3
   

Is France "stingy"?

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 12:14 pm
Well, yesterday's news ...

Quote:
Israel to fly supplies only to Sri Lanka

Tel Aviv, Israel, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- Israel's plan to dispatch some 150 doctors, nurses and paramedics to Sri Lanka, has reportedly been scraped by Sri Lankan authorities.

Government officials in Colombo, Sri Lanka, reportedly asked for supplies only so an Israeli plane with 82 tons of supplies is scheduled to fly to Sri Lanka.

An Israeli army spokesman said the plane would carry 10,000 blankets, mineral water, 12 tons of food, cans of baby food, over nine tons of medicine, generators, tents, beds and mattresses.

Three members of the Cypriot branch of Doctors of the World would go to Sri Lanka Wednesday with the medical supplies, the Cyprus News Agency reported.
Source[sic]


The French Foreign Minister, Michel Barnier, returned today from a visit to the catastrophy countries Sri Lanka and Thailand. (He was with one of the French planes that supplied help there. France is co-ordinating the international help in Sri Lanka.)
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 01:19 pm
Even I think the debate is somehow hypocrite
let's see figures :

Usa - 35 M€
Japan - 30 M$
UK - 21.3 M$
Germany - 20 M€
France - 15 M€
Saudi-arabia - 10 M$
Qatar - 10 M$

On which critters are you asking if France is stingy?

Take a close look on French effort and you'll see it's not stingy at all!

(This is not a patriotic act, but figures).
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 01:25 pm
Francis wrote:
On which critters are you asking if France is stingy?


I thought I made that clear in my first post: On the $135,000 that was reported as being pledged by France. Walter has helpfully pointed out that might have been a mistake, or that amount has increased substantially. And that's a good thing.

Maybe that UN fellow's comment got France to thinking too?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 01:32 pm
Ticomaya wrote:


Maybe that UN fellow's comment got France to thinking too?


Since he said such on Monday, I assume, ALL countries stocked up their help since then.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 09:45 pm
I think the first round of donations were smaller because people didn't fully understand how bad things are. The scope.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 10:17 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Francis wrote:
On which critters are you asking if France is stingy?


I thought I made that clear in my first post: On the $135,000 that was reported as being pledged by France. Walter has helpfully pointed out that might have been a mistake, or that amount has increased substantially. And that's a good thing.

Maybe that UN fellow's comment got France to thinking too?


Your factual inaccuracy is due to not noticing the difference between S&R and rebuilding.

The latter is where throwing down a wad makes a difference. In the former sending teams and supplies is a far greater boon than cash.

So you compared the aid projections (the bulk of which go into relief and reconstruction, not S&R) with an immediate rescue budget.

France generosity was less a factor than reading comprehension here.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 11:04 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
that is so unfair Tico...it's my understanding that the French are preparing to send thousands of giant cakes to feed these unfortunates..... :wink:


Thank you bipo for altering your icon. That glamour shot you were using creeped me out.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 11:05 pm
Are the French stingy? Perhaps.

Are the French the bottom of the West's barrel? Indeed.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 11:54 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Francis wrote:
On which critters are you asking if France is stingy?


I thought I made that clear in my first post: On the $135,000 that was reported as being pledged by France. Walter has helpfully pointed out that might have been a mistake, or that amount has increased substantially. And that's a good thing.

Maybe that UN fellow's comment got France to thinking too?


Your factual inaccuracy is due to not noticing the difference between S&R and rebuilding.

The latter is where throwing down a wad makes a difference. In the former sending teams and supplies is a far greater boon than cash.

So you compared the aid projections (the bulk of which go into relief and reconstruction, not S&R) with an immediate rescue budget.

France generosity was less a factor than reading comprehension here.


Confused

What "factual inaccuracy"? Please explain where you believe I was factually inaccurate.

While at it, why not put a little more meat behind your claim that I suffer from a lack of reading comprehension. I might say the same about you. The story I posted did not differentiate between S&R and rebuilding. It stated that the "initial rescue efforts" of France amounted to $135,000 American.

