Craven de Kere wrote:Ticomaya wrote:
What did I fail to comprehend correctly when I read that article?
That their initial
rescue pledge can't have consisted of much in way of money. Rescue missions don't have the luxury of time to convert the money into results and direct contributions of logistics, supplies and trained rescue teams are the norm.
You then compared this to aid figures that will largely go toward
relief and
reconstruction.
You then compare the apples and oranges, indicating that you did not understand the difference between the nature of the monies you were comparing.
France's initial rescue pledge sure as hell could have consisted of MUCH more money. But France
decided it would not consist of much money. What the hell do you mean
"their initial rescue pledge can't have consisted of much in way of money"? Are you claiming only the French directly contributed logistics, supplies and trained rescue teams to the rescue effort? And when you laud the French in this manner, are you speaking of the
16 people they initially sent? If you were paying attention to any of the news reports, all the aid organizations that I saw speaking on camera were advising that they needed money first and foremost. They didn't need any goods or services -- they were asking for money. Perhaps you don't understand how a rescue operation works as well as you think you do.
Money is the thing France apparently declined to provide in the early going, except for $135K. That was the entire point of my post, and it was entirely accurate, notwithstanding your efforts to insinuate that I failed to comprehend the subtleties a country must go through when marshalling its resources for a resue effort, followed by reconstruction. Did the US separate the money it donated to this cause into S&R money, and then restoration money? And if it did, did any known news organization report this? I did not see any major news organization breaking down these contributions in the manner you have suggested. Did you see a reporting on the S&R pledges, and a different reporting of the reconstruction pledges? When did I indicate I did not understand the difference between the nature of the monies I was comparing? I indicated I did not distinguish between them, and was only looking at the initial contributions. If these contributions were not being broken down into these categories, then why on earth would you expect me to analyze France's meager initial contribution in such a manner? In your view should France operate under a different set of rules than the other countries in the world? It sure seems that way. As it is, the other "rich" countries initially donated sums in the millions when France only offered $135K. I do not believe I was comparing apples and oranges.
Perhaps you could have merely pointed out that you thought I was comparing apples to oranges, rather than being rude and accusing me of being factually inaccurate and suffering from reading comprehension. After all, the purpose of my post was to solicit responses from the Francophiles to provide an explanation for the discrepancy, and I was successful.
