And now for what was really said
-
It looks likely that some comservative leaders and pundits have gone off the deep end about an alledged comment by a UN under-secretary that was never said about the United States, or directed only toward the United States. In this article[^] Jan Egeland says, "It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really." He goes on to say, "If actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income, I think that is stingy really. I don't think that is very generous" No where does he point a finger at the US in particular. In fact, it looks as though he laments all the western nation's low contributions as compared to GNP. Is that a bad thing? Not in my book. Personally, I'm disturbed by the fact that our (read: United States)conservative leadership have decided to mislead us into believing that the UN is spewing more anti-American rhetoric behind this tragedy. I hate this type of politicing--especially considering the magnitude of the event it is attched too. Do these guys have no shame? I give our conservative leadership a resounding *bronx cheer* for this one. Embarrassingly, Jerry He said this was like painstakingly assembling the first layer of a house of cards, then boasting that the next 15,000 layers were a mere formality.--The Code Book, pp. 331 Toasty0.com The Recipe Project
Here is another story.[^] Apparently he does single out the US by name. Despite his claim of being "misinterpreted," a review of the transcript of Mr. Egeland's initial press briefing confirms that he asked reporters at the United Nations why Western countries are "so stingy" and specifically cited the United States as an example of a country whose citizens want to pay more taxes so that foreign aid can be increased. "An unprecedented disaster like this one should lead to unprecedented generosity," Mr. Egeland said in his Monday briefing. Mr. Egeland complained that the United States gives only 0.14 percent of its gross domestic product to foreign development aid, compared with 0.92 percent given by his native Norway. In this category, Norway ranks first and the United States ranks last on a list of 22 industrialized nations compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. "The foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income," Mr. Egeland said on Monday. "I think that is stingy really. I don't think that is very generous." Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
Here is another story.[^] Apparently he does single out the US by name. Despite his claim of being "misinterpreted," a review of the transcript of Mr. Egeland's initial press briefing confirms that he asked reporters at the United Nations why Western countries are "so stingy" and specifically cited the United States as an example of a country whose citizens want to pay more taxes so that foreign aid can be increased. "An unprecedented disaster like this one should lead to unprecedented generosity," Mr. Egeland said in his Monday briefing. Mr. Egeland complained that the United States gives only 0.14 percent of its gross domestic product to foreign development aid, compared with 0.92 percent given by his native Norway. In this category, Norway ranks first and the United States ranks last on a list of 22 industrialized nations compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. "The foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income," Mr. Egeland said on Monday. "I think that is stingy really. I don't think that is very generous." Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
He was asked for an example, um, how would you give one without 'singling out any specific country' as you put it? People are ignoring the fact he used the US as an example where the people themselves wanted to give more in aid despite being at the bottom of the list. Facts. You even quoted it. It really as as if any comment by anyone that mentions the US and doesn't pause for the national anthem to be played is anti-American to some groups of people. "Hey you mentioned the United States therefore you are singling out the USA in a B.A.D. way!!" Pathetic. Notice how Egeland's quotes do not ever mention any complaints and yet the added commentary by the journalists does. Hmm... Would it make you feel better if he went on the [insert popular political tv guy] Show, pulled his trousers down and pleaded "I'm ready for my punishment sir!" ? Maybe you could brand his arse with an Eagle. That's teach him, anti-American scumbag. :|
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
-
It looks likely that some comservative leaders and pundits have gone off the deep end about an alledged comment by a UN under-secretary that was never said about the United States, or directed only toward the United States. In this article[^] Jan Egeland says, "It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really." He goes on to say, "If actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income, I think that is stingy really. I don't think that is very generous" No where does he point a finger at the US in particular. In fact, it looks as though he laments all the western nation's low contributions as compared to GNP. Is that a bad thing? Not in my book. Personally, I'm disturbed by the fact that our (read: United States)conservative leadership have decided to mislead us into believing that the UN is spewing more anti-American rhetoric behind this tragedy. I hate this type of politicing--especially considering the magnitude of the event it is attched too. Do these guys have no shame? I give our conservative leadership a resounding *bronx cheer* for this one. Embarrassingly, Jerry He said this was like painstakingly assembling the first layer of a house of cards, then boasting that the next 15,000 layers were a mere formality.--The Code Book, pp. 331 Toasty0.com The Recipe Project
I think more emphasis should go into ensuring effective spending of the money, not just saying "more, more, more". If it gets to where it is going, helps people out, then it is exactly the right amount. On a personal analogy level; when you give money directly to a homeless person, you at least get the gratification of a thank you. When you give money to a charity, you just get put on a sucker list and you never hear the end of it. The soft sell works best. Give some accountability, show that the money is being used effectively, show some success stories and more money will follow. Yes, we are dealing with a tragedy of epic proportions, but we have to make sure that the aid is getting to the people who need it, and not lining the pocket of some third world thugs, then writing it off as a cost of doing business.