Quote:
Paris has earmarked 100,000 euros ($135,400) for initial rescue efforts in Thailand. It planned to send 16 rescue workers to Thailand on Tuesday and 10 tonnes of humanitarian aid to Sri Lanka in the next few days, the ministry said. ($1=.7386 Euro)


At the time I wrote the intial post of this thread, and in the context of all of the news reports I had read to that point, including the one I posted, the facts were that that the dollar amount of France's "initial rescue efforts" was $135,000. That compared to the US's initial pledge of $15 mil, and $35 at the time of posting. My post was entirely justified in the context of that UN ninny's "stingy" remark. Mr. Egeland apparently was not savvy enough to distinguish between S&R and rebuilding when he was complaining about the lack of money being donated, eh?

What did I fail to comprehend correctly when I read that article?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2004 12:36 am
Ticomaya wrote:
At the time I wrote the intial post of this thread, and in the context of all of the news reports I had read to that point, including the one I posted, the facts were that that the dollar amount of France's "initial rescue efforts" was $135,000. That compared to the US's initial pledge of $15 mil, and $35 at the time of posting.


So you obviously just unfortunately missed all reports - besides those about the USA - for a period of exactly 48 hours.


I can understand that, as well as your ignorance of the EU help.

Lash wrote:
I think the first round of donations were smaller because people didn't fully understand how bad things are. The scope.


Correct. Perhaps that's the reason, too, that France, Australia and Germany only sent airplanes with help goods on Sunday/Monday - as first nations.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2004 12:54 am
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.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2004 01:15 am
Quote:
"I have been misinterpreted when I yesterday said that my belief that rich countries in general can be more generous," Mr Egeland said.


"This has nothing to do with any particular country or the response to this emergency. We're in early days and the response has so far been overwhelmingly positive."
Source

Quote:
The list compiled by the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs which Egeland heads did not include the Spanish, French or British pledges. - AP
[my emphasis]Source
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2004 07:21 am
I certainly wish some of you guys would jump to the US's defense as well as you do to France's defense occassionally.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2004 07:40 am
Waaaah.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2004 07:52 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Waaaah.


Awwwww... don't cry Freeduck, I wasn't referring to you.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2004 07:53 am
I know, McG, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2004 08:31 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
At the time I wrote the intial post of this thread, and in the context of all of the news reports I had read to that point, including the one I posted, the facts were that that the dollar amount of France's "initial rescue efforts" was $135,000. That compared to the US's initial pledge of $15 mil, and $35 at the time of posting.


So you obviously just unfortunately missed all reports - besides those about the USA - for a period of exactly 48 hours.

I can understand that, as well as your ignorance of the EU help.


Walter, that is a bizarre and uncharacteristically inaccurate post from you. Perhaps you also understand that I don't read French?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2004 09:04 am
Parallel thread is showing that we in the States are clearly not stingy!
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2004 09:08 am
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.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2004 09:16 am
The news sources we had access to yesterday apparently didn't know yet that France had promised 15 million. I searched google news for about 15 minutes trying to find another reporting of the donations but everything I saw was just regurgitation of the initially compiled list, so it isn't entirely your fault. The only reason this is an issue is because, due to a lot of recent press, we are willing to believe the worst about France and are decidedly not skeptical when we hear something about them that sounds really bad, even if somewhere in the back of our minds we know it doesn't sound quite right.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Islamic Terrorists Strike France - Discussion by hawkeye10
France Launches Airstrikes in Mali - Discussion by H2O MAN
ALLONS ENFANTS . . . - Discussion by Setanta
What is Christmas like in France? - Discussion by DrewDad
Carla Bruni Blasts Berlusconi's Obama Remark - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
Riots in France - Discussion by Finn dAbuzz
A surprise? French Socialists pro EU-constitution - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/22/2019 at 03:03:40