structures because theres nothing we can build strong enough to withstand the scale of eartquakes they get.

Its easyer to rebuild cheap over and over again then put alot of cash into something you can't be sure will stay standing.

Offcource, the geohistorical location of Bam isn't that smart to begin with. Its pritty much built bang right on top of the epicenter of most high scale earthquakes there.

But since it has religious value, the city is there and won't be moving, no matter if the earth destroys it over and over.

One of the reasons why Bam was so bad was because there was nearly no warning of the earthquake.

If people had felt preshocks, and get an evacuation notice, alot more would have survived, but they got hit by surprise.

When it comes to natural disaster, I think another main reason why western country's have less casualties is because our warning systems are also a bit more developed. They can't predict earthquakes to great yet, but they can read the signs, same goes for huracanes and other natural phenomena.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Seems like we could keep an eye on things like that, like coming earthquakes and other natural occurances we can predict and let them know. Maybe someday there will be a worldwide setup for that very thing. That would be great... if someone from anywhere in the world could call a country and tell them that they're about to get hit.

Now that you mention it, I don't know how many in NYC would be standing! I watched something about the architecture of the Towers and why they collapsed and it made me wonder about the design of the other buildings. And they're so close together, it seems even if one could stand it might be crashed into by another one that couldn't. Earthquakes are scary. We just haven't been able to outwit them with engineering yet. I hope when someone does come up with a virtually indestructable building, they share the design with everybody.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join