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
-
He was asked for an example, um, how would you give one without 'singling out any specific country' as you put it? People are ignoring the fact he used the US as an example where the people themselves wanted to give more in aid despite being at the bottom of the list. Facts. You even quoted it. It really as as if any comment by anyone that mentions the US and doesn't pause for the national anthem to be played is anti-American to some groups of people. "Hey you mentioned the United States therefore you are singling out the USA in a B.A.D. way!!" Pathetic. Notice how Egeland's quotes do not ever mention any complaints and yet the added commentary by the journalists does. Hmm... Would it make you feel better if he went on the [insert popular political tv guy] Show, pulled his trousers down and pleaded "I'm ready for my punishment sir!" ? Maybe you could brand his arse with an Eagle. That's teach him, anti-American scumbag. :|
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
David Wulff wrote: He was asked for an example, um, how would you give one without 'singling out any specific country' as you put it? He could have chosen any other country on the planet, he chose the US. By accident? Hardly! Most of the rest of your post is nonsense, not deserving of comment. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
It looks likely that some comservative leaders and pundits have gone off the deep end about an alledged comment by a UN under-secretary that was never said about the United States, or directed only toward the United States. In this article[^] Jan Egeland says, "It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really." He goes on to say, "If actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income, I think that is stingy really. I don't think that is very generous" No where does he point a finger at the US in particular. In fact, it looks as though he laments all the western nation's low contributions as compared to GNP. Is that a bad thing? Not in my book. Personally, I'm disturbed by the fact that our (read: United States)conservative leadership have decided to mislead us into believing that the UN is spewing more anti-American rhetoric behind this tragedy. I hate this type of politicing--especially considering the magnitude of the event it is attched too. Do these guys have no shame? I give our conservative leadership a resounding *bronx cheer* for this one. Embarrassingly, Jerry He said this was like painstakingly assembling the first layer of a house of cards, then boasting that the next 15,000 layers were a mere formality.--The Code Book, pp. 331 Toasty0.com The Recipe Project
Just like to point out that all the blame and the counter blame is originating from the Western nations. The ones that are receiving the help haven't really complained that they are not getting enough or whining that the United States is not helping more (atleast India doesn't). I think the United States accounted for 40% of all humanitarian aid last year. I don't see how that be criticised. "One of the Georges," said Psmith, "I forget which, once said that a certain number of hours' sleep a day--I cannot recall for the moment how many--made a man something, which for the time being has slipped my memory."
