Haiti - to help them or not - discuss

[Printo]

Should the US send relief to those who are suffering in Haiti?

I thought I would ask this because I want to know where everyone stands. Do we reach out to those in Haiti who need all the help they can get? Does this go against a liberty-based foreign policy of non-interventionism? Is it unethical to sit back and do nothing? By helping Haiti, are we "folding" on our foreign policy philosophy? Is it constitutional to send aid? If we should not use our armed forces to aid in this massive catastrophe, what should be done in order to effectively help these people? Is it okay to use the military in such a fashion, to truly aid another country in a time of need, instead of "aid" them with bullets, bombs, invasion, and occupation?

I guess this is more of a philosophical discussion. What do you all think?

 

[malkusm]

Help them through private charity (not the Red Cross), rather than sending Monopoly money to help them at the expense of the value of our dollar, national debt, and governmental power.

 

[dannno]

I'm in the U.S. and I sent them relief, so yes, but I don't think the government should... but I don't have a problem if we had military in the area, using them for immediate help to pull people out of buildings... but no occupation, no staying after.. soldiers get to stay for 5 days to help and then leave regardless of perceived 'security threats'.

 

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

We have to ask "What is the end game?" If the military is there purely to help, I have a hard time finding fault with that.
If the military is there to colonize Haiti for the World Bank, Haiti would be better off with no aid whatsoever. The dead would be the lucky ones.

We could say that private charitable organizations would be a better way to help, but unfortunately, how many hospital ships are privately owned? I find it hard to imagine (but not impossible) for any private charitable organization to have the resources to deal with destruction on that scale. The Red Cross does not count. They are just blood suckers that pass out junk food.

A volunteer military that is more likely to help people than to hurt them would serve the national defense much better than a strike first, justify later policy employed by a band of thugs and mercenaries.

 

[MelissaWV]

Hasn't this been answered in about two dozen other threads?

• Donate through private charities, preferably those who already were on the ground before the earthquake. Those charities have run through their supplies, and will continue to do so, and they have the knowledge of the area that's crucial right now. Those organizations also will need to rebuild their own structures which collapsed in the quake, and replace personnel that were killed.
• Provide time off to Government employees who wish to go and volunteer. There are people with skills who might be in another field now, but who used to do search & rescue, or who used to be in medicine. They should be given a bit of leniency in time off scheduling to go help, if the Government wants to do anything.
• Military in the vicinity should assist in a logistics and rebuilding capacity where warranted. They should utterly NOT be "providing security" and getting into situations where they will be pointing guns, building barricades, etc.. Assistance such as air traffic control, or heavy equipment to try to clear the port, or desalination to help get water to people faster is perfectly fine in the short term. Long term assistance should distinctly be handled by private organizations (see previous note about which ones).
• The Government should NOT be "endorsing" a charity over others. I cringe when I see so many "text #####" and "give to the Red Cross" commercials. Even Mrs. Obama's on television telling us to give to the Red Cross. Why pick charities? Doctors Without Borders was there, and their building collapsed. Their medical personnel are on the ground, and have been, and will be. The Salvation Army is not exactly mediocre. There are local schools, too, and small organizations collecting funds. The Red Cross has all but been annointed, yet they have all kinds of issues managing their funds. Why is the Government "pushing" them above all other charities?
• The Government should NOT be "rebuilding" Haiti. If they want to add another tax credit (which seems to be the preferred method for this sort of thing, not that I like the tax code), then give one for companies that open a plant in Haiti over the next various years. Of course, this is going to syphon away jobs from the USA in all probability. This is why ideas like this get sticky. Helping there means "not helping" here in some capacity.

 

[phill4paul]

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

1) Donations for relief by individuals or groups of individuals.
2) Relief efforts by individuals, groups of individuals, or sovereign States, through their militias or common interest infrastructure organizations, at the will of their citizens.

The Federal government has not the authority to be a policing force nor a nation building force.

 

[jmdrake]

Good synopsis. In the unlikely event that I'm ever elected president I'll nominate you for secretary of state.

Hasn't this been answered in about two dozen other threads?

• Donate through private charities, preferably those who already were on the ground before the earthquake. Those charities have run through their supplies, and will continue to do so, and they have the knowledge of the area that's crucial right now. Those organizations also will need to rebuild their own structures which collapsed in the quake, and replace personnel that were killed.
• Provide time off to Government employees who wish to go and volunteer. There are people with skills who might be in another field now, but who used to do search & rescue, or who used to be in medicine. They should be given a bit of leniency in time off scheduling to go help, if the Government wants to do anything.
• Military in the vicinity should assist in a logistics and rebuilding capacity where warranted. They should utterly NOT be "providing security" and getting into situations where they will be pointing guns, building barricades, etc.. Assistance such as air traffic control, or heavy equipment to try to clear the port, or desalination to help get water to people faster is perfectly fine in the short term. Long term assistance should distinctly be handled by private organizations (see previous note about which ones).
• The Government should NOT be "endorsing" a charity over others. I cringe when I see so many "text #####" and "give to the Red Cross" commercials. Even Mrs. Obama's on television telling us to give to the Red Cross. Why pick charities? Doctors Without Borders was there, and their building collapsed. Their medical personnel are on the ground, and have been, and will be. The Salvation Army is not exactly mediocre. There are local schools, too, and small organizations collecting funds. The Red Cross has all but been annointed, yet they have all kinds of issues managing their funds. Why is the Government "pushing" them above all other charities?
• The Government should NOT be "rebuilding" Haiti. If they want to add another tax credit (which seems to be the preferred method for this sort of thing, not that I like the tax code), then give one for companies that open a plant in Haiti over the next various years. Of course, this is going to syphon away jobs from the USA in all probability. This is why ideas like this get sticky. Helping there means "not helping" here in some capacity.

 

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

I say a resounding NO. These resources should be flowing into a dedicated effort to rebuild America First! Individual donations and National Guard should be cleaning up the rubble in our own Haitis: Detroit, Gary, Indiana; Newark, New Jersey.

 

[John E]

Yes, we should lend a hand to those in need.

Haiti doesn't have the level of resources, knowledge, or skills to effectively deal with a catastrophe of this size. We do. And I think our civilian units (k9 units, etc) and armed forces going over there can probably handle the job better than anyone else.

We don't have to stay forever.
We deffinitly shouldn't "nation build".

But what we should do is help stabilize the situation.
- Help with the rescue
- Help with the emergency medical
- Get food / water / shelter going
- Keep order

I'm sure private institutions like Doctors without Borders are playing a huge role right now. And I am sure other private institutions will play a large roll later on.

 

[Aratus]

what we all saw on tv via FEMA after Katrina
is 10,ooo times worse right now in Haiti
in that supplies are not getting to the
people in need, who now are badly
dehydrating who could be saved.

 

[Suzu]

I wonder why the MSM - and even alternative media - never mention the ongoing disaster in South Dakota. Shouldn't this be a higher priority for Americans?

 

[Cinderella]

from the article :

State of Emergency – Pine Ridge Indian Reservation
A State of Emergency has been declared on the Pine Ridge Lakota “Sioux”
Indian Reservation. People have died. Many more people are at risk of
freezing to death. Another cold front is coming in, yet where is the
national media coverage?
Does the ‘Lacreek Electric Company’ – a non-Indian utility often thought
to be prejudice, care that people are suffering, since they are pulling
meters every day? (which is illegal throughout the rest of the u.s.
during the winter months).
What will Obama and the federal government do about this? While they dig
out Haitians, indigenous people right here may freeze to death. What are we going to do about it?