2. US says "we're not stingy," increases their commitment by more than $20M and throws in a carrier group. They then mock the French for not anteing up.

3. The French ante up to $37M, up from around $1M.

4. France anteing up will probably mean the US throwing even more cash into the pot.

So, one little off-handed comment nets $56M from two of the ten largest economies in the world. Heh. And you all think the UN is a worthless bureaucracy when they just took you for a multi-million dollar ride. That fishhook in your mouth hurt?

Well the Eu countries. They after all pay the largest amount to the UN.

"2) Who’s going to end up doing most of the rebuilding of these countries?"

Probably not the US

"3) How much are Americans giving privately? "

about the same or less as other developed countries.
try http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000063.htm

"4) How much is being done through our military?"

You mean finding WMD's in Iraq? Or perhaps links to 9/11 ?

Or do you mean how every one elses military is used ?

1) who funds the UN, so it can waste billions?

2) Who's going to end up doing most of the rebuilding of these countries?

3) How much are Americans giving privately? and

4) How much is being done through our military?

Plus, we sent people and stuff already - an aircraft carrier. How many people and how much stuff have other countries sent over?

I don't think anyone doubts the generosity of the American people themselves. I am sure as a group we will send a great deal of help to the victims of this tragedy.

If you did not have "liberal whining" to yourself whine, whine, whine about, how would you pass the time?

Rather obvious flaw in those figures , though.

The figures for the EU is the amount donated by the EU as an institution and doesn't include the amounts donated by individual member countries (ie the UK has donated 109 million individually and as part of the EU total).

At some point money will be sitting in accounts doing nothing as logistics and transportation issues are worked out getting the aid to where it is needed.

I think the question should be turned around - what amount do these whiners think is appropriate? Show how the money is spent on tangible items and then show logistically how it is delivered to the survivors. After seeing this analysis THEN they can show cause to complain.

Two reasons why European citizens might be less incline in donation:

1. That's government's job. They've already taxed 80% of the income already.
2. European on the whole are far less religious than American.

In 2004, the United States provided $826,469,172 -- almost a billion dollars -- to the United Nations World Food Program. The next largest donor, the European Union, contributed $187,102,068. This, despite the fact that the European Union has a total population of 453 million, compared with the USA's 281 million, and a gross domestic product that is larger than that of the United States.

Japan was third on the list, giving $126,906,097, and the United Kingdom was fourth, with donations totaling $109,247,050. Iran gave $40,000. The Saudi Kingdom gave $3,345,325 -- about the cost of one trip to Paris for the Crown Prince. And Kuwait, the OPEC fund and the Russian Federation gave nothing. "

Let's stick those in a column so we're not losing the flavor here.

$826,469,172 United States
$187,102,068 EU

For those without calculators handy, that's a ratio of 4.4172 to 1.

And that's just the government based work, which ignores the charity giving. Let's not have any more of this 'we're not giving enough' crap, OK?

(/soapbox mode)

President Bush finally roused himself yesterday from his vacation in Crawford, Tex., to telephone his sympathy to the leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia, and to speak publicly about the devastation of Sunday's tsunamis in A...