-
David Wulff wrote: He was asked for an example, um, how would you give one without 'singling out any specific country' as you put it? He could have chosen any other country on the planet, he chose the US. By accident? Hardly! Most of the rest of your post is nonsense, not deserving of comment. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote: He could have chosen any other country on the planet, he chose the US. By accident? Hardly! Er... yeah? Wow, no shit, I was missing that entirely! Thanks for setting me straight. :| He chose the US as an example because it is the only country that fulfilled the requirements of a) the lowest contribution per income, and b) American's wanted it to be the other way round. If you are asked what 1 + 1 is surely you answer 2? Or would that offend your anti-Even-Numberness? Gary Kirkham wrote: Most of the rest of your post is nonsense, not deserving of comment. Yes - that is exactly the point here. It really is that stupidly unbelievable that people are making a fuss over this for those reasons. Nose on your face, what what. The problem is it is totally one-sided - you are responding to something that simply does not exist.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
-
Gary Kirkham wrote: He could have chosen any other country on the planet, he chose the US. By accident? Hardly! Er... yeah? Wow, no shit, I was missing that entirely! Thanks for setting me straight. :| He chose the US as an example because it is the only country that fulfilled the requirements of a) the lowest contribution per income, and b) American's wanted it to be the other way round. If you are asked what 1 + 1 is surely you answer 2? Or would that offend your anti-Even-Numberness? Gary Kirkham wrote: Most of the rest of your post is nonsense, not deserving of comment. Yes - that is exactly the point here. It really is that stupidly unbelievable that people are making a fuss over this for those reasons. Nose on your face, what what. The problem is it is totally one-sided - you are responding to something that simply does not exist.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
David Wulff wrote: Thanks for setting me straight. I don't think that is possible. David Wulff wrote: He chose the US as an example The because doesn't matter. Why choose anyone as an example? What does it gain you other than bad will. Especially when the the country you choose to make an example of has been and will be the single largest provider of humanitarian aid on the planet. It's pretty stupid. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
I think more emphasis should go into ensuring effective spending of the money, not just saying "more, more, more". If it gets to where it is going, helps people out, then it is exactly the right amount. On a personal analogy level; when you give money directly to a homeless person, you at least get the gratification of a thank you. When you give money to a charity, you just get put on a sucker list and you never hear the end of it. The soft sell works best. Give some accountability, show that the money is being used effectively, show some success stories and more money will follow. Yes, we are dealing with a tragedy of epic proportions, but we have to make sure that the aid is getting to the people who need it, and not lining the pocket of some third world thugs, then writing it off as a cost of doing business.
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
JWood wrote: I think more emphasis should go into ensuring effective spending of the money, not just saying "more, more, more". If it gets to where it is going, helps people out, then it is exactly the right amount. 37 well chosen words. :) -- Weiter, weiter, ins verderben. Wir müssen leben bis wir sterben. I blog too now[^]
-
Gary Kirkham wrote: He could have chosen any other country on the planet, he chose the US. By accident? Hardly! Er... yeah? Wow, no shit, I was missing that entirely! Thanks for setting me straight. :| He chose the US as an example because it is the only country that fulfilled the requirements of a) the lowest contribution per income, and b) American's wanted it to be the other way round. If you are asked what 1 + 1 is surely you answer 2? Or would that offend your anti-Even-Numberness? Gary Kirkham wrote: Most of the rest of your post is nonsense, not deserving of comment. Yes - that is exactly the point here. It really is that stupidly unbelievable that people are making a fuss over this for those reasons. Nose on your face, what what. The problem is it is totally one-sided - you are responding to something that simply does not exist.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
One more thing concerning math 1+1=2 or Mr. Egeland complained that the United States gives only 0.14 percent + The foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income," Mr. Egeland said on Monday. "I think that is stingy really. = US is stingy You do the math Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
One more thing concerning math 1+1=2 or Mr. Egeland complained that the United States gives only 0.14 percent + The foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income," Mr. Egeland said on Monday. "I think that is stingy really. = US is stingy You do the math Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
I think I'll let my C# compiler do the "math":
public bool IsContributionStingy(double contribution)
{
if ((contribution == 0.1) || (contribution == 0.2))
return true;
return false;
}public void Main()
{
double contributionOfUsa = 0.14;
if (IsContributionStingy(contributionOfUsa))
Console.WriteLine("US contribution is stingy");
else
Console.WriteLine("US contribution is NOT stingy");
}/* The output from this application will be:
US contribution is NOT stingy
*/;P
Do you want to know more? WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and Forums
-
David Wulff wrote: Thanks for setting me straight. I don't think that is possible. David Wulff wrote: He chose the US as an example The because doesn't matter. Why choose anyone as an example? What does it gain you other than bad will. Especially when the the country you choose to make an example of has been and will be the single largest provider of humanitarian aid on the planet. It's pretty stupid. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote: Why choose anyone as an example? He was asked.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
-
I think I'll let my C# compiler do the "math":
public bool IsContributionStingy(double contribution)
{
if ((contribution == 0.1) || (contribution == 0.2))
return true;
return false;
}public void Main()
{
double contributionOfUsa = 0.14;
if (IsContributionStingy(contributionOfUsa))
Console.WriteLine("US contribution is stingy");
else
Console.WriteLine("US contribution is NOT stingy");
}/* The output from this application will be:
US contribution is NOT stingy
*/;P
Do you want to know more? WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and Forums
It seems you have not modeled the problem correctly, it is not .1 or .2, it is between .1 and .2. :) + ;) = ;P Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
Gary Kirkham wrote: Why choose anyone as an example? He was asked.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
You keep saying that, but I can't find where he was asked anything. This says that he was the originator of the question: Despite his claim of being "misinterpreted," a review of the transcript of Mr. Egeland's initial press briefing confirms that he asked reporters at the United Nations why Western countries are "so stingy" and specifically cited the United States as an example of a country whose citizens want to pay more taxes so that foreign aid can be increased. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
It looks likely that some comservative leaders and pundits have gone off the deep end about an alledged comment by a UN under-secretary that was never said about the United States, or directed only toward the United States. In this article[^] Jan Egeland says, "It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really." He goes on to say, "If actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income, I think that is stingy really. I don't think that is very generous" No where does he point a finger at the US in particular. In fact, it looks as though he laments all the western nation's low contributions as compared to GNP. Is that a bad thing? Not in my book. Personally, I'm disturbed by the fact that our (read: United States)conservative leadership have decided to mislead us into believing that the UN is spewing more anti-American rhetoric behind this tragedy. I hate this type of politicing--especially considering the magnitude of the event it is attched too. Do these guys have no shame? I give our conservative leadership a resounding *bronx cheer* for this one. Embarrassingly, Jerry He said this was like painstakingly assembling the first layer of a house of cards, then boasting that the next 15,000 layers were a mere formality.--The Code Book, pp. 331 Toasty0.com The Recipe Project
Lets not forget the millions that Americans will donate privately, not just from the government. Kind regards, Tim
-
It looks likely that some comservative leaders and pundits have gone off the deep end about an alledged comment by a UN under-secretary that was never said about the United States, or directed only toward the United States. In this article[^] Jan Egeland says, "It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really." He goes on to say, "If actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income, I think that is stingy really. I don't think that is very generous" No where does he point a finger at the US in particular. In fact, it looks as though he laments all the western nation's low contributions as compared to GNP. Is that a bad thing? Not in my book. Personally, I'm disturbed by the fact that our (read: United States)conservative leadership have decided to mislead us into believing that the UN is spewing more anti-American rhetoric behind this tragedy. I hate this type of politicing--especially considering the magnitude of the event it is attched too. Do these guys have no shame? I give our conservative leadership a resounding *bronx cheer* for this one. Embarrassingly, Jerry He said this was like painstakingly assembling the first layer of a house of cards, then boasting that the next 15,000 layers were a mere formality.--The Code Book, pp. 331 Toasty0.com The Recipe Project
Lets talk about the reality of the situation. On this[^] site private American charitable giving is detailed. Over $4 billion in foreign donations just by private citizens. Personally I'm not impressed with how most governmental organizations spend money, and I think most Americans are less than pleased with the government spending more of their money. Personnaly I would rather donate to a private organization and allow them to spend the money bypassing the bureacracy..... and putting guys like Egeland out of a job. BTW the total of American donations to charity was something like $241 billion..... thats neither peanuts or stingy. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Lets talk about the reality of the situation. On this[^] site private American charitable giving is detailed. Over $4 billion in foreign donations just by private citizens. Personally I'm not impressed with how most governmental organizations spend money, and I think most Americans are less than pleased with the government spending more of their money. Personnaly I would rather donate to a private organization and allow them to spend the money bypassing the bureacracy..... and putting guys like Egeland out of a job. BTW the total of American donations to charity was something like $241 billion..... thats neither peanuts or stingy. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
The number I've seen for American private overseas contributions is closer to $35 billion[^]. Which still more than triples Gov't spending. I'd be interested to know if private donations are about the same/less/more in other nations. More out of curiosity, than to say we/you suck. If these numbers are accurate though, I think it helps to show that aid will be available to the needy even without gov't help, despite what more socialist thinkers would say. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the New -
You keep saying that, but I can't find where he was asked anything. This says that he was the originator of the question: Despite his claim of being "misinterpreted," a review of the transcript of Mr. Egeland's initial press briefing confirms that he asked reporters at the United Nations why Western countries are "so stingy" and specifically cited the United States as an example of a country whose citizens want to pay more taxes so that foreign aid can be increased. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
Asked about the response of rich nations to such crises, he said... If you ask me what my name is and I ask you why you want to know, you still asked the question.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
-
Lets talk about the reality of the situation. On this[^] site private American charitable giving is detailed. Over $4 billion in foreign donations just by private citizens. Personally I'm not impressed with how most governmental organizations spend money, and I think most Americans are less than pleased with the government spending more of their money. Personnaly I would rather donate to a private organization and allow them to spend the money bypassing the bureacracy..... and putting guys like Egeland out of a job. BTW the total of American donations to charity was something like $241 billion..... thats neither peanuts or stingy. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: Lets talk about the reality of the situation. On this[^] site private American charitable giving is detailed. Over $4 billion in foreign donations just by private citizens. US GDP is over 10,000 billion. Thus your 4 billion figure is roughly 0.04 percent of GDP. Doug Goulden wrote: Personally I'm not impressed with how most governmental organizations spend money, and I think most Americans are less than pleased with the government spending more of their money. Sad if true. Doug Goulden wrote: Personnaly I would rather donate to a private organization and allow them to spend the money bypassing the bureacracy..... and putting guys like Egeland out of a job. Here is a thought. Let the US military be funded by private donations. No, wait, you only suggest funding by private donation for those things where you don't care how much money is raised. The way you prioritise ideological dogma and petty anti-anti-US point scoring over humanitarian concerns appalls me. John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Oscar Wilde
-
Asked about the response of rich nations to such crises, he said... If you ask me what my name is and I ask you why you want to know, you still asked the question.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
Of course, that is not from the article I posted, so I went looking for it elsewhere. Asked about the response of rich nations to such crises, he said: "It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really." "If actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income, I think that is stingy really. I don't think that is very generous," he said. No mention of the US and nothing in the question warrants the mention of the US by name. If the article I cited is correct, then he did mention the US by name. Where is that in the article you cite? I don't guess we will know the whole truth until the actual transcript is released. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
Doug Goulden wrote: Lets talk about the reality of the situation. On this[^] site private American charitable giving is detailed. Over $4 billion in foreign donations just by private citizens. US GDP is over 10,000 billion. Thus your 4 billion figure is roughly 0.04 percent of GDP. Doug Goulden wrote: Personally I'm not impressed with how most governmental organizations spend money, and I think most Americans are less than pleased with the government spending more of their money. Sad if true. Doug Goulden wrote: Personnaly I would rather donate to a private organization and allow them to spend the money bypassing the bureacracy..... and putting guys like Egeland out of a job. Here is a thought. Let the US military be funded by private donations. No, wait, you only suggest funding by private donation for those things where you don't care how much money is raised. The way you prioritise ideological dogma and petty anti-anti-US point scoring over humanitarian concerns appalls me. John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Oscar Wilde
John Carson wrote: Personally I'm not impressed with how most governmental organizations spend money, and I think most Americans are less than pleased with the government spending more of their money. Sad if true. When have you ever seen any program that the US any government runs well or efficiently? You have an overly inflated view of the value of government in my opinion. What I find interesting is that I would guess that you are probably very concerned about the attempt by the US to use the Patriot act because you are concerned with your rights. Yet at the same time you appear to advocate the government removing more of your (or my) income to help other people. I don't think that governments spend money effectively for aid or defense. That brings me to my second point.... John Carson wrote: Here is a thought. Let the US military be funded by private donations. No, wait, you only suggest funding by private donation for those things where you don't care how much money is raised. That is what is called a faulty assumtion on your part. I do suggest private contributions for humanitarian issues, as well as the government providing help. My problem with all of this is that so many people, yourself included apparently, wring their hands over what the government is doing to help. When was the last time that some of these same people have stepped up to help their neighbor even? Government programs do tend to be wasteful and ineffective, welfare programs have succeeded in creating a class of people who are dependent (in large part) on handouts with many making little effort to get off it. I am all for giving help to people a hand when they need it, hell we can ante up food, medicines, even send Reservist and faith based organizations, I'm all for it. I just don't want to see in the long term, the formation of another buracracy to waste more money. Fund UNICEF or a handful of other organizations, I'm all for it. Build schools, roads, wells, etc so underpriveleged people can help themselves..... I'm all for it. But thats not the issue here, here it is about helping an enourmous group of people over what will probably be a relatively short time (say 6 - 9 months). They need the help, I never said they didn't, the scope of this is unimaginable. John Carson wrote: The way you prioritise ideological dogma and petty anti-anti-US point scoring over humanitarian concerns appalls me. I also didn't pri